Defence`s Feeds

Singaporean STK 50MG Heavy Machine Gun

Iran claims it’s a new aircraft, but it’s just a +40 years old two-seat F-5…. Iranian media says that a new Iranian fighter jet was exhibited during the National Defense Industry show. Images released by various outlets show President Hassan Rouhani sitting in the cockpit of the new “Kowsar” plane, a “fourth-generation fighter”, with “advanced […]

The Iraqi F-16IQ Block 52 aircraft were refueled from a Stratotanker over Iraq for the first time. On Aug. 15, 2018, Iraqi Air Force F-16C and D, were refueled mid-air by a KC-135 Stratotanker assigned to the 28th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron over Iraq: according to the U.S. Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs, this […]

This year’s Eid al-Adha comes at a time of escalating war and bloodshed, with horrendous violence across Afghanistan. Many have lost dear ones. Many have been injured. Many have been displaced. Many have seen their houses and shops on fire or destroyed. And the scars of this appalling war will remain for men, women and children well into the future. Acknowledging that many people will have a difficult Eid al-Adha this year, the Afghanistan Analysts Network wishes a quiet, peaceful and, we hope, happy Eid to the people of Afghanistan, to all Muslims and to its friends and readers.

May this Feast of the Sacrifice provide a respite from war and an opportunity for all parties to the tragic conflict to, as Rumi says, sacrifice their pride by starting to thrash out their differences peaceably.

خواهی که تو را کعبه کند استقبال مایی و منی را به منا قربان کن – مولوی (۱)

 

If you want the Kaaba to welcome you

Sacrifice your pride, collective and individual, at Mina (1)

– Rumi

 

(1) This is the second couplet (beit) from quatrain (ruba’i) number 1385 by Rumi (see here). The English translation is by AAN.

Mina is the neighbourhood in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, where the Hajj pilgrims make sacrifices to Allah by slaughtering animals such as sheep, goats, camels and cattle.

Here are some interesting details about the Advanced Aerial Training exercise that took place at Albacete Air Base, Spain, last week. On Aug. 16, 2018, two U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors from the 95th Fighter Squadron, 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, conducted the Raptor’s first forward deployment to Albacete, Spain. The 5th […]

Chinese PL-96 Towed Howitzer

German Panzefaust 3 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

Afghan Shia Muslims are feeling increasingly beleaguered after two massacres targeting their community this month. Both were claimed by the Afghan ‘franchise’ of Daesh, the Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP). On 3 August, gunmen killed at least 38 men and boys during Friday prayers at a village mosque in the outskirts of Gardez city. Three families lost all their men, from young boys to grandfathers. This week, on 15 August, a suicide bomber walked into an education centre in the Hazara-majority Dasht-e Barchi neighbourhood of Kabul. At least 40 people were killed, most of them teenage students, girls and boys, who had been studying for the university entrance exam. In the midst of this onslaught, AAN felt the need to pay tribute to at least some of the victims, in an attempt to make sure such deaths do not become the ‘routine’ of this conflict. Here, AAN’s Fabrizio Foschini looks at what happened when the small community of Shia Sadat (descendants of the Prophet) in Paktia province came under attack.

Sectarian attacks are on the rise in Afghanistan, with Shia Muslim mosques, gatherings and neighbourhoods being targeted. This month has been hard, with first the attack on the Khwajah Hassan mosque in Paktia province and then a lone suicide bomber attacking the Mu’ud education centre in the capital. It left at least 48 dead and 67 wounded, mainly teenagers, dead and injured. “The lecture hall had been so packed,” one journalist wrote, “and the explosion so powerful that nearly half the 230 students were among the casualties.” Many were from the provinces, sent by their families to spend a last year studying in the capital in the hope of passing the kankur university entrance examination and getting into higher education. Some, with no family in Kabul, were buried in a mass grave by their school fellows and volunteers. Unusually, some of the coffins of the girls were carried by women.

Such sectarian attacks are perpetrated by a sliver of Afghan society – ISKP usually claims them – and are always widely condemned. This was the case also in the wake of the attack on the Khwajah Hassan mosque in Gardez where the bereaved were actively supported by their Sunni neighbours. Masses of Sunnis attended the funerals of those killed in the attack and later posted themselves as human shields in Shia mosques and shrines, challenging sectarian haters to kill them as well. AAN has spoken to members of the community, to bring you this account of the attack and of the small community which has lost so many members.

The attack at the Friday prayer

It was around 13.30 on a Friday afternoon. A significant portion of the residents of Khwajah Hassan village had come to the mosque to listen to the preacher deliver the khutba and perform the congregational prayer when two burqa-clad figures approached the precinct. (1) The tattered state of their clothes and their attitude – reaching their arms out from under their cloaks as if to ask for alms – identified them as beggars, who often count on the charity of believers gathered for Friday prayers. The guards at the gates told them to wait a few minutes; as soon as the people completed their prayers, they said, and came out of the mosque, there would certainly be something for them. The two beggars turned as if to comply, but instead drew from under their burqas hidden guns, reportedly with silencers, shot the guards dead, and rushed towards the mosque.

This, according to the few who witnessed it and lived to tell the tale, is how the attack on the mosque of the Imam-e Zaman in Khwajah Hassan village on the outskirts of Gardez on 3 August 2018 started. What happened subsequently was carnage.

The mosque was built only two years ago, with contributions from the whole local Shia community. It replaced an older, smaller one and could host up to 2,000 people. That day between 150 and 200 residents were present – men and boys only, as women and girls, despite having a separate floor at their disposal, did not usually attend the congregational prayer. As is customary, community leaders and elderly men found their places in the first rows, while the youth and children sat at the back. They were the first to be met when the terrorists entered the building. The two gunmen first threw hand grenades into the crowd, then opened fire on those closer to them with the Kalashnikovs they had concealed under their clothes. A majority of the wounds, it was later reported, were from bullets and grenade shrapnel, showing this stage of the attack to have been the deadliest. Then, one after the other, the attackers activated the explosive vests they were wearing, killing and injuring even more of the people around them (see also media reporting here and here).

Survivors and local residents who rushed to the incident started to move the wounded to hospital. Later, those with only minor injuries were taken to the centre of Gardez city where they were paraded in an impromptu protest in front of the provincial government buildings. The people of Khwajah Hassan were not only bewildered by the massacre, but also by the delay on the part of the authorities in sending ambulances and security forces after the attack. Some residents told AAN that this took more than an hour, even though Khwajah Hassan is a suburb of Gardez located in Police District 2, and barely two kilometres from the city centre. Tension was so great that when the police finally arrived at the scene of the attack, armed local residents prevented them from entering the mosque, asking them what they had come for, now that everybody was dead (see also this reporting from Pajhwok).

Meanwhile, local clinics could not cope with the numbers of injured and the dire state some were in. Finally, at around 19:00 in the evening, 19 of the most seriously wounded were evacuated to different Kabul hospitals by military helicopter. Some would nonetheless die from their wounds in the following days.

The victims

This attack killed 33 people and injured dozens more. It devastated a whole community. The Shia Muslims of Gardez are Sadat – descendants of the Prophet. Living far from other Shias, they have developed a deeply intertwined community. The 3 August attack cut through these ties, leaving every family mourning the death of near or distant relations. Three families lost all the men of their household, from the young boys to the grandfathers.

Five children aged between 7 and 15 were killed and a further seven wounded seriously. An additional eight young people under the age of 25 are dead and many more injured. The total number of injured people is, as usual, a fluid figure, as many with only superficial cuts or burns were not hospitalised or counted and some may still die of their injuries. The estimate, however, ranges between 70 and 90, with around a dozen still in critical condition.

Among the dead were some of the community’s elders. The most well-known and respected was probably Dr Ali Shah Musawi, who had the singular distinction of being the only Shia prisoner incarcerated by the United States in Guantanamo Bay. During the 1980s, Dr Musawi had been a commander with the mujahedin party Harakat-e Inqilab-e Islami, in the wing led by Mawlawi Mansur. (2) While the Taleban were in power, Dr Musawi resided in Iran and did not take part in politics or fighting. Upon his return in 2004, he was immediately arrested by the Americans and later sent to Guantanamo where he spent two years as a prisoner. He was subject not only to detention without trial, but also, as the sole Shia prisoner among many radical Salafi Sunnis, to sectarian hatred by some of his fellow prisoners. His time in the detention camp was rough, even by Guantanamo standards. (3)

After being released, Dr Musawi went to Iran for a while to see his family, but ultimately settled back in Gardez, where he opened a primary school. More recently, in 2014, he had taken up the position of director of the local Department for the Prevention of Natural Disasters, where according to everybody AAN talked to, he was doing a good job. His nephew on his sister’s side, Sayyed Sajjad, aged 24, an engineer who had graduated from the Polytechnic of Kabul, was also killed.

The following is a list of those who were killed and have been honoured on the martyrdom posters and banners that have appeared across Gardez and in Kabul. Some of those who later died of their injuries do not appear here. We think, for example, that there was a second Sayyed Sajjad was killed in the attack.

1. Sayyed Ahmad Khair Andish, imam of Khawja Hassan mosque, aged 40
2. Dr Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah Musawi, provincial head of the Disaster Management Office and former mujahedin commander
3. Sayyed Muhammad Musawi, imam of Sadat mosque, originally from Jaghori,
4. Sayyed Asadullah Rezai, taxi driver on the route between between Kabul and Gardez
5. Sayyed Humayun, car mechanic in Gardez, aged 35
6. Sayyed Murtaza, employee of Paktia University (brother of Sayyed Muhammad Reza, number 14, who was also killed)
7. Sayyed Mahram, aged 22, businessman
8. Sayyed Gul Ahmad, shopkeeper
9. Sayyed Asadullah, aged 33, a qari (reader) of the Quran,
10. Eng Sayyed Saifullah, student at Paktia University
11. Eng Sayyed Sajjad, aged 24, head of Paktia Airport and nephew of Dr Musawi
12. Sayyed Najibullah, son of Sayyid Amir Gul, lecturer at the Paktia University, aged 34
13. Sayyed Muhammad Reza, shopkeeper (brother of Sayyed Murtaza, number 7)
14. Sayyed Jan Ali, guard at the mosque
15. Sayyed Agha Zia, son of Sayyid Nur Agha, aged 28, guard at the mosque
16. Sayyed Mahram, aged 60, car mechanic
17. Sayyed Zalmai, labourer
18. Sayyed Ali Shah Musawi, tribal elder
19. Sayyed Murtaza, a student at Paktia University
20. Sayyed Rukai, a 17-year old school student
21. Sayyed Kabir, a 16 or 17-year old school student
22. Sayyed Muhammad Hussain, policemanoriginally from Bamyan
23. Sayyed Muhammad, shopkeeper
24. Sayyed Muhammad Agha, guard at the mosque
25. Sayyed Nematullah, shopkeeper

The following victims were all children, still at school:

26. Sayyed Nasrullah
27. Sayyed Hujjat Musawi
28. Sayyed Ali Asghar, aged 9
29. Sayyed Hussain Shah
30. Sayyed Murtaza
31. Sayyed Ali Ahmad
32. Sayyed Khalil
33. Sayyed Wahidullah

The Sadat of Gardez, a tiny Shia island in Loya Paktia

The location of the attack – Paktia province, which had thus far been spared sectarian violence – and the fact that it devastated a small and somewhat isolated Shia community lent it a particular vicious and destructive character.

Khwajah Hassan is a relatively big and prosperous village. Located at the northeastern edge of the town of Gardez, it sits right by the highway leading towards Logar and Kabul. With maybe a thousand families residing in and around it, Khwajah Hassan is reportedly the biggest village in Paktia to be inhabited by speakers of Dari as a mother tongue  – although most of the Sadat are fully bilingual, speaking Pashto as well. Despite being at the core of the Pashtun heartland, with inhabitants renowned for vigorously following tribal customs and Pashtunwali, Paktia also features a consistent minority of people who speak Dari as their first language. They are not newcomers to the area, but rather the remnants of ancient populations that once inhabited many parts of what is today southeastern Afghanistan (such as the Barakis of Logar and the Farmulis of Paktika). Once called Farsiwan, they nowadays mostly fall into the macro-ethnic category of Tajik, except for the Shias among them (as the Tajik identity has come to implicitly assume a Sunni creed). Moreover, these Shia communities often trace their ancestry to the family of the Prophet Muhammad, forming a separate group called Sadat (singular Sayyed).

The Sadat’s claim to a distinguished ancestry usually confers on them a certain amount of religious charisma. Throughout history they have often provided religious leadership for other Shias and engaged in learned professions and education.  The Sadat from Khwajah Hassan claim to have arrived from Sabzevar near Nishapur (nowadays in eastern Iran) shortly after the Islamic conquest of the Gardez area and to have lived there ever since, developing a prosperous and well-respected community, despite their distance from other Shias.

It seems the Sadat of Khwajah Hassan have had no conflict with their Sunni neighbours, be they fellow Dari-speakers (Tajiks) or Pashtuns. On the contrary, residents of the village interviewed by AAN pointed to instances of cooperation and unity between them and the Sunnis, from their shared participation in the jihad against the Soviets and the communist government to their united defence when Pacha Khan Zadran attacked Gardez in 2002.

After the attack on the mosque, masses of Gardez’s Sunnis attended the mourning ceremonies for the dead, provided armed security during the burials and later posed as human shields in Shia mosques and shrines, challenging sectarian haters to attack them as well.

The likely perpetrators

The residents of Khwajah Hassan seemed taken completely by surprise. In the past few weeks, the local NDS headquarters had issued threat warnings that attacks were to be expected, but the warning had not specifically referred to Khwajah Hassan and had also been issued to Sunni mosques along the highway to Ghazni. Security at the mosque was low: only a couple of armed guards had been stationed there, as had always been the case for the past few years. They were local youths who received a salary through the Ministry of Interior.

The choice of the target and the level of wanton violence against unarmed civilians worshipping in a mosque, indicates sectarian hatred as the motivation. However, the Khwajah Hassan attack is an outlier in terms of attacks on Shias because of its location. The Sadat of Gardez had never previously been attacked. Militants based in Paktia province had, thus far, so far avoided targeting whole communities. The province, like neighbouring Khost, features an active insurgency, but it remains somewhat curtailed by strong tribal affiliations and cohesive local communities. The sworn hostility of even a minor community can be a logistical nightmare for insurgents, as they have to rely on mountain routes or secrecy for the security of their movements and the success of their operations. This discourages acts that would antagonise whole communities.

Also, despite the Taleban’s not always clean record in the past (such as during their conquest of Mazar-e Sharif in the 1990s), sectarian violence is something they now publicly and emphatically condemned and distance themselves from. (4) Indeed, within hours after the attack, community leaders of Khwajah Hassan started receiving phone calls from Taleban front commanders in Janikhel, Zurmat and even Paktika province, denying any involvement in the attack, expressing their condolence for the victims and extending offers of assistance.

The actor that, since its appearance on the stage of the Afghan conflict in 2014 (see AAN analysis here and here), has proved more than willing to carry out such horrific sectarian attacks is Daesh/ISKP (see this AAN analysis). A string of attacks on Shia religious sites suggests that the group considers violent sectarian attacks an important part of their strategy – to gain resonance and renown at the national and international level, and to try to attract new recruits and funds (see this AAN analysis). The recent increase in such attacks may also be a response to the crisis the movement finds itself in, now that combined Taleban and government/US pressure has virtually eliminated Daesh from much of the territory it had controlled in Afghanistan in Nangrahar and Jawzjan (see AAN analysis here).

ISKP indeed claimed ownership of the attack, but only a full day after it happened, in the late afternoon of Saturday. On previous occasions, the group has usually been very keen to declare ownership and made claims within hours of an incident.

From the point of view of capability, Daesh, is also not the best-positioned to carry out an attack like this. Khwajah Hassan’s mosque may have been a soft target, but Daesh has never so far operated anywhere close to Gardez, and even a simple attack would have required extensive reconnaissance and knowledge of the area. A lot depends on the possibility that Daesh recruited militants in Gardez, because to bring in men and weapons from other provinces, at a time when the government controls the highway and the Taleban all the other routes, would have been very difficult.

Inhabitants of Khwajah Hassan – both Sunni and Shia – are adamant that the attack bears the signature of the Haqqani network. They believe this is the only group that could have carried it out with ease. This may well hold true in terms of operational capacity, but when it comes to motivation, things are less clear. A resident interviewed by AAN provided examples of how the Haqqanis have shown hostility against Shias in the past. During the jihad years and shortly after, the group’s fighters would harass Shia and object to their celebration of the festival of Ashura (the Sadat would then seek the mediation of Mawlawi Mansur, as many of them had fought in the ranks of his faction of Harakat-e Inqilab-e Islami). On another occasion, Jalaluddin Haqqani had insulted the local Shias in a public speech after the Taleban had come to power. (5) This alone, however, does not provide a clear reason for the current Haqqanis to perpetrate such a savage attack now.

The perpetrators of the attack, if they were trying to light the fire of sectarian hatred, causing a breach between the Sadat and their fellow Paktiawals, will be disappointed. Support for the grieving community has been strong. In the words of a political analysts hailing from Paktia: “The only fortunate thing in all this is that Paktiawals joined together for the commemoration of the dead of Khwajah Hassan. We stood collectively in abhorrence of this unprecedented attack.”

Edited by Martine van Bijlert and Kate Clark

(1) Not all Shia communities across the world maintain the need for the faithful to join the khutba, a sermon on religious, social and even political topics given before the Friday prayer, although this is usually the case among Afghan Shia communities.

(2) Harakat-e Inqilab-e Islami-ye Afghanistan was one of the major Sunni mujahedin parties that made up the ‘Peshawar Seven’. In 1982, Mawlawi Nasrullah Mansur, from Paktia’s Zurmat district, split from the main party, led by Mawlawi Muhammad Nabi Muhammadi, to form his own faction. This party, led by Nasrullah’s brother, Abdul Latif Mansur, would come to play a central role during the Taleban Emirate and in the insurgency after 2001. It is now known as the Mansur Network (for a background of the party and its resumed activities see here). That Dr Musawi and many Sadat joined what was basically a faction of traditional Sunni mullahs instead of seeking affiliation with one of the Shia mujahedin parties bears testimony to the high degree of integration the Sadat have enjoyed in Paktia society.

(3) Dr Musawi had come back to his home town in 2004 along with four friends and relatives (who were also returning home from Iran). The very night of their arrival, US soldiers broke into the house where they were staying, seized them and carried them to Bagram. His four companions were later released, but Dr Musawi was sent to Guantanamo where he spent two years. In his memoir Haqaiq-e nagofta-e Guantanamo (“Untold Facts about Guantanamo”), published after his release in 2006, he relates the problems he faced there, including performing prayers, given the sectarian intolerance of some of the more radical prisoners towards Shias.

(4) For a look at the historical record and context, see three dispatches AAN wrote in the wake of an attack on Ashura mourners in Kabul in December 2001 here, here and here)

(5) When making an introductory speech for the newly appointed governor in Gardez, in the presence of all the community elders of the province, Jalaluddin Haqqani reportedly praised the people of Paktia, comparing the province to a basin filled with pure, clean water only defiled by a few noxious vermin. At that point he paused and addressed the malik (headman) of Khwajah Hassan village who was in attendance in the front row, asking him if he was right in saying so, at which the poor man could obviously only nod, cowed in fear.

More recently, in 2011, the Haqqanis meddled in the age-old Sunni-Shia conflict in Kurram Tribal Agency of Pakistan. The Pakistani press claimed that two senior members of the Haqqani family had played a pivotal role in a ceasefire between the Turi tribe (Shia) and its Sunni neighbours (see our reporting here). The Haqqanis’ interest back then was to secure logistical routes crossing Turi territory, while for the Pakistani military, this present an opportunity to present the Haqqanis as ‘good Taleban’, willing to fight only inside Afghanistan and be helpful in Pakistan (as compared to the ‘bad’ TTP). The ceasefire, however, was either a hoax or a failure; it collapsed in a matter of weeks when the killing of Shia travellers by the local chapter of the TTP resumed.

Accident is Third T-38 Crash in Ten Months for Talon II, Continues Series of U.S. Accidents. A U.S. Air Force Northrop T-38C Talon II crashed on Friday, August 17, 2018 near Vance AFB 90 miles northwest of Oklahoma City in Enid, Oklahoma. One Instructor Pilot (the only crewmember) ejected from the aircraft and is reported […]

Americas

The upcoming FY2019 will be good year for US aerospace companies. The recently signed National Defense Authorization Act allows for the procurement of 413 aircraft at a cost of $39.5 billion. The US Navy is set to order a total of 119 warplanes. This includes 24 Super Hornets, 10 P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft, eight CH-53K helicopters. In addition, the Naval Air Systems Command is being entrusted with a multi-year contract authority for the F/A-18 Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft which gives it the right to negotiate bulk discounts with vendors based on a guarantee of several years of orders. The Air Force will buy 15 KC-46 tanker aircraft with a grant of $2.4 billion. The service will also be able to spend a further $300 million to procure aircraft for its Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (OA-X) program. Lockheed Martin will provide the Air Force, USMC and Navy with a total of 77 F-35 fighter jets. This $7.6 billion order is the largest appropriation for a single aircraft type. The company will deliver 48 F-35As, 20 F-35Bs and 9 F-35Cs. The total US defense funding rose by 2.4% to a total of $717 billion.

The US Army is investing in IED detection systems. Chemring Sensors and Electronic Systems will provide the service with a number of Husky Mounted Detection System systems. This firm-fixed-price contract has a value of $92.5 million. The Husky was initially developed in the 1970s by South Africa-based RSD, a division of Dorbyl and marketed by Critical Solutions International (CSI). The vehicle is equipped with a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) that detects mines and explosives by using hydraulically-controlled deploy and retract modes. The vehicle is fitted with automatic target recognition algorithms for GPR and metal detection data processing. The Husky’s crew is protected by a V-shaped hull and bulletproof glass. The employment strategy for the VMMD system involves a lead mine-detection vehicle searching for antitank mines. Upon detection, the prime mover would move forward towing the detonation trailers. A squad of engineers could then neutralize the mine or the trailers could detonate the mines in place. Locations of performance and funding will be determined with each order. Work is scheduled for completion by August 15th, 2022.

The Navy is contracting TOTE Services to support SBX-1. The company is being awarded with a firm-fixed-price contract valued at $11.1 million. The company will be responsible for operating and maintaining the Sea-Based X-Band Radar vessel. The X-band radar, also known as the SBX, was originally planned as a land-based system but a sea-based system became possible when the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It constitutes a mid-course fire control radar based on a seagoing semi-submersible vessel. The $815 million, mechanically-slewed, X-band phased array assembly is 280 feet tall, and weighs 2,400 tons. The radome alone weighs 18,000 pounds, stands over 103 feet high, and is 120 feet in diameter. Made entirely of a high-tech synthetic fabric, the radome is supported by air pressure alone, and is designed to withstand 130+ mph winds and a “100-year storm” at sea. The radar performs cued search, precision tracking, object discrimination and missile kill assessment. The in-flight interceptor communication system data terminal transfers commands from the GMD fire control system to the interceptor missile during its engagement with the target missile. This contract is scheduled for completion by September 2019, but does include several options which could extend the contract until end of March, 2024. The total cumulative value of this contract would rise to $65.3 million, if all options are exercised.

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works is being tapped to replace the centralized 400-Hz power distribution system of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The contract modification has a value of $9.5 million and provides for material and labor needed to add new integrated power node centers on the USS John Basilone (DDG 122), the USS Harvey C. Barnum Jr. (DDG 124) and on the USS Gallagher (DDG 127). The current centralized 400-Hz power-distribution system, consists of two air-cooled solid state frequency converters. The new integrated power node center combines power transfer, frequency conversion, voltage transformation, power conditioning, and fault protection into one cabinet. Electrical power is at the heart of any modern warship. On destroyers for example they allow the Mk41 VLS to perform its job. For each launcher there are 400-Hz and 60-Hz power distribution units to supply power to the launcher electronics. Work will be performed at the company’s shipyard in Bath, Maine, and is expected to be completed by November 2022.

Middle East & Africa

Reports suggest that the United Arab Emirates is currently deploying one of its Wing Loong II UAVs from its Assab airbase in Eritrea. In October 2017 satellite imagery confirmed the UAE as the first export customer of China’s next-generation medium-altitude long-endurance and strike-capable UAE. The Diplomat states that the Wing Loong II has been primarily designed and developed for export and has been marketed by China’s defense industry as a more cost-effective alternative to the US-made General Atomics MQ-1 Predator. The Wing Loong UAV’s fixed mid-mounted wings with high aspect ratio provide improved performance by reducing the drag. Its fuselage structure is designed to minimise the radar cross-section. It features two vertical tail fins, arranged in a V shape. The tricycle landing gear, with two main wheels under the fuselage and one single wheel under the nose, facilitates safe take-off and landing. The unmanned combat aerial vehicle can be armed with a variety of weapons including laser-guided bombs and missiles to attack and destroy air or ground-based targets. The UAE is currently fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Europe

Germany is issuing a long-awaited final request for its multi-national TLVS (Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem) program. MBDA and Lockheed Martin will now negotiate the cost and technical parameters of the program with the Bundeswehr. If the German Bundestag, the country’s parliament, approves the necessary procurement funding, the Bundeswehr would receive its first-ever fielded air-defense system with a built-in 360-degree capability. The Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program aimed to replace Patriot missiles in the United States, the older Hawk system in Germany, and Italy’s even older Nike Hercules missiles. MEADS will be designed to kill enemy aircraft, cruise missiles and UAVs within its reach, while providing next-generation point defense capabilities against ballistic missiles. MEADS is the product of a $4 billion development program shared by the US, Germany and Italy that incorporates Lockheed Martin’s hit-to-kill PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missile in a system including 360-degree surveillance and fire control sensors, netted-distributed tactical operations centers, and lightweight launchers. So far, only Germany has chosen to field the system.

Asia-Pacific

Taiwan’s F-16 pilots are set to receive training support as part of a US foreign military sale. L3 Technologies is being awarded with a $25.8 million contract modification for an additional training system to be installed in an F-16 A/B Block 20 Mission Training Center. The Republic of China Air Force operates a total of 150 F-16A/B block 20 aircraft. Twenty F-16A/B Block 20 aircraft are based in the US for testing and training purposes. MTC’s immerse pilots in high-definition, dynamic training scenarios that enables them to practice air-to-air and air-to-ground missions under any condition that might be encountered during actual flight. Each F-16 MTC consists of four simulators that incorporate high-definition displays, image generation, databases and dynamic environments. Work will be performed in Arlington. Texas and is scheduled for completion by end of October, 2024.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is adding 12 L-15 advanced jet trainers to its training school. The PLAN Aviation University was formed in 2017 and is based in Shandong. The Hongdu L-15 Falcon made its maiden flight in 2006 and is intended to train pilots to fly high-performance forth-generation aircraft, such as the J-10 and Su-27. It is also suitable to complete all basic jet flight training courses. The Hongdu L-15 features a full glass cockpit which can accommodate two crew members, either a student pilot and instructor, or an official pilot and weapons systems officer. The jet has six hard points of which four are located under the two wings and two under the wing-tips. It can accommodate 6,000lb of payload. The aircraft can carry short range air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground missiles, bombs and rocket pods. The development comes amid Beijing’s general airpower build-up, specifically as it develops air wings for its growing fleet of aircraft carriers.

Today’s Video

Watch: Jane’s reports of Merlin helicopter carrier deployment

SBX-1, Pearl Harbor
(click to view full)

As rogue state proliferation by the likes of North Korea made missile defense a growing priority for nations including the USA, Japan, and Israel, the USA began to look at the linchpin of any defense: powerful radars that could both track ballistic missiles, and guide interceptors. The USA has its BMEWS tracking system, but that would not serve. America’s Safeguard ABM system was dismantled long ago – though Russia still maintains its counterpart System A-135 network around Moscow. Something new would be needed.

Enter Raytheon’s new XBR radar, based on an SBX-1 platform that looks a lot like a mobile oil drilling rig. Basing the radar at sea offers numerous advantages. One is the obvious ability to move the radar as threats materialize, allowing much greater coverage with fewer radars. Another is the ability to protect allies, without having to invest in expensive systems whose regional capabilities and value to the USA could be put at risk by the decisions of a single foreign government. In exchange for this freedom from political interference, of course, the designers must contend with nature’s interference in the stormy Pacific.

Boeing SBX system is linked to its land-based GMD (Ground-based Mid-course Defense) missile system but can also operate with other naval and land elements.

The XBR Radar and SBX Platform

SBX concept
(click to view full)

Initially, the SDX will provide the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System with an advanced training and decoy discrimination capability that will help interceptor missiles located in Alaska and California provide a defense against a limited long-range missile attack.

Information from SBX would go to the missile system nerve center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, which could then deploy defensive missiles from sites in Alaska and California. The radar’s position in the northern Pacific would allow it to keep an eye on North Korea, which is viewed as the greatest missile threat to the United States at present. It had been homeported midway along the Aleutian Islands chain in Adak, Alaska, but SBX-1 is capable of moving throughout the Pacific Ocean to support both missile defense advanced testing and defensive operations.

Tests of GMD intercept missiles thus far have been hit-or-miss, with close to half of the interceptors either not getting off the ground or missing the target. Naval launches of Raytheon’s SM-3 missile have had far more success, however, and the SBX has been used in a number of these launches as a collaborating element. Meanwhile, system development of the land-based GMD system continues.

After the radar was removed from operational status in 2012 as a money-saving move, it was located in Hawaii. By April 2013, however, North Korean threats pushed the US Navy to activate SBX and sail it into the Pacific once more.

Boeing Co. is GMD’s prime contractor, including the GMD missiles and overall integration of SBX. Raytheon is the primary subcontractor, with responsibility for the XBR radar. Alpha Marine Services’ M/V Dove is chartered as the platform’s supply vessel, and Interocean American Shipping Corp. holds the crewing charter for the underlying SBX-1 vessel.

The XBR Radar

Catching foreign speeders
(click to view full)

Raytheon’s giant XBR radar is a distant relative of the X-band radars used by police to detect speeding drivers, but designed to detect and illuminate incoming missiles instead. It floats on a system resembling an oil drilling platform, and will usually provide long-range mid-course guidance for ballistic missile defense systems. It can also provide earlier guidance if positioned correctly. The Sea-Based X-Band radar (SBX) that uses it was originally planned as a land-based system, but a sea-based system became possible when the George W. Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The XBR radar has been fitted to a huge mobile oil platform built by a Russian firm. It would normally steam out to offshore waters and be used as a base to drill oil and gas wells. Instead, SBX will steam at a top speed of about 7 mph and add a mobile element to the USA’s missile defense network.

The $815 million, mechanically-slewed, X-band phased array assembly is 280 feet (85 meters) tall, and weighs 2,400 tons. The radome alone weighs 18,000 pounds, stands over 103 feet high, and is 120 feet in diameter. Made entirely of a high-tech synthetic fabric, the radome is supported by air pressure alone, and is designed to withstand 130+ mph winds and a “100-year storm” at sea. This makes it far more durable than any air-supported radome of remotely comparable size, and its design and fabrication required development of several new processes, materials, and technologies.

New technologies have been developed within the radar as well. XBR leverages lessons learned on earlier radar programs, including the Ground-Based Radar – Prototype (GBR-P), located at Kwajalein in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the land-based AN/TPY-2 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) radar. Raytheon continued to work on design and manufacturing enhancements, including 3 iterations of cost and reliability improvements to Raytheon’s Gallium Arsenide Transmit/Receive (GaN T/R) module, which lies at the heart of its X-Band radar family. That’s good, because XBR uses over 45,000 T/R modules, and has a Physical Aperture of 384 m2 and Active Aperture of 248 m2.

XBR provides 2-90 degree elevation coverage (not exactly vertical, can be tipped upward), and about 270 degrees of azimuth coverage (beam width profile). It scan a horizon of about 2,500 miles (4,000 km) at a sensitivity so great that it could detect the movement of a baseball at the opposite end of the United States. X-band radars also have much tighter discrimination than UHF radars like Alaska’s Cobra Dane, which means they’re faster and better at telling separating incoming warheads apart from debris and decoys.

Contracts & Events

Unless otherwise noted, the US Missile Defense Agency (US MDA) in Huntsville, AL manages these contracts.

FY 2012 – 2018

Budget cuts force SBX out of operation; North Korea forces it back into operation; Crewing charter.

SBX departs
(click to view full)

August 17/18: Sea-based BMD The Navy is contracting TOTE Services to support SBX-1. The company is being awarded with a firm-fixed-price contract valued at $11.1 million. The company will be responsible for operating and maintaining the Sea-Based X-Band Radar vessel. The X-band radar, also known as the SBX, was originally planned as a land-based system but a sea-based system became possible when the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It constitutes a mid-course fire control radar based on a seagoing semi-submersible vessel. The $815 million, mechanically-slewed, X-band phased array assembly is 280 feet tall, and weighs 2,400 tons. The radome alone weighs 18,000 pounds, stands over 103 feet high, and is 120 feet in diameter. Made entirely of a high-tech synthetic fabric, the radome is supported by air pressure alone, and is designed to withstand 130+ mph winds and a “100-year storm” at sea. The radar performs cued search, precision tracking, object discrimination and missile kill assessment. The in-flight interceptor communication system data terminal transfers commands from the GMD fire control system to the interceptor missile during its engagement with the target missile. This contract is scheduled for completion by September 2019, but does include several options which could extend the contract until end of March, 2024. The total cumulative value of this contract would rise to $65.3 million, if all options are exercised.

April 26/13: What’s My Role? The GAO looks at the Missile Defense Agency’s full array of programs in report #GAO-13-342, “Missile Defense: Opportunity To Refocus On Strengthening Acquisition Management.” With respect to SBX, it has this to say:

“MDA faces continuing portfolio challenges…. For example, after approximately $2 billion had been spent in several years of development, the SBX sea-based radar was downgraded from operational status to a limited test status because of funding limitations…. Limited test support status means SBX will support BMDS flight and ground tests as appropriate, but can be recalled to active, operational status when warnings indicate a need…. By transitioning SBX to a limited test support status, MDA officials expect to save almost $670 million in operation and maintenance costs for fiscal years 2013 through 2018.

Because SBX is primarily used to support GMD’s defense of the United States, removing SBX from operational status also changes how the BMDS operates…. [Northern] command has developed alternatives for conducting engagements without the SBX. However… there is a difference in how the BMDS operates without SBX, the details of which are classified.”

Those plans must include the huge Cobra Dane PAVE PAWS radar in Alaska – but its sustainment funds only exist to 2015, its UHF frequency isn’t good for target discrimination, and it will need another upgrade soon. Replacing Cobra Dane would cost an estimated $1 billion, though the NRC’s suggestion of a “GBX” stacked TPY-2 radar could bring that cost down considerably.

April 1/13: Off the bench. The USA deploys SBX, sailing it from Pearl Harbor and toward North Korea in the wake of serous threats made against the USA as well as South Korea. Obviously, the Navy isn’t talking about exactly where it’s headed, but there are many safe places in the Pacific that offer a better vantage point for North Korea’s expected “test” launches. Chosun Ilbo | Hankyoreh | Hawaii News Now | KITV Hawaii | conservative Heritage Foundation.

Dec 13/11: Support. Boeing in Huntsville, AL receives a $15.1 million sole-source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, exercising an option for continued SBX operation and sustainment services from Jan 1/12 through June 30/12.

Work will be performed in Huntsville, AL. FY 2012 research, development, test, and evaluation funds will be used (HQ0147-09-C-0007).

Nov 3/11: Crewing. Interocean American Shipping Corp. in Moorestown, NJ receives a $28.2 million firm-fixed-price contract to crew and maintain the Sea-Based X-Band Radar platform, SBX-1. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12, but 4 more 1-year option periods could turn it into a 5-year, $165.2 million deal.

This contract was competitively procured via solicitations posted to Military Sealift Command, Navy Electronic Commerce Online, and FBO.gov websites, with 5 offers received out of 100 firms with access. US Military Sealift Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00033-12-C-2500).

Crewing charter

Nov 1/11: Support. The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) awards Raytheon IDS of Woburn, MA a maximum $307.6 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Under this new contract, Raytheon will maintain software required to operate “the X-band family of radars,” and perform and Ballistic Missile Defense System test planning, execution and analysis.

Discussions with Raytheon personnel confirmed that the funding applies to SBX’s XBR radar, as well as Raytheon’s AN/TPY-2 radars (THAAD, European missile defense, deployed in Israel & Japan), and a “Ground Based Radar Prototype” that they’re working on as a technology demonstrator.

Work will be performed in Woburn, MA from Nov 1/11 through Oct 31/13, and the MDA’s FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to fund initial orders. The MDA at Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (HQ0147-12-D-0005).

Oct 19/11: To Hawaii. The US MDA announces that SBX is about the head into Pearl Habror, HI for scheduled maintenance and crew training operations.

FY 2010 – 2011

Test failure: try to turn it all on next time; Supply vessel chartered.

Renewed Vigor
(click to view full)

Sept 19/11: Support vessel. Edison Chouest subsidiary Alpha Marine Services, LLC in Galliano, LA wins a $25.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for the time charter of M/V Dove, a US-flagged, anchor-handling, towing supply vessel that will be used to support SBX-1. M/V Dove will transfer fuel, supplies, and offshore workers to and from SBX-1, and will function as the platform’s oil spill response vessel. Alpha Marine Services will operate and maintain M/V Dove for the duration of the charter. This contract includes 4 more 1-year option periods, which could bring the total contract to $147 million.

Work will be provided in the Pacific Ocean, and is expected to be complete by September 2012. Contract funds are subject to availability in FY 2012, and will expire on either Sept 30/12 or Sept 30/13; subsequent options could extend that. This contract was competitively procured via a solicitation posted to the Military Sealift Command, Navy Electronic Commerce Online, and FBO.gov websites with 4 offers received. US Military Sealift Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00033-11-C-2006).

Support vessel charter

Aug 20/11: Maintenance. SBX leaves from Vigor Shipyards (formerly Todd Shipyards) in Seattle, WA, where the sea platform has been undergoing scheduled maintenance and planned upgrades over the past 3 months. A Naval Vessel Protection Zone will be applied to SBX as it departs, and will be monitored by the US Coast Guard. US MDA.

April 19/11: Maintenance. A sole-source, not-to-exceed $27.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract modification. The firm will provide support for SBX’s shipyard maintenance at Todd Pacific Shipyard in Seattle, WA, from March 2011 through September 2011.

$10.4 million in FY 2011 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort (HQ0147-09-C-0007, P00028).

Oct 7/10: Maintenance. The Missile Defense Agency is planning to have SBX undergo modifications and maintenance at the Todd Shipyard in Seattle, WA. Work is expected to start in March 2011, cost about $9.4 million, and take about 90 days.

Work on the vessel’s thrusters and other modifications must begin in March, 2011, in order to maintain its Certificate of Inspection issued by the American Bureau of Shipping. Maintaining SBX requires a port with water depth of at least 50 feet, and there are only 3 facilities on the US West Coast with deep enough facilities: Todd, Naval Station Everett, WA; and Naval Air Station North Island, CA. US MDA.

Sept 30/10: Development. Boeing in Huntsville, AL, receives a $27.9 million sole-source cost-plus-award-fee modification to continue Sea-based X-band Radar development, test and evaluation efforts.

Work will be performed in Huntsville, AL from October 2010 through July 2011. This procurement will be funded with both FY 2010 and FY 2011 Missile Defense Agency research, development, test and evaluation funds (HQ0147-09-C-0008).

April 6/10: Why? Aviation Week is able to add some details regarding the January 2010 test failure:

“The first problem, known in the rocket sector as “chuffing,” occurred as the target boosted from the Kwajalein Atoll… refers to the sound that the motor makes, but it is also used to describe changes in the burn rate or pressure of burning in the solid-rocket fuel… [it’s] common in rocket motors, particularly older boosters. LV-2 used Trident C4 boosters, some of which are 25-35 years in age.

…While the chuffing did not affect target performance, a problem arose when… Algorithms designed to help SBX “filter out” chuffing were not engaged during the test [which became] more complex than it should have been. In a real engagement, this official says, the algorithms would be engaged… The second problem contributing to the test failure involved the functioning of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) itself, according to the officials. The EKV apparently experienced a mechanical failure in a thruster. This was described by one of the officials as a quality control issue brought on by a faulty connector.”

Jan 31/10: Testing. The USA MDA announces that, following a number of successful missile interception tests involving SBX in a supporting role, the latest test experienced a glitch:

“A target missile was successfully launched at approximately 3:40 p.m. PST from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Approximately six minutes later, a Ground-Based Interceptor was successfully launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Both the target missile and Ground-Based Interceptor performed nominally after launch. However, the Sea-Based X-band radar did not perform as expected.”

See also: WIRED Danger Room.

Test failure

FY 2007 – 2009

SBX deployed, supported, begin participating in tests.

X-Band install

March 23/09: Sub-contractors. Raytheon announces a $27 million contract from Boeing to support the Ground-based Mid-course Defense system’s 6-month bridge effort. Work will include continued evolution, maturation, test, and verification of the Raytheon-built X-Band Radar aboard the Boeing-developed SBX, plus work on the Upgraded Early Warning Radars at Beale Air Force Base, CA, and at Fylingdales, England; and the Cobra Dane Upgrade Radar at Shemya, AK.

Dec 5/08: Testing. The USA’s Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system successfully intercepts a target warhead in a live-fire test that includes SBX.

The long-range ballistic missile target lifted off from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska. In response, a GMD interceptor missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, and received target data updates from the GMD fire control system, which collected and combined data from 4 different sensors: naval AEGIS Long Range Surveillance and Track system; the AN/TPY-2 land-based; the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base, CA; and SBX. After flying into space, the interceptor released its exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which tracked, intercepted and destroyed the target warhead. Norm Tew, Boeing’s chief engineer for GMD:

“This test was an important milestone for the Sea-Based X-Band Radar… This was the first intercept test in which data from SBX was combined with data from the other sensors to provide tracking data and guidance aimpoint updates to [a live] interceptor.”

See: Boeing.

July 18/08: Testing. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency tests the land-based Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system of sensors, including SBX. While previous tests typically involved a single target-tracking sensor, this test used 4: a ship-mounted AEGIS Long Range Surveillance and Track system in the Pacific; an AN/TPY-2 radar in Juneau, AK; the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base, CA, and the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) in the Pacific.

During the test, the sensors detected, tracked and assessed a long-range ballistic missile target launched from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska. The sensors provided target information via ground and satellite links to GMD’s dual-node, distributed fire control system, located at Fort Greely, AK, and NORAD HQ in Colorado Springs, CO. Boeing.

March 17/08: Support. Raytheon announces 2 two task orders worth $28.3 million, as part of an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity Consolidated Contractor Logistics Services program to operate and sustain the US MDA’s X-Band radars (AN/TPY-2 used in the FBR and THAAD, GBR-P radar, and XBR/SBX). The first task order, valued at $1.2 million, provides management services for the operation and sustainment of the Raytheon-developed X-Band radar (XBR) aboard the Sea-Based X-Band radar (SBX) vessel and subsequent task orders. The second task order, valued at $27.1 million, covers the XBR/SBX’s day-to-day management, direction and control, and operations.

Raytheon adds that this contract award signifies a long-term partnership between Raytheon and MDA to consolidate operations and sustainment, designed to improve operational availability and reduce the total cost of ownership by identifying and leveraging efficiencies and improvements throughout the missile defense mission. This contract is structured to include a 5-year base period worth $756 million, plus 5 one-year options, bringing the total potential value to $1.9 billion over 10 years.

Work will be performed at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems Missile Defense Center in Woburn, MA; Integrated Air Defense Center in Andover, MA; and by Raytheon Technical Services Company personnel at sites designated by the MDA.

Sept 20/07: Infrastructure. Boeing announces that the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) mooring system has been installed at SBX’s homeport near the Aleutian island of Adak, Alaska. Boeing sub-contractor Manson Construction used tugs, barges and cranes to place the mooring system’s 8 anchors on the bottom of Kuluk Bay. Heavy machinery aboard a barge then dragged the 75-metric-ton anchors, embedding them into the sea bed. The construction team completed the installation 3 weeks ahead of schedule.

Boeing’s partners in this effort included partners Manson Construction Co., Golder Co., Glosten Associates, the US Missile Defense Agency; and the American Bureau of Shipping, which had to ensure that the work met all mooring installation standards.

March 21/07: Testing. The US MDA completes a Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system test using the SBX radar, which detected, tracked and assessing a long-range ballistic missile target launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA.

This was primarily a test of the system’s sensors and handoffs. As part of the GMD system, SBX provided that target information via satellite to GMD’s Colorado-based fire control system, which used the data to simulate a target shootdown with a simulated ground-based interceptor. Boeing.

Jan 4/07: Support. Raytheon Company has announced a $32.7 million subcontract to provide sustainment support for the X-Band Radar (XBR) portion of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX). The award was made by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, as SBX is considered to be part of the Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), and Boeing is the prime contractor for that segment.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) will provide trained personnel for on-platform sustainment and operation of the XBR, along with radar maintenance and development of spares. The contract will run through 2007, and work will be performed at the company’s Missile Defense Center in Woburn, MA; the Integrated Air Defense Center in Andover, MA; and Raytheon Technical Services Company on site at the SBX platform.

FY 2003 – 2006

From initial design to development; Done, but not ready for prime time.

Building SBX-1
(click to view full)

Aug 28/06: Stuck in Hawaii. SBX was supposed to be in Adak by now, but it’s still in Hawaii. The non-governmental Project On Government Oversight looks at the issues and glitches that are keeping it in port, via a link to a Chicago Tribune article and a leaked “For Official Use Only” June 2/06 document entitled “SBX-1 Operational Suitability and Viability Assessment” [PDF].

Most of the issues are typical post-shakedown items re: adequate training, drills & procedures mature enough, certifications required, recreation facilities, etc. Other issues like the crane’s ability to handle at-sea tasks, electrical/propulsion limitations, etc. are more serious.

Stuck in Hawaii

June 8/05: Support. The Raytheon Co. in Waltham, MA receives an indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contract to provide logistics support services to operate and maintain up to 4 forward-based X-Band transportable radars to support the Ballistic Missile Defense System. The maximum potential value of the contract is $260.9 million. Most work will take place at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Woburn, MA from May 26/05 through May 25/10. The Missile Defense Agency issued the contract (HQ0006-05-C-0016).

At this point, the platform is expected to arrive in Adak, Alaska on schedule by late December 2005, and may get a full test when it nears Hawaii and a nearby missile range on its voyage north. Integration, testing and certification will evaluation will continue throughout its voyage. Meanwhile, the final touches are being put on the sea-based X-band radar system, which is expected to ship out on a 20,000-mile (32,000-km) trip from Ingleside/Corpus Christi, TX to Adak, AK in the Aleutian Islands.

April 5/05: Raytheon announces that it BMDS X-Band Radar has been lifted aboard the SBX-1 platform.

Jan 27/03: The Boeing Co. in Anaheim, CA received a $747.5 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to contract HQ0006-01-C-0001, for completion of the development of Sea-Based Test X-Band Radar (SBX) capability. Boeing will continue to develop a Test X-Band Radar (XBR) capability in support of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program as a multi-phased acquisition, and this modification is described as:

“…necessary to ensure that a Test XBR is ready to be integrated into the Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005. Raytheon Electronic Systems, a major subcontractor, in Bedford, Mass., will primarily perform the effort.”

Phase one of the SBX effort was awarded during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002, and an effort was announced in November 2002 for acquisition of radar long-lead items and associated labor costs. The Missile Defense Agency issued the contract (HQ0006-01-C-0001).

Main SBX development contract

Nov 21/02: Long-lead. The Boeing Co. in Anaheim, CA received a $30 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for acquisition of long-lead items associated with the Test X-Band Radar (XBR) capability in support of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program, as well as associated labor costs. Subject to completion of environmental analysis, this modification is necessary to ensure that a Test XBR is ready to be integrated into the Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed in the 4th quarter of FY 2005. Raytheon Electronic Systems, a major subcontractor, in Bedford, MA, will primarily perform the effort.

None of these funds will be used to acquire the sea-based platform, in accordance with direction contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the conference report for H.R. 5010 (P.L. 107-248), the FY 2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (HQ0006-01-C-0001).

Aug 1/02: Initial Design. The Boeing Co. in Anaheim, CA received a cost-plus-award fee contract modification for development of a Sea-Based Test X-band Radar capability in support of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program.

This effort will be accomplished in a phased approach. At this time, only Phase 1 is being executed, for the reservation of the sea-based platform and preliminary design effort in the amount of $31 million. The principal place of performance will be Bedford, MA (HQ0006-01-C-0001).

Preliminary design

Additional Readings and Sources Background: SBX

• US MDA – Sea-Based X-Band Radar [PDF].

• Claremont Institute, MissileThreat.com – Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX).

• GlobalSecurity.org – Sea-Based X-Band radar.

• Raytheon – Sea-Based X-Band Radar for Missile Defense [PDF].

Background: Related Systems

• HowStuffworks.com – How Missile Defense Systems Will Work.

• Boeing – Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System.

• DID – CEC: Cooperative Engagement for Fleet Defense.

• Foxtrot Alpha – These Are The Wild Radar Ships That Make Missile Defense Possible. SBX is included, along with the Cobra King system, SS Pacific Tracker, and several others. June 24/14 article.

News & Views

• US National Research Council (September 2012) – Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives It goes far beyond that, with well-researched recommendations across the entire BMD array.

• MostlyMissileDefense (Aug 28/12) – Ballistic Missile Defense: Why the Current GMD System’s Radars Can’t Discriminate. And why X-Band is better.

• Report to the US Missile Defense Agency (June 2/06) – SBX-1 Operational Suitability and Viability Assessment [PDF]. Submitted by L-3 Communications subsidiary SY Coleman.

• Reuters (June 7/05) – Missile defense radar nearing completion in Texas.

• SpaceWar.com (May 23/05) – Radome Successfully Installed on Sea-Based X-Band Radar.

The internal 25mm cannon fires up to 50 rounds per second. On Aug. 13, pilots from the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron fired the F-35A’s 25 mm internal cannon in a strafing run on two sets of ground targets on the Utah Test and Training range. It was the first use of the F-35A’s GAU-22/A […]

New, Larger Aircraft Will Change Display Routine, Add Range for Ferry Flights. After several seasons of speculation, official U.S. Navy documents have revealed the U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Team, The Blue Angels, will receive the larger, upgraded Boeing F/A-18E single seat and F/A-18F two-seat Super Hornet to replace their aging F/A-18C/D Hornets, by the end of […]

Americas

The US pace and Missile Systems Center is ordering new missile defense satellites. Lockheed Martin will manufacture the three Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared Geosynchronous Earth Orbit Space Vehicles at a cost of $2.9 billion. The satellites will be a follow on to the US Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program. The SBIRS architecture includes a resilient mix of satellites in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO), payloads in highly elliptical orbit (HEO), as well as ground-based hardware and software. The integrated system supports multiple missions simultaneously, while providing robust performance with global, persistent coverage. The Next-Gen OPIR will succeed the current SBIRS by providing improved missile warning capabilities that are more survivable against emerging threats. This order supplements a similar contract to be awarded to Lockheed Martin, that sees for the production of two polar space vehicles. The contract encompasses a variety of tasks ranging from requirements analysis to a system critical design review. Work will be performed at Lockheed’s facility in Sunnyvale, California, and is expected to be completed by April 30th, 2021.

The Air Force is boosting its lethality with help from researchers at George Mason University. The University is receiving a cost contract for hardware and software valued at $60.4 million. The objective of this contract is to use existing infrastructure and proven technologies as means to enhance the capabilities of the Mobile Unmanned/Manned Distributed Lethality Airborne Network (MUDLAN) architecture. Under the contract, airborne high-bandwidth, multi-beam common datalink, autonomous connectivity will be demonstrated between tactical data-links and swarming unmanned aircraft systems and small unmanned aircraft systems. First concrete concepts of distributed lethality were introduced in January 2015 as a response to the development of very capable anti-access area-denial (A2/AD) weapons and sensors specifically designed to deny access to a contested area. The plan is to fully interlink submarines, ships, UAVs and fighter jets so that they can track, identify and engage enemy forces simultaneously. Work will be performed in Fairfax, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by August, 2022.

The Air Force One’s little brother is set to receive an interior makeover. The awarded $16 million contract enables Boeing to make all necessary changes to the C-32A so that its interior commensurates with the President’s VC-25A, better known as Air Force One. Changes include new interior elements, cleaning and painting efforts and replacing the current double-seat configuration with a triple-seat configuration. The C-32 is a specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The primary customers are the vice president, using the distinctive call sign “Air Force Two,” the first lady, and members of the Cabinet and Congress. Work will be performed at Boeing’s facility in Oklahoma City and is scheduled for completion by August 2019.

Middle East & Africa

Israel will send its ‘Sons of Sa’ar’ to protect its Mediterranean gas fields and its exclusive economic zone. The Israeli Navy is set to receive four next-generation Sa’ar 6 corvettes between 2019 and 2024. The 300-feet-long warships, which are currently being built in Kiel, Germany, will be packed to the gills with highly sensitive detection equipment — to monitor both the surrounding sea and airspace — as well as offensive weapons and defensive missile interceptors. The ships will be equipped with the ‘Naval Dome’, essentially a navalized version of the Iron Dome, with the Barak-8 missile at its core. The Barak-8, and aims to deliver up to 42 mile of range, thanks to a dual-pulse solid rocket motor whose second “pulse” fires as the missile approaches its target. This ensures that the missile isn’t just coasting in the final stages, giving it more than one chance at a fast, maneuvering target. The missile’s most important feature may be its active seeker. Instead of forcing its ship or land-based radar to “paint”/illuminate its target at all times, the Barak 8 can be left alone once it is close to its target. This is an excellent approach for dealing with saturation attacks using older ship radars, which can track many targets but illuminate just a few. The Barak-8 was developed by IAI in collaboration with Israel’s DDR&D, India’s DRDO (Defense Research and Development Organization), the navies of both countries, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., IAI’s ELTA Group and local industries in India.

Europe

The Spanish Ministry of Defense is looking for UAV systems to be deployed overseas. The military wants to procure a UAS that is light weight (20kg class) and must be suitable for protect troops that are posted on overseas training missions where local protection and security levels are minimal. The running bidding contest states the the country wants to purchase two systems, each consisting of three UAVs and their payload at a cost of $4.9 million. The contract also includes two ground stations and required launching and recovering systems. Currently there are several systems on the market that would fulfil Spain’s requirement. Considering the fact that Spain likes to support its domestic industry one likely contender could be the Fulmar X. Others include Insitu’s ScanEagle and Aerovironment’s Puma AE.

Jane’s reports that the UK is buying counter-unmanned aircraft system developed by Israeli defense contractor Rafael. According to Rafael, Drone Dome is an innovative end-to-end defence system designed to provide effective airspace defence against hostile drones, including micro and nano drones used by terrorist groups to gather intelligence and carry out aerial attacks. The C-UAS provides 360° circular coverage and is designed to detect, track, and neutralize drones classified as threats flying in No-Fly zones. The system integrates subsystems from different Israeli specialist manufacturers, including RADA that provides the RPS-42 Radar and communications intercept unit provide early warning and target detection, coupled with Controp’s MEOS EO/IR observation used for target recognition. The electronic attack segment is represented by C-Guard RD provided by Netline. RAFAEL’s Command and control system integrates these subsystems to enable effective and simple operation by a single user. The Drone Dome is designed to operate autonomously, or from command and control centers. No details pertaining to delivery timelines or contract values were disclosed.

Asia-Pacific

Russia is launching a modernization program for its ageing fleet of Tu-95MS long-range strategic bombers. Despite being a Soviet-era aircraft the Tu-95MS conducted a number of bombing sorties in Syria where it attacked a total of 66 targets with cruise missiles. Between 1979 and 1993 several dozen Tu-95MSs were produced. The ‘Bear’ is powered by four turboprop engines and can be equipped with either 6 or 16 Kh-55 missiles and carry a further eight Kh-101 air-launched cruise missiles or 14 Kh-65 anti-ship missiles. Self-defence capabilities include two 23mm automatic cannons and electronic jamming equipment. The modernization will include an upgraded NK-12MPM engine, new electronics, a new navigation system and enhanced weapon systems. Work will be performed at Tupolev’s Taganrog Aviation Plant, with the first overhauled Tu-95MSM scheduled to be ready for departure by the end of 2019. Russia plans to keep the planes in service until 2040.

The government of the Philippines is receiving a Special Airborne Mission Installation and Response (SABIR) system as part of a US military assistance package. The system has a price-tag of $15 million and will enhance the Philippine military’s maritime domain awareness, airborne command and control, counterterrorism, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) capabilities. The system will be installed on C-130 aircraft and will transform the airframe into a sophisticated C4ISR platform which retains it basic cargo aircraft capacity. SABIR is a system of individual “bolt-on” modular components that can be configured in a number of ways to support various missions, aircraft configurations, and other customer-specific requirements. This SABIR system will be operated by the PAF’s 300 Air Intelligence and Security Wing (300 AISW) out of Benito Ebuen Air Base, Mactan.

Today’s Video

Watch: Osprey performs take-off and landing on aircraft-carrier.

SBIRS-High
(click to view full)

The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)-High satellite program is a key component of the USA’s future missile alert system, designed to give maximum warning and monitoring of ballistic missile launches anywhere in the world. The new satellites will replace the existing Defense Support Program (DSP) fleet. Their infrared sensors have 3x the sensitivity of DSP and 2x the revisit rate, while providing better persistent coverage.

Unfortunately, the program has been beset by massive cost overruns on the order of 400%, technical challenges that continue to present problems, and uncertainties about performance. Despite these problems, the U.S. Air Force is proceeding with the program, and has terminated potential alternatives and supplements. However, as part of a January 2015 effort to institute cost reforms, the Air Force will weaken requirements for the program, and at least three other major procurement programs.

SBIRS – High: Current State

Caption

The SBIRS team is led by the Infrared Space Systems Directorate at the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA is the SBIRS prime contractor. Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Azusa, CA as the payload subcontractor, and Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Services in Boulder, CO is the ground system subcontractor.

SBIRS-High GEO are satellites, while SBIRS-High HEO (High Elliptical Orbit) are payloads hosted on spacecraft with classified launch dates. At present, 2 HEO are in service, and a 3rd HEO payload is prepping for launch. The first SBIRS High HEO payload was declared operational in November 2008.

The first SBIRS-High GEO satellite launch was pushed back many times, thanks to significant program delays that moved the initial launch back from 2002. SBIRS GEO-1 wasn’t delivered to Cape Canaveral until March 2011, and the launch actually took place in May 2011.

Increment 1 of the program used the SBIRS Control Segment and User Segment, operating with DSP satellites, to handle current military capability. Initial Operational Capability was attained Dec 18/01, consolidating the operations of the “DSP” and “Attack” and “Launch Early Reporting to Theater” missions.

It was eventually joined by SBIRS payloads in space, currently referred to as “SBIRS Effectivity 5,” which has been deemed both operationally effective (performance) and operationally suitable (maintained and supported). As of March 2014, SBIRS HEO-1 and HEO-2 are in use, and so are SBIRS GEO-1 and GEO-2.

The program’s final state is Increment 2, which is covered below.

SBIRS: Budgets & Next Steps

About 12 years after the 1st SBIRS satellite was supposed to launch, the Pentagon still has a lot of work to do en route to the final Increment 2. That state will include 2 hosted SBIRS HEO payloads, and 4 satellites in geosynchronous orbit. Increment 2 also involves new ground system software and hardware for consolidated data processing across DSP and SBIRS, and improved SBIRS performance.

The first step is fixing GEO-1. Other software problems took precedence, so GEO-1 launched without event recovery software intended to re-establish ground control in case of a failure. Given successful recovery software testing of GEO-2, the USAF plans to upload the software to GEO-1 in Q4 2014.

SBIRS GEO-3 and GEO-4 have run into a number of problems that have added costs and delays: GEO-3 will be delivered in September 2015 now.

The Block 10 mobile ground system (MGS) software increment is expected to be delivered in March 2016. It will let the USAF process integrated data from the DSP, SBIRS HEO sensors and SBIRS GEO, with fully-tuned sensor data that’s cleared of background noise like irrelevant light sources. The tuning feature was originally supposed to wait until 2018.

GEO-4 will be delivered in September 2016 now.

MGS Block 20 software is expected to achieve certification in June 2018. The program plans to fully meet operational requirements in 2019.

GEO-5 and GEO-6 will be in storage for quite some time after they’re delivered, since they’re scheduled to replace GEO-1 and GEO-2 at the end of their useful lives. These satellites will feature further improvements, including a Unified S-Band uplink frequency with a modulation scheme to the existing L-Band Space to Ground Link System.

Alternatives, Interrupted

Raytheon’s 3GIRS

According to US GAO auditors, the SBIRS program has suffered from immature technologies, unclear requirements, unstable funding, underestimated software complexity, poor oversight, and other problems that have resulted in billions of dollars in cost overruns and years in schedule delays. The cost of the program has ballooned from an original $4.8 billion estimate to over $18.8 billion. Normally, this kind of performance would produce program cancellation, but the USAF had no alternatives for a mission that must be carried out: early detection of ballistic missiles, and detection of nuclear detonations.

In 2006 the USAF finally began a parallel effort known as the Alternative Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS). AIRSS/3GIRS was intended to ensure that the nation’s missile-warning and defense capabilities could be sustained, even in SBIRS-High failed. It showed early progress, and could have provided a less expensive supplement to the SBIRS-High constellation. By the time 3GIRS began to show progress, however, SBIRS was beginning to show adequate performance, and was now too far advanced to cancel. The USAF has continued to develop some of the ideas in 3GIRS via research and demonstrations involving commercially hosted payloads, but SBIRS will fulfill the missile warning role going forward.

Contracts and Key Events

SBIRS acquisition is led by USAF Space and Missile Systems Center’s Infrared Space Systems Directorate at Los Angeles AFB, CA and USAF Space Command operates the system from Colorado. Lockheed Martin is the SBIRS prime contractor, and Northrop Grumman is the payload integrator.

Note that many of the program’s problems occurred before FY 2009. They are not included here for the time being.

FY 2014 – 2018

Contract for GEO-5 and GEO-6.

SBIRS-High GEO
(click to view full) FY 2018

August 16/18: SBIRS replacement underway The US pace and Missile Systems Center is ordering new missile defense satellites. Lockheed Martin will manufacture the three Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared Geosynchronous Earth Orbit Space Vehicles at a cost of $2.9 billion. The satellites will be a follow on to the US Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program. The SBIRS architecture includes a resilient mix of satellites in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO), payloads in highly elliptical orbit (HEO), as well as ground-based hardware and software. The integrated system supports multiple missions simultaneously, while providing robust performance with global, persistent coverage. The Next-Gen OPIR will succeed the current SBIRS by providing improved missile warning capabilities that are more survivable against emerging threats. This order supplements a similar contract to be awarded to Lockheed Martin, that sees for the production of two polar space vehicles. The contract encompasses a variety of tasks ranging from requirements analysis to a system critical design review. Work will be performed at Lockheed’s facility in Sunnyvale, California, and is expected to be completed by April 30th, 2021.

FY 2009 – 2015

March 3/15: The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center finished a three-day test of the Increment 2 ground control system for SBIRS. The Increment 2 system features a single control center to operate all three types of satellite, with a single backup system.

Jan 23/15: With U.S. Commerce Department commercial satellite image resolution limits being somewhat lifted starting in February, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is moving to exploit what is expected to be a flood of additional imagery resources with quicker update frequencies.

Jan 16/15: As part of its effort to institute cost reforms, the U.S. Air Force will weaken requirements for the space-based infrared system (SIBRS), among others.

Sept 30/14: GEO-4. Northrop Grumman delivers the SBIRS GEO-4 satellite payload, which will now be integrated with the SBIRS GEO-4 satellite bus in final assembly, integration and test at Lockheed Martin’s Sunnyvale, CA facility. Sources: Lockheed Martin and NGC Sept 8/14, “Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Deliver Payload for Fourth SBIRS Missile Defense Early Warning Satellite”.

Sept 30/14: Support. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $44.2 million contract modification for SBIRS FY 2014 studies and systems modifications, contractor logistics support, and sustainment of the baseline system. $21.1 million in FY 2014 USAF missile budgets are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Boulder, CO; Sunnyvale, CA; Azusa, CA; Buckley AFB, CO; and Schriever AFB, CO, and is expected to be complete by Sept 30, 2015. The USAF Space and Missile Systems Center Infrared Space Systems Directorate Contracting Division, El Segundo, CA, manages the contract (FA8810-13-C-0017, PO 0029).

Sept 30/14: Support. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in, Sunnyvale, CA receives a $37.4 million contract modification to for SBIRS studies directed in response to deficiencies, failures or evolving requirements; changes in external user data needs or interfaces; or changes in technology. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 USAF O&M budgets.

Work will be performed at CO Springs, CO; Boulder, CO; and Greely, CO, and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/16. Fiscal 2013 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $37,438,157 are being obligated at the time of award. Space and Missile System Center, Los Angeles AFB, CA, manages the contract (FA8810-13-C-0002, PO 0031).

Sept 5/14: GEO-5/6. A $42.9 million contract modification will improve GEO-5 and GEO-6 with dual-band telemetry, offering better tracking and communications. This includes the addition of a Unified S-Band uplink frequency, and a modulation scheme to the existing L-Band Space to Ground Link System uplink. Lockheed Martin will redesign the interfacing, software, power, thermal, and structures accordingly for the new transponder box and cabling. $10.7 million in FY 2012 USAF missile budgets are committed immediately.

Work will be performed at Sunnyvale, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 31/21 (FA8810-13-C-0001, PO 0003).

June 24/14: GEO-5/6. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $1.8635 billion contract modification, in order to finish SBIRS Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 5 and 6 satellites, and provide performance incentives. The contract modification also includes adding options for acoustic testing, launch vehicle integration, launch and early on-orbit testing, and contractor operations support. Total contracts announced to date for SBIRS GEO-5 and GEO-6 add up to a maximum of $2.4017 billion, or $1.2 billion per satellite:

• $1,863.5M main contract
  
• $42.9M to redesign & improve telemetry, communications, and uplinks (Sept 5/14)
  
• $20.0M to accelerate production (May 20/14)
  
• $42.4M for engineering & advance buys (Sept 19/13)
  
• $284.4M for advance buys (Feb 20/13)
  
• $66.6M for engineering (Dec 19/12)
  
• $81.9M for engineering and advance buys (Oct 25/12)

$655 million is committed immediately: $266 million in FY 2013 missile budgets and $389 million in FY 2014 missile budgets. This contract is not multi-year (FA8810-13-C-0001, PO 0001). Sources: Pentagon | Lockheed Martin, “U.S. Air Force Awards Lockheed Martin Contract For Next Two SBIRS Missile Defense Early Warning Satellites”.

GEO-5 & GEO-6

May 30/14: HEO-4. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Center in Sunnyvale, CA receives an extra a $41.2 million contract modification to add HEO-4 launch and early on-orbit test (LEOT) capabilities to the HEO-3 baseline, bringing the total contract to $3.215 billion. “This HEO 3/4 transition concept of operations is required to support the HEO 3/4 payloads transition to the Increment 2 operational baseline.”

$36.5 million in USAF FY 2013 RDT&E funds is committed immediately. Work will be performed until Sept 30/18 at Sunnyvale and Azusa, CA; and in Boulder, Aurora, and Colorado Springs, CO (FA8810-08-C-0002, PO 0075).

May 20/14: GEO-5/6. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Center in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $20 million modification to accelerate production of SBIRS GEO 5 and GEO 6; specifically, they’re buying planning and production, and parts including hinges, valves, structures and special test equipment. This brings the contract to $346.8 million so far.

All funds are committed immediately, using FDY 2013 USAF missile budgets. Work will be performed at Sunnyvale, CA and is expected to be complete by June 19/16 (FA8810-13-C-00001, P00004).

May 12/14: GEO-4. Lockheed Martin has completed the propulsion module for SBIRS GEO-4, and is now proceeding with satellite assembly, integration and test. Sources: Space Daily, “Propulsion Module For SBIRS GEO-4 Satellite Completed”.

April 17/14: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/13 Selected Acquisitions Report, which says that SBIRS 5 & 6 may cost less than expected. They still have to finalize that contract, however:

“Subprogram costs for the Block Buy (GEO 5-6) decreased $460.9 million (-11.9%) from $3,869.3 million to $3,408.4 million, due primarily to a reduced estimate to reflect a fixed price contract proposal for GEO 5-6 (-$362.4 million) and Congressional and sequestration reductions (-$118.5 million).”

Slight cost decrease for GEO-5/6

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. SBIRS is projected to cost $18.886 billion overall (incl. $11.806 billion RDT&E, $6.817 billion Procurement), which is a 393% increase over the original $4.8 billion price tag. Meanwhile, there’s still a fair bit of work to do on the constellation:

“The program launched the first satellite without event recovery software intended to re-establish ground control of the satellite in the event of an unforeseen failure, so that other software issues could be addressed. Given successful recovery software testing on the second GEO satellite, the Air Force plans to upload the software to the first satellite in the fourth quarter of 2014.

The Block 10 software ground system increment is expected to be delivered in March 2016, and is intended to facilitate processing of integrated data from the Defense Support Program satellites, HEO sensors and GEO satellites now on-orbit. According to the program, this software delivery will also provide the capability for fully-tuned starer sensor data, which means that the data returned from the satellites will be cleared of background noise, such as irrelevant light sources. This capability was previously planned for inclusion in a subsequent Block 20 software delivery which is expected to achieve certification in June 2018. The program plans to fully meet operational requirements in 2019.”

GAO Report & Overall costs

March 12/14: GAO Report. The US GAO offers details of the USA’s major military space programs, in GAO-14-382T – “Space Acquisitions: Acquisition Management Continues to Improve but Challenges Persist for Current and Future Programs.” SBIRS is projected to cost $18.9 billion overall, a 393% increase over the original $4.8 billion price tag.

The production contract for GEO-5 and GEO-6 is slated for “early 2014,” but hasn’t arrived yet. The GEO-3 satellite is expected to deliver to the USAF in late 2015, but the program won’t hit Full Operational Capability until 2019 (HEO payloads + 4 GEO satellites + completion of first 2 software blocks + delivery of mobile ground assets.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. SBIRS figures are incorporated into the updated table and chart above, which now has an accompanying chart.

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). SBIRS Effectivity 5 is deemed operationally effective and suitable, ever since the Air Force resolved an open deficiency identified a classified December 2012 report.

DOT&E can say that GEO-1’s scanning sensor payload is meeting accuracy and sensitivity requirements, being least as capable as legacy DSP sensors, while providing detection over a given location 2x as frequently. That last statistic matters, given a missile’s short boost time. Overall, GEO-1’s presence improved accuracy of both strategic and theater missile warning mission data, while improving the missile defense mission. SBIRS support was functional and effective, and no major problems were observed during the integrated and operational test periods.

The department did add that the USAF “continues to address problems identified… with the overall system, technical intelligence missions, and specific Information Assurance postures.” Of 9 DOT&E previous recommendations, the USAF satisfactorily addressed 1, is in the process of addressing 5, and made insufficient progress with 3.

Nov 25/13: GEO-2. SBIRS GEO-2 receives USAF Space Command’s Operational Acceptance, 8 months after its March 19/13 launch from Cape Canaveral. Sources: LMCO, “Lockheed Martin-Built SBIRS GEO-2 Missile Defense Early Warning Satellite Certified for Operation”.

FY 2013

GEO-2 delivery and launch. Work on GEO 5 and 6. HEO-3 delivery.

SBIRS sharing
click for video

Sept 30/13: Support. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA has been awarded a sole-source $48.6 million contract for SBIRS HEO/ GEO’s FY 2014 flight operations support (FOS) and factories support. Lockheed Martin will provide ongoing sustainment, using FOS in SBIRS Auxiliary Support Center and SBIRS Payload On-Orbit Test Sustainment. This includes ongoing sustainment of the flight software and databases, labs infrastructure, and performance trending of the payload.

Work will be performed at Sunnyvale, CA, and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/14. FY 2014 USAF operations and maintenance funds will be obligated when they become available. The USAF Space and Missile Systems Center’s Infrared Space Systems Contracts Division at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages the contract (F04701-95-C-0017).

Sept 27/13: Support. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $96.3 million contract modification for SBIRS contractor logistics support, including operations crew support and organizational and depot maintenance. Funds will be committed if needed.

Work will be performed in Boulder, CO and at Buckley AFB< CO, and is expected to be complete on Sept 30/14. No funds are being obligated at time of award. The USAF Space and Missile Systems Center’s Infrared Space Systems Contracts Division at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages the contract (FA8810-13-C-0002, PO 0011).

Sept 26/13: Australia. Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Intelligence Surveillance in Azusa, CA, receives a $12.1 million contract for the Australian Mission Processor Phase 3 (AMP 3). Northrop Grumman will design, develop, procure, test, install, and integrate the AMP 3 system, which will be capable of processing both DSP and SBIRS GEO satellite infrared data. The contractor will also provide 3 years of ongoing contractor logistics support.

Work will be performed in Azusa, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2018. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition, as a 100% unclassified foreign military sales to the Government of Australia. The USAF Space and Missile Systems Center’s Infrared Space Systems Contracts Division at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages the contract (FA8810-13-C-0005).

Australia AMP-3

Sept 19/13: GEO-5 & 6 Ph2a. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $42.4 million contract modification for GEO-5 and GEO-6 one-time engineering and long-lead materials. When added to past long-lead contracts (q.v. Feb 20/13) the total is now $408.7 million. The next order after February’s was supposed to be the main buy, but this order seems to have intervened.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2011 and 2012 funds. Work will be performed at Sunnyvale, CA, and the contract extends to June 19/16 (FA8810-13-C-0001, PO 0002).

July 1/13: HEO-3 delivery. Lockheed Martin delivers the 3rd HEO to the Air Force. The first 2 HEOs had been delivered in 2004 and 2005; this one is the 1st from the SBIRS Follow On Production Program (SFP), 3 1/2 years after its critical design review. Sources: Lockheed Martin, July 1/13 release.

June 28/13: Ground systems. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $75.2 million modification to SBIRS’ S2E2, Increment 1’s FY 2013 – 2016 Contractor Logistics Support, Legacy Sustainment, and Combined Task Force Support contract. All funds are committed immediately, and the total cumulative face value of the contract is $181.1 million.

They’re going to change the current Mobile Ground System (MGS) to enable processing of older DSP and new SBIRS GEO mission data, and let them perform limited contingency SBIRS GEO satellite command. They’ll also provide maintainer and (limited) operator training, and replace the existing Intermediate Maintenance Facility with the Maintenance and Operations Support Suite used for pre-deployment preparation on the S2E2 MGS Force Packages.

Work will be performed at Colorado Springs, CO, Boulder, CO, and Greeley CO, and is expected to be complete by by Jan 31/17. The USAF Space and Missile Systems Center Infrared Space Systems Directorate’s Contracting Division manages the contract (FA8810-13-C-0002, PO 0003).

May 17/13: GEO-1. Air Force Space Command declared GEO 1 operational, and recommends Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (ITW/AA) certification of the asset to USSTRATCOM. Sources: Lockheed Martin, July 1/13 release.

GEO 1 operational

April 15/13: Budget Request. The belated FY2014 budget request submitted by the Administration makes few changes to the outlook for Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High EMD. The total requested in RDTE funding is down by $5 million from the previous year’s president budget, to $352.5 million. The FY15 budget is raised by almost $39 million to $279.9 million, but FY16 and FY17 are both significantly below the previous FYDP. Total cost to complete comes at $10.25 billion. EMD awards for FY 2014 are scheduled for October 2014 (which is actually already in FY15) for $230 million.

The main focus of the year is ground system development rather than space components, with Block 10 Mission Control Station (MCS) fit up (vid. April 4/11 entry) throughout 2013, following its 2012 CDR. Block 10 integration and test will then come in 2014/15.

Source: DoD Comptroller / USAF: PE 0604441F exhibit R-2.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The GAO issues its assessment of the Pentagon’s Selected Weapon Programs, and seems to take the program office’s word for it that SBIRS has turned the page:

“The 1st GEO satellite demonstrated outstanding overall data quality during its trial period. Despite the data quality, the satellite experienced a delay to operational certification to address a sporadic recurrence of a known spacecraft issue. The second satellite continues to prepare for its March 2013 initial launch capability. The ground system is mature and performing well. Program leadership recently approved the ground system completion baseline, which delivers all SBIRS ground capability required to meet system performance requirements. The production program’s cost and schedule performance is stabilizing [emphasis: DID].”

But it’s not all rosy:

“The Air Force is projecting a cost overrun of $438 million for these two satellites and a satellite delivery delay of 14 months. The estimated delivery dates for the 3rd and 4th satellites are now late 2015 and 2016.”

GEO-1 & 2 overruns

March 19/13: GEO-2 launch. Launch for SBIRS GEO-2, on board a United Launch Alliance Atlas V 401 rocket, the same type that launched SBIRS GEO-1. The 40-minute launch window opened at 5:21 pm EDT, and the launch took place immediately. All systems are working normally, and GEO-2 has achieved its launch objectives with a successful separation.

The company also used the launch to hold a STEM education event at a nearby school, touting careers in science and technology. Good idea. ULA mission page | Full live mission coverage | USAF | Lockheed Martin | STEM promotion.

GEO-2 launch

March 15/13: Support. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, Sunnyvale, CA is being awarded a $105.9 million cost-plus incentive-fee and fixed-price incentive-firm contract for this tranche of SBIRS contractor logistics support, legacy sustainment, and combined task force support. FY 2013 funds are being used to pay for this year’s efforts.

Work will be performed in Colorado Springs, CO, and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/16. USAF SMC’s ISK at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages the contract (FA8810-13-C-0002).

Feb 20/13: GEO-5 & 6 Ph2. A $284.4 million fixed-price incentive firm target contract covers the 2nd stage of advance procurement for SBIRS GEO 5-6, per the Sept 10/12 entry.

The contract uses FY 2011 and 2012 funds, and completes long-lead item buys for these birds at $366.3 million ($183.15M per satellite). The 3rd stage will involve satellite production under a fixed-price contract structure. Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA, and is expected to be complete by June 19/16 (FA8810-13-C-0001).

Jan 29/13: Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $58.4 million contract modification for the “Space Based Infrared Systems Follow-on Production Program,” using FY 2013 funds. USAF SMC later explains that it produces, launches, and transitions to operations SBIRS HEO-3, HEO-4, GEO-3 & GEO-4.

Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA, and is expected to be complete by April 28/16 (FA8810-08-C-0002, PO 0054).

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). SBIRS is included, but DOT&E focuses on “SBIRS Effectivity 5,” which includes the SBIRS ground architecture, GEO-1, HEO-1 & 2, and the legacy DSP systems. They say that Effectivity 5 is operationally effective, but not yet operationally suitable in terms of maintenance, readiness, etc. What’s the problem? Sorry, that’s only in the classified report. They will say this:

“Integration of GEO-1 into the operational constellation improved accuracy of both strategic and theater missile warning mission data and did not degrade overall mission performance. SBIRS also demonstrated improved performance against the missile defense mission. SBIRS support to the technical intelligence and battlespace awareness missions was functional and effective. There were no major problems observed during the integrated and operational test periods. The SBIRS enterprise system accomplished its strategic and theater missile warning missions, successfully detecting and reporting all missile events during both real-world and simulation scenarios during these test periods. The SBIRS GEO-1 scanning sensor payload is meeting accuracy and sensitivity requirements, based on developmental and integrated test activities. It is at least as capable as legacy DSP sensors, while providing detection over a given location twice as frequently… [which] enables the ability to determine target missile type with higher confidence….”

Jan 15/13: GEO-2. GEO-2 is delivered by C-5 transport aircraft to Cape Canaveral, FL, for an Atlas V rocket launch scheduled on March 14/13. Lockheed Martin.

Jan 8/13: Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives a is being awarded a $13 million contract modification for “Space Based Infrared System high component.”

Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2013. The USAF Space and Missile Center at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages the contract (F04701-95-C-0017).

Dec 19/12: GEO-5 & 6. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $66.6 million contract modification for initial engineering associated with SBIRS GEO 5 & 6.

Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA, and is expected to be complete by Jan 19/16. US SMC’s IS at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA manages the contracts (FA8810-12-C-0001, PO 0001).

Oct 25/12: GEO-5 & 6 Ph1. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives an $81.9 million contract to begin initial work on SBIRS GEO-5 and GEO-6. Work is to be complete by Aug 21/15.

This satellite buy will come in 3 phases. In this 1st phase, Lockheed Martin will complete initial engineering activities to update obsolete parts from previous designs, and buy select “long lead” spacecraft parts so they’ll be ready at the beginning of the assembly phase. Phases 2 & 3 will fund the rest of the long lead-time parts, as well as fixed-price satellite production. Grouping the buy this way allows for better economies of scale, and the parties hope to save money (FA8810-12-C-0001). See also Lockheed Martin, who says that SBIRS GEO-2 is scheduled for launch in March of 2013.

Oct 3/12: Operational Testing. The USAF announces that SBIRS GEO-1 and its associated ground system is certified to enter operational testing. That sounds like a small step, but it means that for the first time, live SBIRS GEO scanner data will be injected into existing missile warning networks. U.S. Strategic Command certification of the GEO 1 satellite and ground processing elements for full operational use is expected later this fall.

As one might imagine, ballistic missile warning satellites get tested a lot before they begin providing warning data. Those tests have been ongoing since its launch in May 2011, and the final test event reportedly ran the SBIRS system through a gauntlet that compressed nearly 10 years worth of simulated operational use into a high-intensity 2 month test period.

FY 2012

GEO 1 performs well.

GEO-2
(click to view full)

Sept 25/12: Support. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $54.2 million contract modification for SBIRS sustainment support. Work will be performed in Colorado Springs, CO; Boulder, CO; and Aurora, CO until March 31/13. US SMC’s ISK at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA manages the contracts (F04701-95-C-0017, PO 0747)

Sept 24/12: Ground systems. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $12 million contract modification for sustainment & modifications to SBIRS Increment 1 ground system in Boulder, CO. Work is expected to be completed by Sept 30/14. USAF SMC’s ISK at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA manages the contracts.

Sept 10/12: GEO-5 & 6. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives an $81.9 million cost-plus incentive fee contract to begin work on SBIRS GEO 5 & 6. Under this 1st phase, Lockheed Martin will complete non-recurring engineering activities, and buy select long lead spacecraft parts. The follow-on 2nd phase contract will fund procurement of the remaining long lead parts. The 3rd contract will involve satellite production under a fixed-price contract structure.

Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA, and will be complete by Aug 21/15. The USAF SMC/IS at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA manages the contract (FA8810-12-C-0001). Lockheed Martin.

March 21/12: GAO report. The GAO says that USAF satellite programs are improving, but still cites some issues for SBIRS. From “DOD Faces Challenges in Fully Realizing Benefits of Satellite Acquisition Improvements” :

“The first of six SBIRS geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellites successfully launched in May 2011, after a roughly 9 year delay… program officials are predicting a 1-year delay on production of the 3rd and 4th GEO satellites due in part to technical challenges, parts obsolescence and test failures. Along with the production delay, program officials are predicting a $438 million cost overrun for the 3rd and 4th GEO satellites… DOD will not be able to fully utilize the data collected from [GEO-1’s] staring sensor because the ground segment software that is to process the sensor’s data is not planned to be fully functional until at least 2018.”

March 19/12: GEO-1 Performance. The USAF seems to be very happy with its new satellite:

“On-orbit performance of the first GEO-1 satellite has proven superb. At the payload level, the GEO sensors are detecting targets 25 percent dimmer than requirements with an intensity measurement that is 60 percent more accurate than specifications. The payload pointing is nine times more precise than required, which is a key confidence measure for achieving a system level line-of-sight accuracy well within specification… interim mission performance results indicate that the system already demonstrates the ability to meet more than 90 percent of Air Force Space Command’s performance requirements for operational use. The remaining performance refinements are on track to be completed prior to the formal testing campaign slated to begin in June… This first GEO satellite is expected to be certified for operations by U.S. Strategic Command by the end of 2012.”

Performance report

Dec 13/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that they’re done with thermal vacuum testing on SBIRS GEO-2. It’s the last of 7 key environmental tests, clearing the way for delivery to Cape Canaveral and launch aboard a Delta V rocket.

Lockheed Martin adds that SBIRS GEO-1, launched on May 7/11, has completed its initial calibration and testing activities, and “is performing as expected.”

FY 2011

GEO 1 launch. Cost increases. HEO. Ground systems.

GEO-1 launch
(click to view full)

Sept 29/11: Spares. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives an $11.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-award-fee contract modification “to procure the first set of spares specific for focal plane assembly hardware for [SBIRS-High]… into acceptance tested focal plane units. This effort also includes production of the next set of material necessary to fill a new spares kit, to include at least two new sensor chip assemblies.” The Infrared Space Systems Directorate at the USAF’s Space and Missile Systems Center in El Segundo, CA manages this contract (FA8810-08-C-0002, PO 0026).

DID asked them why a satellite needs spares at all, and they explained that the SBIRS payload assemblies undergo buildup and testing on the ground, before launch. If a primary part fails during this testing, the program would be in trouble without qualified spares, because they take a long time to build (long lead-time item). Having a spare available reduces risks to the overall satellite production schedule, because an acceptance-tested focal plane unit, or other available spare, can just be swapped in.

Sept 26/11: Support. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA received a $94.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, exercising 2 options that deliver SBIRS-High logistics and sustainment support in FY 2012. Work will be performed in Boulder, CO at the Space and Missile Systems Center. The SBIRS Directorate at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages the contract (F04701-95-C-0017, PO 0710).

Sept 26/11: HEO upgrades. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives an estimated $12.2 million cost-plus-award-fee contract to upgrade the 2 HEO strings to be capable of operating 2-3 HEO satellites, while maintaining the health and safety of the offline HEO. They’ll use software based on the Interim Test Center’s geosynchronous orbit initial operations software baseline. The SMC/ISK at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages the contract (FA8810-08-C-0002, PO 0033).

July 19/11: Ground systems. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Sunnyvale, CA wins a $24.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee SBIRS EMD contract modification. This FY 2011 contract covers hardware and software modifications that will lay the groundwork for the overall SBIRS Survivable/Endurable Evolution (S2E2) program upgrade in FY 2012 and beyond.

After some discussion with the USAF Space and Missile Systems Center’s Infrared Space Systems Directorate, we can clarify S2E2’s purpose: it evolves the satellite’s Mobile Ground System (MGS) capabilities from the previous DSP satellite system. The SBIRS program originally planned to develop its own MGS element, but cost growth on SBIRS-High has forced a change of plans to less expensive upgrades of existing systems. Considering the kind of information these ground systems are processing, mobility remains the ultimate defense against pre-emptive strikes that could silence these missile launch warnings. The S2E2 modification will become part of the program of record’s baseline, and will be reported in documents like the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports.

Lockheed Martin will pick a FY 2011 antenna platform subsystems vendor, and support the SBIRS program with a mobile ground system 2nd path radio upgrade, as well as FY 2011 S2E2 engineering and labs development. Work will be performed in Boulder, CO, and is expected to be complete in December 2012. The USAF Space and Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles AFB, CA manages this contract (F04701-95-0017).

June 27/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company in Sunnyvale, CA receives an $8.2 million cost plus award fee contract modification to implement Phases 2-4 of the HEO Functional Test Article (HFTA) Phase I study. The SMC/ISK at Los Angeles AFB manages the contract (FA8810-08-C-0002, PO 0029).

June 14/11: Layoffs. Layoffs at Lockheed Martin Space Systems. This branch of the firm employs around 16,000 employees in 12 states, but intends to shed 1,200 employees by year-end, including a 25% cut in middle management to reduce impacts elsewhere. LMSS’ Sunnyvale, CA; Pennsylvania; and Denver, CO sites will be hardest hit, and the firm’s release says that it’s pushed in part by several of their major programs moving beyond the labor-intensive development phases.

Space Systems says it will offer “eligible” salaried employees an opportunity for a voluntary layoff, plus career transition support for all affected employees. Lockheed Martin.

May 20/11: GEO-1 on-orbit. SBIRS GEO-1 reaches geosynchronous orbit – passing the damaged but climbing AEHF-1 communications satellite on the way. Initial checkout tests are positive. Aviation Week | UPI.

May 7/11: GEO-1 launch. After weather conditions forced a postponement of the May 6/11 launch, SBIRS GEO-1 successfully blasts off from Cape Canaveral, FL aboard an Atlas V 401 configuration rocket. The 401 configuration consists of an RD AMROSS RD-180 booster, a Centaur upper stage with a PW Rocketdyne RL-10A engine, and a 4-meter payload fairing. USAF | ULA [incl. video] | Lockheed Martin.

GEO-1 launched

April 15/11: Program SAR. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes SBIRS High. The program is being expanded, but cost increases haven’t stopped, either:

“Program costs increased $2,459.6 million (+16.3 percent) from $15,115.6 million to $17,575.2 million, to fully fund the fifth and sixth Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites (GEOs 5 and 6) (+$1,883.6 million), plus associated support requirements in fiscal 2018 (+$212.7 million). There are additional increases to complete the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) space segment effort for GEOs 1 and 2 integration, launch, early orbit test, and check out (+$206.8 million), and to complete the EMD ground effort to satisfy the August 1996 Operational Requirements Document requirements (+$717.1 million). This completes the final block (Increment 2) of the SBIRS ground segment capability, which funds fiscal 2016 and beyond, and reflects total acquisition cost. These increases are partially offset by a revision in the acquisition strategy from full funding to a block buy for GEOs 5 and 6 (-$520.9 million).”

SAR

April 11/11: GEO-1. Successful completion of spacecraft fueling for SBIRS GEO-1. Its propulsion system is a dual-mode design. It operates as a pressure-regulated bipropellant (hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide) system of fuel and oxidizer for use during orbital transfer, and a monopropellant hydrazine system for use on station.

April 4/11: Ground systems. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $460.4 million contract modification, which pays to revise SBIRS’ ground development and delivery strategy. Following a successful Preliminary Design Review, Lockheed Martin has been contracted to deliver SBIRS Ground Systems Block 10, whose service-oriented architecture segregates the system into 4 different mission areas. The goal is to improve long term sustainment costs and improve service, using technologies that weren’t available when the original ground system was first approved.

The Block 10 system will process data from SBIRS and from legacy DSP Overhead Persistent Infrared satellites at a single operational control center, and will be fielded at 1 primary site and 1 backup site. Block 10’s new service-oriented I.T. architecture makes independent mission area upgrades possible with less expense and difficulty. It also makes SBIRS data available in a more timely and less costly way, to a larger community of users, for both real time activities and off-line analysis. That means the USAF can quickly release missile warning and battle space awareness messages to military commanders, and provide other relevant data to intelligence and missile defense organizations.

Work will be performed at Sunnyvale, CA and Redondo Beach, CA. The USAF’s Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages this contract (F04701-95-C-0017, P00641).

March 28/11: GEO-1. SBIRS GEO-1 completes its final major pre-launch test. The SBIRS System Test 5001.4 Regression Test demonstrated the ability to transmit data between the spacecraft and flight control facilities, and perform the critical operational functions of the SBIRS GEO-1 integrated ground and space system. USAF.

March 7/11: GEO-1. SBIRS GEO-1 is delivered to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, on board a C-5 Galaxy superheavy cargo aircraft. It will be prepared for an early May 2011 liftoff aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V launch vehicle. USAF | Lockheed Martin.

Jan 7/11: GEO-4 order. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA, receives a $424.7M contract modification, exercising the option for production of GEO Satellite 4. At this time, $75 million has been committed by the US Space and Missile System Center’s Infrared Space Systems Directorate in El Segundo, CA (FA8810-08-C-0002; P00017).

The GEO-3 and GEO-4 satellites will be near clones of the first 2, accommodating small changes such as a different star tracker, inertial measurement unit, and replacing obsolete parts. Even so, they’re expected to rack up over $400 million in cost overruns.

GEO-4

GEO-2 in BIST-1
(click to view full)

Dec 15/10: Support. The Scitor Corp. in El Segundo, CA won a $29.9 million contract for engineering, consulting and technical advisory support services to the Space Based Infrared Systems Directorate. $1,234,000 has been committed by the SMC/PIK at Los Angeles AFB, CA (FA8802-11-F-3013).

Dec 2/10: Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives an $8.8 million contract modification which will add a dual operations capability to SBIRS-High’s existing engineering, manufacturing and development contract. At this time, all funds have been committed by the SMC/ISK in El Segundo, CA (F04701-95-C-0017; P00659).

Oct 15/10: Space News reports that:

“After nearly a decade of delay, the U.S. Air Force tentatively plans to launch its first dedicated Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) missile warning satellite April 30 but faces a narrow launch window, which means any additional hiccups in the program likely would push the mission into 2012, a service official said.

At the same time, the Air Force is renegotiating its SBIRS prime contract with Lockheed Martin Space Systems of Sunnyvale, Calif., to make improvements to the system’s ground infrastructure and data processing algorithms through the latter part of the decade ahead…”

Oct 6/10: GEO-2. The SBIRS GEO-2 satellite successfully completes integration of its 2 equipment panels onto the spacecraft core module, creating a fully assembled and integrated GEO-2 space vehicle. It took 34 days, included 134 precise connector mates between the equipment panels and spacecraft, and finished 9 days ahead of schedule. The equipment panels are responsible for holding the individual electronics components which provide the satellite’s communications, attitude control, power distribution, commanding and payload data processing.

The GEO-2 team will now proceed with Baseline Integrated System Test 2, creating the data baseline needed before environmental testing. GEO-2 is scheduled for launch in 2012. Los Angeles AFB.

FY 2010

SAR. CDR for GEO-3 & 4.

Sept 28/10: EMD. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Center in Sunnyvale, CA won an $8.3 million contract modification which will incorporate both hardware and software modifications to SBIRS-High’s existing engineering, manufacturing, and development contract. At this time, the entire amount has been committed by the ISSW/PKS in El Segundo, CA (FO4701-95-C-0017; PO0650).

Sept 13/10: Ground systems. The SBIRS ground team completes the GEO Interim Operations Ground Segment System’s integration testing for Missile Warning Message Certification, at the Interim Test Center in Boulder, CO. Given the missile-tracking mission of SBIRS GEO satellites, validating those 853 mission readiness objectives and exercising 594,000 lines of code is a good idea. Los Angeles AFB.

Aug 16-18/10: CDR for GEO-3 & 4. The USAF Space and Missile System Center’s SBIRS Wing and Lockheed Martin hold a successful critical design review in Sunnyvale, CA for SBIRS GEO-3 and SBIRS GEO-4. The review confirmed that the detailed design has addressed all electronics obsolescence issues from the previous SBIRS satellites, and lets Lockheed Martin move forward into production towards a projected GEO-3 launch in late 2014.

The GEO-3 and GEO-4 satellites will be near clones of the first 2, accommodating small changes such as a different star tracker, inertial measurement unit, and replacing obsolete parts.

CDR

July 16/10: HEO-3 Long-lead. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $34.8 million contract modification, exercising the 4th option for SBIRS HEO Payload 3 Launch and Early On-Orbit Support. At this time, $548,174 has been committed by the ISSW/PKF at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA (FA8810-08-C-0002; P00012).

The same announcement was issued again on July 20/10, but that is a duplication.

June 30/10: Ground Systems. Researchers in the SBIRS program office at Air Force Space Command’s Space and Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles, CA successfully complete the major “5001.2 system-level test” of the interfaces between all SBIRS ground facilities and the GEO-1 satellite.

The test successfully demonstrated command and control using GEO-1’s Tri-band Antenna/Modem Suite, as well as data transmissions using frequency hopping. A team made up of people from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, The Aerospace Corporation, and the USAF tested 12 critical areas over 2 days. USAF.

June 7/10: EMD. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $183 million contract, finalizing a set of previous production and ground systems modification contracts for the SBIRS GEO satellite, and SBIRS HEO payload. At this time, the entire amount has been committed by SMC/ISSW at Los Angeles AFB in El Segundo, CA (FA8810-08-C-0002).

June 3/10: EMD. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corp. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $10.9 million contract which will provide support for SBIRS-High GEO’s message certification. At this time, $2.4 million has been obligated by the SBISW/PK in El Segundo, CA (F04701-95-C-0017).

May 7/10: Testing. The National System for Geospatial Intelligence (NSG) announces that the SBIRS HEO-2 payload and associated ground system have been operationally accepted for the Technical Intelligence mission.

The planning, testing and coordination effort leading to this day involved the NSG, Air Force Space Command, and SMC’s SBIRS Wing. The previous SBIRS HEO-1 was certified on Aug 27/09. USAF Los Angeles AFB.

April 1/10: Program SAR – to 6. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. SBIRS-High makes the list, as the planned constellation rises from 4 to 6 satellites, and other program costs continue to rise:

“SBIRS (Space-Based Infrared System) High – Program costs increased $3,561.1 million (+30.8%) from $11,554.5 million to $15,115.6 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of two Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites from four to six satellites (+$2,164.1 million). There were also increases resulting from the realignment of missile procurement costs to the support category (+$162.8 million), a delay in the GEO 1 launch from 2009 to 2010 (+$372.8 million), revised estimates for implementation of a new ground acquisition strategy (+$393.8 million), and incorporation of the technology maturation and parts obsolescence effort (+$384.0 million).”

SAR

March 30/10: GAO Report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. Summary?

“The SBIRS High program continues to experience setbacks that could add to cost overruns and schedule delays. All three of the program’s critical technologies are mature and 99 percent of the expected drawings are releasable. However, program costs continue to increase due to software development problems, hardware quality issues, and testing delays on the first GEO satellite. Unplanned work continues to be a challenge for the software development effort. The program also recently discovered hardware defects on the first GEO satellite. The Air Force’s best-case estimate is that the first GEO satellite launch will be delayed an additional year from December 2009 to December 2010. The HEO payloads continue to perform well on-orbit, and according to program officials, they were accepted for specific mission operations in 2009… The SBIRS High program remains at high risk for cost and schedule growth. DCMA is currently projecting over $245 million in cost overrun from the current baseline at contract completion. This amount has more than doubled in the past year and continues to steadily grow… The program’s management reserve… will likely be depleted before the first GEO satellite launches…”

See also the 2009 annual report, and its SBIRS-related 2007 GAO testimony, referenced in “Additional Readings.”

Feb 16/10: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that the SBIRS GEO-2 satellite has completed its first phase of Baseline Integrated System Test (BIST-1) in Sunnyvale, CA.

With the completion of BIST-1, the team will proceed with final factory work on the satellite and prepare for the final, comprehensive BIST milestone, followed by environmental testing. The spacecraft is planned for launch aboard an Atlas V launch vehicle in 2012. SBIRS GEO-1 is preparing for final integration and test activities that will culminate with final checkout and delivery to the Air Force later in 2010.

Feb 2/10: AIRSS Axed. A Pentagon document [PDF] confirms that 3GIRS/AIRSS is being recommended for cancellation as an “unneeded program.”

Jan 15/10: AIRSS. Reuters reports that AIRSS/ 3GIRS is one of several programs on the chopping block for the FY 2011 budget, based on internal Pentagon documents that were leaked to the news service. With SBIRS GEO late and over-budget, but moving forward, the better-performing 3GIRS program is deemed superfluous.

No AIRSS

Dec 1/09: Testing. A joint U.S. Air Force/Lockheed Martin-led team announces successful thermal vacuum testing of the first SBIRS GEO-1 satellite inside Lockheed Martin’s Dual Entry Large Thermal Altitude (DELTA) chamber. This completes the last of several critical environmental test phases that validate the overall satellite design, quality of workmanship and ability to survive in space. Lockheed Martin.

November 2009: CDR for GEO-3 & 4 payloads. The Critical Design Review for GEO 3 & 4’s infrared payloads is held at Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Azusa, CA.

FY 2009

GEO-3 & HEO-3 ordered.

Some assembly required…
(click to view full)

Sept 1/09: EMD. A $99.5 million modified contract to Lockheed Martin for the existing engineering, manufacturing, and development contract for the SBIRS-High Component. The Space Based Infrared Systems Wing at the Los Angeles Air Force Base in CA manages the contract (F04701-95-C-0017, P00583).

July 10/09: GEO-4 & HEO-4 long-lead. A $262.5 million contract to Lockheed Martin for long-lead time parts and materials used to build the 4th SBIRS-High satellite (GEO-4) and the 4th HEO payload (HEO-4). At this time $137.1 million has been committed by the Space Based Infrared Systems Wing at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA (FA8810-08-C-0002).

These long-lead effort contracts tend to precede a production contract by a year or more, in order to ensure that required components are already on hand and do not delay assembly.

May 29/09: GEO-3 & HEO-3 ordered. A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract of up to $1.49 billion to prime contractor Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA for production of the 3rd SBIRS-High satellite (GEO-3, a geosynchronous orbit design), the 3rd payload (HEO-3, a Highly Elliptical Orbit design), and modification of the SBIRS ground systems to accommodate the operation of 3 payloads at the same time.

So far, $1.1 billion has been obligated under the May 29/09 contract. The Space and Missile Center’s Space Based Infrared Systems Wing in El Segundo, CA manages the SBIRS-High contract (FA8810-08-C-0002). See also Lockheed Martin release on the May 29/09 contract.

GEO-3 & HEO-3

March 31/09: GAO. The US Government Accountability Office auditors release their 2009 Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs. SBIRS – High is one of the programs reviewed, and the report expresses concern about its progress:

“Two of the SBIRS High program’s three critical technologies are mature – a lower level of maturity than last year… the program has experienced design-related problems, especially with the flight software, and more could still emerge… Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) assessments indicate that the contractor’s cost and schedule performance are high risks. DCMA is currently projecting a $103 million cost overrun at contract completion, and that amount is growing. Further contractor cost increases and schedule delays are expected…”

Additional Readings Background: Space Vehicles

• USAF, Los Angeles AFB – Factsheet: Infrared Space Systems Directorate

• Lockheed Martin – Space Based Infrared System – High (SBIRS). Was once called SBIRS-High.

• MissileThreat.com – Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High)

Official Reports

• GAO (March 12/14, #GAO-14-382T) – Space Acquisitions: Acquisition Management Continues to Improve but Challenges Persist for Current and Future Programs.

• GAO (March 21/12, #GAO-12-563T) – DOD Faces Challenges in Fully Realizing Benefits of Satellite Acquisition Improvements

• GAO (Sept 12/07, #GAO-07-1088R) – Space Based Infrared System High Program and its Alternative. Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

News & Views

• DID – 3GIRS: SBIRS Evaluates, Cancels New Technologies. Last updated 2010.

• DID (Jan 17/06) – Lockheed’s SBIRS High Satellite Program Bracing for a Fall.

• Space News, via WayBack (Dec 19/05) – Pentagon Scales Back SBIRS Program.

• DID (Aug 4/05) – GAO Report: Satellite Programs Show Overruns Across the Board.

• DID (April 15/05) – SBIRS Dilemma: Go High or Go Home.

• DID – DSP Satellites: Supporting America’s Early-Warning System.

Saar 5: INS Hanit
(click to view full)

The 1,227t/ 1,350 ton Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvettes were built by Northrop Grumman in the 1990s for about $260 million each. It’s a decent performer in a number of roles, from air defense to anti-submarine work, to coastal patrol and special forces support. In 2006, the Israelis went looking for a next-generation vessel with better high-end capabilities. Six years later, Israel had nothing to show for its search. In the meantime, massive natural gas deposits have been discovered within Israel’s coastal waters, adding considerable urgency to their search.

The USA is Israel’s logical supplier, but given Israel’s size and cost requirements, the only American option was the Littoral Combat Ship. Israel pursued that option for several years, conducting studies and trying to get a better sense of feasibility and costs. Their approach would have been very different from the American Freedom Class LCS, removing the swappable “mission modules” and replacing them with a fixed and fully capable set of air defense, anti-ship, and anti-submarine weapons. In the end, however, the project was deemed to be unaffordable. Instead, Israel began negotiating with Germany, and reports now include discussions involving both South Korea, and a local shipyard.

Ship Systems: What is Israel Looking For? The Strategic Situation

Offshore energy
(click to view full)

Israel’s discovery of massive offshore gas reserves in the Tamar and Leviathan fields has the potential to change Israel diplomatic weight, as well as its economy and energy status. Work is already underway in cooperation with Cyprus, and Greece has shifted from hostile to cooperative over the last decade, but Turkey is making hostile noises, and Syrian hostility is assured.

Potential irregular threats to Israeli drilling installations include UAVs, which have already overflown existing rigs on their way into Israeli airspace, or boat operations with divers or depth charges. Rig owners are working with the IDF to counter the irregular threat, via armed teams on each platform and radars networked to Israel’s coastal defenses. They may need to take further steps with RWS emplacements and missiles, given rules that require enemies to close within 1/2 mile before defenders can open fire.

The higher end is more problematic, and isn’t much discussed, but it exists. Hezbollah has already proven its ability to use long-range surface-launched naval missiles, and drilling platforms are ideal targets if they can be reached. Full state-level threats leave Israel open to the threat of supersonic Russian SS-N-26s in Syria’s possession, and add enemy submarines to this picture. Turkey’s purchase of 6 U214s, Iran’s Kilo Class boats, and a possible Egyptian purchase of 2 U209s fitted with modern systems, are changing the local balance. Turkish saber-rattling and Syrian hostility mean that enemy fighters must also be considered, and the rigs will be placed some distance from Israeli quick-reaction fighter launches.

It’s a complex, multi-dimensional problem, and the solution will have to be multi-layered. Defensive systems and sensors on board the rigs themselves, and naval flotillas of smaller ships that offer presence while providing point defense and surface attack punch, are already in place. Heron UAVs are already operating in maritime patrol mode, which offers Israel a persistent aerial surveillance option, but doesn’t help much with response capability at present. Israel could benefit greatly from maritime patrol aircraft with good on-station time, and offensive capabilities that allow them to intervene. Their aged Westwind 1124N Sea Scan business jets don’t fit that bill.

Meanwhile, their naval flotillas need a boost, and acknowledging higher-end threats becomes very consequential if it means that Israel needs high-end wide-area air defense and anti-submarine capabilities on station.

Israel’s Requirements

LCS-I components
(click to view full)

Whatever that solution may be, Israel’s experience with the LCS concept shows where their needs are leading them. From Israel’s point of view, the keys to their original interest in an LCS-I design were threefold.

Flexibility. The 1st key is an open architecture combat system. Israel produces a lot of its own electronics, and the ability to easily integrate their own products into current and future configurations was seen as a huge plus. Lockheed Martin’s VP of Israel Operations, Joshua Shani, meant it when he said that that “participation by the Israeli defense industry will be the cornerstone of [LCS-I’s] success.” The same will be true of any other ship type that Israel adopts.

Wider View. The 2nd key is better sensors. LCS-I negotiations focused on Lockheed Martin’s SPY-1F S-band radar, which also equips Norway’s Fridjhof Nansen Class AEGIS frigates. Discussions surrounding other ships have focused instead on IAI Elta’s locally-developed EL/M-2248 MF-STAR “Adir” S-band active array radar, which has been exported to India for use on their Kolkata Class destroyers, and is being installed as a Sa’ar 5 upgrade. AESA radars are much easier to resize for smaller ships, and IAI ELta’s designs scale all the way down to the EL/M-2258 ALPHA (Advanced Lightweight Phased Array) radar, which is being installed on Israel’s 500t class Sa’ar 4.5 Fast Attack Craft.

AN LCS-I would also have offered far superior underwater sensors. The ability to embark larger helicopters, including the MH-60 Seahawk family or similar naval helicopters, would dramatically boosting Israel’s anti-submarine capabilities. A modern bow sonar, which is present in other ship designs, would add a lot all by itself, especially if the ship’s combat system could integrate that data with towed and/or variable-depth sonars.

SM-2 (top), SM-3

Weapon Improvements. The 3rd key involves a wider weapon fit, especially when it comes to air defense. Adopting the MK41 Vertical Launch System would give Israel inherent flexibility over time to integrate new missiles of all types, in order to handle Israel’s combat scenarios, and address changes in threats and operational requirements.

LCS-I’s high-end armament would have included torpedo tubes, mounts for Harpoon or Gabriel anti-ship missiles, and the contents of the ship’s 16 strike-length vertical launch cells. Those cells would offer Israel the flexibility to include anti-air missiles like the new Israeli Barak-8, the entire range of Raytheon’s Standard family air and missile defense interceptors, compatible anti-ship and precision strike missiles like Lockheed Martin’s LRASM, or even current anti-submarine missiles like VL-ASROC. Local options like IAI’s ANAM/ Gabriel 5 and IMI’s Delilah-SL will also be of interest to the Israelis.

In Israel’s case, a strike-length MK41 VLS system could take on strategic significance. Raytheon’s SM-3 (area defense), SM-2 Block IV, and SM-6 missiles (point defense) can be used to defend against ballistic missile attacks, if paired with a suitable radar. The AN/SPY-1F has never received the signal processor upgrades given to larger and more powerful SPY-1D radars for ballistic missile defense, nor has it ever been tested in that role. Alternatively, the ship could be networked with long-range ground radars like Israel’s “Green Pine.” In either scenario, the SM-3’s range and Israel’s tiny size would allow just 1 ship on station to cover most of Israel. A situation where 2 ships out of 4 are on station at any given time is very plausible, and could provide overlapping point defense ABM coverage. Either option would supplement Israel’s medium range Arrow and short range Patriot PAC-2 GEM systems on land. At present, this is an option rather than a focus, but even the potential for such a vital national mission is a first for the Israeli Navy.

Onboard vehicles add to an Israeli frigates’ punch in a different way. New ships will be expected to embark a flexible USV/UUV mix, with the ability to store and launch Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIB), mine or sub-hunting hunting UUVs, or surface USVs. Israel’s leading-edge capabilities in USVs would make that capability an immediate and long-term force multiplier.

Israel’s core problem is that a high-end, full featured frigate is going to cost them $600+ million. They want the capabilities, but don’t have the money to buy 3-4 ships at that price. In response, they can choose to scale back their desires, or they can find some way to make a deal.

What Are You Shipping: Vessels & Systems Current State: Israel’s Sa’ar 5 Corvettes

Sa’ar 5 corvettes
click for video

Some have called the 1,227 tonne Eilat Class a better base model for the USA to adopt, as it seeks an affordable Littoral Combat Ship or flotilla asset. The ships were built by Litton-Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation of Pascagoula, MS (now HII), based on Israeli designs. All 3 ships of class were launched from 1993 – 1994.

Air Defense. Sa’ar 5 corvettes have moderate anti-air capabilities, thanks to IAI Elta ELM-2218S and ELM-2221 GM STGR radars. Twin 32-cell launchers hold short-range Barak-1 surface-air missiles, and the ship has a Mk15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS gun for last-ditch defense. As of 2013, the ships are preparing to swap their Barak-1 systems for the larger Barak-8 missile, whose 70+ km reach will give the Israeli Navy its first area air defense capability.

ASW. Bow-mounted and towed sonars, plus 6x 324mm torpedo tubes for Mark 46 torpedoes, give these corvettes moderate anti-submarine capability. This was quite adequate until the early 2010s. As Turkey has become progressively more hostile, and unstable neighbors like Egypt buy modern submarines, there is some concern that the Eilat Class’ anti-submarine capabilities may not be enough.

Surface Warfare. Surface warfare is addressed well. Harpoon or Gabriel anti-ship missiles can be used against larger ships or land targets, while the Mk15 Phalanx 20mm gun and Typhoon remotely-operated 7.62-30mm gun/missile systems deal with guerrilla craft. The corvette is also capable of launching small special forces boats, or robotic USVs like RAFAEL’s Protector series.

A 76mm Oto Melara naval gun option could be installed in place of the Phalanx. It would offer slightly less air defense capability, in exchange for a longer reach and more punch against fast boats. That upgrade would be compatible with long-range Vulcano ammunition for naval fire support, but Israel has chosen the Phalanx for now.

The Eilat Class’ helicopter hangar can accommodate AS565 Dauphin/Panther, Kaman SH-2F or Sikorsky S-76N helicopters. Israel’s navy flies the AS565, but they haven’t armed them with substantial naval weapons.

Future Option: Lockheed Martin’s LCS-I

LCS-I missions
(click to view full)

The Israelis have a long-standing relationship with Lockheed Martin, and a 2,500-3,000t LCS design with the USA’s swappable mission modules could significantly improve Israel’s ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare and mine neutralization missions.

Unfortunately, the pitifully weak armament of the USA’s LCS ships is inadequate for the Israelis, who need their ships to be able to engage other naval vessels, and to provide their own air defense. Worse, the American design lacks the flexibility to add meaningful weapons in future. As a result, the Israelis took a different approach, eliminating the ship’s swappable mission modules in favor of a much more heavily-armed vessel.

Initial studies were conducted in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, leading to an RFP and even an official $1.9 billion DSCA request for Lockheed Martin’s LCS-I design. That would have made Israel the first LCS export customer. Construction of the LCS-I ships would have occurred at Marinette Marine and Bollinger Shipyards in the United States and American construction allows Israel to buy the ships with American military aid dollars, rather than using its hard-currency budget. Gary Feldman, Lockheed’s business development director international LCS sales, said that detail design could have begun in 2009, with construction starting in 2010.

In the end, however, expected per-ship costs of $700 million or so led the Israelis to back away and look for another solution.

Future Option: HII’s Sa’ar 5B

Northrop Grumman has proposed an enlarged “Sa’ar 5B” corvette with more advanced systems, and Israel has made that task easier by developing their own advanced ship radars and improved missiles. Indeed, the Israelis are implementing a de facto Sa’ar 5B by upgrading existing Eilat Class ships with fixed-plate MF-STAR “Adir” AESA radars, new medium range Barak-8 missiles, and better anti-ship/ land strike missiles.

Northrop Grumman (now HII) has hinted that Sa’ar 5B ships could be built for less than $450 million, using American aid dollars, but Israel initially rejected that option as well. Discussions are rumored to have resumed, but nailing down a firm price will require money up front for extensive design studies. That left Israel looking beyond the USA for their base ship, even as the equipment they wanted in those ships remained fairly constant.

Future Option: Germany, Overall?

MEKO CSL
(click to view larger)

In February 2009, Israel switched its interest to ThyssenKrupp Marine Systsems’ MEKO family, which comes in sizes ranging from A100 corvettes to full-size A200 frigates. MEKOs are customized to their destination country, so a German K130 Braunschweig Class is very different than Malaysia’s Kedah Class, even though both begin with the A100 base. As part of that customization, the radar would have been IAI’s Elta’s EL/M-2248 MF-STAR, and many of the other technologies requested for the LCS-I would have applied as well.

Reports are split between a buy of 4 A100 base corvettes to put more ships on station, vs. a purchase of 2 high-end frigates that would be able to focus on advanced anti-submarine and wide-area anti-air warfare.

There was even some talk of making Israel the launch customer for the MEKO CSL, which would have given Israel some of the modularity found in the USA’s LCS class. The Meko CSL is only slightly smaller than the American LCS Freedom Class, at 108m/ 354 ft. long, with a beam of 21 meters and full-load displacement of 2,750 tonnes. Propulsion is by a combined diesel-and-gas (CODAG) water-jet system that cruises at 15 knots and reaches 40. Cruising speed range at would be about is 3,500 nautical miles, with 21 days endurance. The MEKO CSL variant adds improved stealth shapes and measures refined on Sweden’s Visby Class corvettes, and has several modular sections for faster swap-outs. An Israeli MEKO CSL would contain a lot of local content, including IAI Elta’s MF-STAR, the new Barak-8 medium range air defense missile, and Israeli electronic countermeasures systems, among others. The CSL also has a rear mission bay, and could serve as a hub for Israel’s advanced UAVs and robotic naval USV/UUVs.

German negotiations stalled after Germany agreed to provide subsidies for more Dolphin Class submarines, but not for frigates. 2013 Reports indicate that negotiations have resumed.

Asian Quality: The South Korean Option

FFX launch
(click to view larger)

South Korea (ROK) is a global leader in shipbuilding, and their successful naval shipbuilding programs include cruiser-size KDX-III AEGIS destroyers as well as smaller ships like their FFX and FFX II light frigates. The FFX Block II in particular appears to be an advanced small combatant that meets Israel’s size and capability requirements. The 2,500t+ ships will offer electrical power to spare, high-end long range radar capabilities, a 127mm/ 5″ gun with guided shell options and future long-range fire capabilities, a 16-cell vertical launch system, and the ability to embark full-size anti-submarine helicopters.

The South Koreans might be able to produce new frigates at the price and quality level Israel needs, and they’ve become significant buyers of Israeli defense technologies in recent years. Israel wants to keep that relationship going, but KAI’s recent loss of a $1 billion deal for new IAF jet trainers has put a dent in things. South Korea remains interested in other Israeli technologies, including its Iron Dome rocket defense system.

A deal that offset ROK defense purchases with Israeli buys of South Korean FFX Block II ships might make everyone happy, and get the Israeli political support required to move the project ahead. Negotiations are reportedly underway.

Final Option: Don’t Go Big – Go Home

Saar 5 Eilat Class
(click to view larger)

Israel’s final option is less ambitious in terms of performance, but more ambitious industrially. It involves a deal with the privatized Israel Shipyards. In exchange for government investment to modernize and expand the shipyard, they would design and build an larger, improved version of existing corvettes. The Sa’ar 5.5 option would be designed to give Israel a locally-built offering that was both exportable and upgradeable, without requiring outside help or approval.

Recent MF-STAR/ Barak-8 upgrades are laying the groundwork for a tested option. The question is whether all of the money required for shipyard modernization, ship design, fabrication in a shipyard stretching its capabilities, and platform testing would make the final product as expensive as higher-end options, while offering comparatively less capability. That could also make the vessels unexportable on price grounds, creating a lose-lose-lose scenario.

Contracts & Key Events 2015 – 2018

 

Barak-8
(click to view full)

August 16/18: Protector of Israeli interests Israel will send its ‘Sons of Sa’ar’ to protect its Mediterranean gas fields and its exclusive economic zone. The Israeli Navy is set to receive four next-generation Sa’ar 6 corvettes between 2019 and 2024. The 300-feet-long warships, which are currently being built in Kiel, Germany, will be packed to the gills with highly sensitive detection equipment — to monitor both the surrounding sea and airspace — as well as offensive weapons and defensive missile interceptors. The ships will be equipped with the ‘Naval Dome’, essentially a navalized version of the Iron Dome, with the Barak-8 missile at its core. The Barak-8, and aims to deliver up to 42 mile of range, thanks to a dual-pulse solid rocket motor whose second “pulse” fires as the missile approaches its target. This ensures that the missile isn’t just coasting in the final stages, giving it more than one chance at a fast, maneuvering target. The missile’s most important feature may be its active seeker. Instead of forcing its ship or land-based radar to “paint”/illuminate its target at all times, the Barak 8 can be left alone once it is close to its target. This is an excellent approach for dealing with saturation attacks using older ship radars, which can track many targets but illuminate just a few. The Barak-8 was developed by IAI in collaboration with Israel’s DDR&D, India’s DRDO (Defense Research and Development Organization), the navies of both countries, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., IAI’s ELTA Group and local industries in India.

January 19/18: Upgrades—Testing Israel’s Navy announced that it has successfully tested a new chaff defense system for its Sa’ar 4.5-class missile boats and it is expected that the system will be declared operational in the coming weeks. First to receive the upgrade was the INS Sufa, with testing conducted two months ago off the coast of Haifa. The system includes an algorithm that identifies and classifies any kind of projectile making its way towards the Israeli missile ship, and then programs a unique diversion plan: firing chaff rockets from the front deck and create a “wall” over the water of hundreds of metal wires, which mislead the enemy missile into “thinking” this was the Israeli ship. This helps divert the enemy missile, only a minute or two before it was to hit the Israeli ship.

April 3/17: The Israeli Navy is altering the design of the Sa’ar-6 corvette in order to fit additional Iron Dome interceptors onboard the vessels. By adding a second launcher, each corvette will be able to carry as many as forty Tamir interceptor missiles, allowing vessels to engage an increasing number of disruptive, possibly deadly and inexpensive shore-launched rockets launched by groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Four Sa’ar-6 ships are currently on order with Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS); however, the sale is source of a scandal in Israel and are part of an investigation into potential conflicts of interest among those close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

November 10/16: Israeli navy officials are evaluating fixed-wing extremely short take-off and landing (ESTOL) UAV ideas to eventually deploy on their four new Saar 6 corvettes and existing SAAR 5 missile vessels. The ESTOL UAV will be based on propulsive lift technology that will enable it to take off from a very small platform on the navy ship. A decision will be made on the platform in 2017.

May 12/15: The Israeli Ministry of Defense announced Monday that it has signed a contract for four Sa’ar-class corvettes, manufactured by Germany’s TKMS. Discussions between the two countries over the supply of Littoral Combat Ships to protect Israel’s offshore gas reserves have been in the works since 2009, with the Germans agreeing to a discount in October last year, with the German government further subsidizing the deal, funding approximately a quarter of the contract’s value. The $480 million deal will see TKMS buying $181 million-worth of Israeli-manufactured equipment as offsets. Whilst the Israeli MoD did not announce the precise type of corvette the Israeli Navy will receive, it is likely to be the Blohm Voss-class 130 corvette, with modification to Israeli specifications.

2014

Israel’s offshore strategic situation; Significant Sa’ar 5 improvements underway; Negotiations with Germany.

Oct 19/14: Germany. Ha’aretz reports that Germany has agreed to a discount, and seems set to secure the Israeli contract for its next-generation ships:

“A crisis between Israel and Germany over missile boats required to protect Israel’s offshore gas fields has ended after Berlin agreed to slash [EUR] 300 million (about $382 million) off the cost, officials on both sides said. They are expected to initial an agreement for the boats within weeks.”

Time will tell which boats Israel orders. If they still want 4 ships, a sum of just over $900 million with subsidies included could get them MEKO derivatives along the lines of Germany’s own 1,840t K130 Braunschweig Class corvettes, but with Israeli technology. If they’re only ordering 2 ships, possibilities expand to include base options like the 2,750t MEKO CSL, or a MEKO A200 derivative that compares to Turkey’s own 3,350t Barbaros Class. Sources: Ha’aretz, “Missile boat crisis ends as Germany gives Israel $382 million discount”.

Sept 28/14: RFP & timelines. State Comptroller Judge (ret.) Joseph Shapira published an audit report in March 2014 that said Israel’s gas facilities in the Mediterranean were only partially protected, but constituted a prime target for attacks by terrorist organizations. That has ratcheted urgency a bit higher, but Israel may have to wait for some time before its ships sail out:

“The Ministry has been preparing for a number of years an international tender for the procurement of ship to operate in Israel’s marine economic area, and has done in-depth staff work in the matter. The government decided to procure the ships only in November 2013, and provided a special budget for them. Procurement was suspended in order to provide enough time for negotiations for a deal with a foreign country. Last July, following the prolonging of these processes, the Defense Ministry decided to issue an international tender for procurement of the ships. The tender is currently taking place; the envelopes will be opened next December, and a preliminary answer will be given. The tender will be completed by the end of 2015.”

Add time for integration of Israeli components, construction, outfitting, testing, and training, and operational acceptance before 2018 would be quite a feat. Globes reports that the contract’s scope involves NIS 2 billion (about $550 million) for 4 ships. That won’t get them very much. Sources: Globes, “Israel Navy to wait years for gas rig defense ships”.

May 15/14: Germany. Ha’aretz reports that the proposed deal discussed in December 2013 (q.v. Dec 8/13) appears to have fallen through for now:

“The German government has decided not to give Israel a massive subsidy for the purchase of German missile boats, due to the breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, both Israeli and German officials said on Thursday.”

Sources: Ha’aretz, “Germany nixes gunboat subsidy to Israel, citing breakdown of peace talks”.

May 13/14: Sa’ar 5+. Israeli improvements to their existing ships are underway. This matters, because deploying the systems within the Israeli Navy makes Israel much more likely to demand them as part of any future frigate. Fielding a tested upgrade to the Eilat Class also provides added weight to options like the Sa’ar 5B or Sa’ar 5.5, by creating a proven starting point.

A “senior naval source” tells The Jerusalem Post that Israel is upgrading the anti-ship and strike missiles on board its ships, in order to give their Navy medium-range precision strike capability against land targets. They weren’t specific, but IAI has developed an “Advanced Naval Attack Missile” as a successor to existing naval Gabriel missiles. The other likely option is IMI’s “Delilah-SL”; it’s a ship-launched version of the Air Force’s go-to missile for strikes against targets that are heavily defended, or require a high level of human judgement via its “man in the loop” feature.

The article adds that a Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvette has already been outfitted with IAI Elta’s MF-STAR S-Band AESA radar and Barak-8 air defense missiles. Adding better strike weapons to that array changes effectively creates a proven “Sa’ar 5B/ 5.5” option. Sources: The Jerusalem Post, “The Israel Navy is quietly enhancing its capabilities for precision, long-range missiles”.

Jan 18/14: Israel Defence reports that Israel is scaling down its naval platform ambitions. They’re reportedly back to a platform around 1,300t, which is about the same size as their Sa’ar 5s, rather than a 2,000t+ platform. They’ll still insist on its ability to carry MF-STAR and the Barak-8, but success won’t entirely solve their problems:

“Originally, the IDF Navy should have initiated the procurement of the new missile frigates in the context of the previous multi-year plan, and funds had been allocated for this purpose as part of that plan, but owing to the cancellation of the LCS option, the process never materialized…. intention of the IDF is to finance the procurement of the new vessels by a dedicated budget allocated by the government outside the framework of the normal defense budget, in order to secure the offshore gas drilling rigs. The procurement plan notwithstanding, the total number of missile frigates in the IDF Navy is expected to decrease during the next five-year period, owing to the obsolescence of the present vessels, some of which are to be decommissioned.”

Sources: Israel Defence, “The Next Missile Frigate of the IDF Navy”.

Jan 8/14: Strategic. Paul Alster & David Andrew Weinberg discuss the difficulties Israel faces in defending its offshore gas resources, and take a critical look at the exploitable reserves and revenue projections. They say flatly that:

“IDF officials concede that they do not have the resources as of now to properly secure the infrastructure at sea.”

They list threats that include UAVs, which have already overflown existing rigs on their way into Israeli airspace; suicide operations with divers, boats or depth charges; and surface-to-surface missiles like the C-802s that have already been used by Hezbollah. Rig owners are working with the IDF to counter the irregular threat, via armed teams on each platform and radars networked to Israel’s coastal defenses. They may need to take further steps with RWS emplacements and missiles, given rules that require enemies to close within 1/2 mile before defenders can open fire. Higher end threats are even more problematic, and aren’t much discussed here, but they exist. It’s a complex, multi-dimensional problem, and the solution will have to be multi-layered.

One apparent error: the authors refer to “two state-of-the-art German-built MEKO class F221 frigates” as Israel’s choice. The F221 is FGS Hessen, a Sachsen Class advanced air warfare destroyer. First off, it isn’t part of the MEKO family, but a separate and more advanced class built in the context of trilateral cooperation between the Netherlands, Germany and Spain. They are top-end multi-role “frigates,” whose size and growth capacity for ballistic missile defense would make them destroyers if Europeans weren’t so averse to the term. It’s a very capable ship, but an unlikely choice. One ship of that class, with modifications, would eat most of Israel’s reported EUR 1 billion budget for 2. Sources: Forbes, “The Daunting Challenge Of Defending Israel’s Multi-Billion Dollar Gas Fields”.

2012 – 2013

 

Sa’ar 5 & Panther
(click to view full)

Dec 16/13: Strategic. Information Dissemination runs an analysis of Israel’s apparent interest in 2 high-end ships, which is a departure from their traditional focus on larger numbers of smaller vessels. The best that can be said for Jacob Stoil’s analysis is that it’s incomplete. He’s correct to say that this is a departure, and that presence matters, but he never looks at the regional changes underway, and the strategic imperatives created by new enemy capabilities and new Israeli needs. Then there are quotes like this one, which assume premises that turn out not to be true:

“Israel clearly does not intend to use naval power to support land operations or develop independent strategic operations from the sea in a serious way. All of their naval procurement and training decisions over the last more than twenty years have made that impossible.”

Sources: Information Dissemination, “Of Destroyers and Doctrine: An Evaluation of Israel’s Decision to Invest in Larger Hulls”.

Dec 8/13: Germany. The newspaper Ha’aretz reports that Israel’s Defense Ministry is expected to ask the Finance Ministry for a ILS 3 billion budget increase (about $855 million/ EUR 624 million) to purchase 4 “missile boats” as a special buy outside the defense budget, for protection of Israel’s huge offshore natural gas fields. At the same time, the German Bild newspaper is reporting a different deal: 2 ships for EUR 1 billion. The Ha’aretz report does add that Israel continues to negotiate with American and South Korean suppliers, leaving the Navy’s plans characteristically unclear.

What is clear is that there’s a big difference between the implications in the Israeli and German reports. EUR 156 million per ship will struggle to buy a ship like the K130 corvette, a surface warfare patrol ship with limited anti-aircraft capabilities, and no anti-submarine capabilities. They could form interesting flotilla dyads with the proposed Multi-role Super-Dvora, but submarine threats are rising in the Mediterranean. At EUR 500 million per ship, on the other hand, Israel would be looking at high-end MEKO Class frigates will a full range of capabilities, which would become the most advanced ships in their navy. The price would be more limited coverage, with just half the number of ships bought for slightly more money. Sources: Die Presse, “Israel konnte deutsche Kriegsschiffe kaufen” | Ha’aretz, “Defense Ministry seeking $853m to buy German missile boats” | AFP, “”Bild”: Deutschland verkauft Israel zwei raketenbestuckte Zerstorer” | N24, “Israel will Raketenschiffe aus Deutschland” (repeats Ha’aretz figures).

Aug 10/12: South Korea. Israel Defense reports that South Korea is interested in Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defense system, and is negotiating for possible offsetting deals involving frigates for Israel.

April 1/12: South Korea? Israel Defense reports that South Korea is offering to build new surface vessels for the Israeli Navy via Hyundai shipyards. South Korean representatives have reportedly visited Israel and met with the Ministry of Defense, and are said to be continuing discussions. The magazine reports that the offered ships had a displacement of just 1,300 tons, the same size as current Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvettes, and significantly smaller than South Korea’s new 2,300t FFX Incheon Class frigates. It didn’t say whether that displacement was measured at full load, after Israel radars, weapons, etc. had all been installed.

Israel hasn’t set aside a budget for such vessels in its current plans, but ongoing discoveries of huge offshore oil and gas are changing its assessment of its security needs.

Meanwhile, Israel Shipyards has reportedly proposed an alternative in which government re-investment would help them add hundreds of employees, invest in a new manufacturing layout, and build 2,100 ton “Saar 5.5” light frigates. They would then become an exporter, with the ability to field upgraded versions for Israel later on. The MoD has approached the Treasury about this plan, but it’s reportedly stuck, even as negotiations have stalled with the USA for a Freedom Class LCS derivative, and with Germany for a MEKO frigate derivative.

2009 – 2011

LCS too expensive; Talks center around German MEKO designs, incl. MEKO CSL; Israel may not have the budget to buy the ships it wants – but huge resource finds mean they may have to.

MEKO 200TN
(click to view full)

November 2010: Leviathan. Israel’s giant “Leviathan” offshore natural gas field is discovered. The gas field is located roughly 130 km/ 81 miles west of Haifa, in 1,500 m/ 4,900 ft. of water. Estimated reserves are a stunning 500+ billion cubic meters, or more than 18 trillion cubic feet.

Israel’s navy just became much more important.

Giant offshore gas find

July 25/10: MEKO. Hopes of German government subsidies to finance Israel’s MEKO buy appear to be fading, amidst the country’s tightening climate of austerity. From The Jerusalem Post:

“The [Israeli] Defense Ministry statement came amid reports that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government had decided to turn down an Israeli request for financial assistance in purchasing the Dolphin-class submarine and new [MEKO frigates]. In another rare statement, the German government, which rarely talks about defense sales, also denied it was holding talks with Israel on subsidizing new naval vessels… Israel had hoped to receive additional subsidies for two Meko-class ships it was interested in purchasing.”

May 18/10: MEKO CSL? Aviation Week reports that Israel may become the launch customer for ThyssenKrupp’s new MEKO CSL. If true, the American Littoral Combat Ship’s price may end up spawning an international export competitor.

The Meko CSL is only slightly smaller than the American LCS Freedom Class, at 108m/ 354 ft. long, with a beam of 21 meters and full-load displacement of 2,750 tonnes. Propulsion is by a combined diesel-and-gas (CODAG) water-jet system that cruises at 15 knots and reaches 40. Cruising speed range at would be about is 3,500 nautical miles, with 21 days endurance. The MEKO CSL variant adds improved stealth shapes and measures refined on Sweden’s Visby Class corvettes, and has several modular sections for faster swap-outs. An Israeli MEKO CSL would also contain a lot of local content, including IAI Elta’s MF-STAR active-array radar, the new Barak-8 medium range air defense missile, and Israeli electronic countermeasures systems, among others. The CSL does have a rear mission bay, and one of its roles would likely be as a hub for Israel’s advanced set of robotic UAVs and naval USV/UUVs.

Jan 18/10: MEKO. Defense News reports that Germany and Israel are in talks concerning a $1.45 billion naval deal that would add 1 Dolphin Class submarine, and 2 MEKO-derived frigates as the beginning of Israel’s next-generation frigate program. Current reports do not see a January 2010 agreement as likely, and Defense News claims that Israel is asking Germany to pay for 33% of the cost as a German industrial stimulus program, just as it did with Israel’s previous 2-sub order.

The MEKO ships would be Israel’s alternative to a very modified version of Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Combat Ship design, which Israel rejected due to its expected $700+ million cost. Even so, American components in the total naval package could reach up to $200 million. This is important because Israel can use US military aid dollars to buy them, instead of hard currency.

Nov 25/09: German MEKOs? Reuters reports on negotiations between TKMS and Israel to buy up to 8 next-generation MEKO ships.

“Built at ThyssenKrupp’s (TKAG.DE) Blohm+Voss shipyards in Hamburg, the Meko costs around $300 million but Israel wants the German government to underwrite the sale. An official involved in the talks said Israel sought a discount of 20 to 30 percent. That would help the Meko outprice the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)… An Israeli official said despite the fact that U.S. defence grants would significantly defray the estimated $460 to $600 million cost of the LCS, the Meko topped the wish list. “We want to close a deal by the end of the year. Now it comes down to financing issues with the Germans,” he said.”

Previous reports placed the LCS-I cost closer to $650-700 million. As was the case with the LCS-I, Israel is looking to incorporate a range of Israeli technologies and weapons into the frigates.

Oct 15/09: TKMS + UAE. Blohm + Voss parent firm, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, sells an 80% share of all Blohm + Voss groups to the United Arab Emirates’ firm Abu Dhabi MAR, and makes future naval construction a 50/50 joint venture. It remains to be seen whether this will affect Israeli negotiations to use Blohm + Voss’ MEKO designs as the base for its future frigate.

June 29-July 6/09: USA Out. Multiple sources report that Israel is abandoning the LCS-I design, owing to its high costs. Israeli estimates reportedly put the price of an LCS-I at over $600 million, a reasonable figure given the $650-700 million cost of the first 2 American ships, and LCS-I’s extensive Israeli equipment upgrades. Arutz Sheva:

“As much as we sought commonality with the U.S. Navy, it became much, much more expensive than planned,” a naval source said. “At the end of the day, we had no choice but to face that fact that, for us, it was unaffordable.”

Surprisingly, Israel also turned down a 2,300 ton Sa’ar 5.5/5B option from original Eilat class builder Northrop Grumman, owing to expected costs of about $450 million. Instead, Israel is reportedly looking at expanding cooperation with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS), whose HDW subsidiary builds Israel’s Dolphin subs. The idea is to build an advanced, stretched version of Blohm + Voss’ 2,200 ton MEKO A-100 corvette. The ship would add Mk 41 VLS cells, IAI’s Elta’s EL/M-2248 MF-STAR “Adir” active array radar, and other Israeli equipment. The Israelis reportedly believe they would be able to field such a capable ship for around $300 million, and that they can build it locally as a joint military/economic stimulus project. One source told Arutz Sheva (INN) that “We believe a strong case can be made for making this into a national project that fosters self sufficiency and provides all the economic benefits that come with creating a military shipbuilding industry.”

TKMS would be the main design partner, IAI looks set to step into the role of overall systems integrator, and the likely shipbuilder would be Israel Shipyards in Haifa. Israel Shipyards have mostly focused on much smaller fast attack boats, but were also responsible for local integration of the Sa’ar 5 corvettes.

This version of Israel’s next-generation ship project will face 2 main challenges. One is a technical/ engineering challenge. The other is financial.

As one source told the Jerusalem Post: “The challenge will be to make a relatively small ship large enough to carry everything we need, including the radar system.” Given that the systems Israel wants usually equip 4,000+ ton ships, that challenge should not be minimized. TKMS’ Meko 200, in service with the Turkish and South African navies, does offer a 3,850 ton option, and the Israeli Navy is reportedly preparing to issue a design contract to IAI and TKMS subsidiary Blohm+Voss, in order to sort out their technical options.

The financial challenge will be equally formidable. Both LCS-I and a Sa’ar 5.5 design could be purchased with American military aid dollars, which must be spent in America. Those agreements have provisions that allow up to 26% of that aid to be spent in Israel, but those funds are already committed to projects like an extended-range Barak anti-aircraft missile, IAI Elta’s MF-STAR active array radar, and other priority projects. There are 2 possible workarounds for this, and they are not mutually exclusive. One involves financing from other ministries beyond defense, as an industrial project that would provide employment, expand Israeli shipbuilding capabilities, and might even create an exportable platform if the right agreement is struck with TKMS. The second workaround involves using American aid dollars to cover some elements, like steel, American production of the Meko’s MTU1168 diesel engine by General Dynamics, etc., in order to reduce the hard currency price. That would help the project get approved, but it comes with a cost of its own – it would force the Israelis to labor under America’s cumbersome ITAR export approval laws whenever they or TKMS wished to sell the design abroad.

If those conundrums cannot be resolved at an acceptable cost, a 3rd option may exist. Defense News adds that Israel might have driven down the Sa’ar 5.5’s price by $100 million if it had paid for a contract design/detail design process, and that option may return depending on how efforts with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems progress:

“When Northrop Grumman makes a fixed-price offer, it’s the result of an organized and serious process that allows the company to honor all of its commitments,” a company representative said. “Without conducting a contract design – which eliminates most of the uncertainties that drive up price – NG couldn’t offer the unit costs we all believed we could have delivered to the Israel Navy.”

Sources: Arutz Sheva | Jerusalem Post | Defense News | Jane’s.

LCS-I out; No NGC Sa’ar 5B either

Feb 12/09: Industrial. The director of naval procurement at the Israeli Ministry of Defence’s purchasing mission in New York informs U.S. parties that a change in plans toward a different class of locally-built ships may be in the cards:

“In the event this option turns out to be more suitable both in terms of our operational and budgetary requirements, the [multimission ships] will be built in Israel.”

Source: Defense News June 2009 report.

Feb 1/09: LCS-I. The Jerusalem Post reports that OC Navy Adm. Elazar Marom has dispatched a number of officers to the United States to sail on Lockheed Martin’s Freedom [LCS 1] and test its capabilities. The report adds:

“In addition to reviewing the LCS – whose price has soared over the past year and now reportedly reaches $500 million – the navy is also considering downgrading its procurement plans and purchasing more Sa’ar 5-class missile ships… “There are a number of possibilities and they are under review,” one source said. “There are other possibilities such as more Sa’ar 5s, an upgraded Sa’ar 5 that would be called Sa’ar 5.5, or to wait for the LCS’s price to go down.”

January 2009: Tamar. Noble Energy announces that exploratory drilling has found an offshore gas field about 80 km west of Haifa, in 1,700m / 5,600 ft. of water. The field is called Tamar.

Eventual estimates for the area are a bit of a shock to the traditionally resource-poor Israelis: 200 billion cubic meters / 7.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Giant offshore gas find

2006 – 2008

From studies to a formal LCS-I request.

(click to view full)

July 15/08: LCS-I. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced [PDF] Israel’s official request for up to 4 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS-I variant), including the hull, and all mechanical and electrical functions. The ships will also include design and integration services, hardware and software, spare and repair parts, test and tool sets, personnel training and equipment, publications, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.9 billion.

Each ship will be equipped with:

• 2 MK-41 Vertical Launch Systems, with 8 launch cells for each system. This would allow the ship to hold and fire up to 16 SM-2/3 air defense missiles, or up to 64 RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles.
  
• 1 Enhanced Harpoon Launching System with missile launchers. Harpoon is an anti-ship missile, but the latest versions can also be used to hit land targets.
  
• 1 Phalanx Close-In-Weapon System, Block 1A. This is surprising, as Block 1B adds important capabilities against the small boats that remain a concern for Israel. Israel is likely to bolt on other gun systems like RAFAEL’s Typhoon in order to cover that threat, but Israeli systems do not need to be specified in the DSCA announcement.
  
• 2 MK-32 triple-launcher Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes, which handle lightweight torpedoes and launch them from on deck using pressurized air.
  
• Communications and Sensors, including Link 16.
  
• The same COMBATSS-21 Combat system used in American LCS designs.
  
• The smaller AN/SPY-1F (V) AEGIS radar, which is also used on Norway’s Nansen Class frigates. SPY-1F radars lack ballistic missile defense capabilities, but could be networked with other radars like Israel’s “Green Pine.”
  
• A MK-99 Fire Control System; or the Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) now being installed on American Carriers, LHA/LHD ships, San Antonio Class LPDs, etc.

The principal contractors will be:

• Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ and Eagan, MN (LCS-I, SPY-1F radar, COMBATSS-21, Mk-41)
  
• General Dynamics Armament Systems in Burlington, VT (AEGIS illuminator, 20mm gun for Phalanx)
  
• Raytheon Company, Equipment Division in Andover, MA and Integrated Defense Systems in Waltham, MA (Phalanx, SSDS)

The DSCA announcement says that the Israeli Navy will have no difficulty integrating these ships into its Naval forces, adding that this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Israel.

LCS-I DSCA request

Feb 6/08: LCS-I. The Jerusalem Post:

“Looking to upgrade its sea-based capabilities, the Israel Navy has submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the United States Navy for a new missile ship currently under development by Lockheed Martin Corp. The Defense Ministry said that the navy expects to receive a reply by April.”

The report added a final caveat, but it doesn’t mean as much as it seems when set against a detailed ship design study, and accompanying industrial arrangements for an extensive array of Israeli equipment on board. That prior work and set of partnerships creates a strong pull toward the Team Lockheed design – one that will not be lightly broken:

“While the navy has filed the RFP, defense officials said it was still not certain whether Israel would purchase the LCS from Lockheed Martin. As part of its multi-year plan finalized in September, the IDF decided to purchase two new ships, but did not state from which company.”

September 2007: LCS-I. NAVSEA asks Lockheed Martin to conduct a 9-month, $2.5 million study of combat system integration for an Israeli LCS-I configuration.

Systems that must be compatible with the combat system reportedly include Lockheed’s AEGIS SPY-1F radar and the Israeli Elta EL/M-2248 Adir radar, RAFAEL’s Typhoon remotely-operated gun/missile systems, Raytheon’s Standard SM-2 surface-to-air missile, and Israel Aerospace Industries’ Barak 1 and 8 anti-air missile systems. A Nov 12/07 Lockheed Martin release adds that:

“During the nine-month combat system configuration phase, Lockheed Martin will examine the combat system performance of LCS-I using two different radar options: the advanced radar under development by Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Lockheed Martin’s SPY-1F radar. The team will examine the performance of these two radar options using the COMBATSS-21 combat management system integrated with the Israeli Navy Command and Control (IC2) system and develop the technical architecture, high level specifications and estimated costs to integrate COMBATSS-21 with IC2 and multiple Israeli and U.S. sensor and weapon systems including the MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS)… Lockheed Martin is currently partnered with Rafael Armament Systems, Elbit Systems and Ness on LCS-I.”

Combat system study

April 10/06: LCS-I. Lockheed Martin announces a $5.2 million NAVSEA study studied Team Lockheed’s LCS hull, mechanical, and engineering systems’ ability to accommodate the systems and weapons the Israelis want, while avoiding the need for major redesign of the USA’s basic configuration.

The final answer was that it could, with some obvious modifications to accommodate better radars and vertical launch systems for missiles.

Freedom Class LCS study

Additional Readings & Sources Background: Israeli Sa’ar Vessels

• Israeli Weapons – Eilat Class Saar 5 multi-mission corvettes. Built by what is now Huntington Ingalls in the USA. Currently being refitted with the MF-STAR AESA radar, Barak-8 medium-range air defense missiles, and improved anti-ship/ land strike missiles.

• Naval Technology – Eilat Class Sa’ar 5 Multi-Mission Corvettes, Israel.

• Israeli Shipyards – SAAR Class Fast-Attack Vessel. The Sa’ar 4 and 4.5, which max. out at 500t, plus an abbreviated description of the the 800t SAAR S-72. They didn’t build the Sa’ar 5s, but are an option to build a “Sa’ar 5.5” design if Israel goes that route.

• Defense Update – Israel Shipyards Introduces the SAAR 72 Mini-Corvette Design. The 800t design sits somewhere between the existing Sa’ar 4.5 and Sa’ar 5 corvettes. From May 16/13.

• Israeli Weapons – Sa’ar 4.5. Currently being refitted with improved IAI ELM-2258 APLHA radars.

Background: Other Ships

• DID – The USA’s New Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).

• ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems – Blohm+Voss Class 130 Corvette. Based on the MEKO 100, displacement 1,840t. Mostly surface warfare & point air defense. They carry 2 small heli-UAVs in a small hangar on board, and can accommodate medium helicopters on the deck.

• Naval Technology – K130 Braunschweig Class Corvette, Germany. Germany’s 5th and final ship entered service in March 2013.

• ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems – Blohm+Voss MEKO® A-200 Class Frigate.

• Naval Technology – MEKO A Class Combat Ship Family, Germany.

• ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems – Blohm+Voss Class MEKO® CSL Light Frigate. Modular design with a payload bay.

• DID – Korea’s New Coastal Frigates: the FFX Incheon Class. About 2,300t full displacement. Hyundai and Daewoo can go much bigger, of course, all the way up to their 4,800t KDX-II and 10,000+ tonne KDX-III destroyers that serve with the ROKN. They’ll also be working on an FFX Batch II class that’s expected to be larger, with an upgraded radar and Mk.41 VLS cells.

Background: Ship Systems

• IAI Elta – ELM-2248 MF-STAR : MULTI-FUNCTION Surveillance and Threat Alert Radar. Has up to 4 fixed active array S-band tiles, with multiple digital beamforming capability. Each tile containing 16 Gallium Arsenide transmit/receive modules. A typical 3×3 m array weighs approximately 1,500 kg, and total weight below decks is about 900 kg for onboard equipment in 2 processing and 4 power supply cabinets. Liquid cooling is used.

• Defense Update – EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar. also known as “Adir,” and being fitted to Sa’ar 5 corvettes as part of a current upgrade.

• IAI – ELM-2258 ALPHA: Advanced Lightweight Phased Array Naval Radar. Significantly smaller than MF-STAR, uses a single rotating face. An upgrade for Sa’ar 4.5 FACs.

• Wikipedia – Gabriel (missile). Israel currently fields the Mk.IV (200 km range), and they’ve exported successive versions around the world.

• IAI – Advanced Naval Attack Missile. Effectively, the Gabriel Mk.V, but different enough to merit its own designation.

• IMI – Delilah-SL. The EO-guided Delilah is the IAF’s go-to missile for attacks against heavily defended targets, or targets that demand a high level of human judgement via a “man in the loop” feature. This ship-launched variant offers a 250 km range.

• IAI – Barak-1 Ship Point Defense System.

• DID – India & Israel’s Barak-8 SAM Development Project(s). Barak-8 is already being retrofitted to the Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class, along with an MF-STAR radar.

News and Views

• Forbes (Jan 8/14) – The Daunting Challenge Of Defending Israel’s Multi-Billion Dollar Gas Fields.

• Information Dissemination (Dec 16/13) – Of Destroyers and Doctrine: An Evaluation of Israel’s Decision to Invest in Larger Hulls.

• Defense Update (Oct 14/12) – Israel Navy to Modernize Hetz Class Missile Boats with a New Radar. The Sa’ar 4.5 will get the EL/M-2258 ALPHA S-Band, electronically-steered, software-defined radar. It uses a number of MF-STAR technologies, but is adapted for small ships.

• Ha’aretz (July 9/12) – Israel Navy demands NIS 3 billion for protection of gas rigs.

• Defense Update (January 2010) – Israel Turns to Germany for Naval Stealth Ships. Israel switches gears. Report is focused on the MEKO, incl. the MEKO CSL.

• Defense News (Oct 22/07) – Lockheed Moves Forward With USN’s LCS.

• Jane’s Defence Weekly (Oct 11/07) – Reports that “[The Lockheed Martin LCS-I] design appears to be the most suitable for our needs,” a senior IN source told Jane’s…”

Afghan authorities have solved one of the most long-standing and consequential problems in the country‘s complex election system: the number of districts. It is 387. This is pending a final decision by parliament, as there are some so-called ‘temporary’ districts that could boost the number. If parliament takes this issue up, however, there is a chance that it throws this hard-won unanimity over board again. This is because the number of districts is not just an administrative matter but also one of resources and influence. AAN’s Thomas Ruttig (with input from Ali Yawar Adili) have looked at the figures, what they mean and what questions are still open.

Afghanistan’s more than bumpy road to the next elections has led to at least one positive outcome. Almost unnoticed,the country’s Central Statistics Office (CSO) and the Independent Directorate of Local Governance (IDLG) have, for now, come up with a joint, consolidated list of how many districts Afghanistan has. It has handed this list over to the Independent Election Commission (IEC) that has used it in preparing the elections. The number is: 387 (see the list here, in Dari).

Now the three major election-related Afghan institutions are using the same numbers. With this, a major technical hurdle has been cleared on the way to holding the country’s first district elections.

Previously, both IDLG and CSO had divergent and inconsistent lists. For instance, in May this year, AAN was given an IDLG print-out titled “The structure of administrative units of the provinces and districts of Afghanistan 1396 [2017-18]” that said Afghanistan had 382 districts. The same number appeared in the CSO’s annual “Estimated Population” review for 2017-18 – but only the total was similar in both lists. They deviated on which districts existed in several provinces. (1) Some international actors in Afghanistan are still using sometimes significantly different figures (more about this below). Even so, it is really good news that the CSO and IDLG have come up with a joint result.

The bad news is, as reported by AAN, that the IEC, facing a severe shortage of candidates for the 20 October 2018 district council elections, felt compelled to suggest a delay until April next year, when the presidential and provincial council polls are being held. That sounds like a tall order. It is possible that the delay could re-open the discussions about district numbers – as will be explained below.

What does the CSO/IDLG list look like?

The new, consolidated district list does still have one small flaw and some major gaps. The flaw is that its serial numbers run up to 389, not to 387. One district – Ghormach – turns up twice. It is listed under both Badghis and Faryab provinces, with the remark – in red – that it had been “temporarily transferred” to Faryab. This means that the authors forgot to give it only one serial number (this looks like an Excel sheet problem). However, even when this is corrected, the list still contains 388, not 387 districts.

The remaining discrepancy can be solved by looking at four large gaps in the list where the districts for four provinces, Daykundi, Nangrahar, Paktia and Uruzgan, are completely missing. The reason, as the IEC’s head of field operations Zmarai Qalamyar told AAN in a phone conversation in late July 2018, is that the CSO had yet to provide the population figures of some newly-established districts in those provinces. (2)  (The authors could have put in the district names anyway, as they seem to be uncontroversial, and just left the population figures open, but chose not to.) How many districts there are in these four provinces can be gauged from the missing serial numbers in the alphabetical order of the provinces: namely, Uruzgan has six, Paktia 14, Daykundi nine and Nangrahar 24 districts. The same numbers also turn up in a – complete – list of all districts given on the CSO website in its latest “Estimated Populatiuon [sic] of Afghanistan 2018-19.”

This CSO list also solves the riddle of the superfluous 288th district: it is Nawmesh (sometimes called Nawamesh) which, similar to Ghormach, is listed under two provinces and counted twice (more background in this AAN dispatch). This district– a Hazara majority area – was split from the Pashtun-majority Baghran district in northern Helmand by a presidential order in March 2016 and the IDLG temporarily transferred the administration of its security, administrative and logistical affairs to Daykundi in June 2017. But the IEC announced that the elections would still be managed from Helmand, which has led to protests among the local population who prefer to be handled by Daykundi – see this photo in an Afghan media report, saying, “We Don’t Accept this Decision”.) (3)

Nawmesh is also a so-called ‘temporary’ (mu’aqati) district – in contrast to ‘official’ districts that are uncontroversial (but not yet officially delineated and recognised by parliament). The IDLG defines a ‘temporary district’ (in an 11 June 2017 official letter to the IEC of which AAN obtained a copy) as those districts that have been approved after entry into force of the 2004 constitution by the president due to security or other considerations, but have not yet been approved by parliament. MPs have the final say on this, according to the constitution.

Other district lists

The most recent quarterly report from the United States government’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) (here, on p131) published in July 2018, cites two sets of district numbers when it analyses district control: “There are 407 districts in Resolute Support’s dataset and 399 districts in USAID’s third-party monitor’s dataset.” Both differ from the CSO/IDLG list. It is surprising that even the different institutions of Afghanistan’s largest donor have not reconciled their own data. Resolute Support’s list of 407 districts includes the 34 provincial centres, but taking them out would leave only 373 districts, still different from the USAID and CSO/IDLG lists. (It can be seen in Appendix F of the report, pp 239-49.).

The United Nation’s humanitarian coordination agency, UNOCHA, uses a list – like USAID – of 399 districts when compiling the data on conflict-induced internal displacement. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO), an European Union institution that, among other tasks, provides security-related data about the countries of origin of asylum seekers, including Afghanistan, cites 368 districts in its most recent country report from December 2017. The most recent UN Office of Drugs and Crime’s opium survey (for 2017)  has a list of 413 administrative units which also includes the 34 provincial centres, so that this results in a list of 379 districts.

Districts as perks and the for-ever delay of district council elections

One of the reasons why district council elections have never been held, despite being mandated by the 2004 constitution is that the number of districts is highly controversial. In particular, the delineation of their borders is disputed, ie which areas, villages etc belong to which district and where their inhabitants should vote. This means that an authorised list has never been finally approved by parliament. (4) Despite the consolidated CSO/IDLG list, this still remains to be resolved.

When this author, as a United Nations member of staff, was involved in helping to organise the Emergency Loya Jirga (ELJ) in 2002, the delegates for which were determined through a district-based selection-and-election process (5), the figure of how many districts existed in the country was already a problem. There was no generally accepted list of districts, but after long discussions, the Afghan interim authorities, the Independent ELJ Commission and the UN in an advisory (but driving) role settled on 339 districts. (6) That is almost forty districts or 12 per cent fewer than are counted now.

The additional problem is that there are not only ‘temporary’ districts created after 2004, ie under presidents Hamed Karzai and Ashraf Ghani, but others which are sometimes called “unofficial.” These were created before 2004, by previous governments, often by splitting older, existing districts. This was done under the various regimes of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) (AAN background here), as well a the mujahedin and Taleban regime. Since 2001, under Presidents Hamed Karzai and Ashraf Ghani, new ‘unofficial’ districts have been created in the same way. (New provinces have also been created using this model.) (7)

Sometimes, these rearrangements answered to local demands by certain population groups who felt underrepresented in the larger ‘old’ district or simply in order to create paid administrative jobs for the clientele of a particular powerful politician. Badakhshan, with its record number of 27 districts, might be a point in case (former president Borhanuddin Rabbani was from there), Panjshir with its very small population but now nine districts, or Kandahar, where the Karzai family’s home area, Dand, was made a district.

It looks, as if the list of existing districts has been uncontroversial up to the breakdown of state institutions in the violent transition from the PDPA to the mujahedin government in the early 1980s and then further on to the Taleban regime and after its fall. (8) Now, no one dares ‘dismantle’ districts from those periods, in order to not confront those who created them, as some of those politicians or their followers are still powerful in parliament and elsewhere.

Conclusion: A step forward, but not yet the final one

While administratively, the country’s institutions have solved – at least for the time being – the long-standing issue of the number of officially recognised districts, parliament has still to approve it. It also has to tackle the still pending issue of district delineation. Both are more than just administrative problems, as the creation of districts and the allocation of resources to them (their tashkil of staff and budget) has been used by consecutive governments to the benefit of themselves and their allies. The mash of official, unofficial and temporary districts and the vested interests behind their creation has made the issue extremely difficult to resolve.

In combination with Afghanistan’s still absent population data (there has still been no census), this issue has stood and stands in the way of the legitimacy of any election in Afghanistan. Holding a census is also hampered by severe disputes about whether it should also be used to determine the numbers of the diverse ethnic groups in the country. Holding a census, therefore, throws up similar – actually more serious and dangerous – controversies as the distribution of new ID cards has done (AAN analysis here and here).

But so far, the failure to organise district council elections has allowed everyone to ignore this problem. With the district council elections that are (or were – the decision on whether to delay them is pending) scheduled for 20 October 2018, this was no longer feasible. Without an exact number of districts, it would be simply impossible to hold district elections.

The possibility of a delay of the district elections has mixed blessings. As the IEC and IDLG have argued, the time won by a delay might help them sort out other related issues, such as what exactly the district councils will be responsible for, what their budgets will be and what and whether councillors will be paid. At the same time, parliament – with its opposing interest groups – might take up the issue and open the district list up again.

Edited by Kate Clark

 

(1) In December 2017, AAN received a list from the (now former) IDLG spokeswoman Munera Yusufzada which had 385 districts. These figures were also used as the basis for the polling centre assessment in August and September 2017 (see its AAN analysis here), as Shahla Haque, the (then) acting head of the IEC secretariat, confirmed to AAN on 27 December 2017. Since then, however, two more districts have been created so that Yusufzada’s list was probably already correct and coordinated between CSO, IDLG and the commission.

(2) Afghanistan’s population statistics is another issue. There has never been a full census. The following information is based on data the author received when working for the UN in 2002 and a 2014 article by Najib Manalai published at the Afghan economy-focussed news website Wadsam:

The CSO was founded in 1972 with USAID funding in order to prepare and conduct a comprehensive survey of Afghanistan’s population. The survey was preceded by the collection and aggregation of compiled data from the ministries of interior (conscription and National ID cards distribution) and of agriculture and irrigation (quantity of fertilizer distributed). The results of this survey were published in 1973 as the “Provincial Gazetteer of Afghanistan” (PGA). It counted a total population of about 14 million, which included a presumed number of two million Kuchis. A census had been planned for the summer of 1978, at a time when large parts of the country were already in a state of war. CSO staff claimed that the ‘objectives’ of the census were reached to only about 70 per cent. The results were partially published in 1983 as the “Locality Gazetteer of Afghanistan.” It counted 16 million Afghans. All CSO records published since (under the communists, the mujahedin’s Islamic State of Afghanistan and the Taleban Emirate are based on the 1978 figures with subsequent extrapolations on the basis of an assumed growth rate – initially 1.9 per cent and,since 2007, 2.05 per cent.

In 2004, the United Nations Population Fund conducted a countrywide household survey which is now used as the CSO’s basis to project the total in-country population. For 2017-18, the CSO gave a figure of 29.7 million.

Manalai also quotes other sources and figures, such as figures based on household data collected during the National Immunization Days (estimate of 44.8 million for 2014) and estimates provided by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development based on the National Solidarity Program (36.3 million in 2014).

(3) The not yet final joint CSO/IDLG list contains the following 16 temporary districts:

Bamian (1): Yakaolang II (Yakaolang having been split into two)

Panjshir (1): Abshar

Kunduz (3): Kalbad, Aqtash, Gortepe (in the list, it is mistakenly called “Gultepe” – perhaps someone deliberated changed the nasty-sounding ‘Tomb Hill’ into ‘Flower Hill’). These districts are all under Taleban control (read more here)

Kandahar (2): Dand (the Karzai’s family’s home place), Takhtapul

Kunar (1): Sheltan (this district is older than 2004; it already appeared on the 2002 district list used by the Emergency Loya Jirga)

Laghman (1): Badpash (background in this AAN dispatch)

Nimruz (1): Delaram

Herat (4): Zerkoh, Zawol, Poshtkoh, Koh-e Zawar (the list contains a fifth district marked as ‘temporary’, Shindand – but that is actually the remainder of the older, larger district from which the four others were divided from)

Helmand (2): Marja (more here), Nawamesh.

The IDLG, however, says there are altogether 23 temporary districts, so seven must be missing from the latest but incomplete CSO/IDLG list.

Four others are, however, included in the IDLG letter sent to the IEC in June 2017:

Uruzgan (1): Chinarto

Paktia (2): Laja Mangal, Mirzaka

Daykundi (1): Pato

This means that since June 2017, three more temporary districts seem to have been created. Where they are, we will only learn when the CSO and IDLG publish their complete list.

(4) The size (number of seats) of the planned district councils is also determined on the basis of the size of the district’s population, as article 60 of the relevant law stipulates:

Each district shall have a council, members of which shall be elected by the voters of the same district for a term of three years. Allocation of Seats to District Council

Article 61:(1) The seats of the district council are allocated in proportion to the population of each district as below: 1 A district with a population of up to forty thousand, 5 seats. 2 A district with a population of more than forty thousand up to seventy thousand, 7 seats. 3 A district with a population of more than seventy thousand up to one hundred thousand, 9 seats. 4 A district with a population of more than one- hundred thousand, 11 seats. (2) A minimum of 25% of the seats of each District Council shall be allocated to female candidates. (3) A nomad may participate in district council elections of any district as a voter and or a candidate.

There are 175 districts with five seats. They are: 1) Badghis: Muqur; 2) Bamyan: Kahmard, 3) Shibar, 4) Saighan, 5) Yakawlang Two; 6) Badakhshan: Jurm 7) Shuhada, 8) Yawan, 9) Taskhan, 10) Baharak, 11) Tagab, 12) Shighnan, 13) Darwaz-e Payin (Mami), 14) Shaki, 15) Yamgan/Girwan, 16) Darwaz-e Bala/Nisi, 17) Kuf Ab, 18) Warduj, 19) Kohistan, 20) Khwahan, 21) Arghanjkhwah, 22) Wakhan, 23) Eshkashem, 24) Karan wa Manjan, 25) Zibak; 26) Baghlan: Deh Salah, 27) Khenjan, 28) Tala wa Barfak, 29) Pul-e Hesar, 30) Andarab, 31) Khwaja Hejran/Jelga, 32) Farang wa Gharu, 33) Guzargah-e Nur; 34) Balkh: Kaldar, 35) Marmal; 36) Parwan: Koh-e Safi, 37) Salang, 38) Shiekh Ali; 39) Paktika: Barmal, 40) Geyan, 41) Zarghun Shahr, 42) Dila wa Khushamand, 43) Mata Khan, 44) Janikhel, 45) Sar Rawza, 46) Wazakhwah, 47) Yahyakhel, 48) Yusufkhel, 49) Sarobi, 50) Nika, 51) Omna, 52) Gomal, 53) Wurmamai, 54) Tarwa; 55) Panjshir: Rokha, 56) Anaba, 57) Paryan, 58) Dara, 59) Shotul, 60) Abshar; 61) Takhar: Kalafgan, 62) Bangi, 63) Dasht-e Qala, 64) Baharak, 65) Chal, 66) Darqad, 67) Khwaja Bahauddin; 68) Hazar Sumuj, 69) Namak Ab; 70) Jawzjan: Khwaja Du Koh, 71) Qarqin, 72) Qushtepa, 73) Khaneqa, 74) Khamyab; 75) Khost: Nader Shah Kot, 76) Gurbuz, 77) Spera, 78) Haji Maidan, 79) Bak, 80) Shemal, 81) Qalandar; 82) Zabul: Arghandab, 83) Shamulzai, 84) Kakar/Khak-e Afghan, 85) Shinkai, 86) Nawbahar, 87) Tarnak aw Jaldak, 88) Mizan, 89) Atghar; 90) Samangan: Feruz Nakhchir; 91) Ghazni: Giro, 92) Jaghatu, 93) Nawa, 94) Ajrestan, 95) Ab Band, 96) Wali Muhammad Shahid/Khugyani, 97) Khwaja Omari, 98) Rashidan, 99) Zana Khan; 100) Ghor: Dolina, 101) Saghar, 102) Dawlatyar, 103) Charsada; 104): Faryab: Khan Chahar Bagh, 105) Qaramqul; 106) Farah: Bakwa, 107) Qala-ye Kah, 108) Khak-e Safid, 109) Lash wa Juwayn, 110) Anar Dara, 111) Shib Koh; 112) Kabul: Chahar Asiab, 113) Istalif, 114) Kalakan, 115) Musahi, 116) Guldara, 117) Farza, 118) Khak-e Jabbar; 119) Kapisa: Alasay, 120) Kohband; 121) Kunduz: Kalbad, 122) Aqtash, 123) Gultepa (Gurtepe); 124) Kandahar: Daman, 125) Arghestan, 126) Maruf, 127) Khakrez, 128) Mianeshin, 129) Nesh, 130) Shurabak, 131) Ghorak, 132) Reg/Shaga, 133) Takhtapul (temporary); 134) Kunar: Sawki, 135) Khas Kunar, 136) Nurgal, 137) Chapadara, 138) Narang wa Badil, 139) Narai, 140) Watapur, 141) Sirkanay, 142) Bar Kunar, 143) Marawara, 144) Ghaziabad, 145) Dangam, 146) Shaigal, 147) Shiltan; 148) Laghman: Dawlat Shah, 149) Badpakh; 150) Logar: Kharwar, 151) Khoshi, 152) Azra; 153) Maidan Wardak: Behsud One, 154) Dai Mirdad; 155) Nuristan: Nurgram, 156) Kamdesh, 157) Manduwal, 158) Waigal, 159) Barg-e Matal, 160) Wama, 161) Du Ab; 162) Nimruz: Chahr Burjak, 163) Khashrud, 164) Asl-e Chakhansur, 165) Kang, 166) Delaram; 167): Herat: Farsi, 168) Chesht-e Sharif, 169) Pusht-e Koh, 170) Koh-e Zur; 171) Helmand: Rig (Khaneshin), 172) Dishu, 173) Washir, 174) Marja, 175) Nawa Mesh.

There are 85 districts with seven seats. They are: 1) Bamyan: Yakaolang One; 2) Badakhshan: Darayem, 3) Yaftal Sufla, 4) Shahr-e Bozorg, 5) Raghistan, 6) Khash; 7) Baghlan: Khost wa Farang, 8) Dahana-ye Ghori, 9) Baraka; 10) Balkh: Kushenda, 11) Nahr-e Shahi, 12) Chaharkent, 13) Zari, 14) Shurtepa; 15) Parwan: Jabal ul-Seraj, 16) Sayyedkhel, 17) Shinwari, 18) Surkh Parsa; 19) Paktika: Urgun; 20) Panjshir: Hesa-ye Awal/Khenj; 21) Takhar: Eshkamesh, 22) Farkhar, 23) Yangi Qala, 24) Warsaj; 25) Jawzjan: Darzab, 26) Mengjak, 27) Faizabad, 28) Mardyan; 29) Khost: Tanai, 30) Manduzai/Ismailkhel, 31) Terezai/Alisher, 32) Musakhel; 33) Zabul: Shajoy, 34) Dai Chopan; 35) Sar-e Pul: Gusfandi, 36) Sayyad, 37) Balkhab, 38) Suzma Qala; 39) Samangan: Dara-ye Suf Bala, 40) Ruy-e Du Ab, 41) Hazrat Sultan, 42) Khuram wa Sarbagh; 43) Ghazni: Gilan, 44) Muqur, 45) Deh Yak, 46) Waghaz; 47) Ghor: Shahrak, 48) Tolak; 49) Faryab: Kohestan, 50) Belcharagh, 51) Khwaja Sabs Posh Wali, 52) Dawlatabad, 53) Qurghan, 54) Andkhoy, 55) Ghormach; 56) Farah: Purchaman, 57) Gulestan, 58) Pusht-e Rud; 59) Kabul: Bagrami, 60) Sarobi, 61) Deh Sabz, 62) Mir Bacha Kot; 63) Kapisa: Kohestan Two; 64) Kunduz: Aliabad; 65) Kandahar: Arghandab, 66) Maiwand, 67) Shah Wali Kot, 68) Dand; 69) Kunar: Dara-ye Pech; 70) Logar: Charkh; 71) Maidan Wardak: Narkh, 72) Jalrez, 73) Jaghatu; 74): Herat: Karkh, 75) Zendajan, 76) Kohsan, 77) Adraskan, 78) Kushk-e Kohna, 79) Zer Koh, 80) Zawal, 81) Shindand; 82) Helmand: Baghran, 83) Sangin, 84) Musa Qala, 85) Nawzad.

There are 45 districts with nine seats. They are: 1) Badghis: Qades, 2) Jund, 3) Ab Kamari; 4) Bamyan: Panjab; 5) Badakhshan: Kashm, 6) Argo; 7) Baghlan: Nahrin, 8) Dushi; 9) Balkh: Chemtal, 10) Chahr Bolak, 11) Khulm, 12) Dehdadi; 13) Takhar: Chah Ab, 14) Khwaja Ghar; 15) Jawzjan: Aqcha;16) Khost: Sabari (Yaqubi); 17) Sar-e Pul: Kohestanat; 18) Samangan: Dara-ye Suf Payin; 19) Nawur, 20 Malestan; 21) Ghor: Taiwara; 22) Faryab: Shirin Tagab, 23) Gurziwan, 24) Almar; 25) Farah: Bala Bulok; 26) Kabul: Shakardara, 27) Qarabagh; 28) Kapisa: Tagab, 29) Kohistan One; 30) Kunduz: Dasht-e Archi, 31) Chahardara, 32) Qala-ye Zal; 33) Kandahar: Panjwayi, 34) Zherai; 35) Laghman: Alishing; 36) Logar: Baraki Barak, 37) Muhammad Agha; 38) Maidan Wardak: Chak-e Wardak; 39) Herat: Gulran, 40 Ghorian, 41) Oba; 42) Helmand: Nawa-ye Barakzai, 43) Nad Ali, 44) Garmsir, 45) Kajaki.

And there are 31 districts with 11 seats which are: 1) Badghis: Bala Murghab; 2) Bamyan: Waras; 3) Baghlan: Baghlan-e Jadid; 4) Balkh: Balkh, 5) Sholgara, 6) Dawlatabad; 7) Parwan: Bagram, 8) Siahgerd/Ghorband; 9) Takhar: Rustaq; 10) Sar-e Pul: Sancharak; 11) Ghazni: Jaghori, 12) Qarabagh, 13) Andar; 14) Ghor: Lal wa Sar Jangal, 15) Pasaband; 16) Faryab: Pashtun Kot, 17) Qaisar; 18) Kabul: Paghman; 19) Kapisa: Nejrab; 20) Kunduz: Hazrat Imam Saheb, 21) Khanabad; 22) Kandahar: Spin Boldak; 23) Laghman: Qarghayi, 24) Alingar; 25) Maidan Wardak: Markaz-e Behsud, 26) Sayyedabad; Herat: 27) Enjil, 28) Guzara (Nezam Shahid), 29) Keshk/Rubat Sangi, 30) Pashtun Zarghun; 32) Helmand: Nahr-e Seraj.

(5) The more than 1000 delegates for the ELJ were chosen in a combined selection/election (entesab/entekhab) process. There were district assembles held in which all ethnic, political and social groups were supposed to be represented and which agreed, by acclamation, who the district’s representatives would be. These were then sent to the provincial centre to decide, in a secret ballot, who the province’s delegates would be. The numbers of representatives and delegates were based on a population-related quota system.

(6) The district list of the ELJ is in the author’s archive. Under today’s circumstances, it would contain only 337 districts, as Panjshir and Daykundi were not yet provinces, and their later provincial capitals would be classed as districts. (Provincial capitals will not have district elections, but, also at some point in the future and again, according to the constitution, municipal elections.)

(7) For example, the following provinces were created:

Paktika latest by 1970s (no exact year available) from eastern parts of Ghazni (called Katawaz) and the southern parts of Paktia

Sarepul, the former southern half of Jawzjan, by the PDPA in 1988

Khost from the eastern of Paktia between 1988 and 1992

Nuristan from the northern halves of Laghman and Kunar, apparently under the mujehedin government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan in the 1990s

Panjshir from the northeastern part of Parwan in 2004 (around 1973, it temporarily belonged to Kapisa)

Daykundi (the northern, Hazara-populated half of Uruzgan) also in 2004.

Particularly unsafe districts have also been shifted, similar to Ghormach, for example Shindand and Farsi from Farah to Herat, Darzab (then still including Qushtepe – the area in which, until recently self-proclaimed Islamic State groups operated, see AAN reporting here) from Faryab to Jawzjan and Kaldar and Kholm from Samangan to Balkh (under the PDPA) and Azra from Paktia to Logar (under Karzai).

There are also longstanding demands to create a ‘Turkmen’ province in northern Jawzjan or another ‘Hazara’ province from Ghazni’s western districts. This is reflected in the current discussions about splitting the provincial constituency of Ghazni for the Wolesi Jirga election into three, to ensure better, ethnically-balanced representation (AAN analysis here).

(8) A reader, Roger Helms, has kindly directed us to a collection of maps that he has compiled and put on the ArcGIS On Line platform and show Afghanistan’s provinces and districts over time (see here) which, among others, includes a 1973 map with then 29 provinces and 325 and one from 1998 with 32 provincesand 329 districts. Separately, he has worked existing CSO district data into a list that shows the current situation (here). It corresponds both with the CSO/IDLJ list and confirms our findings where the list had the gaps described above.

In between the 1973 and the 1998 maps falls an undated district list from the mid-1980s – ie before the creation of Khost and Sarepul by the PDPA regime in 1988 – that is in this author’s archive. It also shows 29 provinces, but a significantly lower number of 230 districts (not counting the provincial capitals). The difference between this list and the two mentioned maps is that it only contains districts (wuluswalis), not also the subdistricts (elaqadaris) which then, however, also still existed. Elaqadaris were dropped as a level of administrative units after 2001; they were either upgraded to districts or merged with or into other administrative units.

 

 

Lockheed Martin has secured a USD480 million, sole source undefinitised contract from the US Air Force Life Cycle Management Center for the rapid prototyping of the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW). Officially published by the US Department of Defense (DoD) on 13 August, the ARRW contract

Poland’s Armament Inspectorate has launched a tender with revised requirements for the procurement of 4×4 multipurpose vehicles. Poland is seeking to purchase 859 soft-skin vehicles and 41 armoured variants in 2019–22. The contract includes an option for an additional 812