This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
-- "UU.U VIIIU11 « xwco v. uim vi luvucul
It hS£ t*16 submarine target can detect an active system hunting it. silencas been suggested that, although the Soviets had access to Western
e- The United States has suggested that its new generation of ASW
"'ll! cost about $30 billion, and it is seeking damages from Japan 'rway.
Japan, Norway Rapped for Sales
Thg IT e
C0m ' 15 • government announced in mid-June that Toshiba Machine now-d ^ subsidiary °f the Japanese electronics manufacturer) and the agreee Unct Kongsberg Vaapenfabrik of Norway had violated the allied sellinmehM °n exPort advanced technology to the Soviet Union by Prod/1 £ ^OV’ets a nine-axis, computer-driven machine tool designed to JapaCe ProPellers. The agreement limited exports to two-axis tools. Shi? en8’neers admitted that the tool had been erected in a military warear at Leningrad in 1984. Kongsberg provided at least some soft- Snvi *UPPort' although it appeared that a second machine supplied to the
7/tS was all-Japanese made.
lencji>roved propellers were reportedly a major contribution to the si- the n ® °P ^ov'et submarines, which has caused considerable alarm in t° su?St Pew years. Although propeller noise is not the only contribution blent mar'ne signatures, it is significant. Moreover, propeller improvement Cap achieved by merely replacing an existing propeller, whereas Pract'° her forms of silencing require improved design and construction
Pro^' an<^ most cannot be made retroactively. metr°Peller no*se is created as successive blades pass through assym- sail . s m Ihe sub’s wake caused by such distortions as the submarine’s years ° COntrcd surfaces. This problem has been understood for many 0vvn ’ and reportedly the U. S. Navy has spent large sums to devise its jnier^COniPuterized, propeller-making machine tools. Reportedly, wake mar'JCtl°n explains the unusual sickle shapes seen on some foreign sub- C0e Propellers; the precise form of U. S. propellers is classified. cate Puter‘c°ntrolled machine tooling is important because it can dupli- fec(.a mathematically defined propeller form precisely and avoid imper-
Ii7ns lhat may generate detectable noise, antis 7°ved Soviet silencing may negate many U. S. (and other allied) tu..esmarine warfare (ASW) systems, which rely on the sound signa- h’ay h ^°V'et submarines for detection and classification. The solution aCoe to improve existing passive systems or shift largely to active becai, *CS' Matter would entail a loss of range and a tactical cost ceptsCm8C0nceP,s f°r years, they did not begin to implement those < the iQ-,ntl* they were forced—after revelations by the Walker spy ring in might .—t0 accePt tbat tbe*r submarines were extremely noisy. That Sal eXP'a'n tbe timing of the propeller-making tool transaction, for m.eS °P '^estern technology to the Soviet Union have been of concern lnany years, but serious breaches of Western security have been rare. dUD. ■ st cases, there has been some question whether the Soviets could have atC W^at tbey bought or stole. In some cases, U. S. manufacturers i|y bea[fUec* lbat equipment they were prohibited from selling could eas- vanc °0ught from Japan, or that prohibitions were obsolete, given ad- ^es in Soviet technology.
typese Toshiba machine tools are special because, unlike many other cated °P e<^u'Pment» they can be extremely useful without being dupli- effe ' °ne °r tW° Can Produce enough propellers to have an enormous fiabl °n balance. In addition, the effect of silencing is quanti
W. Th#a T J _ _ 1_ _..................... x- J vl. .. . . . ................ r * on
sensors and No,
resj aPan, senior officials of the parent Toshiba electronics company thjs8netL ^Ut d ‘s bhely that the United States will ban Toshiba sales in gantry for two years or more. At least one Japanese newspaper has trad i ^at sucb a ban w*d have more to do with U. S. anger over the tered C*1 tban whh Japanese culpability. U. S. spokesmen have coun- c0n • ”at Japan has generally been much too ready to place commercial lterations above those of national or alliance security.
Co^bbfiht be suggested that one reason for the imbalance in trade is the eutration of U. S. investment in national security, an investment that
helps Japan in several ways, one of which is to avoid heavy investment in its own defense. Ironically, Japan lives by the sea lanes that quieter Soviet submarines might more easily interdict—and which it will cost the United States much more to protect.
Norway, which lies very close to Soviet sub bases and would have to be supplied by sea in wartime, also stands to lose by any improvement in Soviet submarine stealth. KV Defense, which was formed by the Norwegian government from the shambles of Kongsberg, manufactures two naval weapons: the Penguin antiship missile, which the United States recently adopted, and missiles for the Teme antisubmarine mortar.
AMRAAM Gets A ‘Go’
The Defense Systems Acquisition Council approved full-scale production of the Hughes AIM-120A advanced medium-range air-to-air missile missile (AMRAAM) in July. Production will be shared with Raytheon in the hope that competition will keep prices down.
AMRAAM, which is to replace the Sparrow, is slightly smaller (seven rather than eight inches in diameter) and carries its own active radar rather than the Sparrow’s less complex semi-active radar receiver. Thus, a fighter that launches an AMRAAM does not need to illuminate its target continuously, and it can engage several relatively distant targets in quick succession. Moreover, the fighter need not accommodate a high- powered illuminating radar.
As conceived, the AMRAAM converts the F/A-18 Hornet from an aircraft capable of engaging one target at medium range with Sparrow to one capable of engaging several targets simultaneously at longer ranges. It is the key to air-to-air capability in the A-6F Intruder; it will be carried by Royal Navy Sea Harriers; and it is being considered for the French Mirage 2000 fighter, which is currently armed only with French weapons.
Hughes has proposed a ship-launched version to replace the Sea Sparrow. However, Raytheon has suggested that, despite savings expected from competition, the AMRAAM will still be expensive, thus Sparrow may not be replaced altogether, at least in the near-term. Plans call for production of as many as 24,000 AMRAAMs.
U. S. Navy Picks Airship Team
The Navy has awarded a prototype fleet surveillance airship contract to the Westinghouse/British Airship Industries team. The craft is to fly within 41 months, i.e., by late 1990. Goodyear Aerospace, now a division of Loral, was the other competitor.
Since 1984, the Navy has been studying airships for over-the-horizon surveillance, airborne early warning (AEW), and communications relay. They could be the key to effective operations by surface action groups, which by definition lack direct carrier aircraft support in these roles yet carry weapons capable of striking beyond their horizon. Long-range air surveillance would take on special significance if current efforts to develop a very-long-range surface-to-air missile (ASAM) are successful. Similarly, it would seem that some form of airship AEW would be an ideal complement to V/STOL fighters on board a large amphibious carrier (like an LHD) functioning in a limited sea control mode. No existing AEW aircraft could operate from such a ship, although a VS-22 Osprey AEW variant might be envisaged.
An airborne communications relay platform, in effect a low-altitude
P«Ce
;cthngs / September 1987
139
satellite, can receive narrow-beam transmissions (difficult to intercept) and retransmit them, making it more difficult to detect the force.
Long endurance is the key to all these missions. The ultimate requirement is 30 days or more, but the 423-foot-long prototype is to be able to remain aloft for at least 48 hours—with reserve fuel for another 18— traveling 40 knots at 9,000 feet. The prototype reportedly will carry an APS-125 AEW radar (as on the Grumman E-2C Hawkeye). The successful Westinghouse-Airship bid was for the Sentinel 5000, which the team credited with an unrefueled endurance of more than 55 hours at 40 knots at 5,000 feet, a maximum level speed of 78 knots at maximum weight or 82 knots at equilibrium, and a maximum operational altitude of 14,000 feet. Endurance at 70 knots would be about 20 hours; at 50 knots, with full mission load, 47 hours at 5,000 feet. At 10,000 feet, when the airship would be heavier than air, endurance at 40 knots would be reduced to between five and ten hours. The normal 5,000-foot operating altitude would be typical of the British Sea King AEW helicopter. The Hawkeye flies considerably higher and has much longer ranges. The airship is an intermediate platform, because its radar will be much more powerful than the helicopter’s and its endurance much greater.
The airship prototype is formally designated an operational development model; the program is to be conducted over five years. The contract includes an option for as many as five more, and might ultimately include as many as 50 airships. The first airship is to cost $196.4 million (plus $50.7 million for avionics) including maintenance and spares, with additional airships priced at $83.2 million for one, or $294.2 million for all five, including maintenance and spares.
Soviets Adopt Reactive Tank Armor
In recent months, there have been reports that the Soviets have adopted reactive tank armor. Reactive armor consists of small boxes of explosive that are triggered by the approach of a missile. Their bursts either destroy the missile or at least break up the hot metal stream created by its shaped charge. A kinetic penetrator approaches much too rapidly for the reactive charge to affect it.
Early in July, U. S. Army spokesmen suggested that such armor would render obsolete existing shaped-charge antitank weapons, both hand-held and tube-launched. Later in July, U. S. Army spokesmen claimed that a partial solution to the reactive armor threat now exists in the form of the TOW-2A tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided missile, which has a two- stage, shaped-charge warhead. The first stage reacts with the explosive armor and the second (delayed) stage penetrates the vehicle.
This type of armor is not immune to the effects of kinetic penetrators and very-high-velocity solid rods, which are fired from heavy cannon. This prospect would particularly affect naval air strike forces and the Marines. All air-launched antitank missiles rely on shaped charge warheads. Aircraft can still kill reactive-armored tanks by laying mines or by hitting them from overhead. However, minelaying requires very large numbers of aircraft to achieve substantial results, and effective overhead attack is hazardous. Naval forces are inherently limited in the numbers of aircraft and in available numbers of weapons.
The Marines’ requirement for mobility limits the numbers and weight of vehicles they can deploy. Only recently, for example, has serious attention been paid to the possibility of eliminating the Marine Corps’ heavy tanks. Lighter vehicles would have to rely heavily on shaped- charge rounds. Lightweight missiles greatly enhance the Marine’s effectiveness against local armored formations. Dug-in Marines with only limited tank support can expect to resist tanks with their missiles.
Reactive armor reportedly is relatively easy to manufacture, and is rapidly being deployed on Soviet vehicles. It was invented in the West and first appeared on Israeli tanks (such as “Blazer”), but has not been adopted by any NATO army. Countermeasures likely will be developed, but the Soviets (and their allies) seem to have gained a significant imme-
140
diate advantage. The importance of such a defense against light antitan weapons presumably has been emphasized by Soviet losses in Atgn stan and by the defeat of the Libyan Army (largely by light antita missiles) in Chad.
New Harriers Announced
McDonnell-Douglas and British Aerospace announced a new multimission version of the Harrier II vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) fighter at the Paris Air Show.
Current production versions of MCDONNEU-□°u°l»s the fighter are the AV-8B for AV_8BHarrier II the U. S. Marine Corps and the w
Spanish Navy, and the Harrier GR5 for the Royal Air Force. The n^ version incorporates an improved radar and an improved wing- J ^ have an upgraded engine—the Pegasus 11-61—with double the 1* s the current Harrier II engine and 3,000 more pounds of thrust, engine should be available in 1990, and it has already been approve principle for later production AV-8Bs. The nose will be enlarged t® commodate an advanced pulse-Doppler radar, suiting it for air ue ^ and antiship attack, with missiles such as the AMRAAM, Harpoon, British Sea Eagle. Candidate radars include the Blue Vixen, sc**e ,U[e(j for installation in British Sea Harriers, and the U. S. APG-65, sche u for F/A-18s. U. S. Marine Corps AV-8Bs are designed almost en 1# for close air support, and they lack an air-to-air radar. However, the n ^ Wasp (LHD-l)-class amphibious assault ship is designed to supp0 alternative “sea control” air wing, including AV-8B fighters.
Lavi Threatens Israeli Navy
The Israeli Chief of Naval Operations, Major General Avraham ESe^
r, depend5
Shushan, has stated that unless re-equipment begins very soon, will be “physically exterminated.” Re-equipment, however, - - ^
upon U. S. credits, and they are unlikely to be forthcoming as long a*
Lavi
Israeli government continues to require heavy funding for ltSjsraei fighter. For several months, senior U. S. officials have argued that ^
cannot support a full-scale fighter development program. There is ■
he United States should
be so willing to finance competing aircraft.
feeling in the U. S. aerospace industry that the United States
Israel reportedly has been offered naval financing as an alternative
has been nsidera;
support for the Lavi program. However, the Israeli government reluctant to cancel a major domestic program, which involves conslt£*vj ble high-technology employment. It is estimated that completing development would cost about $1.3 billion. ,.i.
tarily of d>ese;
'-and bo*
would have combat systems developed by Rockwell. In the Past’ ^ Israeli Navy has been unable to secure heavy investment, and it • ^aS clear that its position has improved markedly. General Ben-Shusns6 stated that the Israeli Navy requires 5-8% of the total Israeli de budget for re-equipment. „se
The submarine program has caused controversy in the past 1,6 ^ U. S. foreign military aid regulations require that 51% of the value program be spent in the United States. The United States does not ^ diesel-electric submarines, and Israel clearly has no requirement ^ clear craft. Nor is the U. S. Navy willing to release its submarine ^ nology, much of which is applicable to diesel-electric craft. The so ^ is that a large percentage of any modem submarine consists of its c ^ system. Hence, a U. S. combat system contractor was chosen, an ■ .jj U. S. weapons as the Mark 48 torpedo and the Sub-Harpoon miss' e^ ^ probably be selected. It also is likely that the 51% requirement ca met by lumping together the corvette and submarine orders. ^ [sraeli
The naval modernization program would consist primarily of electric submarines—reportedly of West German design—an class missile corvettes, the latter to be built in the United States
Meanwhile, the U. S. government is evaluating a variety of weapon systems for possible adoption. They include a lightweign mated decoy system, which might be applicable to Pegasus (h1 .
4-1)-
class hydrofoils, and the Opher Seeker imaging infrared guidanc^^
I bomb-
tem, which may be incorporated in the new Navy advanced interd*1 , weapon system (AIWS) and as a retrofit for the Skipper guided