October 1, 2001
THE WEAPONS: New Military Systems May Be Tested in Field in 'War Against
Terrorism'
By Barnaby J. Feder
New York Times
The military action being contemplated by the Bush administration could
quickly become a proving ground for weapons and support systems developed
since the Persian Gulf war a decade ago. How they fare could affect billions
of dollars in military spending in the coming years.
The new equipment, including smarter bombs, more sensitive surveillance
systems and more sophisticated communications networks, is not in plentiful
supply. It is still unclear what role it may play in the long run in the
open-ended "war against terrorism" declared by President Bush.
But many of the newest technological capabilities of the armed forces could
be tested in the early stages, military experts said.
"Ninety percent of the stuff the military has is old and you can't change it
that fast," said Jacques S. Gansler, who was undersecretary of defense for
acquisition, technology and logistics from 1997 until early this year. But
Mr. Gansler and others think that, initially at least, the military's plans
will focus on rapid moves by units small enough to be equipped and trained
with technology that in some cases is so new that it has not been approved
for full- scale production.
Thus, small groups of foot soldiers might be sent into Afghanistan on
commando missions equipped with prototypes of the many forms of weaponry and
electronic support systems that are not scheduled for full introduction
until 2004 under the Land Warrior program.
Prototype soldier helmets, for instance, have a built-in video camera, an
infrared camera for night vision, a microphone for voice communications and
a display unit linked to global positioning satellites to show the soldier's
location, that of fellow soldiers and of suspected enemy positions.
The modified M-4 rifle comes with lasers for calculating distance and a
thermal imaging system for seeing a heat-producing target through smoke or
foliage.
Similarly, regular production models of Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk, an
unmanned reconnaissance plane that can fly up to 350 miles per hour at
altitudes of 65,000 feet, are not slated to be delivered until 2003 under
the current, $80 million contract. But six prototypes have already been
delivered and could be used over Afghanistan.
The value of prototype aircraft was demonstrated during the gulf war when
two modified Boeing (news/quote) 707's, the first versions of the joint
surveillance target attack radar system, or Joint STAR, contributed crucial
information on Iraqi troop movements and defenses.
New equipment could be especially valuable in a war on terrorism, the
experts say, because most of it was designed for greater speed, precision
and networking of information, which will probably be more important than
sheer firepower in such an unconventional conflict.
"This is a totally different type of war," said Frank C. Lanza, chief
executive of L-3 Communications Holdings, based in New York, a supplier of
military navigation and communications gear. "It's an information battle,
which is why we need intelligence from all the other countries in the
alliance."
It is also a battle in which the technologies most needed are among those
the military and its suppliers are least likely to discuss publicly, such as
covert communications systems, easily concealed sensors or cameras that
could be planted in remote regions and monitored from space. "All I'd say is
that there have been big improvements," Mr. Lanza said. "We'll depend highly
on special forces. We're a lot more prepared than most people realize."
Many experts are less optimistic about the nation's preparedness for the
struggle with terrorism. Developers of image processing gear, surveillance
equipment and data analysis software say that the most sophisticated
technology is more widely used in the private sector or at agencies like the
Drug Enforcement Administration or the United States Border Patrol.
The Defense Department says it is many years away from reaching its goals
for "real-time" responsiveness - using technology throughout the military to
knit available information together rapidly enough for fighting forces to
adjust as conditions change, and to make sure such responses are shared up
and down the command chain.
"The technology is there but not always the sustainability and level of
coordination you need," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior fellow at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
Whatever the shortcomings, today's military technology often makes the gulf
war seem old-fashioned. New air transports like the Boeing C-17, which can
fly nonstop from the United States to Central Asia and take off and land on
small, undeveloped airfields, and more extensive use of computers to manage
supplies have cut the time needed to deploy forces to remote regions to days
from months.
Tomahawk missiles and other gulf war weapons have been rebuilt with internal
guidance systems and links to global positioning satellites. Similar
modifications to bombs from the Vietnam era were introduced during the
Kosovo campaign in 1998.
A team of nine contractors, led by Boeing, began upgrading more than 11,000
bombs this year under a $235 million contract. Raytheon (news/quote) is the
lead contractor on a $414 million contract to upgrade more than 600 Tomahawk
missiles.
The added intelligence permits the weapons to be guided to their targets
electronically and from a distance instead of by a laser signal from a
fighter plane, tank or soldier at the scene. In addition, such "shoot and
scoot" systems can home in on targets where fog, smoke or other forms of
interference block laser signals.
The accuracy of the new bombs was demonstrated in 1999, though in an
embarrassing fashion, when bombs dropped by a B-2 bomber - another addition
to the military's weapons portfolio - successfully zeroed in on a building
the Central Intelligence Agency had mistakenly identified as the Serbian
Directorate of Supply and Procurement. It was the Chinese Embassy.
Making smarter weapons has been a much more straightforward challenge than
developing the communications networks and management systems needed to use
them effectively as battles unfold, especially against mobile targets.v
As Serbian troops demonstrated by setting up fake tanks to draw fire from
the American-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the sophisticated
surveillance systems can often be easily duped. And, with the terrorists'
ability to recruit highly educated followers like the men who carried out
the Sept. 11 hijackings, protecting the security of the highly networked
troops from hackers remains a major concern.
The military's preferred approach to building its new capabilities has been
to adapt readily available commercial technology to keep costs down. The
battlefield computers given to Land Warrior soldiers, for instance, are
based on the same Intel (news/quote) Pentium processors used in personal
computers, standard wireless data networking chips and the Microsoft
(news/quote) Windows operating system.
How far that approach has taken the military was demonstrated in war games
in April, when mechanized troops from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, an
experimental force based at Fort Hood, Tex., routed an armored regiment
posing as a foreign army at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin,
Calif.
Visiting units almost never win such mock battles because the "foreign"
forces are based at Fort Irwin and know every inch of the terrain in
addition to the American army's standard tactics. But the 4th Infantry came
loaded with electronic technology it has been working with since 1997. Joint
STAR, U-2 spy planes, unmanned air vehicles and satellites fed data on the
opponent's movements to the 4th Infantry's command post, which in turn was
linked to the brigade's tanks, troop carriers and the laptop computers of
unit commanders via e-mail and a private Internet site.
The superior battlefield intelligence, shared data and tighter command
structure provided by the network proved overwhelming. "They never gave the
enemy a break," said Charles Pizzutelli, the civilian chief of the office
that is overseeing integration of the new technology. "They attacked day and
night."
Such exercises have also, of course, turned up many gaps between the ideal
and actual performance. Computers crash, data is misinterpreted or the
"enemy" figures out ways to confuse the surveillance systems trying to track
them.
"A lot of this stuff requires heavy training and it's not fully mature," Mr.
Pizzutelli said. Highly simplified versions of the technology were used in
the Balkan conflicts but, as things stand now, it appears the Army would
need to send civilian contractors into battle with troops to keep such
systems running. Moreover, the 4th Infantry's equipment is too large and
heavy for operations in areas with little or no vehicle support.
But the larger problem given the military's latest assignment is that making
such systems truly battle- worthy may be of little help if the enemy remains
a shadowy group of terrorists intent on avoiding even the slightest
skirmish.
"We have the weapons but, obviously, we don't have the targets we had in
Desert Storm," Mr. Lanza said.
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 90083
Gainesville, FL. 32607
(352) 337-9274
Global Net