Showing posts with label military technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military technology. Show all posts

Monday, July 12, 2021

Shephard Media: Venezuela refurbishes legacy vehicles to maintain army capabilities

 

"Venezuela refurbishes legacy vehicles to maintain army capabilities"

Wilder Alejandro Sanchez

Land Warfare

Shephard Media

12 July, 2021

Originally published: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/venezuela-refurbishes-legacy-fleets/

 

Starved of funding, the Venezuelan Army is repairing and refurbishing obsolete Western-supplied vehicle fleets to maintain a meaningful capability.

The Venezuelan Army participated in high-profile parades on 24 June and 5 July to demonstrate not only the strength of the armed forces, but also their apparent ingenuity. After spending billions of dollars during the Hugo Chávez years on Russian defence technology, international sanctions and an ongoing economic crisis mean that Caracas can no longer afford state-of-the-art military equipment to sustain its armed forces. As a consequence, the army is repairing and refurbishing old vehicles and equipment, obtained in the pre-Chávez years, to expand its arsenal and maintain deterrence capabilities.

The equipment that participated in the parades included AMX-13 and ...

 

Continue Reading...

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

DefenceIQ: A Bright Future for the Signature Management Industry



"A Bright Future for the Signature Management Industry"

Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Land Force
Defence IQ
October 15, 2019
Originally published: https://www.defenceiq.com/army-land-forces/articles/a-bright-future-for-the-signature-management-industry 


Fibrotex USA, a subsidiary of the Israeli company Fibrotex Technologies, opened a vertical camouflage manufacturing facility in Stearns, Kentucky, on August 29. This new plant should be placed in a wider discussion about the evolution of signature management systems and industry worldwide.
 

Continue Reading....

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Defence iQ: How will drones affect infantry tactics?


"How will drones affect infantry tactics?"

Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Defence iQ
14 March, 2019
Originally published: https://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/how-will-drones-affect-infantry-tactics


With unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology developing rapidly, military leaders, analysts as well as defence industries around the world are coming up with new methods to both utilize them and combat them in the field

Indeed, UAV technology presents plenty of beneficial opportunities, but it is important that drones remain-value adding, and efforts are made not to increase the cognitive and physical burden on infantry that will have to carry them, use, and retrieve after a mission.

The US Military Goes Shopping

The US Army has ambitious plans regarding infantry use of drones. For example, in 2018 the US Army awarded a $2.6 million contract to FLIR Systems Inc. of Wilsonville, Oregon, for an undisclosed number of “Black Hornet Personal Reconnaissance System — a miniature helicopter with video cameras [which] enables infantry squads to see enemy units from the air.” The platform weighs about the same as a parakeet, and it can “can shoot live video with either a daylight imager or infrared, has a range of a little less than a mile and can fly for 25 minutes at a speed of 13 mph.” The contract is part of the Soldier Borne Sensor program.

 

Other companies are manufacturing light drones as well. For example, InstantEye Robotics reported in November 2018 that it had “secured a contract with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) in support of PMA-263, the Navy and Marine Corps Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) Program Office, to field 32 InstantEye Mk-3 GEN5-D1 SUAS systems (64 aircraft).” Like the Black Hornet, InstantEye Robotics’ SUAS systems are light, for instance, the one sold to the US Marines has a weight of around 250 grams.

Counter drone systems 

Just as companies are developing lighter and more efficient drones, other companies are developing products to disable them. For example, IXI EW has developed the Drone Killer, which is available either as a rifle or as a system that can be attached to a rifle. Similarly, the Israeli company Smart Shooter has manufactured a fire control system called SMASH 2000 Plus that has a “drone mode.”

RECOMMENDED: The future of drone and counter-drone technology
Military and civilian agencies are trying to figure out how drones will affect the way infantry units operate. The advantages they provide, as well as the threat of enemy drone platforms, are still debated at the squad and battalion level. 
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and other agencies published a joint report, titled Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (CUAS) Capability for Battalion-and-Below Operations, in 2018, which has been widely read and quoted as it discusses precisely this issue. The report touches on issues including how to counter enemy drones, like for example jamming radio frequencies. (One problem is that new drones “can operate without radio frequency command-and-control links by using automated target recognition and tracking, obstacle avoidance, and other capabilities enabled by software.”)

Discussion: The infantryman and UAVs

There are several issues to keep in mind when discussing how UAVs (nano, or small) will fit within the US Army. Let's consider how this will affect a standard infantry squad of 9-14 members.

One obvious issue is weight. If a light infantry unit wants to bring such capabilities to the fight then troops must allocate space and weight to this kit. This will require additional manpower to carry the apparatus, no matter how light it is, which prompts an important question: if a soldier has to carry a  UAV kit (the platform itself, a control system, power supply and so on) then what part of a kit will a soldier leave behind? This is a difficult call for commanders given the various risk mitigation strategies required for successful operations.

The extra weight may impede on the ability to carry our traditional force activities. If we accept the average rifleman will carry around 100lbs of equipment including a rifle, backpack with ammo, rations, water, and body armour. The idea of adding more weight to will not be appealing, particularly for operations that can last multiple days. This is one of the core reasons propelling industry to focus on making drones lighter and smaller.

On the other side of the spectrum, how will forces deal with adversarial drones? There have already been several analyses on this issue, see for example “On Drones and Tactics: How Unmanned Platforms Will Change the Way the Infantry Fights,” by 1st Lt. Walker Mills for the Modern War Institute.
Even more, there have already been incidents in which unnamed aerial vehicles were utilized by insurgents and foreign combatants to strike at US and Coalition forces, and also for the purpose of testing their reactions to these probes.

As for anti-drone technologies, currently, they vary from weapon-sized devices, which means carrying an extra rifle (e.g. the full-sized version of the Drone Killer), to a smaller system that is attached to a standard rifle such as an M4 (like the Smash 2000 Plus). The question again comes back to the issue of weight.
 

What is worth taking into the field? Can the capability to neutralize enemy drones be accomplished through traditional methods or is anti-drone gear absolutely necessary for combating these devices? Lastly, as a US Army service person with combat experiences explained to the author, “will we even be aware of these devices prior to being engaged, and are they employed in such numbers that we still find it necessary to carry this gear to fend off secondary attacks?”

Moreover, there is the question of how will UAV and anti-UAV technology affect the composition of infantry squads themselves. Will there be a sole “droneman” that carries the unit’s UAVs, as well as anti-UAV gear like a Drone Killer rifle or Smash Plus system? It will be interesting to monitor whether the US Army revisits the composition of an infantry squad in itself to adapt to this new technology.

The US Marine Corps is reportedly testing new squad compositions. “The sizes being considered were 11-, 12-, or 14-man arrangements, and some considered having the squad systems operator carry the M4 carbine to reduce the load, as it is a smaller, lighter weapon,” explained a December 2018 article in the Marine Corps Times, for example.

Lastly, squad leaders will have to decide whether UAVs and anti-UAV technology adds value, especially when considering changes in unit dynamics and the additional burden on the supply chain and logistical tail. The cost of replacing and maintaining these assets may be very high. However, that opens the doors for other up and coming solutions such as additive manufacturing and 3D printing.  

The proliferation of this technology is also something to consider. If these assets become more numerous, the likelihood of them getting lost account or captured is high. What data will be aboard these systems and will how can it be leveraged by adversaries? 

Final Thoughts

Recent analyses are increasingly focusing on understanding how this technology will affect the infantry, as small drones and nano-drones are beginning to be integrated into units. Indeed, the era of UAV military technology is in full swing and we are just beginning to grasp how it will affect the future of warfare, especially in the areas of logistics, medical evacuation, reconnaissance, and offensive support. Under the right condition set, there is no question that small UAVs can be employed to suppress and disrupt small enemy units. 

About the Authors:
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses on geopolitical, military and cybersecurity issues.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not reflect those of any institutions with which the author are associated.
The author would like to thank the US military personnel interviewed for this analysis and who wish to remain anonymous.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Friday, November 9, 2018

Defence IQ: The future of drone and counter-drone technology


"The future of drone and counter-drone technology"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Defence IQ
8 November 2018

As drones become smaller and faster, new solutions will be required to disable them. Here are a few handheld counter-drone systems that may end up in the hands of armed forces around the world

 How will drones shape future warfare?

The Association of the United States Army (AUSA) held its annual exposition of military technology from 8-10 October in Washington DC. The meeting brought together some of the largest and most well-known firms of the military industrial complex from the US and abroad. Two particularly interesting technologies that were showcased at AUSA were unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as well as the latest anti-drone systems.

AUSA 2018: New UAVs

There were several UAVs that were showcased at the AUSA expo.  Here is a rundown of some of the most promising platforms.

RECOMMENDED: Small is beautiful: Nano drone tech is advancing
  • InstantEye MK-3 Gen-4-D1/D2 sUAS, produced by Instant Eye Robotics. This is a small UAV (sUAV) that weighs 3lbs, has a maximum payload of around 3lbs, and an endurance of up to 30 minutes. Its major appeal is that it requires a single operator and can go from stowed to operational in around one minute. In addition, it is EUD/tablet compatible and has integral gimbaled EO/IR cameras. On February 2018, the company announced that it had sold 800 InstantEye Mk-2 GEN3-A0 sUAS systems to the US Marine, on top of a previous order.
  • Orion UAS, produced by Elistair. This platform has an operating altitude of 80m/262ft, a data rate of up to 200mbps, a GPS system, a HD 1080p daylight camera, an optical x30 zoom and a black box. What makes this UAV so interesting is that it is tethered, which means it can fly continuously for hours on end, making it perfect for protecting sensitive areas. This will be particularly useful for law enforcement operations, and for setting up quick telecommunication systems in disaster areas.
  • SkyRanger R60 and SkyRaider R80D, produced by Aeryon Defense USA. The SkyRaider has an endurance of 30-50min, and a max ground speed of 31mph, with payloads of up to 4.4 lbs. Meanwhile, the SkyRanger has similar characteristics but a payload of 1.5.lbs. Both systems have tablet-based controls and are equipped with HDZoom 30. They are suitable for search and rescue operations and reconnaissance.

 

Anti-drone technology

Drone legislation is still scarce and differs from country to country. General laws relating to privacy, aviation, data protection and the like are applicable to drones, but it could be questioned whether the industry can provide sufficient safeguards to deal with new challenges and threats.

Unsurprisingly, drones can be utilized for nefarious activities like illegal surveillance of sensitive infrastructure. ISIS has also manufactured rudimentary drones as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Syria. Similarly, they have been flown by criminals to transport drugs or to smuggle contraband into prisons. In symmetrical war, countering drone swarms will be a top priority for armed forces.

Be sure to check out our guide to countering drones: This is how militaries can defend against drones
As a result, a diverging market has also emerged from this booming industry, the market for disabling drones. Some unconventional solutions have already emerged, for example, in Holland, local police forces have joined forces with Guard From Above, a raptor-training security firm based in the Hague that trains eagles to grab drones mid-air. However, there are other gadgets to keep in mind.

The Smart Shooter

One solution demonstrated at AUSA 2018 was the from Israeli company Smart Shooter. They have two systems, one called SMASH 2000, and a more advanced iteration called SMASH 2000 Plus. SMASH is an advanced optical sight that can be attached to small arms. The system utilises look and track and target detection technology, to substantially increase precision aiming and reduce time-to-hit.

The SMASH 2000 Plus variant has a “drone mode” that allows the operator to target a UAV in flight both during day and night time. The company’s website explains that “the SMASH fire control system puts a precision anti-drone capability at the fingertips of its users, featuring built-in targeting algorithms that can track and hit even very small drones skimming along at high speed, at ranges of up to 120 meters, with the first shot.”

Depending on the version of the system, its options also include, counter-drone/UAS mode, recording and debriefing, among others. Many in attendance at AUSA, including myself, can testify to how easy it is to master the system. The international media has provided has also responded positively to the technology on offer.

At AUSA 2018, one US army personnel member with combat experience noted, “I like the Smart Shooter idea, especially if the sight also works on individuals and armoured targets. It seems to enhance our capability to put targets down without adding too much weight.”

The DroneKiller

Another anti-drone product showcased at AUSA 2018 is aptly named DroneKiller, produced by IXI EW. This system is a standalone handheld device that employs software-defined radio technology to disable drones. There are two versions of this device, a handheld “rifle” and a system that can be attached to a rifle. It has a range of up to 1,000 meters, operates on seven frequency bands and can be in an active mode for up to two hours, with eight hours in standby. It weighs 7.5lbs and is surprisingly comfortable to carry.
The market potential for this product is strong, in fact, Japan has bought over 100 units of the DroneKiller in preparation for the Summer 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.

How will drones affect the equipment carried by future infantry?

For anti-drone technology in conflict zones, the main goal is to equip soldiers with anti-drone capabilities while keeping their equipment weight to a minimum. In the context of defence, the DroneKiller “rifle” iteration may struggle to find buyers as it is effectively another weapon that a soldier will have to carry on the field. A system that can be attached or detached, like the Smart Shooter or the smaller variant of DroneKiller, may have better prospects

It is equally important for anti-drone technology to be relatively future-proof, as Drones in the future will maintain higher altitudes, be equipped with advanced cameras with improved zooming systems, and they will be far smaller. Many commentators at the conference lamented that we may get to a stage where drones become invisible to the naked eye, highlighting the need for indeification systems.

Indeed, the future of drone/anti-drone technology for combat operations will also have repercussions for composition and organisation of the typical infantry squad. Let’s take a quick look at a US Army infantry rifle squad, which consists of nine soldiers. There have been plenty of discussions and reports about how the squad of the future should be organized, for example, see: US Army Major Hassan Kamara’s commentary “Rethinking the U.S. Army Infantry Rifle Squad,” published by Military Review.
In his essay, Major Kamara explains how “technology and automation seem to have increased the workload of the squad on contemporary battlefields, with more equipment for the same nine people to manage and operate in addition to legacy warfighting functions. With regards to technology and the infantry squad of the future is, Kamara concludes, “emerging military technology that will grow to enhance the capability of the squad, like armed drones and other robotics, make a strong case for increasing the number of soldiers in the infantry squad with another team of riflemen.”

This is a very interesting prospect to consider. Will future capabilities require one member of an infantry squad to be solely responsible for counter-drone activity? In conjunction, will one operator carry a sUAV, a DroneKiller for example, and be the main individual tasked with dealing with enemy drones? Will more police forces utilise systems Smart Shooter-like systems with drone locks?

The infantry rifle squad of the future, be it from the US army or any other, may very well need a “drone-only” operator, which may mean adding one more member to the squad or replacing someone that has other tasks.

Final Thoughts

Drone and anti-drone technology will continue to evolve simultaneously. The next generation of UAVs will be lighter, smaller, more complex and able to multi-task, depending on the client’s need. And with that will come the necessity for the industry to figure out new, more effective ways of shooting these platforms down.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

CIMSEC: The Status of Brazil's Ambitious PROSUB Program


"The Status of Brazil's Ambitious PROSUB Program"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
Center for International Maritime Security
The Southern Tide
November 22, 2016
Originally published: http://cimsec.org/status-brazils-grand-prosub-program/29505

Written by Wilder Alejandro Sanchez, The Southern Tide addresses maritime security issues throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. It discusses the challenges regional navies face including limited defense budgets, inter-state tensions, and transnational crimes. It also examines how these challenges influence current and future defense strategies, platform acquisitions, and relations with global powers.

“The security environment in Latin America and the Caribbean is characterized by complex, diverse, and non-traditional challenges to U.S. interests.” Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, Commander, U.S. Southern Command, before the 114thCongress Senate Armed Services Committee, 10 March 2016.
By W. Alejandro Sanchez
In spite of Brazil’s political crisis, the Brazilian Navy has continued with its ambitious project of domestically constructing a new fleet of submarines, including a nuclear-powered platform. The first Scorpène-class submarine is expected to be launched in 2018, an important development though a couple of years behind schedule. However, the question remains: does Brazil require today, or will it require in the foreseeable future, an advanced submarine fleet?
The PROSUB Program
A 2009 contract between the Brazilian Navy and French conglomerate DCNS “covers the design, production, and technology transfer required for four Scorpène-class conventional submarines, and the design assistance and production of the non-nuclear part of the first Brazilian nuclear powered submarine, including support for construction of a naval base and a naval construction site.” This contract was the result of a defense agreement signed in 2008 by then-Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his French counterpart, then-President Nikolas Sarkozy. This project is known as the Submarine Development Program (Programa de Desarrollo de Submarinos; PROSUB).
At the time of this writing, SBR-1 Riachuelo (S-40) is nearing completion as it is expected to be launched in 2018 and delivered to the Navy in 2020. The next submarine, SBR-2Humaitá, will be launched in 2020, while SBR-3 Tonelero (S-42) and SBR-4 Angostura (S-43) are scheduled to be completed by the early 2020s.
It is worth stressing that the Brazilian Navy is particularly interested in learning how to manufacture the submarines domestically, rather than relying on DCNS to construct and assemble the submarines abroad. For example, in July, the Brazilian company Nuclebras Heavy Equipment (Nuclebrás Equipamentos Pesados; NUCLEP) delivered the stern section of Humaitá to Itaguaí Construções Navais (ICN) which is assembling the platform in Rio de Janeiro. According to IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly, “the submarine’s hull has been divided into five sections and to date … four sections of SBR 2 [have been delivered]. The final one is scheduled to be delivered in November.”
As for the nuclear submarine SN-BR Alvaro Alberto (SN-10),the Brazilian Navy’s PROSUB webpage reports that it is still in the developmental phase and that actual construction will commence in 2017 and be completed by 2025. “The transfer [of the submarine] to the Navy is expected to take in 2027,” the Navy explains.
A word should be said about the status of the shipyard, also part of PROSUB, since the Navy wants the capacity to construct more of these platforms in the future. To this end, a 750,000 square meter complex is under construction in the municipality of Itaguaí (Rio de Janeiro). In 2013, the Metal Structures Manufacturing Unit (Unidade de Fabricação de Estruturas Metálicas; UFEM) was inaugurated, with then-President Dilma Rousseff in attendance. Among other tasks, UFEM will manufacture the metal hull structures of the platforms.
The DCNS and Other Issues
It is necessary to highlight that the construction of these platforms has not been a smooth ride. A 1 March 2013 article by Reuters reported that “the first conventional submarine [will be completed] in 2015 and the nuclear-powered submarine will be commissioned in 2023 and enter operation in 2025, the Brazilian Navy said in a statement.” The timetable was perhaps too ambitious as the first submarine Riachuelo is now scheduled to be launched in 2018, three years later than originally reported. Similarly, the nuclear platform is now expected to be ready by 2025, not 2023. Part of the reason for the delay has to do with the country’s recent economic crisis which has affected the budget of governmental agencies, including defense.
Due to space considerations, we cannot provide a full account of Brazil’s political crisis over the past year with regards to theLava Jato revelations. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht, which is involved in PROSUB via its ICN unit, has been implicated in the scandal.(Ret.) Admiral Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva, considered the father of Brazil’s nuclear program and a major supporter of the nuclear submarine (see his biography in Togzhan Kassenova’s commentary Turbulent Times for Brazil’s Nuclear Projects) has also been implicated in illicit activities. He was sentenced to 43 years in prison this past August for corruption and money-laundering. While PROSUB itself has survived the recent crises, these scandals raise the question whether there will be new allegations of illegal activities surrounding the construction of these platforms in the near future.
The other problem with PROSUB is that sensitive information about the Scorpène-class subs may be out in the open as DCNS has suffered a massive intelligence leak. This past August, the Australian daily The Australian published documents which “detail the secret combat capability of six Scorpène-class submarines that French shipbuilder DCNS has designed for the Indian Navy.” According to reports, the DCNS leak includes more than 22,000 pages about the Indian platforms.
Regarding this incident, Brazilian Rear Admiral Flavio Augusto Viana published a letter stating that “the Brazilian submarines were designed along specifications made by the Brazilian Navy, which means that there are differences between our submarines and those of other countries.” Therefore, the Brazilian Navy, “does not foresee any impact on the construction of the SBR.” The author is not qualified to compare the Brazilian and Indian Scorpène-class subs, however it is likely that there are some general similarities between the two models.
At this point it is worth remembering the words of Admiral Eduardo Leal Ferreira, commander of the Brazilian Navy, who spoke at a recent 26 September event entitled “Addressing Challenges in the Maritime Commons” at the National Bureau of Asian Research. An article written by the author for IHS Jane’s Defense, quotes Admiral Ferreira stating that the PROSUB program is the Navy’s main priority, followed by upgrading the fleet’s frigates, and then repairing the Sao Paulo(A-12) carrier. In other words, PROSUB, in spite of delays, budget issues and other incidents, will continue.
Discussion
Given that PROSUB is well underway and by next decade we will see a modern, domestically constructed, Brazilian submarine flee. The question is: why does Brazil need these platforms?
The standard reason is for Brazil to monitor and protect its 7,500 kilometers of coastline and vast maritime territory, including its natural resources (the discovery of underwater oil reserves is an often-mentioned fact), from domestic and foreign threats. In his remarks for NBAR, Admiral Ferreira added that the Atlantic Ocean is an open ocean, not a closed sea, so Brazil requires a blue water navy, hence the importance of the submarine and aircraft carrier program. The admiral also highlighted the necessity to have freedom of navigation, implying a blue water navy is necessary, “so when there are problems in the South China Sea or the East China Sea or wherever, we won’t be affected.”
This author argues that Brazil does not have any major inter-state issues that would make the submarines, a platform suitable for conventional warfare, necessary. The reality of South American geopolitics is that Brazil’s relations with its 10 neighbors, including one-time competitor Argentina, remain quite cordial. Hence, the possibility that a regional state would attempt to aggressively take control of part of Brazil’s exclusive economy zone is too remote to realistically contemplate.
Additionally, while Brazil has pursued the submarine program (among other platform acquisition projects), this has not sparked a regional arms race for fear of an “imperialist” Brasilia trying to take over a neighbor’s territory. In other words, regional states do not appear threatened by Brazil’s PROSUB program, highlighting the current status of regional geopolitics and the general success of confidence building mechanisms (for example Brazil has a constant presence in regional military exercises, such as hosting UNITAS Brasil 2015 and serving as the deputy commander for PANAMAX 2016 – Multi-National Forces-South), which make the possibility of inter-state warfare remote in this region.
Likewise, there is little chance that an extra-regional power will deploy a fleet to Brazilian waters a la Spanish Armada to take over its oil platforms. While it is true that the U.S. did send a fleet, led by the USS Forrestal, to support Brazil’s military coup in 1964, bilateral, regional and global geopolitics are not the same as five decades ago.
Without a doubt, Brazil deserves a well-equipped and modern navy that can address its 21st century challenges, protecting its maritime territory, particularly the offshore oil platforms, and cracking down on maritime crimes like drug trafficking (or other types of smuggling) or illegal fishing. However, this author argues that submarines are hardly the appropriate platforms for these tasks. A fleet of oceanic patrol vessels (OPVs) along with a robust air wing would be more suitable for coastal and oceanic patrol, including the interdiction of suspicious vessels.
Final Thoughts
In his September remarks at NBAR, Admiral Ferreira explained the need for Brazil to possess a blue water Navy in case of a hypothetical armed conflict in the South or East China Seas. This author has not found a direct correlation between the two issues: if an incident took place, would Brazil need to deploy its platforms to the open seas in defense of freedom of navigation? While the Admiral’s statement is not clear, the wider goal is to obviously increase the power projection of the Brazilian Navy by making it a blue water navy. This explains PROSUB’s priority, as this will be a major source of pride regarding the country’s naval capabilities, including the ability to manufacture these platforms.
Additionally, Admiral Ferreira highlighted that the Brazilian Navy is a dual-purpose navy as “we are not just a war-fighting Navy like the U.S., we have other collateral tasks, we are coast guard, we are maritime authority for safety of the sea [and] we have lots of tasks in the Amazon basin.” Indeed, the Brazilian Navy has a variety of tasks. However, the question remains if a fleet of four Scorpène-class submarines and one nuclear-powered submarine are the ideal platforms to carry out these duties when OPVs and frigate-type platforms (which the Navy is upgrading) are more suitable for these tasks.
Alejandro Sanchez Nieto is a researcher who focuses on geopolitical, military, and cyber security issues in the Western Hemisphere. Follow him on Twitter: @W_Alex_Sanchez.
The views presented in this essay are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

IHS Jane's: Astronautics begins upgrades for Peru's Hercules fleet


"Astrounatics begins upgrades for Peru's Hercules fleet"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
IHS Jane's Defense Weekly - Country Risk
January 27, 2016
Originally published: http://www.janes.com/article/57548/astronautics-begins-upgrades-for-peru-s-hercules-fleet

Astronautics Corporation of America has begun the upgrading the Peruvian Air Force's (FAP's) L-100 Hercules transport aircraft.

The L-100 is the civilian variant of the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules.

The Wisconsin-based company was selected in April 2015 to modernise the aircraft cockpits. Astronautics explained in a statement that it will install an "integrated glass cockpit designed to maximise crew situational awareness with digital interfaces and displays".

The new tools include six Astronautics electronic flight/engine and caution advisory system displays and dual engine data units. The agreement includes training for FAP personnel.

In mid-January a ceremony was held in the Grupo Aéreo No. [...]


(102 of 257 words)

Sunday, August 23, 2015

CIMSEC: U.S. SOUTHCOM VS. CARIBBEAN NARCO-PIRATES


"U.S. SOUTHCOM vs. Narco-Pirates"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
Center for International Maritime Security
August 21, 2015
Originally published: http://cimsec.org/u-s-southcom-vs-caribbean-narco-pirates/18377

The following is a guest post by author W. Alejandro Sanchez.  The author would like to thank CARICOM IMPACS for their assistance with this project.

On March 12, 2015, Marine General John Kelly, commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), testified before the Armed Services Committee about the security challenges that the United States and its Western Hemispheric allies face throughout the continent. In his Posture Statement, the general noted that SOUTHCOM is the U.S. military’s “lowest priority Geographic Combatant Command, hence the maxim ‘doing less with less’ has a disproportionate effect on our operations, exercises, and engagement activities.”

One particular focus of General Kelly’s remarks was transnational crime, specifically drug trafficking that originates in South America and crosses the Greater Caribbean towards the United States. There are several types of transnational crime occurring throughout Caribbean waters; due to space constraints, this commentary will only focus on the transportation methods utilized to move drugs throughout the Caribbean Sea and what this means for the security of the United States and its allies.

Low Priority & Insufficient Assets?
In his Posture Statement, General Kelly stated that Washington’s allies in the Western Hemisphere “are frustrated by what they perceive as the low prioritization of Latin America on our national security and foreign policy agendas, which is especially puzzling given the shared challenge of transnational organized crime.”It is not surprising that Latin America and the Caribbean are a low security priority for the United States, as the White House has had to deal with security crises elsewhere over the past years, such as the conflict in Ukraine, tensions with Russia, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Islamic State. Moreover, sequestration and other defense budget cuts have forced SOUTHCOM to try to do more, or at least the same as before, with less funds. The SOUTHCOM commander went on to explain how “force allocation cuts by the Services… are having the greatest impact… We are already feeling the impact at our headquarters, where we have implemented a 13% reduction in civilian billets and an 11% reduction in military ones.”
A similar situation is occurring with the U.S. Coast Guard, which has a wide area of operations in the

Caribbean. For the USCG, one immediate challenge is upgrading its aging equipment. Admiral Paul Zukunft, the Coast Guard’s Commandant, stated in April, “much of the Coast Guard’s infrastructure and many of our platforms are well beyond their service life.”

Both the SOUTHCOM commander and the Coast Guard Commandant have pointed out the challenge that transnational organized crime (TOCs), e.g. drug trafficking organizations, pose to U.S. security. General Kelly has highlighted the types of illegal goods that criminals are moving throughout the Western Hemisphere, like“drugs—including marijuana, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and methamphetamine—small arms and explosives, precursor chemicals, illegally mined gold, counterfeit goods, people, and other contraband.” Meanwhile, the Coast Guard’s 2014 security blueprint, the Western Hemisphere Strategy (WHS), explains how “organizations are able to quickly adapt to changes in their external environment, including everything from advances in technology to an increase in law enforcement activity… As maritime trade and travel have grown, criminal organizations have taken to the sea, using complex operations and tactics to avoid detection while in transit.” (Click here for an analysis of the Coast Guard’s WHS).

In other words, both Southern Command and the Coast Guard are well aware of the challenges posed by TOCs. However, defense cuts and other security priorities are affecting how well these agencies, among others, can play a role in improving security in the region. The United States’ Caribbean allies and extra-hemispheric partners (like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) are actively working to crack down on Caribbean drug trafficking. However, given that the United States is the final destination for most of the drugs being moved around the Caribbean Sea, and given the still-limited resources of Caribbean states to stop drug trafficking through their territories (land and maritime), it would be ideal for U.S. security agencies to maintain a vibrant presence in the region, particularly since Caribbean drug trafficking entities have the funds, creativity, and willingness to constantly expand their methods of transporting drugs.

Narco-Methods of Transportation
As for criminals themselves, they are nothing if not (infuriatingly) resourceful and creative when it comes to thinking of new ways to move drugs across the Caribbean. As a disclaimer, I must highlight that one major obstacle with this analysis is that detailed information is sometimes not openly available regarding the specifications of narco-vessels. For example, U.S. Southern Command reported that the USS Kauffman, a frigate, interdicted 528 kg of cocaine aboard a vessel on June 17. Nevertheless, SOUTHCOM’s press release does not explain what kind of vessel it was, other than calling it a “narcotic-trafficking vessel in international waters in the Eastern Pacific” or a “suspected smuggling vessel.”

The information below about narco-vessels provide as much detailed information as this author has been able to find.

As part of my research for this report, I contacted the Implementation Agency for Crime And Security (IMPACS), a security branch of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM, an organization made up of 15 Caribbean states). CARICOM IMPACS explained that 80% of all illicit smuggling activity through the region that originated in South America is carried out through maritime means.
·         Speedboats / Go-boats: the standard method of transporting cargo. Just this past July, the Coast Guard cutter Dauntless, “along with the assistance of a Netherlands Coast Guard maritime patrol aircraft,”stopped a speedboat north of Aruba – on the vessel were six individuals carrying a cargo of 275 pounds of cocaine.

  • ·         Narco Subs: The evolution of narco-submarines over the past two decades is quite remarkable. The first narco-sub was stopped in 1993 and it had a crude design: it was slow and made up of wood and fiberglass. More modern narco-subs can be fully submersible, travel as fast as 11 miles per hour, with larger fuel tanks and space for cargo. Due to space issues, we cannot discuss the different types of narco-submarines. A comprehensive report by the Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) entitled “Narco Submarines: Specially Fabricated Vessels For Drug Smuggling Purposes” discusses them in detail, including estimated costs, separating them from semi-submersibles, low-profile vessels, and submarines. These vessels have become alarmingly popular in recent years, as the narco-traffickers have sufficient funds to construct them. Case in point, this past June 18, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard intercepted a “semi-submersible craft” that was carrying the whopping cargo of 16,870 pounds of cocaine.


  • ·         Narco-Torpedos: One new technology is static narco-containers (AKA Parasitic Devices). The FMSO report defines them as “containers which are bolted or magnetically placed on the bottom of freighters and other large cargo ships by cartel and organized crime frogmen.”Narco-torpedoes were found on the hulls of ships going from Latin America to Europe in 2013. I have been unable to find current examples of such containers being utilized in the Caribbean, but it stands to reason that they could be utilized as well, particularly as there is a great flow of goods through Caribbean ports en route to the U.S. and elsewhere. Narco-subs and narco-torpedoes are the next evolution of drug trafficking in the region and, so far, there seems to be no limit to how large and equipped narco-subs can become.


  • ·         Inside cargo/fishing ships: Unsurprisingly, hiding contraband aboard vessels that apparently are carrying legitimate operations, such as fishing, continues to be an option for drug traffickers. For example, in early 2014 a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter operating out of a British Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel, the Wave Knight, stopped a vessel that was carrying 45 bricks of cocaine. This is a memorable mission, not solely because of the amount of narcotics seized, but because this marked the first time that a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter was launched from a British ship. That same year, on March 15, a fishing boat was seized off the coast of Panama. The U.S. Coast Guard investigated the vessel and found 97 bales of cocaine.


Finally, it is important to note that smuggling aboard vessels is more prevalent in some areas. CARICOM IMPACS explained to the author that smuggling among fishing vessels is common among members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (i.e. Dominica, Grenada or Saint Lucia) to French territories (i.e. Guadeloupe and Martinique) and Barbados. This is due to the fact that these nations have large fishing industries which are utilized as disguise for the flow of contraband.

  • ·         Narco-Aircraft: Planes and helicopters are also utilized for moving drugs, though they seem to be less common than maritime methods of transportation.  According to CARICOM IMPACS, air smuggling accounts for approximately 20% of narcotics shipments in the region, mostly around the Bahamas due to its geographical proximity to Florida (with Haiti and the Dominican Republic utilized as springboards between the two). Throughout my research for this report, I was unable to find recent incidents of air smuggling throughout Caribbean islands. A geographically close incident occurred this past May; a narco-plane, a Hawker twin-engine jet, crashed off the Colombian coast as it tried to flee from the Colombian Air Force. The aircraft reportedly left Venezuela and entered Colombian air space – authorities found 1.2 metric tons of cocaine among the wreckage. As for narco-helicopters, in 2013 the Costa Rican police cracked down on a criminal group that utilized helicopters to transport weapons and drugs along the country’s Caribbean coast.


The aforementioned list exemplifies how drug trafficking organizations employ a wide array of vessels and aircraft to move their contraband from South America, through the Greater Caribbean, and ultimately to the United States and Europe. Part of the reason for this variety is that drug trafficking groups use an “island hopping” strategy to move the narcotics – for example, a speedboat carrying cocaine may leave Venezuela and dock in Curacao; from there it will be put in another vessel until it reaches a different island, and from there it may be transferred a third time before it attempts to enter U.S. territory.

Shootouts At Sea?
One issue worth discussing is that most press releases that report on stopping suspicious vessels discuss the incidents as generally non-violent, or they are one-sided violent. At most, we hear about security forces that fire shots at suspicious vessels. For example, in January 2014, the aforementioned helicopter, launched from the HMS Wave Knight, fired warning shots at the suspicious vessel. “It was a unique and successful mission,” said U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Gabe Somma. “We fired warning shots, and they tossed [the drug-filled] bails.” Meanwhile, a March 2014 operation included a Coast Guard helicopter shooting at the engines of a ship in order to stop it.

The interesting issue here is that both incidents include security personnel shooting at suspected drug traffickers but not the suspected criminals shooting back. There are some official videos available online of suspected drug smugglers being chased by U.S. security forces, but the footage seems to show the fleeing drug traffickers more than actively engaged in a firefight (video 1, video 2). Certainly, criminals have no problem shooting at security forces – just this past May, a Mexican military helicopter had to make an emergency landing when it was shot at by gunmen (three soldiers were killed). However, in the Caribbean, incidents of drug traffickers aboard speedboats shooting at security agencies appear to be less common (or at least, under-reported). Nevertheless, the possibility that drug traffickers could become more actively violent in order to evade capture–switching from a release cargo-and-flee strategy to actively shooting at security agents–is worrisome. (While this commentary focuses on drug trafficking, there is also an active weapons trade through Caribbean waters; hence it stands to reason that criminals could use weapons in their possession/cargo, such as rifles and handguns, to attack security agents trying to stop them).

Nowadays SOUTHCOM, U.S. Navy South/4th Fleet, and the U.S. Coast Guard must do “more with less” at a time when the U.S. defense budget is undergoing significant cuts, and, as General Kelly correctly points out, SOUTHCOM has the least priority of all the other U.S. military commands. On the other hand, drug trafficking criminals are constantly thinking of new, more ingenious ways to move their illegal merchandise across the Caribbean Sea. Spotting narco-vessels may become even more difficult in the near future, particularly if narco-subs become more advanced and if narco-torpedoes become more popular.

Moreover, drug traffickers may eventually decide to be bolder and shoot back at security forces rather than flee. This may be the case if a particular cargo is deemed as too expensive to be lost. I have been unable to find cases of narco-speedboats having built-in machine guns, but this is certainly a possibility.This is not meant as an alarmist declaration but rather an assessment of how the situation is evolving in the Greater Caribbean.

Concluding Thoughts
In his March 2015 Posture Statement to the Armed Services Committee, General Kelly declared,“I am frustrated by the lack of a comprehensive U.S. government effort to counter the [transnational organized crime] threat.” Documents like the 2014 Coast Guard’s Western Hemisphere Strategy similarly explain the problem posed by TOCs, including those involved in drug trafficking, and the steps that can be taken to counteract them. The challenge nowadays for SOUTHCOM and the Coast Guard is having a budget that allows for the necessary personnel and equipment to carry out these objectives. General Kelly stated, “If sequestration returns in FY16, our ability to support national security objectives, including conducting many of our essential missions, will be significantly undermined. “

The goal of this analysis is not to imply that the U.S. government should give SOUTHCOM and/or the Coast Guard a blank check for obtaining new weapons. Nor should Washington solely focus on stopping the transportation of drugs through the Caribbean, while dismissing the other sides of the drug-equation, which includes demand (in the U.S. and European markets) and production (in South America). Rather, while the demand and production remain (unfortunately) vibrant, the interdiction of illegal narcotics among the various narco-corridors of the Greater Caribbean must remain a priority for SOUTHCOM and its supporting agencies like the Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, just like it is a national security priority for Caribbean nations and regional security agencies like CARICOM IMPACS.

While Washington does not regard developments in Latin America or the Greater Caribbean as a security priority (at least not comparable to developments elsewhere in the world), criminal organizations, particularly drug trafficking entities, continue to operate in areas like the Greater Caribbean. The list of vehicles used to transport drugs through that region demonstrates how drug trafficking groups continue to imagine creative new methods to move their illegal merchandise. Moreover, the rise of the narco-submarine is a problematic development as these vessels could become harder to spot in the near future, particularly as narcos have the funds to support their construction. The seizure of a narco-submarine just this past July is a clear example that narcos have not given up on these vessels.As General Kelly said, “criminal organizations are constantly adapting their methods for trafficking across our borders.”


W. Alejandro Sanchez is a Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) where he focuses on geopolitics, military and cyber security issues in the Western Hemisphere. Follow him on Twitter: @W_Alex_Sanchez