The RPG shoot-down of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents—inflicting the worst loss of troops in the history of the U.S. Special Operations Command—has brought the issue of aircraft ballistic protection front and center to even non-military Americans.
Ironically, the attack was accomplished with decades-old technology that demonstrates the threat of seemingly ancient, Cold War-era weapons to the most advanced military the world has ever seen.
Guided missiles, however, are very much a continuing threat to aerial forces. In an effort to better protect low-flying aircraft, the Army is currently close to choosing a new laser-based countermeasure system intended to replace systems currently in use on some craft that have proved ineffective against various types of heat-seeking-missiles. While Northrop Grumman’s 200-pound AN/ AAQ-24 (V) Nemesis directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system is more universally effective against varied types of missile attacks, and is in use on over 2,000 vehicles including special operations use on C-130 aircraft variants, its weight makes it illsuited for most smaller rotor craft.
BAE Systems supplied the ALQ-212 advanced threat infrared countermeasures systems that can be found on Army CH-47 Chinooks. But cost and scheduling overruns led to termination of the program last year. Like other existing laser-based countermeasure systems, they’re ineffective against RPGs, which are guided by the physics surrounding where the rocket is aimed and don’t provide traditional infrared sensors a target. The Department of Defense has long sought better protection against such attacks, including everything from better armor to active and passive countermeasure technologies.
There are multiple defense firms currently vying for the Army’s common infrared countermeasures contract for a lightweight, laser-based infrared countermeasure system, including BAE Systems, ITT, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. The Army is expected to award hardware evaluation contracts for at least two competing systems in late September with the goal of a single final delivery contract for a modular system with an open-architecture and upgradable design to allow for integrating with varying missile detection technologies as well as laser countermeasures. The intent is to allow for continued use with future combat systems.
But even the next-generation systems the Army currently desires for aircraft are an ill-suited response to the non-guided RPG systems often seen in the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters. British defense manufacturer Cobham PLC believes it may have the answer, at least for ground combat vehicles, with their Sentinel system.
It is designed to give ground combat vehicles detection and tracking of incoming threats, including rocket propelled grenades, allowing for deployment of countermeasures from other systems with which it is combined.
“The end state is, of course, that you will be able to have a countermeasure take out the RPG before it gets to the vehicle,” Steve Fetter, who heads up business development for the firm’s Lowell, Mass., development site, told Special Operations Technology. He added that while currently focused on ground vehicle detection, the technology could have aerial applications.
The radar technology utilized actually has its base in missile technology that was state of the art about 15 or 20 years ago. It was later adopted for commercial automotive applications for situational awareness systems such as cruise control, airbag deployment and accident avoidance systems.
Currently at a technology readiness level of six to seven, the firm has conducted field trials with its vehicle manufacturing partners and is currently integrating further enhancements with customers, while expecting to phase it in for ground use in the next year or so. Whether it makes it to aerial use remains up in the air, but the potential is there, especially considering a companion threat detection technology on which the firm is working.
Its Pin Point system is designed to detect the direction from which small arm rounds are fired that could have potential uses for slower moving aircraft. It relies on acoustic detection and GPS to provide shot direction information through a vehicle’s existing heads-up display.
Such situational awareness information about where shots or hard-to-detect shoulder-fired rockets are coming from could be integral in terms of countering attacks on any sort of vehicle by providing details for helicopter or attack plane crews entering into a combat situation. After all, knowing where threats are coming from provides a great operational advantage over those attempting to shoot aircraft from the sky.
A DARPA-backed effort to develop a fully deployable system aimed at providing similar RPG and shot threat detection and response has been attached to some MRAP vehicles in Afghanistan for combat testing. The CROSSHAIRS (Counter Rocket-Propelled Grenade and Shooter System with Highly Accurate Immediate Responses) sole-source MRAP integration contract went to Mustang Technology Group in 2009, with the program expanded to in-theater helicopter testing on Blackhawks in 2010 under the Helicopter Alert and Threat Termination nomenclature.
Armor Materials
Although DoD is searching for better solutions to counter RPGs and smart missile systems for rotor and fixed wing aircraft, aerial body armor continues to play a significant role in protecting American special operations soldiers in flight. While several firms, including Lockheed Martin, produce reactive aircraft armor, passive armor remains the dominant means to protect aircraft from ballistic threats.
Mark King, president of Costa Mesa, Calif.-based Ceradyne Armor Systems, a top producer of advanced technical ceramics that can be found on the Blackhawk and AH-1Z Viper helicopter as well as Eurocopter military models, said the 46-year-old firm’s use of advanced ceramics for aerial ballistic protection armor dates to the early 1980s with the fielding of the Apache helicopter.
“It was one of the first times in which we applied the lightest material that has ballistic characteristics, that could defend it … on a flying system,” King told Special Operations Technology. “The Apache is rather heavily armored to protect the pilot and the gunner. That was kind of the genesis for the use of ceramics way back then.”
King noted that while the original Apache armor performance spec has not been upgraded since the attack helicopter was delivered, the complete armor retrofit that is in the works is an example of where the next generation of aircraft armoring will be fielded. Ceradyne is working closely with manufacturer Boeing on providing an updated, higher performing ceramic and composite-based armor system for the helicopter.
“What I can tell you is there has been a significant improvement in the armor materials,” he said. “It is a significant change over what it has had in it. It will be a good improvement for the warriors that are fighting in this system. It is good for materials. It will be a good upgrade all across the board.”
Marc Edwards, president of TenCate Advanced Armor USA Inc., told SOTECH that unlike ground vehicle armor, aerial vehicles ballistic protection requires less of a focus on ballistic protection and more on weight because of the increased distances typically involved in taking fire from the air.
“The key to it is aerial density, weight,” said Edwards. “What you find in these things are higher performance solutions to get to the lower weight, so they tend to be more expensive solutions.”
Along with personal protection and ground vehicle armor, Tencate is a player in the composite and ceramic armor market primarily as add-on vehicle protection— including spall protection—for prime military vehicle manufacturers including BAE, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. They also provide ballistic armor for the C-130 plane.
Edwards argued that it is important to realize that no individual particular hightech armoring material can meet the performance and weight spec requirements set by the U.S. military on each individual vehicle.
“What you will find is no one composite or ceramic material by itself gives you everything you need for protection,” said Edwards. “You always end up with a combination of material to get these relatively high levels of ballistic protection that seem to be the main driver these days.”
He added that in the aftermath of uparmoring of ground vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan there is now more of a desire in DoD for upgrading armor on aircraft, particularly on the rotary front.
“Obviously, the revamp for certain vehicle programs has to do with operations, and the No. 1 requirement is survivability,” said Edwards.
Stan Lyons, manager of BAE Systems Armor Development Group—who oversees the company’s new materials and process technology—and Alex Harris, business development manager for aviation and maritime at BAE, agreed that the name of the game in aircraft armor is not only improving ballistic protection, but also lowering weight.
BAE has been developing ceramic compound armor for aircraft since the late 1970s, starting with ballistic protection seats. Their single panel seating protection technology is going into the new Black Hawk UH-60M upgrade.
The two said the firm looks at a host of materials when it comes to providing armor structure, ballistic protection and light weight. Harris specifically pointed to the use of ultra-high molecular-weight polyethylene, an advanced thermoplastic material that goes by several manufacturer names, as having great promise for aircraft armoring. For now, it’s in use only on ground vehicles like the MRAP, but it has been proposed for aviation use.
“We’ve been doing a lot of research in the past several years using this material,” Harris told SOTECH. “It lends itself to armor and provides a very lightweight solution for floor armor or seats.”
Lyons pointed to the use of carbon nanotubes to toughen ceramics and composites as potential means to further improve armor technology. In a recently completed study for the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate research arm of their use for ballistic seat backing, they were found to increase structural stiffness without any significant increase in weight.
“We think there will be some interesting applications, especially in areas where you need to add structure without adding hardly any weight,” he said.
BAE’s Harris also pointed to their efforts to develop transparent ceramic armor as having great promise. Currently being manufactured for an unnamed customer, it combines a transparent ceramic armor material with a polyethylene impact-resistant material for added strength.
Budget Cuts , Wars Ending
TenCate’s Edwards noted that upgrading and improving upon flight armor systems with truly advanced materials, particularly composites, continues to be a fight despite the improved performance they can provide. He said that composite solutions for armor have been around for 20 years but there has not been a period of time with enough demand to get them to the status of a go-to material. Prime defense manufacturers are often disinclined to look at them because of their natural inclination toward metals as the go-to armoring option.
While Force Protection’s Ocelot Light Tactical Vehicle is a rare composite-based vehicle, he argued that the continued use of composites for military vehicle design would go a long way to their greater use for armor protection.
“If you look at the defense industry in general, they really don’t know how to incorporate composites,” said Edwards. “The whole industry has been built around steel and steel alloys.”
Nevertheless, he predicted that looking longer-term, at least in terms of light vehicles, the use of structural composites will only grow.
“To get to the higher level of acceptability of hard armor from new technologies, there are two pieces that have to come together,” he said. “One is technology for active systems. The other is the industry has to become more inclined. Five or 10 years from now you will see more structural composites out there.”
One means for broader ceramic and composite use may come from BAE, which has overseen a project for ATTS examining ways to make the space in armored systems more efficient. Specifically, they looked at ways of placing armor in the floor, on the sides, and inside as well as outside of the fuselage and even in the subfloor space in order to provide a combination of inner and outer ballistic protection.
Lyons said that the demonstration showed that you can reduce weight quite a bit while improving ballistic performance, but it has yet to find its way to platform use.
“By doing that, you can have a much more mass efficient system,” said Lyons. “We are optimistic [about its use]. Sometimes you come up with good stuff but it is hard to find a home for it.”
While there are ongoing developments in the armor protection sphere on the horizon, the unmistakable uncertainty resulting from expected DoD budget cuts amid the ramping down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is sure to have an impact on how quickly such new technology is adopted. The two wars provided a massive funding boom for the defense industry. But with all booms, there must also be a bust and the downside of this cycle.
“With budget cuts, with slowdowns and withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq, operation is slowing and the speed at which this [procurement] is going is diminishing.” said Ceradyne’s King. “Programs will be thrown out and there will be less money available to do some of this work.”
BAE’s Harris added that industry consolidation is inevitable.
“[The military] will still want something that is lighter weight, but in the current budget environment, cost will be more important than it has been in the past,” said Harris. “The war brought up a lot of capacity in the armor business. As we see the wars go away there will be a lot of competition out there, which is good for DoD but obviously makes it hard for all of us. The market constraints are there to make [consolidation] happen. Where it will happen is another question.”
King also added that while there are still development and advancements happening, the unavoidable slowdown in DoD procurement will have a negative impact on the rate of armor advancement, the degree of which no one can truly predict.
“My own perspective is that we [as an industry] have been running just as hard as we can for 10 years,” said King. “Anyone that doesn’t believe that hasn’t been working in the defense industry for very long. We are still investing in our R&D, sure. We’re certainly trying hard to get [the U.S. military] what they want, but the window to do it has gotten very, very narrow. We’ve used up a lot of that opportunity already. We’ll see where it goes. I don’t know if the government knows where it goes.” ♦
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου