ru/The failings of hi-tech/The Russian connection

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=3162&lang=en
War in Iraq: Random Thoughts, Part II
16.04.2003 [15:38]

The failings of hi-tech

About a hundred of Iraq's operational aircraft have disappeared without a trace. There have been no photos, satellite imagery, video footage made by targeting systems of Iraqi planes, helicopters, tanks, SAM launchers or any other military equipment supposedly destroyed by the coalition. We have seen such images on a daily basis during the 1991 Gulf War and during the 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia. And speaking of Yugoslavia - here's another characteristic example: for nearly three months hundreds of NATO aircraft and dozens of warships attacked Yugoslavia with bombs and missiles. This was a very one-sided war in which the defending side chose a very passive strategy.
Even so, the NATO command claimed some 800 destroyed "tanks". It claimed that Yugoslav air defenses were completely destroyed and its army was on the verge of collapse. At the end of the war the Yugoslav side confirmed 26 tanks lost mainly to the Kosovo Liberation Army actions. It was said that about ten of those tanks were still repairable and were transported out of Kosovo. In the province itself the 'peacekeepers' found only 13 destroyed tanks and just three of them were the relatively modern M84s. No destroyed air defense systems were found.

Much to NATO's embarrassment the Yugoslav army paraded hundreds of armored vehicles and air defense systems when it was withdrawing from Kosovo. A review was launched by the NATO into the discrepancy between the number if claimed kills and the confirmed results of the bombing campaign. NATO's commander Gen. Clarke was sacked just two months before the end of his term. This war illustrated the weaknesses of air power at all stages: reconnaissance, real-time target acquisition and identification, targeting and guidance. This was just three years ago.

During the war in Yugoslavia NATO lost at least 45 unmanned reconnaissance vehicles. This was officially confirmed by the NATO command. This number includes almost all (12) of the new British "Phoenix" UAVs deployed in the war - the first operational deployment of this remarkably expensive type. The primary task of these aircraft was to provide real-time targeting information - a task never accomplished. Incidentally, a "Phoenix" UAV is one of only two UAV losses officially reported during the ongoing war in Iraq.

Another marvel of modern UAV design - the enormous Global Hawk - is reportedly being used over Iraq following its less than impressive performance in Afghanistan. Out of at least 16 confirmed UAV losses in Afghanistan two were the Global Hawks - the most expensive operational 'strategic' UAVs with intercontinental range. U-2s, satellites and numerous other reconnaissance systems are also being used in Iraq. Nearly all of the same systems were used over Yugoslavia with very poor results.

Massive failures of GPS-guided weapons, such as modernized Tomahawks and JDAM guided bombs, were likely cause by novel GPS jamming systems deployed by Iraq. The US accused Russia of supplying the GPS jammers to Iraq along with some of its latest anti-tank guided missile systems. Russia rejected these accusations but the fact of poor performance of GPS-guided weapons remains.

The Russian connection
Moscow's role in this war remains a mystery. On the one hand Russia was accused of supplying Iraq with GPS jammers, advanced anti-tank weapons and night-vision equipment. However, these allegations remained with no proof. A couple of destroyed "Abrams" MBTs and a few killed coalition soldiers do not amount to conclusive evidence. Still, Russia was concerned by these allegations and top Russian government officials stepped up to personally reject them. These accusations were quite specific: particular Russian companies were named as manufacturers of the weapons. Naturally, the management of these companies vehemently denied any connections with Iraq.

Russia distanced itself from Saddam Hussein and limited its public position on the war in Iraq to political rhetoric and occasional hit-and-run verbal assaults on Washington and London. But then something happened and Russia first hinted at and later confirmed plans to deploy considerable naval forces to the Persian Gulf area. Russian diplomatic convoy was attacked by the US troops while leaving Baghdad. Five Russian diplomats, including the ambassador, were wounded. Immediately the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the US of deliberately attacking the Russian diplomats.

At the very first opportunity Russia's ambassador to Iraq gave a televised interview accusing the US troops of deliberately firing at the Russian diplomatic convoy for nearly forty minutes and then refusing to provide any assistance. It has been confirmed that the bullets pulled from the stomach of one of the drivers came from a US-made M-16 automatic rifle. Numerous holes and bullets found in the cars came from the same type of weapon.

The attack on the Russian diplomatic convoy corresponds in time with the first signs of folding Iraqi defenses. Many wonder why the Russia's ambassador to Iraq took the great risk of leaving Baghdad and traveling to Syria and, later, to Moscow just to return to Baghdad two days later. Was there something so important carried by the diplomatic convoy that it required ambassadorial escort? Something important enough to cause the US troops to open fire on Russian diplomats? Furthermore, the Russian side alleged that the US troops were trying to stop and search the diplomatic convoy and were trying to deny it passage across the Syrian border.

Putin talked to Bush on the phone. It was reported that the conversation was long and not particularly pleasant. In contrast Condoleezza Rice's visit to Moscow the next morning was short and seemingly uneventful. Some sources claimed that the diplomatic convoy might have been carrying certain US military hardware captured by the Iraqis. This would include the advanced electro-optical systems from the downed AH-64D Apache Longbow. As you may remember, this helicopter - the most advanced in its class in the US service - landed with minimal damage after supposedly being hit by simple rifle round. With the exception of some light damage to the undercarriage the helicopter was intact. The two pilots were captured.

The CENTCOM representatives confirmed that this AH-64D was later destroyed by a precision-guided bomb dropped by a US plane (presumably an F-14) so not to let the advanced technology fall into the enemy's hands. The US destroyed a number of its downed aircraft during the first war in the Persian Gulf and during the war in Yugoslavia. However, the first official confirmation of this practice came during the continuing war in Afghanistan, where an F-14 used a laser-guided bomb to destroy the remains of an MH-53 transport helicopter. During the first war in the Persian Gulf Iraq claimed to have shot down an F-117 'stealth' bomber with an SA-8 'Gecko' mobile SAM systems. Iraq also claimed that the remains of this F-117 were destroyed by another F-117 before the Iraqi troops could locate the crash site.

Classified technology
If you read the "Ramzaj" reports you know that using satellite imagery of the AH-64D's crash site Russian military intelligence concluded that the US planes destroyed a crude mockup of the helicopter and that the real AH-64D was transported away from the crash site. Later video footage from Iraq showed an AH-64D Apache Longbow being transported by a truck, confirming the initial analysts of the satellite photos. It is worth particular attention that the most sensitive electro-optical systems were removed from the helicopter. If you look at the video still of the AH-64D loaded onto a trailer, you will notice missing targeting and surveillance equipment in the nose section of the aircraft.

What exactly was missing and how important are these systems? Are they worth a political and, possibly, a military confrontation with Russia? There were also some rumors that these systems were bought by China and not by Russia. China is attempting to develop its own attack helicopter, while Russia already has similar technology. The AH-64D contains a lot of classified technology including the Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman AN/APG-78 Longbow mast-mounted 360-deg radar that can track up to 256 airborne and ground targets. The communication suit includes AN/ARC-164 UHF, AN/ARC-222 SINCGARS secure UHF/VHF, KY-28/58/TSEC crypto secure voice, C-8157 secure voice control, AN/APX-100 IFF system with KIT-1A secure encoding.

The helicopter's sensor turret, present on the original photos of the downed AH-64D but missing on the video footage shot later, contains a number of advanced optical and electronic systems including the TV camera, laser range-finder/designator, laser spot tracker, FLIR sight and other systems. The helicopter is also equipped with Litton AN/APR-39 passive RWR, Sanders AN/ALQ-144 IR jammer, Raytheon AN/AVR-2 laser warning receiver, ITT AN/ALQ-136 radar jammer and chaff dispensers and Lockheed Martin AN/APR-48A radar frequency interferometer.

The missing turret is obvious but it is difficult to tell what other systems were removed from the helicopter even before it was loaded onto a truck. By all accounts the captured Apache Longbow was loaded with technology worth billions of dollars in development costs. But would this cause the US troops to try to kill the Russian diplomats, or was there something even more important riding in ambassador's Mercedes-Benz? Most importantly, however, did transporting pieces of the attack helicopter really require 25 embassy staff members and the ambassador himself? This does not seem very likely. On the other hand, in 1999 Russia acquired a number of NATO weapons captured by the Yugoslav military, including the British Phoenix UAV and the US F-117A ‘stealth’ bomber.

Next: Saddam and his archives. To be continued

Источник: Venik/www.aeronautics.ru