(NSI News Source Info) January 8, 2009: The Swedish mobile artillery-hunting radar system, called ARTHUR, was developed in the 1990s, but was found wanting during its first combat use recently in Afghanistan. Canadian forces there reported that, of 3,200 "incoming objects" ARTHUR reported, only two turned out to be real. There were other problems as well, but the large number of false positives was particularly worrisome. These were often caused by friendly aircraft, or distant electric transmission line towers, being mistook for incoming fire. 
ARTHUR is an abbreviation for mobile "Artillery Hunting Radar" system developed in Sweden. The vehicle carrying the radar is a Bandvagn 206 developed and produced by Hägglunds; the radar is developed by Ericsson. Its cost is estimated at 48 million Swedish kronor per unit.
This field artillery acquisition radar was developed for the primary role as the core element of a brigade or division level counter battery sensor system. It can also be used for peace support operations. In June 2006, Ericsson sold the greater part of Ericsson Microwave Systems to SAAB, which it intends to rename Saab Microwave Systems.
ARTHUR is carried in a Bv206 tracked vehicle and costs $20 million per system. The radar can detect shells or rockets fired from up to 40 kilometers away. Within the few seconds, the systems computer can calculate the location of the firing artillery to within two meters. Given the availability of GPS guided shells (Excalibur) and rockets (GMLRS), you can have return (counterbattery) fire on the enemy artillery within a minute.
South Korea, another buyer of ARTHUR, is particularly concerned about the massive numbers of North Korean artillery weapons aimed at their capital, Seoul. ARTHUR, if linked electronically with artillery units equipped with Excalibur or GMLRS, could shut down a lot North Korean artillery very quickly. But only if ARTHUR can deliver on its promise to track up to eight shells a simultaneously, and handle about a hundred a minute. Now there is doubt.
In South Korea, ARTHUR will be replacing the American AN TPQ-36/37 FireFinder artillery and mortar finding radar, which has gotten a bad reputation of late. That was often for failing to detect incoming mortar fire. FireFinder was developed in the 1970s, based on Vietnam experience with enemy mortar and rocket attacks.
FireFinder is a radar system which, when it spots an incoming shell, calculates where it came from and transmits the location to a nearby artillery unit, which then fires on where the mortar is (or was). This process takes 3-4 minutes (or less, for experienced troops.) FireFinder worked as advertised, but got little use until U.S. troops entered Iraq. Since then, the FireFinder has been very effective, and heavily used. Too heavily used. There were not a lot of spare parts stockpiled for FireFinder, but now several hundred million dollars worth have been ordered. The manufacturer has also introduced new components, that are more reliable, and easier to maintain.
Meanwhile, existing FireFinders are often failing to catch incoming fire, either because of equipment failure, or because the enemy is using tactics that fool the radar. For example, in Iraq, American bases are generally on higher ground than the mortars firing at them. Putting bases on the high ground enables you to watch more of the surrounding area. But FireFinder needs a line-of-sight to get a good fix on the firing weapons position. If the mortar is too far below the radar, FireFinder cannot accurately spot where the fire is coming from.
Another problem is that if the mortar is too close, FireFinder is much less likely to quickly determine where the fire is coming from. So the enemy mortar teams get as close as they can before they open up. This still makes the mortar teams vulnerable to counterattack by coalition troops, but not the immediate (in a few minutes) artillery fire that FireFinder can make happen under the right conditions.
At first, the army was going to halt further upgrades on FireFinder, which, after all was developed thirty years ago, and begin developing a new system, one that can better deal with the kinds of problems encountered in Iraq. But FireFinder has been so useful, that new upgrades were pursued anyway, while work continued on a replacement system. The upgrades have also been made available to other users of FireFinder (including, just in the Middle East, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.)
Meanwhile, ARTHUR has been selling to many NATO countries, as it is of more recent vintage than FireFinder, and has gotten rave reviews from existing users. But these reviews were based on peacetime tests, not actual battlefield use. The Canadian experience has had a chilling effect on ARTHUR sales.
The U.S. Army has been developing a new counterbattery radar, the AN/TPQ-47 FireFinder, but this is not ready for service yet. The AN/TPQ-47 is actually a major upgrade of the older FireFinder, with the capability of tracking rockets and missiles with a range of up to 300 kilometers. But this new system is towed, not self-propelled. Each AN/TPQ-47 is expected to cost about $22 million.
The combat experiences of FireFinder and ARTHUR should inspire developers of this kind of equipment to come up with more realistic testing procedures.
ARTHUR is an abbreviation for mobile "Artillery Hunting Radar" system developed in Sweden. The vehicle carrying the radar is a Bandvagn 206 developed and produced by Hägglunds; the radar is developed by Ericsson. Its cost is estimated at 48 million Swedish kronor per unit.
This field artillery acquisition radar was developed for the primary role as the core element of a brigade or division level counter battery sensor system. It can also be used for peace support operations. In June 2006, Ericsson sold the greater part of Ericsson Microwave Systems to SAAB, which it intends to rename Saab Microwave Systems.
ARTHUR is carried in a Bv206 tracked vehicle and costs $20 million per system. The radar can detect shells or rockets fired from up to 40 kilometers away. Within the few seconds, the systems computer can calculate the location of the firing artillery to within two meters. Given the availability of GPS guided shells (Excalibur) and rockets (GMLRS), you can have return (counterbattery) fire on the enemy artillery within a minute.
South Korea, another buyer of ARTHUR, is particularly concerned about the massive numbers of North Korean artillery weapons aimed at their capital, Seoul. ARTHUR, if linked electronically with artillery units equipped with Excalibur or GMLRS, could shut down a lot North Korean artillery very quickly. But only if ARTHUR can deliver on its promise to track up to eight shells a simultaneously, and handle about a hundred a minute. Now there is doubt.
In South Korea, ARTHUR will be replacing the American AN TPQ-36/37 FireFinder artillery and mortar finding radar, which has gotten a bad reputation of late. That was often for failing to detect incoming mortar fire. FireFinder was developed in the 1970s, based on Vietnam experience with enemy mortar and rocket attacks.
FireFinder is a radar system which, when it spots an incoming shell, calculates where it came from and transmits the location to a nearby artillery unit, which then fires on where the mortar is (or was). This process takes 3-4 minutes (or less, for experienced troops.) FireFinder worked as advertised, but got little use until U.S. troops entered Iraq. Since then, the FireFinder has been very effective, and heavily used. Too heavily used. There were not a lot of spare parts stockpiled for FireFinder, but now several hundred million dollars worth have been ordered. The manufacturer has also introduced new components, that are more reliable, and easier to maintain.
Meanwhile, existing FireFinders are often failing to catch incoming fire, either because of equipment failure, or because the enemy is using tactics that fool the radar. For example, in Iraq, American bases are generally on higher ground than the mortars firing at them. Putting bases on the high ground enables you to watch more of the surrounding area. But FireFinder needs a line-of-sight to get a good fix on the firing weapons position. If the mortar is too far below the radar, FireFinder cannot accurately spot where the fire is coming from.
Another problem is that if the mortar is too close, FireFinder is much less likely to quickly determine where the fire is coming from. So the enemy mortar teams get as close as they can before they open up. This still makes the mortar teams vulnerable to counterattack by coalition troops, but not the immediate (in a few minutes) artillery fire that FireFinder can make happen under the right conditions.
At first, the army was going to halt further upgrades on FireFinder, which, after all was developed thirty years ago, and begin developing a new system, one that can better deal with the kinds of problems encountered in Iraq. But FireFinder has been so useful, that new upgrades were pursued anyway, while work continued on a replacement system. The upgrades have also been made available to other users of FireFinder (including, just in the Middle East, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.)
Meanwhile, ARTHUR has been selling to many NATO countries, as it is of more recent vintage than FireFinder, and has gotten rave reviews from existing users. But these reviews were based on peacetime tests, not actual battlefield use. The Canadian experience has had a chilling effect on ARTHUR sales.
The U.S. Army has been developing a new counterbattery radar, the AN/TPQ-47 FireFinder, but this is not ready for service yet. The AN/TPQ-47 is actually a major upgrade of the older FireFinder, with the capability of tracking rockets and missiles with a range of up to 300 kilometers. But this new system is towed, not self-propelled. Each AN/TPQ-47 is expected to cost about $22 million.
The combat experiences of FireFinder and ARTHUR should inspire developers of this kind of equipment to come up with more realistic testing procedures.
WASHINGTON - January 8, 2009: Defense Secretary Robert Gates says military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would cost almost $136 billion for the 2009 budget year that began Oct. 1 if they continue at their current pace.
Speaking for neither his current boss, President George W. Bush - nor his future one, President-elect Barack Obama - Gates told top lawmakers in a New Year's Eve letter that the Pentagon would need nearly $70 billion more to supplement the $66 billion approved last year.
"This estimate is my personal assessment and does not reflect the position of the Bush administration or the incoming Obama administration," Gates said.
The estimate would cover Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other elements of the global war on terror. An official request for war funding is coming after a review by the Obama administration, Gates said.
In the letter, sent to the chairmen of the House and Senate panels overseeing the war, Gates said that Congress should expect that the Obama administration "will conduct a fresh review of these matters and provide an updated and more authoritative proposal early next year."
Gates also said the estimate doesn't account for a proposed increase in the tempo of operations in Afghanistan.
Congress provided about $188 billion for the global war on terror in the 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service, as a surge in Iraq operations helped bring greater stability to the troubled nation. Obama has promised to bring down war costs as he works to remove most U.S. combat troops.
All told, CRS says, Congress has approved $864 billion for the overseas wars and other programs related to the battle against terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001. Such funding includes military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans' health care. 
