Boeing A160 – VTOL UAVs Comes to Age

FARNBOROUGH 2010: Boeing A160 Hummingbird

Farnborough 2010 (July.10) Boeing – A US aerospace company’s massive showing, included its own unmanned air vehicle pavilion. With an 11m (36ft) rotor diameter nearly as wide as the 10.7m autonomous helicopter is long, it is larger than other vertical take-off UAVs. But weighing in at 1,135kg (2,500lb), with its largely composite frame, it is also lighter, making up for the fact that it carries 45kg more than its weight in fuel. However, what makes the A160 unique is not something visible in its low-drag, reduced radar profile silhouette.

In conventional helicopters, the revolutions per minute of the rotors is normally locked in for a maximum forward speed, given weight and altitude considerations. At maximum forward speed, the tip of the advancing blade moves at speeds slightly under Mach 1, avoiding the drag and vibration seen at higher speeds. But being locked into a constant maximum rotor RPM also means that anything less that maximum forward speed – a hover, low-speed forward flight – the rotor is moving far faster than actually necessary, wasting fuel and creating drag, shortening the helicopter’s range. Humming Bird so far managed to fly at the speed of 165kt (305km/h) – with a service ceiling of between 20,000ft and 30,000ft and a range of around 2,500nm (4,620km). It is its blades that makes it unique, for range and speed compared to other in its class. For A160, the stiffness and cross-section of the rotor blades vary along their length. The low-loading hingeless design allows for changing RPMs to optimise efficiency at different speeds and altitudes. The Hummingbird has come a long way since the diesel-powered, variable-speed rotor experiment that was awarded a 30-month technology demonstration contract in March 1998. The first true Hummingbird prototype, a three-bladed design, debuted in December 2001 and had its first forward flight the following month at former US Air Force base at Victorville, California, using a Subaru engine.

In September 2003, DARPA awarded Frontier a $75 million contract for the design, development and testing of four A160s. By May 2004, Boeing had purchased Frontier from Karem. In August 2005, Frontier Systems – now a Boeing subsidiary – received a $50 million contract from the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division to examine the affordability of long-range VTOL UAVs for payload delivery. With no orders on the books, Boeing made the decision in late 2009 to put the helicopter into production, an unusual move in a business where manufacturers usually wait for a contract award or at least a military requirement before opening production. The A160 has already demonstrated its ISR capabilities to the US Army, as far back as 2008, at an annual C4ISR exercise at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Operating at the army’s Class IV UAV for the exercise, the Hummingbird integrated five different payloads for the event, Lavoranda says, including a 380mm (15in) Wescam electro-optical/infrared sensor ball and two mini tactical common datalink transceivers used to downlink full motion video from the EO/IR sensor Rover terminals to both mounted and dismounted troops with Rover terminals. The Hummingbird also proved its role as a communications relay, keeping two Humvees in contact when they moved out of the line of sight. In March, during six flights in two days, the A160 demonstrated its autonomous cargo delivery capabilities to the Marines, Wattam says, consistently delivering sling-loaded cargo within 1.2m of the target drop site. Furthermore, the A160’s proprietary, portable ground control system makes it possible to deliver cargo without a trained UAV pilot at the delivery site. After the UAV flies its pre-planned route, it stops and orbits until someone at the forward delivery location instructs it, with the touch of a button, to proceed to the inbound delivery point. Once there, another click tells it to hover over the delivery point. Adjustments can be made within a 1km range of the original delivery site before instructing the Hummingbird to lower its load, release the cable and head home on its predetermined path.

Unmanned Cargo Resupply Contract

K-MAX unmanned aircraft

According to the Sources Lockheed, together with manufacturer Kaman Aerospace, will get $45.8 million to operate the K-Max – who is copable of carrying 2721.6kg (6,000lbs) of cargo at sea level and more than 1,814.3kg (4,000lbs) at 10,000ft – while Boeing will receive $29.2 million to use its A160T Hummingbird to deliver cargo to Marines in Afghanistan. The Hummingbird, designated the YMQ-18A by the Pentagon, with its patented adjustable rotor speed technology, holds the record for endurance in its class, at 18.7h. In August 2010 the A160T Hummingbird underwent jungle test flights in Belize to test the ability of DARPA FORESTER foliage-penetrating radar to penetrate jungle cover. What makes this UAV unique is the incorporation of many new technologies – such as advance composite materials, Optimum Speed technology, ability to shift to another gear, and finally fthe uselage’s two large, stiff monocoque skins which help keep the frequency ranges of the structure outside the frequency ranges of the rotor as it changes its speeds.

War Toys: Artificial Intelligence on Battlefield

Humanity at High-Tech

The following article was published in New York Times (27 November), written by John Markoff and can be accessed HERE As I highlighted the importance of unmanned vehicles in modern warefare, and use of electronic warefare equipment – this article highlighting the application of Artificial Intelligence (A.I) takes the discussion further by introducing the How Robots can win War for humans (if they can). Althogh it will not be fair to undermine the potential of human on war-ground, but a combination of drones in air, and robots on ground may serve the purpose well. However, one must not neglect the ethics involved, warefare rules and most important of all laws of Robotics.

While smart machines are already very much a part of modern warfare, the Army and its contractors are eager to add more. New robots — none of them particularly human-looking — are being designed to handle a broader range of tasks, from picking off snipers to serving as indefatigable night sentries. In a mock city here used by Army Rangers for urban combat training, a 15-inch robot with a video camera scuttles around a bomb factory on a spying mission. Overhead an almost silent drone aircraft with a four-foot wingspan transmits images of the buildings below. Onto the scene rolls a sinister-looking vehicle on tank treads, about the size of a riding lawn mower, equipped with a machine gun and a grenade launcher. Three backpack-clad technicians, standing out of the line of fire, operate the three robots with wireless video-game-style controllers. One swivels the video camera on the armed robot until it spots a sniper on a rooftop. The machine gun pirouettes, points and fires in two rapid bursts. Had the bullets been real, the target would have been destroyed.

“One of the great arguments for armed robots is they can fire second,” said Joseph W. Dyer, a former vice admiral and the chief operating officer of iRobot, which makes robots that clear explosives as well as the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner. When a robot looks around a battlefield, he said, the remote technician who is seeing through its eyes can take time to assess a scene without firing in haste at an innocent person. Yet the idea that robots on wheels or legs, with sensors and guns, might someday replace or supplement human soldiers is still a source of extreme controversy. Because robots can stage attacks with little immediate risk to the people who operate them, opponents say that robot warriors lower the barriers to warfare, potentially making nations more trigger-happy and leading to a new technological arms race. “Wars will be started very easily and with minimal costs” as automation increases, predicted Wendell Wallach, a scholar at the Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics and chairman of its technology and ethics study group.

Civilians will be at greater risk, people in Mr. Wallach’s camp argue, because of the challenges in distinguishing between fighters and innocent bystanders. That job is maddeningly difficult for human beings on the ground. It only becomes more difficult when a device is remotely operated. This problem has already arisen with Predator aircraft, which find their targets with the aid of soldiers on the ground but are operated from the United States. Because civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have died as a result of collateral damage or mistaken identities, Predators have generated international opposition and prompted accusations of war crimes. But robot combatants are supported by a range of military strategists, officers and weapons designers — and even some human rights advocates.

“A lot of people fear artificial intelligence,” said John Arquilla, executive director of the Information Operations Center at the Naval Postgraduate School. “I will stand my artificial intelligence against your human any day of the week and tell you that my A.I. will pay more attention to the rules of engagement and create fewer ethical lapses than a human force.” Dr. Arquilla argues that weapons systems controlled by software will not act out of anger and malice and, in certain cases, can already make better decisions on the battlefield than humans.

“Some of us think that the right organizational structure for the future is one that skillfully blends humans and intelligent machines,” Dr. Arquilla said. “We think that that’s the key to the mastery of 21st-century military affairs.” Automation has proved vital in the wars America is fighting. In the air in Iraq and Afghanistan, unmanned aircraft with names like Predator, Reaper, Raven and Global Hawk have kept countless soldiers from flying sorties. Moreover, the military now routinely uses more than 6,000 tele-operated robots to search vehicles at checkpoints as well as to disarm one of the enemies’ most effective weapons: the I.E.D., or improvised explosive device.

Yet the shift to automated warfare may offer only a fleeting strategic advantage to the United States. Fifty-six nations are now developing robotic weapons, said Ron Arkin, a Georgia Institute of Technology roboticist and a government-financed researcher who has argued that it is possible to design “ethical” robots that conform to the laws of war and the military rules of escalation. But the ethical issues are far from simple. Last month in Germany, an international group including artificial intelligence researchers, arms control specialists, human rights advocates and government officials called for agreements to limit the development and use of tele-operated and autonomous weapons.

The group, known as the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, said warfare was accelerated by automated systems, undermining the capacity of human beings to make responsible decisions. For example, a gun that was designed to function without humans could shoot an attacker more quickly and without a soldier’s consideration of subtle factors on the battlefield. “The short-term benefits being derived from roboticizing aspects of warfare are likely to be far outweighed by the long-term consequences,” said Mr. Wallach, the Yale scholar, suggesting that wars would occur more readily and that a technological arms race would develop.

As the debate continues, so do the Army’s automation efforts. In 2001 Congress gave the Pentagon the goal of making one-third of the ground combat vehicles remotely operated by 2015. That seems unlikely, but there have been significant steps in that direction. For example, a wagonlike Lockheed Martin device that can carry more than 1,000 pounds of gear and automatically follow a platoon at up to 17 miles per hour is scheduled to be tested in Afghanistan early next year. For rougher terrain away from roads, engineers at Boston Dynamics are designing a walking robot to carry gear. Scheduled to be completed in 2012, it will carry 400 pounds as far as 20 miles, automatically following a soldier.

The four-legged modules have an extraordinary sense of balance, can climb steep grades and even move on icy surfaces. The robot’s “head” has an array of sensors that give it the odd appearance of a cross between a bug and a dog. Indeed, an earlier experimental version of the robot was known as Big Dog. This month the Army and the Australian military held a contest for teams designing mobile micro-robots — some no larger than model cars — that, operating in swarms, can map a potentially hostile area, accurately detecting a variety of threats. Separately, a computer scientist at the Naval Postgraduate School has proposed that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency finance a robotic submarine system that would intelligently control teams of dolphins to detect underwater mines and protect ships in harbors.

“If we run into a conflict with Iran, the likelihood of them trying to do something in the Strait of Hormuz is quite high,” said Raymond Buettner, deputy director of the Information Operations Center at the Naval Postgraduate School. “One land mine blowing up one ship and choking the world’s oil supply pays for the entire Navy marine mammal program and its robotics program for a long time.” Such programs represent a resurgence in the development of autonomous systems in the wake of costly failures and the cancellation of the Army’s most ambitious such program in 2009. That program was once estimated to cost more than $300 billion and expected to provide the Army with an array of manned and unmanned vehicles linked by a futuristic information network. Now, the shift toward developing smaller, lighter and less expensive systems is unmistakable. Supporters say it is a consequence of the effort to cause fewer civilian casualties. The Predator aircraft, for example, is being equipped with smaller, lighter weapons than the traditional 100-pound Hellfire missile, with a smaller killing radius.

Remotely controlled systems like the Predator aircraft and Maars move a step closer to concerns about the automation of warfare. What happens, ask skeptics, when humans are taken out of decision making on firing weapons? Despite the insistence of military officers that a human’s finger will always remain on the trigger, the speed of combat is quickly becoming too fast for human decision makers. “If the decisions are being made by a human being who has eyes on the target, whether he is sitting in a tank or miles away, the main safeguard is still there,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, which tracks war crimes. “What happens when you automate the decision? Proponents are saying that their systems are win-win, but that doesn’t reassure me.”

Humanity at High-Tech

Robotics going at war doesn’t make sense to me, the whole idea of robots playing a meaningful role in a contemporary conflict is just sounds ridiculous – but apparently its not. A video based journey Humanity at High-Tech was compiled by Red Cross, who tend to believe that robots are playing an increasingly prominent role in modern conflict and throwing up all kinds of tricky ethical questions and dilemmas. The modern battlefield is changing beyond measure, from the Green Berets to Starship Troopers in the space of just 50 years. Who knows where we’re heading next? The whole idea of implementation and integration of Artificial Intelligence within battlefield will be in my next post.

Author: John Markoff

Game Controllers to Drive Drones

In my previous post of I highlighted the issue of Playstation Mentality Warning that the technology is making target killings much easier and more frequent, a report issued by New York Times raised concerns that drone operators based more than thousand miles away from the battlefield, risk developing a PlayStation mentality towards killing.

War really is getting more like a video game, as hardware and software from the gaming industry is increasingly being adopted for military use. Although evidence of this statement can be found within U.S military camps, but amazingly this Farnborough (F-2010 Air Show) Raytheon showed off its new Universal Control System for robotic aicraft. It’s based on the same technology that drives Halo and Splinter Cell. Amazing Right ? These kind of projects or statements are usually balanced by either cost factor or Human machine Inteferance, since gaming industry is spending millions to develop high definition graphics and user friendly interface, why not put them on UAVs – this saves money to military. Post-1990 time has seen large increase in simulation use for pilot training within civilian and military market. Within civilian, simulations are used to provide airlines with a cost effective training, preventing risks by first time flyers but also its saves fortunes. Now the same arguments can be applied to gaming and warefare industry.

Right now, every military command post and every training center is packed with PCs. In the future, many of those machines might be replaced with game consoles — if the armed forces can ever work out their disagreements with the console-makers. Surveys show that young people now spend more time gaming on consoles than on PCs. It’s the older (well, at least over 30) crowd who prefer to play games on computers, and that crowd is likely to shrink over time. If the Pentagon is going to rely on games, then it makes sense to use a platform designed for games, as well as one that’s familiar to your audience.

UAVs at your door: Call of Duty UAV simulation

Yet the real beauty of consoles, as far as the Army’s game gurus are concerned, isn’t really technical sophistication. More war games are available in market today, then there were few years back. Games like Halo, Warcraft, Conflict: Global Terror, Sniper Elite, America’s Army: Rise of a Soldier, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, H.A.W.X, Call of Duty and many more. For some reason, a major resurgence of the war-themed videogame has occurred for the this-gen Xbox. Awhile back, you couldn’t miss a Vietnam-era title on the shelf, but now it looks like the World War era is the subject matter of choice. So will the Army go out and buy the Xbox? I don’t know how serious military personal are on buying these consoles, but one thing for sure, if they do buy then there will certainly be a shortage of these consols. Microsoft was concerned that “do we want the Xbox 360 to be seen as having the flavor of a weapon? – Offcourse

T-129: New Kid in a Block of Attack Helicopters

T-129 Attack Helicopter

Vey recently Turkey has increased its order for the T129 (shown above) attack helicopter to 60 aircraft, with prime contractor Turkish Aerospace Industries to deliver nine newly ordered examples by mid-2012. When I saw this machine first time, it reminded good old Apache. Is this rotorcraft the Apache for third world countries? Well I don’t know, they might look the same, but they are not same. I am writing this post to prove myself wrong. That T-129 is not cheaper Apache, but infact it has or will have its own place in the market of attack helicopters. Before I proceed I must remind you, that it is same 129 whose prototype crashed on the afternoon of 19 March during a test flight. Early indications point to a loss of power to the tail rotor while flying at an elevation of 1,500ft (455m) near Verbania in northern Italy. AgustaWestland is to make two T129 prototypes in Italy, after which manufacture will shift to its Turkish partner TAI. TAI general director Muharrem Dortkasli says the first T129 ATAK will be handed over to the Turkish armed forces in the third quarter of 2013. Turkey will be responsible for international marketing and sales of the design, and industry sources say several countries are already evaluating the product, including Jordan and Pakistan.

The T129 is a formidable, new, highly powerful and capable all-weather day and night multi-role attack helicopter which is being developed in cooperation by AgustaWestland, Aselsan and TAI (Turkish Aerospace Industries) for Turkey and other export markets. It is based upon the AW129 and its predecessor, the battle-proven A129 Mangusta platform. High weapon payload, excellent performance for ‘hot and high’ conditions and range and endurance of up to 3 hours are enabled by state-of-the-art LHTEC-T800 engines, making the T129 a critical multi-role resource for attack and deterrent operations. Low signature and agility ensure maximum stealth, and a significant weapons payload enable the T129 to operate in the most hostile of battlefield environments as well as in confined areas typical of current military scenarios. Latest technology features include Integrated Aircraft Survivability Equipment which delivers vital survivability tools and integrated mission management utilising an advanced FLIR sighting system, Helmet Mounted Display and Mission computers. High survivability enhanced by ballistic tolerance and crashworthiness is a fundamental design feature. The T129 benefits from the high field supportability necessary for an aircraft needing to operate in remote areas with the minimum logistical support.

Both helciopters resembles closely, however, AH-64’s (shown below) main rotor blade (BERP) is its distinguishing features, Unfortunatly T-129 offers half of Apache’s Maximum Takeoff Weight (with 5,000kg) compared to Apache’s 10,000kg. Another distinguishing feature is T-129’s 5 main rotor blades. The T-129 has several key improvements over the original A129 inline with the requirements of the Turkish Army. he T-129 will carry 12 Roketsan-developed UMTAS anti-tank missiles (Turkish indigenous development similar to Hellfire II) and it will use the more powerful LHTEC T800 (CTS800-4) engine.

Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow

The AH-64 is designed to endure front-line environments and to operate during the day or night and in adverse weather using avionics, such as the Target Acquisition and Designation System, Pilot Night Vision System (TADS/PNVS), passive infrared countermeasures, GPS, and the IHADSS. The AH-64 is adaptable to numerous different roles within its context as Close Combat Attack (CCA), and has a customizable weapons loadout for the role desired.In addition to the 30-mm M230E1 Chain Gun, the Apache carries a range of external stores on its stub-wing pylons, typically a mixture of AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles, and Hydra 70 general-purpose unguided 70 mm (2.76 in) rockets.

Although both helicopters offers a capability to carry sidewinder and AIM-92 Stinger, what is missing from T-129 is Longbow Radar, what I consider a key to Apache operations. The lessons of the Gulf War, and the evolving battlefield air defence threat, created the context in which the digital AH-64D (Longbow Version) Apache was conceived. An optional fit to its baseline configuration is the Longbow weapon system, comprising the Northrop-Grumman (previously Westinghouse) AN/APG-78 Longbow mast mounted Fire Control Radar (FCR), and a Lockheed-Martin AN/APR-48 Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI) package, both designed for all weather operation through precipitation and battlefield obscurants. The Longbow weapon system supports the AGM-114L active radar guided missile, operating in the same millimetric band as the radar.

T-129 A Kid about to born

The Longbow radar is a very low peak power, millimetric band system, with extremely low sidelobes by virtue of a very large relative antenna size. The low emitted power, extremely narrow pencil beam mainlobe, and undisclosed LPI modulation features provide a system with a range of the order of 10 km in clear conditions, which is near to undetectable by established RWR technology. Only a highly sensitive channelised ESM receiver with a high gain antenna and low noise receivers can reliably detect such a signal, under optimal antenna pointing conditions. The choice of millimetric band means that atmospheric water vapour and oxygen resonance losses rapidly soak up the signal, which is also out of the frequency band coverage of most RWRs. The radar will track up to 128 targets and prioritise the top 16. The radar employs both real beam mapping and Moving Target Indicator (MTI) techniques, to provide the automatic detection, tracking and non-cooperative identification of surface targets, with a secondary capability against low flying aircraft. Target identification algorithms in the radar’s software look at the shape of possible targets, and their Doppler signatures, to identify aircraft, helicopters, SPAAGs, SAM systems, tanks, AFVs, trucks and other wheeled vehicles. The capability exists to identify stationary targets through radar transparent camouflage netting and foliage. Real beam video and synthetic imagery can be displayed.

The provision of a highly automated weapon system with basic sensor fusion is unique at to the Apache Longbow, and provides clearly unprecedented lethality in comparison with helicopters using only thermal imaging sights and laser guided missiles. Such systems are limited to engaging one target at a time, unlike the Apache Longbow which can engage many targets concurrently. Howver I must mention here T-129’s advanced milimeter wave radar, claimed to be similar to Longbow and IAI/ELTA radars. Mast radar, similar to that of Apache Longbow but based on IAI/ELTA’s (Israel) surveillance and targeting radar with SAR and ISAR capability, has been added on the top of the rotor. The radar can identify land and sea targets from at least 30 kilometres. I am unsure about the technical details of T-129 radar, but there is something comparable to Longbow abilities is surprise to me.

Looking at the airbrone FLIR T-129 incorporates ASELFLIR-300T is a multi-sensor electro-optical targeting and surveillance system. ASELFLIR-300T fulfills multiple mission requirements including; Pilotage / Navigation, Surveillance, Target Search, Track, Locate and Designation. Having a flexible hardware and software design architecture, the system can be used on different platforms ranging from rotary, fixed wing and unmanned air vehicles to naval ships. Pilotage / Navigation, Surveillance, Target Search, Track, Locate and Designation. ASELFLIR-300T System includes a High Resolution Infra Red (IR) Camera, a Laser Rangefinder / Designator (LRF/D), a Laser Spot Tracker (LST), a Color TV Camera and a Color Spotter Camera. The system consists of the following Weapons Replaceable Assemblies (WRAs); Turret Unit (TU), Electronics Unit (EU), Hand Control Unit (HCU), Boresight Module (BSM).

Looking at the potential customers for T-129, it may serve well, but offers no near capabilities as Apache. With its enhanced Integrated Aircraft Survivebility Equipment, Adaptable and Asymmertic Weapon Load Capability, the rotorcraft does have a potential to become a successful machine and secure its position among world’s best attack helicopters.

Click Here for brochure of Atak Helicopter.

Pakistan Military’s Latest Gear

Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan - How much is truth

Pakistani officials were fortunate to be greeted with a fresh offer of military hardware – possibly totaling as much as $2 billion over the next five years. This latest gear includes (infact likely to include) night vision goggles, and helicopter spare parts. This is not new for Pakistanis, since 9/11 Pakistan’s gotten lots of big-ticket items from the U.S. military. According to the Congressional Research Service’s tally (.pdf), that includes eight P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft; six C-130 cargo planes; over 5000 TOW anti-armor missiles; 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles; and even an Oliver Hazard Perry-class missile frigate. And by next year, Pakistan will receive 18 new F-16 combat jets from the U.S. — fighters capable of carrying a nuclear payload.

”There has been some discussion on upgrading the navy’s fleet with retired U.S. ships,” says Shuja Nawaz, a South Asia analyst at the Atlantic Council. The latest addition in Pakistan Navel Fleet is US decommisioned USS McInerney FFG-8 (PNS Alamgir for Pakistan Navy). The ship (shown) is second of Oliver Hazard Perry class of a guided missile frigate. PNS Alamgir’s mission is to provide multi-threat protection for military and merchant shipping, amphibious task forces and underway replenishment groups. This 32-year old ship was sold to Pakistan in US$65 million refurbishment including anti-submarine capability paid for with foreign military aid provided by the U.S. to friendly countries. The transfer of old Navy ships to other countries is done through the Navy’s International Programs Office, which brokers deals through its foreign military sales department. PNS ALAMGIR after necessary maintenance work and training will set sail for Pakistan in January 2011. The ship is a potent addition in Pakistan Navy Surface Fleet and with its onboard weapons and sensors will be able to effectively contribute in the maritime defence of Pakistan.

Considering the latest gear what options does Pakistan have? According the Spencer Ackerman (Wired Magazine) puts it this way:

“Unless al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban have developed an armor corps and a submarine-heavy Navy while no one was looking, these weapons have more utility against the Indians than the terrorists.”

This gear is either a treat from US for Pakistan to use against terrorists or U.S. military seeks to prevent a deepening erosion of a relationship that US can’t live with. This especially true after recent wikileaks suggesting a strong ties between Pakistan and Insurgents. WikiLeaks has freaked out the White House, though, by clearly raising questions about whether Pakistani aid to the Afghan insurgency is far deeper than typically acknowledged. How much truth is in it, I think it will be too early to say anything. However, it’s not a surprising news that the Pakistani ISI has ties to the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e-Islami. How much of this money or gear will go to Afgan pockets no one knows, it is only a time who will show a true motivation behind these large spendings on US non-NATO ally. But Is there a silver lining to Pakistan’s relationship with the insurgents? Not known, at least to me. Are things still Koran, Kalashnikov and laptop or do I have to add heat seaker missiles to it as well ?