It would be entirely presumptuous on my part to hope to summarise faithfully all the various contributions and discussions we have heard. Consequently, I shall confine myself to the main ideas which, if they are not new, nevertheless deserve to be recalled at the end of these two very full days. I hope to render them faithfully and also to spare you an excessively long speech.

I. The first sitting of our colloquy dealt with the contribution of space to our security and, more particularly, the interest of and need for a European space-based observation system.

To this first question on the need for a European space-based observation system, I propose to set out our reply in three parts: Why a space-based observation system, why is it necessary for Europe to have one and why is co-operation necessary in order to achieve it?

I.1. Why a space-based observation system? This is undoubtedly the point on which there is the widest consensus.

For some years now in a world that has become increasingly unstable and multi-polar continuously available global, real-time information has proved increasingly necessary for evaluating and assessing situations and hence for decision- making processes.

A space-based observation system is free of the legal strictures governing overflight and allows continuous and repeated information and intelligence gathering all over the world, with the facility to cover large areas.

Such systems are now acknowledged as unbeatable tools for numerous and varied security and defence applications; for gathering documentary, situation and early warning intelligence, disarmament monitoring and verification of compliance with treaties, crisis-management and prevention, geographic applications, i.e. cartography and digital modelling of the ground and lastly the conduct of military operations. In addition to these there are also applications with wider aims such as monitoring the environment.

Observation satellites are however only the first global, permanent stage of a full security and defence intelligence system. They supplement and direct other airborne, maritime or ground intelligence acquisition means.

I.2. Once convinced of the need for observation satellites, we must now examine the need for Europe to have its own capability in this area.

We all know that the great powers, the United States and Russia, both already possess substantial space observation means. In 1991, the Gulf war gave the United States the opportunity to offer a spectacular demonstration of their effectiveness.

Europe, for its part, has its own specific responsibilities and interests and a space-based observation system which, as we have seen, represents a powerful information tool, seems increasingly necessary for its sovereignty and for maintaining its rightful role in the world.

As recent crises have shown, Europe must have the means of foreseeing and managing independently crises that concern it, and also of making a more effecti ve and influential contribution to preventing and managing larger-scale crises a long with other major powers. The development of Europe's own security and defence capabilities, particularly a space-based observation system, apart from allowing independent action whenever necessary, can but give Europe's participation greater credibility in international operations undertaken alongside its major allies. Let us make no mistake, only an ally which, having its own evaluation, assessment and decision-making capabilities, is able to form its own judgment, can be a partner that can really be counted upon.

Finally, space-based security and defence programmes, on account of the technologies and performances they demand, are powerful engines of technological progress and factors that contribute to the build-up of the European space industry in the face of increasingly aggressive competition and a world industrial scene in the process of concentration and rapid integration.

I.3. Why is co-operation necessary for the success of such a project?

The first reason for co-operating that comes to mind and which applies to all forms of co-operation is cost-sharing. Space-based systems are not the most costly of defence systems when compared to fighter aircraft or mass-produced land-based means. However they involve new expenditure which, once committed, are irreducible if there is to be continuity of service. In the budgetary context our various countries are now experiencing, it is highly desirable to be able to share among several countries the costs of obtaining and operating space-based defence systems, as is virtually standard practice for civilian space-based systems.

Co-operation for space-based systems has, moreover, a marked peculiarity: the need also for the use of the orbiting satellite to be shared between the various co-operating countries. And this, it must be admitted, is an entirely new departure for a security and defence system and for our defence headquarters and services that are the users of such systems.

This novelty is a major challenge. As the development nearing completion of the Helios I programme shows, the co-operating partners must agree specific rules, determined in advance, but providing a minimum of flexibility, for shared use of an orbiting satellite, which is a system whose operation and exploitation are very complex and whose mission is in an area, namely intelligence, that is inherently sensitive and compartmentalised.

But this source of difficulty is also stimulating and a source of progress . Indeed, shared use of observation satellites between different co-operating countries will quickly and inevitably bring the various national users together, foster dialogue, confidence and exchanges between them, in intelligence and even in the use of forces. In these terms, such co-operation will constitute a major impetus for bringing the security and defence policies and organisations of our countries closer together, making a powerful contribution to the building of defence Europe and a strong stimulus towards a common foreign and security policy.

However, beyond co-operation between WEU member states for the construction and operational use of such an observation system, there are grounds for thinking that there exists or there must be wider space-based co-operation. Europe, the United States and Russia have a joint responsibility for world stability and security. It is therefore essential for our systems for assessing geostrategic situations to be able to dialogue and provide mutual support: it is essential for them to be complementary. The challenge we face today is how to marry autonomy with interdependence among the major world players - autonomy without which there are no reliable partners and interdependence since the world condemns us to it.

II. I now come to the second and third sittings of our colloquy. Is Europe in fact capable of acquiring a satellite system of observation?

Successful co-operation obviously assumes the simultaneous presence of a common political will, a shared operational need, financial means and lastly industrial structures and skills.

In terms of political will, holding a colloquy such as this, the development of the Torrejon Satellite Centre, the achievement of the Helios I programme by France, Italy and Spain and the discussions underway on post-Helios systems clearly demonstrate that this will already exists in our European countries even if it must be reinforced and tended carefully and continuously.

Regarding financial means, Europe is an economic unit of similar size to the United States or Russia. This is why it is reasonable to think that the financial effort necessary to develop such an observation system is within its reach . Moreover, the various feasibility studies conducted on the subject by WEU and also in national and multilateral frameworks have shown that there could be a fair compromise between performances sought (in resolution, breadth of spectrum or access time) and the magnitude and cost of the financial commitment required.

As to the technological and industrial base, Europe has acquired the necessary experience and technologies in space-based observation. It has already conducted true space-based earth observation programmes, both scientific and applied, which have all proved successful in operation. I am thinking of course of the Spot optical satellite programmes (three satellites have already been launched) the ERS radar satellite (the second model of which is to be launched next month) or again of the -X SAR radar payload programme. Thanks to these various programmes Europe has become a true centre of excellence, with the necessary optical and radar programmes necessary for earth observation and nearly 10 years experience in the use of orbiting observation satellites (the first Spot satellite was launched in February 1986).

This experience gained in civil space-based observation programmes can be used to advantage in developing a security system in the same area. This was the case for example in France with the Spot programme, of which the technology and experience gained was used in the design and production of the Helios I system.

This same Helios I programme, which was the first military space programme for defence use in Europe, involving France, Italy and Spain, is in the process of contributing two further major experiments: a space-based observation system for defence and security purposes, in other words with higher resolution and with specific protection and confidentiality requirements but rapid access to images; and, as already mentioned, shared use of an orbiting satellite between co-operating countries for observation and intelligence: this represents an entirely new departure for the co-operating countries and also a powerful factor in bringing them together.

These programmes, together of course with the studies and technological re search that preceded or backed them up, have contributed to building a strong and experienced industry, as the various speeches of the third part of our colloquy have illustrated.

You will note that I have not commented on one of the conditions necessary for establishing co-operation - the definition of a shared operational need - and in this connection my only regret over the past two days has been the absence of representatives from the "user community" who would not have failed to convince us that the same needs are indeed clearly shared by users, as emerges from the WEU feasibility studies.

However your colloquy is able to give a definite "yes" to the question "is Europe in fact capable of acquiring a satellite system of observation?". As I see it, this is just a matter of political will.

III. I now come to the last part of my address which will deal with the last sitting of the colloquy at which questions were raised about the implementation of a European space-based observation system.

If we need a European space-based observation system, where do we stand now and what direction must we follow in order to achieve it?

For several years now, since the decisions taken at the meeting of the WEU Council of Ministers in Vianden, Luxembourg, on 27th June 1991, WEU has been en gaged in continuing efforts towards a European space-based observations system.

The first initiative in this direction was the establishment at Torrejon in Spain of a satellite image interpretation centre, responsible, initially on an experimental basis, for training European experts in this field and gathering a nd exploiting accessible data, particularly in connection with treaty verification and monitoring crises and the environment.

Today, at the end of this experimental phase, when the Torrejon Centre has shown the interest and operational potentialities of satellite images for WEU, we are moving in the direction of a proposal in the Council of Ministers to decide on making the Centre permanent.

To strengthen further the role and efficiency of the Torrejon Centre, the three countries co-operating in the Helios I programme, France, Italy and Spain, have reached an agreement with WEU on the supply of Helios I images to the Centre. The relevant agreement was signed in 1993 and today implementation procedures are in the process of being developed between the Satellite Centre and the partner countries of the Helios I programme. I am convinced that these Helios I images, given their intrinsic performance, will again greatly add to the interest of our various countries in satellite imagery and to the operational efficiency of the Centre.

However, this image interpretation centre is only a first stage. Again, since the Vianden decisions in June 1991, thinking and studies are under way with a view to enabling WEU to acquire an autonomous space-based observation system.

A feasibility study, led by a multinational study management team and carried out by a European industrial consortium first identified the major technical and programming features of such a project. On the basis of this the ad-hoc group responsible for space questions in WEU then began in-depth study of the technical design and organisation of a project with a view to submitting proposals to the Council of Ministers.

Three project options are at present being considered and analysed: a new independent European system, participation by WEU in an existing or projected European system or continuing to collect satellite imagery and exploit it in the framework of WEU.

This third option would be a natural extension of any forthcoming decision on the continued existence of the Torrejon Satellite Centre and the supply of Helios I images as already agreed. However, it does not resolve the problem of image sources and hence guaranteed access to data.

The first option, that of a system dedicated fully to WEU, is obviously the most ambitious and therefore the most difficult to decide upon and subsequently to achieve.

The second option seems to me to merit careful consideration as it might, under conditions still to be defined, represent a good compromise between the need to give WEU the means of observation by satellite and that of maximising the efficiency of investment commitments made in this area by our respective countries. The Helios system, in which France took the initiative in 1986 and in which Italy and Spain already participate, and the follow-up now envisaged to the first generation Helios I programme, with Germany and the Helios I programme countries could, no doubt, provide a firm basis for detailed development of such an option.

Thinking and analysis are continuing. Ministerial meetings are scheduled for this year. Let us hope they will be fruitful. In any event, the way seems clear for Europe to acquire a space-based observation system in the medium term.

I should like to end by widening the scope of my remarks and briefly remind you, in conclusion, of two other space-based applications which also seem essential to our joint security.

From a chronological point of view, military use of space in Europe began with telecommunications. Several European countries have either projected or operational national military space-based telecommunications systems. In particular, a new generation of systems is likely to be necessary for France and the United Kingdom around the year 2005. Let us therefore hope that the opportunity can be seized for co-operation in achieving this future telecommunications system.

Another, more recent, concern should also guide our thinking and projects: namely proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat represented by the rapidly increasing number of countries that possess ballistic missiles. The space-based observation systems referred to throughout our colloquy will of course allow this proliferation to be monitored continuously throughout the world - for example the industrial sites and test centres that are tangible proof of its presence. However, it will no doubt also eventually be necessary to acquire a satellite system of detection and early warning against ballistic missile launches. Indeed such a system would, in peacetime, form part of our counter-proliferation arrangements by monitoring test launches of proliferant missiles and, in times of crisis, would serve to locate possible aggressors, sound the alert a nd guide active anti-missile defence systems.

To conclude, this colloquy has amply demonstrated that Europe has the geostrategic, economic, technological and industrial wherewithal that should logically lead to the acquisition of a European satellite system for defence and security purposes.

The one key condition governing its future in this area therefore remains the political will to set its strategic goals, to keep to them and to adopt a pragmatic, coherent but determined course of action.

Sir Dudley SMITH (President of the WEU Assembly) requested brief contributions or questions before finally closing the sitting.

Mr. HAMILTON (Department of Defence, United States) recalled that Mr. Klinger had made a case for collaboration between Europe and the United States on certain systems, because costs were very high and cost-sharing was therefore important, as was interoperability. He understood that the primary purpose of this conference was earth observation satellites.

To divert to the communications area - his own area of expertise - he said there were three primary ingredients that were necessary in order to have collaborative programmes: good government relations, clearly-defined requirements (also for earth observation systems) and, finally, shared developments. Many companies had experience in shared development on many systems. Mr. Denker had made clear that this was acceptable provided that it was not a one way street, not just selling equipment, but truly a shared development.

Mr. Hamilton believed those three primary ingredients existed in the communications area. The United States, the United Kingdom and France, all of which had military satellite systems in orbit, were holding discussions about the possibility of collaborating on a follow-on system. These government studies had been under way for over two years and industrial studies had been conducted for well over a year in France, the United Kingdom and the United States and were now nearing completion. The three countries were assessing the results and probably later this year some decision would have to be taken on whether there was enough commonality to proceed further.

Mr. Denker had mentioned Eumilsatcom, an all-European solution, which was certainly feasible, and in the communications and military satellite communications area, the United States recognised that these were very serious studies and this was not a one way street. To proceed, it was necessary to have shared development. Finally, it was well understood that any system must result in satellites being under national control and control must not be relinquished to any other nation or entity.

Mr. RABAULT (Director of Missiles and Space, DGA, France, General Rapporteur) had planned to speak about communications satellites and other, perhaps more ambitious projects for the future, such as anti-ballistic missile warning systems.

Space communication was indeed an area in which it was necessary to work together towards complementary systems. All authorities clearly shared this view . A very broad spectrum was now being examined bilaterally or trilaterally, between Europeans or with the United States. Communications requirements were important and decisions on future systems were to be taken by the end of the year or early next year in this extremely important area for security and defence in which co-operation was absolutely necessary between the United States and Europe.

Mr. HAMILTON (Department of Defence, United States) wished to add that, regardless of any co-operative efforts, the United States regarded interoperability as being of paramount importance and was working with a number of groups in Europe to ensure interoperability in future both inside and outside of NATO groups ..

Mr. LOPEZ HENARES (Chairman of the Technological and Aerospace Committee) said that in his address, Mr. Denker had presented the Franco-German project for Helios II and this was surprising in that the project was in fact the second of a new generation of Helios I, in which there was already an example of co-operation between France, Italy and Spain. He wished to know whether this project, which had already been referred to as Franco-German, was essentially Daimler Benz , coming from the private sector, or was there official support.

Second, how was it possible, after Helios I in which other countries had participated, that for Helios II the European spirit of Germany did not take into account the fact that other countries could participate since there was therefore a clear expression of co-operation and the participants in Helios I would be interested in participating in Helios II and not just France and Germany. Third, was the participation of other European countries foreseen for Helios II? Would this be convenient, or would there be reluctance to have multiple co-operation?

Mr. DENKER (President of the Satellite System Division, Daimler Benz Aerospace) said the invitation from France to participate in the Helios programme was, as far as he knew, that the Germans should also contribute and participate in the Helios I programme. In that case, it meant the satellite would be launched in the middle of the year, which meant that Germany could have some access to the programme itself.

Second, on the Helios II programme, it was quite clear that from the German point of view that Italy and Spain were also envisaged as partners, as in the Helios I programme. He concluded that Germany supported the idea. France and Italy also participated in the Helios II programme. It should not be forgotten that the leader was France. The invitation came from France to Germany and the envisaged participation of Germany was around 10 to 20% of whatever finally came out. Also in the discussion was the fact that, complementary to the optical satellite which the Germans favoured, they were linked together for the radar satellite. According to present information, Germany was ready, but he had to emphasise that no decisions were being made. That meant, from the German point of view, that both Italy and Spain would be invited. The official position of the German Government was that it was not limited to one or other country nor would other European countries be excluded.

Mr. JASANI (Department of War Studies, King's College, London) said two questions came to mind when talking about co-operation in defence and space activities. First, anti-ballistic missile activities. The 1972 ABM bilateral treaty, would prevent any kind of co-operation with the United States on the ground that Article IX of the treaty stated that the parties to the treaty were not allowed to transfer technologies to another third party. Not only technology, but they were not even allowed to transfer the blueprints of systems. Now that, he believed, would create certain amount of problems, because one was indeed talking a bout technical anti-ballistic missile defence, whereas the ABM treaty talked about ballistic missiles. But the basic technology was not very different, so inevitably technology would be transferred. He did not know how that could be circumvented.

The second question was that when talking about co-operation, often it became difficult, on the ground that, for example, WEU could help the International Atomic Energy Agency in monitoring the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In those circumstances, how would the United States feel about providing the information and the technology to an international organisation, be it the IAEA or the organisation being established in The Hague to monitor the chemical weapons convention? He would be very grateful to hear any kind of wisdom on these two points from the present austere body.

Mr. KLINGER (Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defence (Space), United States) said he had nothing to do with arms control, for which he was eternally grateful. While there was a similarity between the technologies associated with theatre ballistic missile defence and shorter-range systems, there was, in the treaty and in deliberations with Russia and within the United States Government, the belief that a way could be found, within existing agreements, to allow so-called theatre missile defence systems, but without renting the fabric of the ABM treaty.

He personally believed that, if there was a fundamental strategic change in the threats that the community of nations had to cope with, it would be folly to be precluded from being protected and advancing towards mutual security goals ..

As regards the United States' attitude to providing remote sensing or other space-based information to a body like the IAEA, there were precedents. The United States had done so in the context of international organisations and in th e NATO context all the time; it was done during operation Desert Storm and in virtually every operation in which United States military forces were involved in the context of coalition operations in which all sorts of information, whether derived from air-borne, space-borne or terrestrial sources, were made available.

In principle, depending on the situation, the circumstances or the types of information, there was no obstacle, but the United States was quite sensitive about protecting information, the disclosure of which would make perishable not only the information itself, but the source of that information and it might have an adverse effect on the ability to gather more information, be it from an air -borne, a terrestrial, a human or a space-borne source.

Closing address

Sir Dudley SMITH (President of the WEU Assembly). I opened this colloquy yesterday morning as the President of the WEU Assembly, as a non-technical non-scientific person, a politician who knows very little about most things, as all politicians are in that category, but indeed although I am non-technical and non-scientific, I have learned a great deal during the last two days. I suppose the biggest lesson I learned was the one this morning when it finally dawned on me that in fact there is no hiding place in this world, because of the technology now available in space. I think it was evidenced very much by Mr. Bryan Jenkins, who said some farmers in Britain were hoping for a cloudy summer. I think that summed it up very well indeed, and although it has nothing to do with military matters, it is very germane indeed to the whole concept of surveillance from space.

This has been a formidable gathering of experts, we have had our distinguished speakers who have been here today and yesterday to talk to us, and also a large number in the audience who are also experts, but who have only contributed perhaps the odd question or comment, or perhaps not at all, but who have been very diligent in their attendance.

As someone who is very much involved in defence, I was particularly interested in Mr. Jasani's contribution on the proliferation of mass destruction weapons. I think he underlined and pinpointed very strongly indeed the great instability of the world in which we live. Indeed, the situation in some ways is worse than before the coming down of the Berlin wall.

May I say how gratified we are on the Western European Union side to have with us both our friends from the United States and our new friends from Russia who have again been extremely diligent in the way they have attended the sessions and indeed also have participated.

European security, I think, will depend increasingly on space observation. We felt that in our Assembly and it has been underlined for us at this colloquy. I think the colloquy has been an invaluable update on available technologies and applications, plus, I would say as well, a penetrating insight into the industrial scene as well. It was a little bit over my head at times, but nevertheless interesting to listen to and fascinating to watch on the screen. Data sources, data availability, new satellite techniques. It was also borne on me very strongly that one of the keys of all this business is making good use of the ever -improving ability of that space technology. It was emphasised by more than one speaker that a spasmodic approach has been revealed by the purchasers and by the users, and this was mentioned by the Rapporteur in his speech just a few moments ago.

Perhaps it is significant that, apart from one distinguished exception yesterday, the Portuguese Minister of Defence, there are no other ministers here. We are none the poorer for that. We have had some very expert contributions, but I think it would have done them some good to have been here, to have heard the experts posing the problems and trying to find some of the answers. It ranged from the big stuff that we have all heard about and know about down to the, if I may use the phrase, "do it yourself satellites" by Matra, which was a very refreshing contribution by our friend Mr. Cothier and I think we were all amazed that two men and a dog almost could take this thing around and install it and begin operations.

We have had some very useful differences. Colonel Scott Willey clashed swords a bit with my colleague, Mr. Baumel, from France, a very distinguished member of the Assembly and Chairman of the Defence Committee. There is no significance in that he won the argument, but it was refreshing to hear this aspect put forward about the need for co-operation with the United States and the other side of the actual dichotomy really that, in fact, it is something that Europe should do by itself.

I was impressed to hear Mr. Klinger, who does not mince his words, say about costs, "you will be shocked out of your minds when it comes to picking up the bill or consider paying it" and I think that is something that although we already knew it, it had to be spelt out for us.

Mr. Denker, another distinguished contributor, has advised co-operation and he takes the side of Mr. Klinger and Colonel Scott Willey, and there are others who think that we should still consider very strongly indeed the need to do our own thing. A good friend of mine and colleague, Mr. Richard Alexander, did pose one particular question when he said, like me, that he was not an expert, but with all this sophisticated advanced technology, we had to agree on a definite system among all the countries in the world and cut down on costs in the future. I think they were probably saying that when back in 1903 Oliver and Wilbur Wright flew, for the first time, a distance less than the length of this particular room.

I think there were certainly those who said, at the moment the jet engine was invented, that that was it, the sophistication of aircraft had reached a par ticular point and there was no need to go on with further expansion. But, as we know, man is a restless animal, the challenge is there, and we shall go on improving, adapting and moving forward.

Who would have thought, at the time of the original invention by Frank Whittle, who is a distinguished constituent of the area that I represent in parliament, that we would be talking today about satellites for the observation of the world from on high? Because it was "Boy's Own" paper stuff, it was the Flash Gordon of the comic cartoons, indeed Flash Gordon did actually get a mention during the course of these very erudite proceedings.

I think we have to face the situation that these developments, this research, will go on and it ill-behoves any country that does not take account of this and keep up with the play in order to be able to defend, not only itself, but t o collaborate with its allies to make absolutely sure that the peace and security of the world is safe.

The colloquy was named "Towards a European space-based observation system" . I feel we have gone a long way towards proving the case for much further consideration by our lords and masters, the Council of WEU, the ministers and ambassadors who look after the running of Western European Union and I think it has been a great success. Over 200 people have been present most of the time, over 9 0% of those who have registered turned up, there has been a good deal of enthusiasm and understanding of what we have been trying to achieve.

I would therefore, in conclusion, like to thank, first of all, my co-Chair man, Mr. Lopez Henares, who also here today represents Spain, and we are very in debted indeed for the excellent welcome we have had from the Spanish and from Gr an Canaria. He has been an enormous help in conducting this colloquy, and of cou rse he has been much more important than I in setting it up and making sure that it was a success. I also thank the interpreters who yesterday just survived th e blast of the space-age communications systems and, above all, the speakers who have made a most distinguished and useful contribution to our proceedings. The y have been here in proliferation. I am amazed, I do not think I have seen so m any experts on one subject available to speak and actually speaking and answerin g questions. We are very grateful indeed to them for participating. In addition to the speakers, we are also grateful to you yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, because, perhaps not quite as dangerously as the interpreters, you have survived two days of conference in a conference hall which I really can probably only describe as something like a railway carriage.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 6 p.m.)

APPENDIX

Communication from Mr. Algirdas SAUDARGAS (Lithuania),

Member of the Seimas Foreign Affairs Committee

______

Resistive sensors for high microwave pulsed power measurement in transmission lines and free space

Scientists from the microwave laboratory are experts in the design of the resistive sensors which are used for high microwave pulse power measurement. We had the leading position in this field in the former Soviet Union. The resistive sensors which can measure microwave pulses with duration in the range from 5 ns to 300 _s and peak power levels practically limited by the waveguide's breakdown were designed and produced.

Using our sensor connected to the horn antenna pulse power density up to 3 MW/m2 has been measured in free space. These devices for S and X frequency band s were purchased by SAAB Military Aircraft, Sweden.

Sensors and power heads for high microwave pulse measurement can be design ed and produced in accordance with your requirements. Should you require furthe r details, we would of course be happy to supply this upon request.

Contact person: Zilvinas KANCLERIS, Hab. Dr., Head of microwave laboratory

Ultrafast optoelectronics

Research staff of the optoelectronics laboratory have over 10 years' exper ience in developing ultrafast optoelectronic techniques and devices. These tech niques use very short laser pulses for high-speed switching, shaping and samplin g of electrical transients.

Lately we are developing photodetectors and switches, which have character istic response times less than 1 ps. Several new material technologies including molecular-beam-epitaxy and metalorganic-chemical-vapour-deposition at low subs trate temperatures were developed. Photodetectors with shortest ever observed response time of 100 fs were manufactured. One of the most straightforward applications of those devices would be submillimeter radiation generation by mixing o f two optical waves in the photodetector. Such optical heterodyne type experiments were made by using two single-mode Distributed-Bragg-Reflector laser diodes and an Erbium-doped fiber amplifier. Potential bandwidth of 2 THz was demonstrated.

Contact person: Arunas KROTKUS, Prof., Hab. Dr., Head of optoelectronics labora tory

Scientific projects for the programmes of Western European Union

Proposals:

1. Tunable laser sources as countermeasures against infrared selfguided systems

The project is based on development of broadly tunable (0.7-10 _m) optical param etric generators and their application for misguiding of infrared aiming systems . Vilnius University Laser Research Centre has both an original "know-how" and has already developed prototype of broadly tunable parametric laser working at high conversion efficiency in infrared wave length region.

2. Laser sources for atmospheric turbulence correction in optical imaging systems

The main goal is a design of a solid - state diode - pumped laser combined with optical parametric oscillator (OPO) operating in a spectrum region suitable for two-photon excitation of space sodium layer. Diffraction limited beam and high average OPO output power is the main concern of the work.

Performing institution: Vilnius University Laser Research Centre

Principal investigator: Prof. Dr. Habil. Algis P. Piskarskas

Address: Laser Research Centre, Vilnius University

Sauletekio Al 9, Build. 3, Vilnius 2054, Lithuania

Tel.: 370-2 769458, 371-2 769477

Fax: 370-2 775623

E-mail: algis.piskarskas@ff.vu.lt

Co-operation with research institutes in Western Europe

1. Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching, Germany 2. European Laboratory on Nonlinear Optics and Spectroscopy (LENS), University of Florence, Italy

3. Rutherford Appleton laboratory, Chilton Didcot, United Kingdom 4. High Power Laser Facility of Lund Technical University, Sweden 5. Foundation for Research and Technology, Institute of Electronic Structure a nd Laser, Heraklion, Greece

----------

For information, please contact: Yves ROBINS, Press Counsellor

_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ | ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | 43, avenue du President Wilson _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ | F-75775 Paris cedex 16 France _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | Tel 331-53672200; Fax 331-47204543 _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ | E-mail: 100315.240@Compuserve.com

.