Wonder Weapons, $20 a Pop

I've been a fool.

Obedient sheep that I am, I believed all those government and scientific reports that laser rifles and hand-held force fields were decades away from reality -- if they were possible at all. Cloaked in the dull skepticism of a flat-earther, I naively thought that advances like "Electro-Hypnotizers" and "Ion Ray Guns" were the stuff of science fiction, or merely hoaxes.

Now, friends, my eyes are open wide. The truth has been revealed. Not only are these items for real, but a helpful Internet retailer -- "Information Unlimited," out of Amherst, New Hampshire -- has been thoughtful enough to sell them all under one electronic roof. Huzzah!

My only question is what to buy first. Should it be the "Telekinetic Enhancer"? The "Sonic Nausea Device" Or maybe I should go with the "Magnetic Cannon." Luckily, the plans for most of these projects are only $20. So I can afford to make some mistakes.

UAV Takeover Shot Down

The Air Force's bid to take over all of the U.S. military's flying drones has been shot down, Inside Defense says.

Over the years, the various branches of the military have all pursued their own independent, often overlapping, unmanned aerial (UAV) vehicle programs. The result is a giant, jumbled robot menagerie, with over a dozen species of military drones flying in Iraq. Few of them speak the same language, or work together well. Soldiers often have to wait weeks for a slice of the radio spectrum that they can use to talk to their UAVs.

That's why panel after expert panel has recommended that someone take control of this unmanned zoo, and start getting the creatures to play together nicely. Last year, Air Force generals nominated themselves to be the zookeepers. They offered the Air Force up as the "Executive Agent" for UAVs -- the financial and operational gatekeeper for all robots in the air.

In many ways, it was a logical choice. The flyboys already understand the skies, managing the "Air Tasking Orders" that tell American planes when and where to fly over a warzone. And they've long been the military's gadget freaks. That's why, back in the day, they got the bulk of the Pentagon's space program, too.

But there was also a heaping scoop of self-interest in the Air Force move. The service's fighter jocks have had a whole lot of free time on their hands, ever since the Cold War ended and all those Soviet MiGs stopped flying. And which service has been the most threatened by the rise of robo-pilots?

Plus, UAVs -- especially the little, hand-thrown models -- aren't exactly planes. As I noted in last month's Wired, "they have wings and fly, but they're more like guns (or cameras) with wings than planes with guns." And the last thing any Army or Marine general wants to do is give up his guns. Or kiss some fighter jock's ass every time he needed to buy a few more flying cameras for his men.

So, in the end, it wasn't a surprise that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the vice chiefs from each of the services -- nixed the Executive Agent idea in a June 1 meeting.

Instead, Inside Defense reports, they endorsed the idea of turning the Air Force's new UAV Center of Excellence near Las Vegas into an establishment for all four services. "That center will be led by a rotational flag officer, with the first leader being an Army one-star [general]," according to the newsletter. "The deputy, also a rotational position, will initially be filled by an Air Force colonel."

Rapid Fire 6/29/05

* Robot snipers to Iraq? (5th item)

* Passport screens = suck

* What the hell is boost gas? And why should we care?

* Iraqi cops = double-agents

* Private warriors exposed

Solar Drone New Endurance Champ

Saving pilots' lives is cool and all. So is holding on to some cash. But one of the biggest reasons why militaries have become so infatuated with robot planes might be the drones' ability to hang around in the air.

Flying a plane is tiring. A pilot can only last so long before he needs a break. That's why long range bombers, like the B-52, usually take a pair of 'em into the air.

Drones, on the other hand, don't tucker out. They can keep flying as long as there's fuel to be had. The Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), for example, can stay in the air for 31 hours straight.

That's a hell of a non-stop flight. But it's only a fraction of the endurance that drone-makers believe will eventually be possible. Take away a drone's need for gas, by loading it up with solar panels or fuel cells, and you might have a UAV that can stay airborne just about indefinitely.

Electric vehicle maker AC Propulsion took a big step toward that goal earlier this month, setting a new unmanned endurance record by keeping its SoLong UAV in the skies for 48 hours in a row, Aviation Week reports.

"The flight probably could have lasted a third night, and perhaps a fourth and a fifth," the magazine adds. AC founder "Alan Cocconi landed after 48 hr. 16 min. because the pilots [operating the plane from the ground] were exhausted, not because the battery was low on juice."

[SoLong is] a powered sailplane of Cocconi's own design with solar cells built into the wing. It weighs 28.2 lb., has a 15.6-ft. span, and takes off with its own 1-hp. motor from a wheeled dolly. The control system includes a sophisticated autopilot with inertial, barometric and GPS references; a television camera gives an over-the-nose pilot's-eye view. It's easy to dismiss the project due to the small size of the aircraft and the 5 X 8-ft. ground station, but the flight system is equal to those many times larger.

There could be major bucks for Cocconi & Co., if they can build their system out to industrial strength -- and not just in defense contracts. As I noted in the Times back in 2002...

The big commercial opportunity is likely to be in missions at 50,000 feet and higher that last for months. There, drones can serve as "long-endurance, orbiting relays -- airborne cell towers," Mr. Newcome of Adroit Systems wrote in the trade journal Unmanned Vehicles.

Traditional cell towers are expensive -- up to $1 million each -- and cover three square miles or less. Given their mobility, drones could offer a cheaper alternative.

Several companies are already looking to outlast Cocconi's vrew. AeroVironment, the previous long-range champ, is designing a hydrogen-powered drone (right) that can stay in the sky for a week or more.

Engaged

I met Elizabeth Visceglia in 1997, and fell in love with her approximately two hours later.

Last week, on a sugary beach on Mexico's Caribbean coast, I finally worked up the guts and good sense to ask her to marry me. She said yes, taking my grandmother's engagement ring from 1940.

Back at the hotel, we celebrated with rum.

Murdoc and Jason, You Rock

Man, I should go away more often. Murdoc and Armchair Generalist Jason Sigger did a kick-ass job guest hosting Defense Tech last week. I don't know about you, by I learned a boatload -- and had a ton of fun -- reading through their posts. A few favorites:

* R2D2 vs. Mortars

* It's Just a Box

* A Rose by Any Other Name

* We Can Make Them Stronger

* The Navy's FCS

Come back soon, guys!

The Navy's FCS

Not to be outdone by the boys in green, the US Navy has its own future combat system, complete with cost overruns, ballooning weight, and dubious performance in early tests. It's called the DD(X), noted previously here at Defense Tech.

The House of Representatives recently cut large chunks out of the DD(X) budget, and a GAO report noted that the design is currently over the allotted weight for this stage of development. Meanwhile, critics wonder why we should build multi-billion dollar destroyers when we could reactivate battleships for less money.

Since the House slashed the money for the program, the Navy has responded according to DefenseNews:

U.S. Navy leaders are shooting back, touting the ship’s improved war-fighting abilities in coastal regions and technological benefits and claiming the $3.3 billion warship gives taxpayers more bang for their buck.

“DD(X) has a significant advantage over the DDG destroyer in the littorals,” said Vice Adm. Joseph Sestak, the Navy’s head of warfare requirements and programs.

New radar, underwater sensors and computers will make the new destroyer a superior near-shore hunter of ships and subs than the Arleigh Burke-class warships that have been coming out of the shipyards since 1989, Sestak said.

For example, Navy analysis indicates that the DD(X) will be “significantly better against Boghammers, swarming small boats armed with missiles” that are operated by Iran, he said.

Sestak said the analysis indicated that losses due to enemy attacks can be reduced by up to 31 percent if a DD(X), rather than several DDGs, is present.

“I would not take the DDG into the littorals as I would a DD(X),” he said.

The DD(X) certainly appears to have some fantastic potential, including a stealthy design and advanced automation that would keep crew size very small. But, like all new ideas, there are some problems:

• Designers have substituted an Advanced Induction Motor (AIM) for the planned Permanent Magnet Motor (PMM) in the ship’s power system after the PMM failed in tests earlier this year. Although the AIM incorporates proven technology, it is heavier, larger, noisier and less power-dense than the PMM, requiring several changes in the ship’s design.

• The volume search portion of the dual-band radar still is encountering technical problems, although the multifunction radar has successfully completed its tests to date.

• Fire and shock testing for the composite-construction superstructure have been delayed due to questions about the materials to be used.

• The peripheral missile launch system needed to be redesigned after an “immense explosion” caused damage during tests a year ago.

While these issue are probably all surmountable, the question becomes "should the effort be made if it's going to cost so much?". The ships are going to cost between $2 billion and $5 billion per copy, though the House's recent budget capped that at $1.7 billion.

For that many clams, most folks would like to see more than a couple of 155mm guns supporting the troops on shore, a primary mission of the DD(X). In fact, the two remaining battleships are supposed to stay in reserve until their fire-support capability can be matched by a new system. Despite this requirement, the Navy is moving to permanently deactivate the battlewagons.

While battleships couldn't contribute much to the current battles in Iraq or Afghanistan, two other potential hot spots (namely China and North Korea) present many opportunities for heavy bombardment by either the current low-tech 16" shells or the proposed guided and/or extended-range versions. At an estimated $1.5 billion per ship to reactivate and upgrade, they look like a steal compared to the DD(X).

Whether or not reactivating battleships makes sense for the Navy, the DD(X) program is in serious trouble, and with it the future of new big ships in the fleet.

THERE'S MORE: Navy Newsstand:

The DD(X) National Team and the Navy conducted the third consecutive successful guided-flight test of the 155mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) June 16.

Preliminary results indicate the munition successfully conducted preplanned maneuvers along a 60 nautical mile flight path during the 280-second flight.

“This important test highlights another successful milestone to develop and field long-range, GPS-precise gun munitions for our fleet,” said Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, the program executive officer for ships. “The success of LRLAP is vital to our efforts to deliver DD(X) to the fleet as planned. Each one of these shots brings us closer to that goal.”

“The DD(X) development team, both in the Navy and industry, continues to make major strides to demonstrate critical new capabilities such as LRLAP for DD(X),“ according to Capt. Charles Goddard, the DD(X) program manager. “Our rigorous development and test program is focused using prototype systems to fully evaluate and mature these technologies for DD(X) and other future ships.”

NOTE: This will be my final post at Defense Tech. Noah will return tomorrow and, after a couple of days to clean up the mess we left and restock the fridge, Defense Tech will be back to normal. It's been a blast posting here, and I hope to see some of you at Murdoc Online from time to time. I thank Noah for the great opportunity.

--posted by Murdoc

Rapid Fire 06/28/2005

Here are some links worth a look:

* More Google Maps fun: New Zealand's Waihopai spy base, which is a favorite attraction for Kiwi anti-war protestors

* The Marines are trying yet another IED-resistant vehicle, the Cougar

* New brakes for KC-135 tankers last ten times as long...which is good since who knows when they'll be replaced by newer planes

* I can't do that Dave--Space station gets HAL-like computer

* Russian air force commander General Vladimir Mikhailov accuses America of still fighting the Cold War...and that Russia will soon begin testing new long-range cruise missiles

* Angle the deflector shields!-- "Force field" could keep lunar astronauts safe from solar radiation

* This final entry isn't tech-related, but Intel Dump writer Phil Carter has been activated and will be deployed to Iraq with the 101st Airborne

--posted by Murdoc

We Can Make Them Stronger... Faster... Better

I imagine that some group in BAE Systems had a great party this last weekend. The news is that BAE Systems received several orders from the U.S. Army to remanufacture and upgrade Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles to A3 configurations. The total cost of these orders runs to more than $1 billion. Most of the work will be done at their plant at York, PA. The modified vehicles will be delivered to the Army between June 2006 and January 2008.

The A3 upgrade progam began back in 2001 with 389 M2A3 vehicles and 77 M3A3 vehicles to be upgraded by 2006. The upgrade includes an improved thermal imager for the TOW missile, a combat identification system, and other improvements to "provide commanders with outstanding situational awareness in the harshest urban fights."

The Bradley vehicles have what is called ventilated facepiece collective protection, which provides fresh air through hoses into the crew's M42A1 protective masks. The squad being transported has no collective protection and must rely on their protective masks and suits. Interestingly enough, the original M3 Bradley vehicle and M1 Abrams tank had no collective protection at all, despite knowledge that the Soviet armored tanks and vehicles did offer such protection. I used to get a kick by going to the AUSA annual meeting and asking defense contractors who were pushing armored vehicles what chem-bio survivability features their vehicles have. "Ahhh... let me get my boss... I don't know that one."

Hey, it's been real, it's been fun, but Noah's back tomorrow and I'm outta here. Hope to see you readers at my blog sometime.

-- Armchair Generalist

More on the Stealth Speedboat

Commenter Murc points out that the stealth speedboat noted last Friday is most likely a SEALION (SEAL Insertion, Observation, Neutralization) technology demonstrator. While not planned to enter full-scale production, the first SEALION has been in testing for some time and a second will be delivered later this year.

As a technology demonstrator, SEALION I is not armed but is designed accept a variety of modular mission payloads and could accept a modular weapons system, according to program officials. SEALION II is being designed to accommodate a short-range strike missile, to demonstrate a modular payload with a precision-strike capability.

Navy officials said "there will be no test firing of the missiles from SEALION II nor will the craft be delivered with missiles."

SEALION II will be slightly longer that SEALION I and feature several new capabilities, including a pop-up infrared imaging system built by DRS Technologies (Parsippany, N.J.), as well as a modular mission payload bay. The boat also features the Craft Integrated Electronics Suite, built by Azimuth Inc., a West Virginia-based company specializing in high-technology services. The electronics suite, along with a local area network computer, will enable SEALION II to operate with a two-man crew, instead of the three needed by SEALION I.

As I noted on my own site, Special Forces always get the cool stuff.

--posted by Murdoc

Commercial-free crisis response info and data

The US military is looking at the digital XM Radio network as a possible communications system for distributing critical information during a homeland security crisis:

XM and Raytheon Co. have jointly built a communications system that would use XM’s satellites to relay information to soldiers and emergency responders during a crisis.

The Mobile Enhanced Situational Awareness Network, known as MESA, would get a dedicated channel on XM’s satellites that would be accessible only on devices given to emergency personnel. The receivers would be the same as the portable ones available to consumers, with slight modifications to make them more rugged.

The military often leases transmission space on commercial satellites, but this collaboration between a massive defense contractor and a fun-loving radio network — XM’s first two satellites were dubbed “Rock” and “Roll,” and its next two might be “Rhythm” and “Blues” — is unusual.

It began last year when engineers with Waltham, Mass.-based Raytheon Co. were looking for an inexpensive system that would help emergency responders and soldiers coordinate their actions after a natural disaster or terrorist strike. Existing communications systems for such scenarios can be bulky and expensive.

Commercial satellite radio receivers, in contrast, are lightweight, battery-powered and cost as little as $99. Their digital transmissions have enough bandwidth to carry maps and other imagery, which would be displayed on portable computers that plug into the satellite receivers. And the system can be programmed to relay information just to specific devices if need be, so individual users can get messages appropriate to their regions.

XM Radio only covers North America, but Raytheon has signed on with Worldspace Corp., a satellite radio provider in Africa, Asia and Europe, for globe-spanning coverage.

FCS to hit the practice field this fall

Future Combat Systems will undergo its first major field test beginning in October:

Experiment 1.1 will run through calendar year '06, and will feature prototypes and "the first slice of the network," leading into the first spin off of FCS technologies into the current force, Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing FCS vice president-general manager/program manager, told reporters in a program update last week.

Boeing and Science Applications International Corp. are the Lead System Integrator for FCS.

Software and the network have been identified by various reports, including one done by the Institute for Defense Analyses, as areas that could become strategic risks without risk mitigation efforts that the LSI is undertaking.

The field experiment will "allow us to look at the network inside of the formation down to the soldier level, and begin to link sensors in a direct way to soldiers," Dan Zanini, SAIC senior vice president and FCS deputy program manager, said.

FCS is under fire from a lot of directions, as many of the various systems seem to be coming in overpriced, overweight, and under performance specs.

The October field exercise will follow a series of experiments in the system of systems integration lab that opened this year.

A series of stretched Humvees will be used as surrogate vehicles. "Those vehicles will be equipped with elements of the network, so they will include JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System) radios," Muilenburg said. Other network elements will include early System of System Common Operating Environment (SOSCOE) software and early elements of battle command software.

FCS is closely tied to JTRS Cluster 1, led by a separate area of Boeing, and Cluster 5, managed by General Dynamics. Cluster 1 is being restructured after a series of problems and show cause letter.

Defense Tech has been watching the Joint Tactical Radio for some time. See articles here, here, and here.

The field exercise will also include early prototype hardware for the unattended ground sensors (UGV) and potentially an early prototype launch system for the intelligent munition system. iRobot's PackBot will also take part. Another potential participant is the largest FCS unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Northrop Grumman's Fire Scout. The smallest UAV, the Micro Air Vehicle, under development by Honeywell and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a candidate FCS program, is also expected to take part in the tests.

Critics, no doubt, will get good mileage out of the Humvee-based FCS vehicle stand-ins. While the FCS vehicles certainly have a long way to go, detractors would also do well to remember that the German army began practicing blitzkrieg tactics with cardboard tank cut-outs mounted on cars. And one FCS vehicle, the NLOS-C self-propelled artillery, is getting fast-tracked.

So, while problems abound, the FCS program rolls onward.

--posted by Murdoc

Would You Like Some Pepper on That?

Now many of you may remember Gunny Hartman in "Full Metal Jacket" telling us that "God has a hard-on for Marines because we kill everything we see!" Well, not so much anymore, at least not at the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program. This isn't real news - the Marine Corps has been the DOD Executive Agent for non-lethal weapons development since about 10 years ago. Currently, they run a "train-the-trainer" course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for all the military services. They're considering expanding the program to allow for hands-on training at Leonard Wood and to ensure they keep up with new technologies being fielded (right now, the hands-on training is done at the home stations). This is a good thing, and I'll tell you why.

The Non-Lethal Chemical and Biochemical Weapons Research (NLCBWR) project under the Sunshine Project tracks incidents of improper or deliberate misuse of non-lethal weapons such as "pepper spray," by civilians as well as by military or law enforcement officers. Some of these instances include:

- A man dies as police subdue him with pepper spray in San Mateao, California

- Police use "excessive violence" and pepper spray to subdue a man at a traffic stop in South Carolina

- Policeman uses "excessive" amount of pepper spray on crowd in Vermont

- Family in drug raid in New Orleans accuses police of excessive force in use of pepper spray

Now the NLCBW project is clearly focused on watching for any improper use of pepper spray or other non-lethal weapons at these kind of events. Certainly there are cases where the police has properly used pepper spray to peacefully and successfully resolve individual and group conflicts. However, it illustrates the important point that, if the military intends on using these non-lethal technologies, it ought to ensure that its troops receive proper and frequent training on the use of these devices, if for no other reason, to stay focused on the intended outcome - few to no casualties and successful resolution of potential military-civil conflicts during peacekeeping (and other) operations.

-- Armchair Generalist

The British Are Coming

The Washington Post reported on Friday that European Aeronautic Defence and Space (EADS) has chosen to build a $600 million aircraft plant in Mobile, Alabama. Kiln, Mississippi, and North Charleston, South Carolina, were also in the running for the new EADS site. I'm sure it didn't hurt Alabama to have two powerful Republican senators, one of which is on the Armed Services Committee and the other on the Appropriations Committee. EADS CEO Ralph Crosby says this was a strategic decision, based on port access to the Gulf of Mexico, airport runways and a skilled workforce. Others see this as an opening salvo by EADS to go after the Air Force tanker contract in which Boeing and DOD politics had been entangled.

In addition to adding high-paying jobs to a Southern state, EADS is offering grants to universities in Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina to allow students to study at their future engineering center in Mobile. EADS is hoping that, through a combination of offering Congress another "domestic" source for an aircraft manufacturer and capitalizing on Boeing's bad press, they just might have a shot at winning the AF tanker contract. A Boeing spokesman simply stated, "There is no tanker replacement program [right now], so there is nothing for us to address at this point."

Boeing's model 367-80 was the basic design for the KC-135A Stratotanker, and the first KC-135's were bought in 1954. About 550 tankers still remain in service. The Air Force had re-engineered most of the tankers with new engines and other improvements that allow the tankers to offload 50 percent more fuel at 25 percent cheaper costs. As of May 2002, the Air Force had 545 KC-135 tankers, 134 being the "E" models and 411 being the reengineered models. Had Boeing been awarded the tanker contract, most of the remaining tankers were to be replaced by 2009.

-- Armchair Generalist

Stealth speedboat?

Not sure what to make of this one. It was spotted earlier this week by a blogger near the radar testing range of the Navy Research Lab at Chesapeake Beach. He's got some more pics.

I also noted this at my site and wrote:

Radar test target? Small-scale LCS testbed? Experimental Navy SEAL water ski system? Mock-up for a television commercial?

Hoax?

Go check it out. And check in if you have any info. Unless you have to kill anyone you tell. I don't need to know that badly.

--posted by Murdoc

Taiwan to give US missile defense a go

Taiwan has been living between a rock and hard place for quite some time. Ever fearful of an attack from China, they're going to receive early warning radars from the United States. China's military build-up continues, and they reportedly tested a cruise missile with a 1000km range.

In a move bound to anger Beijing, which views Taiwan as a renegade province, the system will let Taiwan’s air force detect and track long- and short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, enemy aircraft and surface ships with “no doubt” reliability, said Raytheon, based in Waltham, MA.

The system includes an ultra-high frequency “phased array” radar to be integrated with Taiwan-supplied beacons that identify aircraft as friends or foes as well as two missile warning centers, a Defense Department contract announcement said.

The article notes that the radar system could eventually be linked to Patriot missile defense batteries, a system with great capability and a slightly checkered past.

Maybe they'd be interested in some R2-D2 units?

--posted by Murdoc

The Well-Dressed Aviator

Many of you may be familiar with the DOD's current chem-bio protective garnment, the Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Technology (JSLIST) suit. This suit, which DOD began buying around 1998, uses carbon spheres sprayed on the inside of the suit instead of activated charcoal embedded in a foam layer. The procurement of these suits was deliberately slow, due to "business logic," which resulted in troops in the Gulf getting only two JSLIST suits per instead of the stated basis-of-issue of four per. Oops - good thing there weren't any WMDs in Iraq. But the aviators had it worse, in that their modern protective suit wasn't even in production.

The Joint Protective Aircrew Ensemble (JPACE) came into advanced development in 2000. This Air Force-led project focused on developing an aviator suit that would protect against chem-bio hazards, be fire resistant, and launderable (while uncontaminated). There's nothing like wearing a suit of carbon when your jet fuel is on fire, so the fire resistance was important, but the launderable was too - the pilots had to look good and smell good in their one-piece outfits (another requirement - the JSLIST was a frumpy two-piece outfit). Also, the JPACE had to have pockets that would hold those pens, notebooks, and aviator glasses (kidding). Initial plans were to have this suit out to the field by 2005, but, unrealistic plans and technology not cooperating, this date was extended past 2007.

Now the Army and Marine Corps also have the modern M40A1 protective masks to replace the older M17A3 masks. The Air Force and Navy are still hanging onto their old (1980s era) MCU-2/P masks for their ground/ship personnel, waiting until the next generation ground mask is fielded. The Joint Service General Purpose Mask (JSGPM) should begin fielding in 2007, but... the aviators need something special. Right now, each service has unique aviator masks for their rotary wing and fixed wing pilots. At least this time they have good logic - the fixed wing pilots need a mask that has oxygen hoses and that can stand high-G performances, and the rotary wing pilots need to go to a standard mask that's compatible with their comms and optical requirements. Enter the Joint Service Aviator Mask (JSAM), a Navy-led program that will eventually come up with a standard fixed wing mask (possibly with two modifications - one for high performance pilots and one for "normal" performance pilots) and a standard rotary wing mask. Initial plans were to have this mask out by 2006, but it too has slipped cost, performance and schedule to a more comfortable 2008 fielding date.

You'd think that this lack of modern capability would have a good many influential fighter pilots up in arms, but they're not really that concerned. You see, many Air Force analysts believe that their air bases are only threatened by a few ballistic missiles (as far as chem-bio threats are concerned), since they'll shoot down or intercept anything else (counting on the troops to keep those pesky artillery systems away). Also, some Air Force analysts believe the issue of persistent contamination to be overblown by the Army and others. If you just wait about 8 hours, they reason, all the life-threatening agent will be largely gone. It's kind of a "What, me worry?" attitude that I certainly don't share. But then I'm a biased Army guy...

One of the debates going on within the DOD CB Defense Program is whether the aviator masks and suits should be tested and evaluated together, as a system. Problem there is, does one penalize the aviators by delaying the JPACE to match the later JSAM schedule, possibly risking those troops in future combat operations? Or will the tests and evaluations be less effective if the two items are not jointly evaluated? Odds are on the bureaucrats winning this one...

-- Armchair Generalist

FCS self-propelled artillery demonstrator

A reader at MO tipped me off to this beast. It's the NLOS-C (non-line-of-sight cannon) demonstrator, and it's fired over 1,000 rounds during testing near Yuma, AZ.

Regular Defense Tech readers will know that the FCS program is a plan with great potential but many questions and growing price tags. Not to mention swelling waistlines. Of all the FCS vehicles, though, this one seems to be the farthest along and on the right track. That's because the manufacturer, United Defense, already had a great deal of groundwork completed due to the canceled Crusader program:

United Defense designed and fielded NLOS-C CTD in just six months following Crusader program cancellation. CTD leverages Crusader technology, the M777 towed howitzer 39-caliber cannon, a fully automated ammunition handling system and a 20-ton highly mobile tracked platform. The current CTD has a magazine capable of holding 24 cannon projectiles and hybrid-electric (diesel electric) propulsion system providing fuel economy.

This particular beast seems to actually fit the concept of taking advantage of "off-the-shelf" components whenever possible that FCS was supposed to embrace. But it's a demonstrator and not the final product. However, a recent pile of money thrown in the general direction of FCS includes funds to accelerate the NLOS-C development.

There are a number of other big-gun artillery/fire support options out there, as well.

The Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) is still having trouble and won't be fielded until at least 2007.

The Stryker crowd can take heart that there's also a LAV III-based 105mm mobile howitzer prototype that's been tested and apparently performed well. It was developed on spec, though, and there's no spare change available at the moment.

And four left-over M8 AGS (Armored Gun System) prototypes were supposed to be fielded with the 82nd Airborne, but there's been no news.

The M8 AGS was originally developed for the airborne. The XVIII Airborne Corps has looked at the French-built Ceasar, a 155mm howitzer mounted on a 6x6 truck for some big-barreled punch.

Canada is planning to purchase the troubled Stryker MGS, but some up north wonder if there aren't better alternatives available.

Some of these are fire support platforms, some are more like traditional self-propelled artillery, and the M8 AGS is really more of a light tank.

But FCS has the money (for now, at least), so the NLOS-C has to be considered the odds-on favorite. Meanwhile, the troops in the field continue to wonder if the big guns will ever be providing some cover and knocking in bunkers for them.

THERE'S MORE: Of course, big guns aren't the only way to make big holes. Missiles and advanced guidance are changing the way artillery support works.

AND MORE: A commenter on my site noted that, for all the advanced gear and space-age weaponry, it will still all come down to the soldier. It's important that we don't lose sight of this. To underscore the importance of our men and women in uniform, I pointed out the pic on the front page of today's DefendAmerica.mil and wrote

There's probably very little on earth scarier than a US soldier or Marine with a map and a radio.

--posted by Murdoc

This CROW says "BAM BAM BAM"

First Rhinos, now CROWs. New breeds of animals keep popping up in Iraq. The Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) is mounted on top of a HMMWV and controlled from a command center within the vehicle. This system can mount the M2 50-cal machine gun, the M240 medium machine gun, the MK19 automatic grenade launcher, and the M249 squad automatic weapon in addition to a powerful color day camera, an infrared camera, and a range finder. This system allows the gunner to sit within the armored vehicle and, using a computer screen, control the weapon with the use of a joystick. Prior experience with Xbox desired but not required.

The PM for Soldier Weapons demonstrated a prototype in February 2004, with four systems being deployed to Iraq under an urgent needs request. Troops in Iraq began receiving the final system in April 2005. Several hundred more are expected to be fielded within the next 18 months.

“The CROWS system is an excellent tool,” said Sgt. 1st Class Craig Bailey, Company C, 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment. “The advantages are obviously its optics, zoom and thermal capabilities. It’s able to see things a lot farther in advance. It’s excellent to have a thermal system mounted right on the vehicle to use at night or in daytime.”

“The CROWs is great for the MSR patrols because with the FLIR it sees things that are out of place,” Hargis said. “Even spotting IEDs in the road prior to coming up to them, but I think the most rewarding thing I can do is catch some of these guys laying the IEDs.”

My foxhole buddy Murdoc caught this story in April, when the system deployed. Additional photos can be found at the PEO Soldier site.

-- Armchair Generalist

Rapid Fire: 06/22/2005

A few links of interest:

* European aerospace firm EADS is building an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator

* '38 Marines open lines of communication

* New Mine Warfare Laser Technology Approved For Production (Calm down...it's a mine detector, not a mine destroyer)

* Stealth submarines...in 1864

* Marine report to Congress on combating IEDs in Iraq

--posted by Murdoc

Israel's floating fence

In Defense News (subscription):

Israel is building an underwater barrier extending out to sea from its border with Gaza to deter Palestinian infiltrators as part of a planned withdrawal from the coastal strip, a newspaper said on June 17.

The Jerusalem Post reported in detail, but without citing any sources, that the barrier, part concrete and part floating fence, would stretch 950 meters (1039 yards) into the Mediterranean from Israel’s boundary with the northern Gaza Strip.

The aim of the structure would be to stop Gaza-based militants from launching attacks into Israel by sea after the Israeli government implements a plan to remove all 21 Jewish settlements from the occupied territory starting in mid-August.

The Israeli military declined comment on the report, which said construction had begun.

The report said the first 150 meters (164 yards) would consist of concrete pilings burrowed into the seabed while the remaining 800 meters (875 yards) is planned to be a submerged 1.8 meter (six-foot) deep “floating fence.” No further details were given.

While no static defense will hold against an equipped and determined attacker, simple barriers can do much to keep just anyone from crossing over, and they allow more valuable resources and personnel to be used where the need is greater.

--posted by Murdoc

When the bouncers become the bounced

According to scotsman.com, a British Eurofighter turned the tables on a pair of American F-15 Eagles after a chance encounter turned into a mock dogfight. And the Eurofighter was a trainer.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.

This will no doubt give ammunition to those calling for more F/A-22 fighters in the US Air Force.

Speaking of outrageously-priced fighter planes, the article notes that Eurofighter supporters were glad to hear some good news since the project was a decade late and $8 billion over budget.

--posted by Murdoc

It's Just A Box

It's one of those things that you scratch your head about and ask, what, no one thought of this before? Issue - keeping units of blood cool while conducting critical field surgery where there's no power. Standard practice - using Vietnam-era cardboard boxes and styrofoam technology to keep blood at the required 38-50 degrees Fahrenheit for about eight hours. Question - has anyone, in this day of camping enthusiasts and high-tech sporting gear, thought that there might be a better solution?

Answer - yes, thanks to a Minnesota-based firm called Minnesota Thermal Science, LLC. Bill Mayer, the chief scientist there, designed a portable 10-inch square container that uses insulation similar to that used in store-bought coolers and a liquid similar to those freezer packs that people use to keep their mayo from spoiling at picnics. The result? A container that kept red blood cells good for more than 97 hours at minus 9 degrees Fahrenheit, for more than 78 hours at 105 degrees Fahrenheit, and for more than 121 hours at room temperature. It doesn't require batteries, ice, or electricity.

Mayer says in the article, "It's not really all that complicated. ... It's not real exciting. It's just a box." The simplicity of the design is what he believes is the rationale why larger scientific labs had not already invented it. The Army leadership disagrees, and is giving one of its top ten Greatest Invention Awards to the firm. The other awardees are listed here.

-- Armchair Generalist

More on the Road of Death's Bad-Ass Bus

Last week Defense Tech noted the RhinoRunner armored bus, and the post gathered a ton of great comments in the discussion section. Definitely worth a look.

One question asked was "What makes a RhinoRunner "better" than an APC?", and this email response came in to Defense Tech from sources "in the know":

What makes a RhinoRunner "better" than an APC?

The RhinoRunner is not "Better" than an APC...it is a different vehicle used for an entirely different mission. It is comparing apples and oranges from the tactical standpoint.

The difference between a "RhinoRunner" and an APC:

The armored personnel carrier transports fully loaded combat troops in a hostile "front-lines" environment. The APC in virtually all cases possesses organic armaments / weapons and must be all terrain capable. Normally, the all terrain requirement is satisfied via a tracked vehicle. Ideally, the APC is designed to withstand heavy caliber "direct fire" from a determined enemy. Price ranges for APCs are $500,000 minimum and can easily exceed $2,000,000.

The RhinoRunner is designed for "protected transport" of personnel on roadways, both improved and secondary. Never designed to be equipped with organic weaponry, the RhinoRunner does provide personnel being transported the capability to return fire from within the Runner. As opposed to the average commercially available "passenger-bus" or the "unarmored" standard military troop transport, the Level IV (NIJ) protection afforded by the RhinoRunner at the price of the RhinoRunner is quite remarkable. The engineering of the RhinoRunner has proven to be quite capable of withstanding the 360 degree "unconventional" aspects of the current insurgency as opposed to the more traditional one dimensional war where a front line can be identified. Unfortunately, due to the asymmetric characteristics of the current campaign in Iraq ...the RhinoRunner is fulfilling a unique and vital role in safely transporting military and civilian personnel throughout the Iraqi theater.

From a purely, and far less important, purely economic standpoint. The RhinoRunner safely transports 23 passengers at a Unit cost of $275,000. And since no RhinoRunner has been knocked out of service, it is proving to be quite resilient. Dissimilarly, it takes at least (6) $80-100,000 lesser armored HMMWVs to accomplish the same transport and 2-3 $100,000 lesser armored military trucks that are better suited for cargo transport missions. Payload constraints restrict most military combat transports from being armored to Level IV(NIJ) standards until such time as new "non-steel" materials become more available.

It must be noted that many of the comments indicate a propensity for VIP transport on the RhinoRunner. Statistics indicate that this is the exception rather than the rule in that military personnel and DoD contractors utilize the RhinoRunner at a rate far exceeding any usage by visiting VIPs, observers, etc.

Journalists and critics often make the mistake of confusing the many types of missions and environments that armored vehicles are designed for. M1 tanks have pretty much proven themselves to be the toughest and strongest armored vehicles out there today. But they make lousy busses. Just as you'd never use a tank or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle as a bus, you'd never send a RhinoRunner into a full-scale battle.

The RhinoRunner's larger carrying capacity makes it far more efficient when called to transport large numbers of personnel over great distances, and its armor is strong enough to protect its cargo in the environment its expected to operate in. Like all other armored vehicles, the RhinoRunner has a particular role to fill. The current environment in Iraq makes that role one that's required on a daily basis.

--posted by Murdoc

Biosniffers

The Air Force Research Laboratory thinks they have a new biodetector in the form of a hand-held sensor that would collect and isolate samples, detect and identify agents, and tell the operator how serious of a threat exists. This sensor, developed by DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in cooperation with the Air Force, operates very similarly to the M1 Chemical Agent Monitor (CAM), in that it is intended to manually detect the relative level of contamination after an attack or following decontamination of a person or piece of equipment.

With the prototype system, the user sprays the suspected contaminated area, creating a sample that can be picked up by a swab. The sample material on the swab is suspended in liquid by rinsing it in a container. Once in a liquid form, the sample is injected into a special flow cell, the place where the assay occurs.

The flow cell is currently designed for one-time use. Since the cell is sealed, it can be decontaminated by immersion in a bleach solution and then safely transported to a forensic laboratory for further analysis where it can be opened to retrieve the sample material.

A liquid crystal display, or LCD, provides a quantitative readout of the concentration of targeted material present, and a set of red, yellow, and green light emitting diodes provides an easily interpreted reading of the threat level. For instance, "no threat" is green, a barely detectable to medium level of an agent is one or two yellow dots, and a high detection level is red.

Sounds great! When can we buy a dozen? Well there are a few hurdles to be passed yet. Traditionally, the National Labs have worked in the basic research area, which means while they have a proof of principle here, the device will require several months, perhaps years, until it gets to the point that it is a ruggedized and fully tested and accepted military item. In the usual course of events, this item would transition to the