 |
China Top Card in Pentagon Shuffle
 So, imagine you are the Rumsfeld Defense Department. You are locked in a "global struggle against violent extremists" stretching from"stretching from Indonesia through the Middle East,". You have 150,000 troops stationed in Iraq as the central front in said struggle. The United States is facing major foreign policy crises in Iran and Lebanon, of other which might involve your beloved Pentagon.
You decide to elevate one Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with regional responsibilities to become a full Assistant Secretary over a region. This is an easy call. You pick: Asia-Pacific.
Oh, sure, sure, you have no exit strategy for Iraq and you are sizing up air defenses around Tehran, but c'mon ... real men hate on China.
Of course, focusing on China ... er the Asia-Pacific ... was the plan, from the first Defense Strategy Review by Andy Marshall which reportedly "cast the Pacific as the most important region for military planners..." I kind of admire the sticktuitiveness of the whole thing, 9/11 and Iraq be damned.
You almost wonder why they didn't have the stones to pin the 9/11 attack on Jiang Zemin. After all, their friends did.
I've posted the new organization at my blog, Arms Control Wonk.com. USD(P) Eric Edelman explained the issue as one of matching up to State and NSC:
The secretary sensed that we were misaligned in some ways ... and we wanted to make it easier for Policy and the (combatant commands) to figure out what the right address was (in the other agencies) to go forward solving problems. I think this will make it a little easier to operate interagency.
Now, when I was at Policy -- oh so briefly -- the fact that the State Department Bureaus were headed by Assistant Secretaries, one level higher than the equivalent DOD offices, was kind of irritating.
And maybe I am being too cynical. As an "Asia expert" -- whatever that means -- I am psyched to see my region getting attention. And, were I ever lucky enough to hold that office at OSD, I'd appreciate the extra step to full Assistant Secretary.
But, really, wouldn't a single "Assistant Secretary for South West and Central Asia" with DASD's for the Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia better protect the country's interests?
-- Jeffrey Lewis, cross posted at Arms Control Wonk.com
Air Force Wants Software Spies
What if you could send a computer program to do the job of a spy, or a bomber, or drone? It sounds like science fiction -- and it'll probably stay that way, for a long, long time. But Air Force researchers think there's enough to the idea to start funding a trio of companies for initial work into these attacking, snooping "Cyber Craft."
 "Using the Cyber Domain to conduct military operations... has significant potential," an Air Force paper announces. Examples include long-term intelligence activities, like "being to monitor a military barracks, accumulate financial information on a potentially hostile nation, or provide status on the political climate of a South American country."
Researchers think the programs could answer shorter-term, tactical questions, too. "Like who is in this building across the street, where are the tanks located in a particular town or village that is going to be entered by friendly forces, or what’s the latest intelligence regarding adversarial forces in a particular town or village."
Obviously, it would take more than a bulked-up Web crawler to get the job done. Cyber Craft would have to be able to hop from standard computer networks to electrical grids to wireless nets and back, over and over again.
Cyber agents will need to embody the ability to covertly travel across these mediums, constantly assessing the network layout, morphing itself as networks change, and remaining covert while maintaining the integrity of its mission. Increased use of data hiding techniques and data hiding detection techniques add additional complexity to the Cyber craft weapon arsenal... Cyber weapons will need to perform real-time continuous self-assessment of the adversary’s detection capability and be able to make instant decisions to morph or self-destruct. Both these functions will be required in covertness and with the decision information sent back to its Cyber Craft home.
"As an example of a Cyber Craft application, consider a squad of marines entering a residential area," the Air Force paper offers.
Current intelligence is about 20-mins old and the squad leader requires updated information. The squad leader finds an electrical outlet and plugs in. This outlet allows access to the power grid of the town and subsequently access to the adversary’s computer network. The squad leader injects a Cyber Craft into the system, whose mission is to locate a) any insurgents or b) locate any hidden military facilities... The Cyber Craft detect[s] some activity at a military installation within 1000-ft of the Marines location. The Cyber Craft performs a 'recce mission' to gather intelligence on the insurgents (exact location, number, arms, etc.) and sends back data/information to the marines. However, in the meantime the marines have moved and have located a different means of connecting to the network. The Cyber Craft has 'sensed' this shift so readdresses the feedback information to the marine’s new location and port. The 'Cyber Craft' acquires a positive ID, and sends an alert message back to the marines that the insurgents are about to leave and may be heading their way... The Cyber Craft executes its orders (turns power off, locks the doors), sends back an acknowledgement and self destructs.
There's not much of this that today's software can do, the Air Force researchers acknowledge. "Agent development, agent size and complexity, detection technology, realtime agent learning and self morphing technology, RF and network penetration technology are a few of the technological challenges requiring additional investment."
But the Air Force, earlier this year, did hand out contracts to three firms to start working the problem. Assured Information Security of Rome, NY got a $99,170 grant to "research and develop a CyberCraft software tool that will be able to covertly enter a network and move about the network to detect intrusions or other abnormalities." Indialantic, FL outfit 3 Sigma Research is looking to build "Cyber Craft organized in to 'cells' to enhance survivability and increase resiliency to attack." And Solidcore Systems, out of Palo Alto, will try to put together a system that include[s] a harbor (a host), and a dock (a control environment for Cyber Craft execution) and cyber craft themselves (ordinary programs that can get launched to hosts and run there)."
Of course, building the Cyber Craft, hard as it is, may wind up being the project's simplest part. The real questions come if and when fighters start to deploy the things. For instance, "How can we trust the Cyber Craft to 'do the right thing?'"
The goal is to develop a system that follows the 'fire-and-forget' methodology. However, with this philosophy comes the danger of a Cyber Craft morphing into something that performs unintended actions that would be harmful to friendly forces or provide an adversary with information about the sender’s intentions, position, etc. One way of controlling a Cyber Craft is have it 'dissolve' after completing its’ mission. However, depending on the level of the Cyber Craft (strategic, operational, and tactical) the mission length can go from minutes to years... Thus, the damage that can be inflicted by a rogue Cyber Craft could be significant.
"Future Combat" Needs Info Chief
 Talk about a thankless job. The Army is planning to spend $300 billion or more on a massive effort to make its forces quicker, lighter, and much better networked. The program, Future Combat Systems, has come under intense scrutiny -- and not just for its bloated budgets and constantly-shifting expectations. FCS is also an information technology undertaking for the ages, trying to link together countless thousands of next-gen tanks, flying drones, fighting vehicles, and robotic ground sensors all into a single "System of Systems Common Operating Environment."
If you've got a head hard enough to think you can pull this off, give the folks at defense contractor SAIC a ping. They're looking for deputy CIO for Future Combat Systems -- "minimum of 15 years experience in both classified and unclassified enterprise information management" required.
"Proficiency with Microsoft products and common office software applications" is a must, SAIC tells job-seekers. "Candidates must possess excellent oral and written communication skills with the ability to communicate difficult concepts to various audiences; and, have the ability to accomplish tasks under limited supervision."
Hmmm... $300 billion. Limited supervision. Maybe that job doesn't sound so bad, after all.
(Big ups: Sailfast)
Iraq's Biowar Labs: Mystery Solved?
 Okay, just when you thought that the whole Curveball-Iraqi biological weapons story couldn't get any weirder, it does. Milton Leitenberg of the Center for International Security Studies has provided me with the exclusive third (and last) part of the story behind the story of the alleged Iraqi mobile biological warfare labs. In Part 1, he revealed that in 2001 the U.S. government had fabricated a "mobile BW lab" for the purposes of training SOCOM operatives on how to identify and exploit an adversary's BW production facility. In Part 2, Leitenberg discusses how a U.S. contractor developed the now infamous graphics of an Iraqi mobile BW lab - not based on any existing mobile BW lab or any hard intel from Curveball, but rather based on "the processes he [Curveball] described," which were "assessed by an independent laboratory as workable engineering designs."
In Part 3, Leitenberg completes the full riddle inside the enigma within a mystery. It may be that we can trace back the idea of a mobile BW laboratory to Scott Ritter during his tour of duty in Iraq in 1998 with UNSCOM. Ritter was trying to obtain information from the Iraqi National Congress, specifically on Iraq's intelligence agencies and WMD program. In 1998, he talked to Ahmed Chalabi about his suspicion that Saddam may have had mobile chemical or biological weapons labs, which would explain the UNSCOM's lack of success in finding any evidence. In late 1999-2000, Curveball - the brother of a top lieutenant to Ahmed Chalabi - starts talking to the German intelligence about mobile Iraqi BW labs, who forwards this information to the CIA. At the same time, Chalabi is talking to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith about the danger of Iraq's "WMD program."
So here we have a rumor started by a former U.S. marine supporting a UN inspection team, where he passes the idea to Chalabi, who passes it to German intel and U.S. defense officials, both of whom pass the story to the CIA. The agency develops graphics drawn by a U.S. contractor based on Curveball's story and might have known of the mock-up BW lab built for SOCOM, both of which "confirms" the concept that Iraqi mobile BW labs exist, which leads to SecState Powell's speech at the UN in February 2003 and the media's echo chamber agreeing with the president that there's enough evidence to go to war against Iraq.
And as a bonus at the end of this short paper, Leitenberg reveals that Scott Ritter was pulled into a British intelligence op called "Operation Mass Appeal" run by MI6 in 1997. The purpose of "Operation Mass Appeal" was to leak weak and not "actionable" data about Iraq's WMD program to the media, who would fall upon it like hungry wolves and keep alive the public impression that Saddam had an active WMD program, despite the lack of official government endorsement. Leitenberg notes that the disinformation operation functioned similar to the DOD Office of Special Plans, but didn't involve disinformation regarding the Iraqi mobile BW production vehicles.
Call George Clooney. I've got his next movie plot all ready.
-- Jason Sigger, crossposted at Armchair Generalist
Israel Wants to Jam Sats
Back in 2004, the U.S. Air Force suggested that they might be willing to mess with commercial satellites, if they were aiding an American foe. The idea drew howls from outside observers. And, for a while, it seemed destined for an extremely quiet corner of flyboy doctrine.
 But now, the Israelis are picking up where their American counterparts left off, Defense News' Barbara Opall-Rome reports. Fed up with Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV broadcasts -- which stayed on the air, despite repeated aerial and electronic attacks -- the Sabras are now talking publicly about "disrupt[ing] transmissions of enemy programming carried by commercial satellites."
“No doubt, we understand the power of the media, public opinion and mass psychology,” said [Maj. Gen. Ido] Nehushtan, who is responsible for IDF modernization planning. “Al-Manar is a liability, and we’re going to have to improve our ability to counter this threat...”
...the only way to ensure persistent, reliable, wide-area broadcast denial is through an anti-communication satellite system. Israel must develop the means to surgically target signals serving Hizbollah without damaging the spacecraft or disrupting operations of other customers serviced by the broadcast frequencies, he said...
[But] according to [an Israeli] executive, jamming a communications satellite is “like interfering with civil aviation. You can do it, but it’s against international law and you’ll be subject to all kinds of lawsuits.”
It is technologically impossible, he said, to selectively jam only those satellite signals that carry enemy broadcasts.
“Everything goes out as a single beam, and it is impossible to jam only those channels viewed as a threat,” the executive said. “If you make the decision to interfere with one [satellite signal], then you must be prepared to face the consequences of the collateral damage incurred to the many other legitimate users of the signal.”
Robert Ames, chief executive of the Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group... said it is relatively easy to jam a specific satellite transponder.
“Transponders are separated by frequency,” he said. “All you have to do is know the frequency which it operates on and then put up a signal that is stronger than the programming carrier of the satellite...
Satellite interference capabilities have been around since the mid-1970s, he added. “But if the Israelis are talking about technological challenges, I assume they are aiming for a capability that goes way beyond what our companies have experienced to date.”
Rapid Fire 08/30/06
* New CEO for CIA fund
* Israel war probe pushes on
* GIs' cute robot rescuer
* NASA's fire-fighting drone (background here)
* Predators wanna crash your party
* More missiles for Iran
* Hack trouble for robo-sensors?
* Ray gun chief's stock shenanigans?
* Martian traffic jam
* Cruise missiles for everyone
* "Calling BS on modern physics"
* "Genetic trophy hunters, beware"
(Big ups: Haninah, RC)
Whisteblower Takes to YouTube
 ABCNews.com is running a story on Michael De Kort, the Lockheed whisteblower that's drawing a bunch of attention. for airing his complaints about the company's shoddy Coast Guard work for on YouTube. The network website was silly enough to quote yours truly about the subject.
Noah Shac[h]tman, editor-in-chief of DefenseTech.org, which monitors military happenings both at home and abroad, says it's necessary to ensure the public's ability to blow the whistle.
"I think it's never been easier for people to call B.S. on the shenanigans of their employers or their government," said Shachtman. "Whether it's soldiers from Abu Graib slipping out pictures and getting them to the press, or whether we're talking about bloggers reporting from the front lines. Digital media has really made it incredibly easy for people who want to get their message out and bring questionable practices to light."
Shachtman says there are many examples of these kinds of defense contract scandals -- though he says he's unsure if this is one of those cases. He says the promise of digital media is fulfilled when people like Michael De Kort can be heard.
"There are plenty of honest people working at the nation's defense contractors and there are a lot of very hard working, very smart people," Shac[h]tman said. "Unfortunately, when there are abuses, it can be awfully difficult for someone to penetrate the corporate walls and the government walls that surround them."
Tell that to Michael De Kort -- if you can catch him in-between interviews.
"They [the people] need to know the level of incompetence and the decisions that were being made," De Kort said. "Your ethics -- especially after 9/11 -- cannot be decisions of convenience -- they can't be decisions of economics."
Military Hybrids Stall
For a long time, now, the Pentagon has been looking to land diesel-electric hybrid vehicles to improve fuel economy, reduce logistics and allow power export. But after a decade of research and development, military hybrids are still years away from production, as I describe in detail in the current National Defense Magazine:
“Right now, we do not have a current hybrid program that targets fielding,” says Gus Khalil, team leader of hybrid-electric research at the Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC.
TARDEC, a division of the Research, Development and Engineering Command, in Warren, Mich., is the military’s main research center for vehicle technologies.
Khalil and other TARDEC engineers have been developing hybrid-electric engines and testing vehicle demonstrators since 1992.
Across the Defense Department, there are around 30 hybrid-electric demonstrator vehicles in some form of testing. These demonstrators range from hybrid models of existing vehicles, such as Humvees, M-113 armored personnel carriers and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting systems, to new designs such as the Marine Corps’ reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting vehicle, or RST-V.
Some of these demonstrators are more promising than others. Some even offer new niche capabilities. But all have failed to achieve the combination of performance, toughness, price and utility that the military demands of its vehicles.
Motor Trend explains:
Though hybrid technology has been around for several years in passenger vehicles, adapting it for larger vehicles isn't as easy, [Oshkosh VP Gary] Schmiedel said. Military vehicles must often carry thousands of pounds of cargo -- 13 tons for the HEMTT -- and endure hills, little pavement and angles that few standard vehicles can handle. That all means engines and axles must be configured just so.
Even more daunting is the battery problem. National Defense editor Sandra Erwin reported on this as far back as 2001:
The Achilles heel of hybrid systems today, however, is the battery, [engineer William] Haris added. “You need to have a source of energy to propel the electric motors. Traditionally that has been batteries.” The most commonly used batteries today are lead-acid, which are the least expensive. But they also are heavier and less efficient than more advanced chemistry batteries.
A more desirable alternative would be nickel-metal-hydride batteries, which have twice the energy density of lead-acid. Energy density is the amount of energy that can be stored per pound of material. In the long-term, experts are looking at lithium-ion batteries, which have four times the energy density of lead-acid.
Where there's a will, there's a way -- technical challenges notwithstanding. “There are challenges, and there are issues, but they don’t seem insurmountable,” Khalil told me. “If someone from a program office told us they wanted something in production in two years, we would have it into production.”
But despite the promise of a reduced logistics burdened resulting from great fuel efficiency, the military's enthusiasm for hybrids is cool. If not for their power export capability, the military might not be interested at all.
The bottom line is ... the tech isn't ready, and the military isn't ready to make the tech ready. So be skeptical when some hack reports that military hybrids are just around the corner.
-- David Axe
Pentagon Closing Transformation Shop
In the 1990s, Admiral Arthur Cebrowski began pushing the unorthodox idea that the Pentagon had to change itself, from a relatively-small collection of heavy, plodding forces to a larger array of lighter, quicker, cheaper, better-networked units. By 2001, the notion -- known alternatively as "revolution in military affairs" or "force transformation" -- had become official doctrine. The Army began a massive modernization effort, based, in part, around Cebrowski's ideas. Presidential candidate George W. Bush embraced the concept during the 2000 election. Donald Rumsfeld adopted it as the cornerstone of his return to the Pentagon, and installed Cebrowski as the director of a new department: the Office of Force Transformation, or OFT.
 The office initiated a series of novel, seemingly off-the-wall projects: armored vehicles equipped with pain rays, sneaky ships silently bringing commandos to shore, orbiting mirrors to send lasers across the globe.
But early last year, Cebrowski was forced to retire, as he fought a losing battle with cancer. Observers wondered whether OFT and its projects would survive his passing.
The office, at least, probably will not, according to Defense News. Pending approval by deputy defense secretary Gordon England, "the office [will] be dissolved by Sept. 30."
Defense analyst Bob Work thinks it "may be an indication of just how hard it is to balance the competing demands for transformation in the midst of this protracted campaign" in the Global War on Terror. The Armchair Generalist fears this could be the final "nail in the coffin" for transformation. But military theorist Tom Barnett, long allied with Cebrowski, sees the shift as the final move in bringing Cebrowski's ideas into the heart of the U.S. military.
"Art's success in mainstreaming his thinking meant that OFT always had a limited shelf life. [His ideas are] everywhere now," Barnett writes. "Art himself saw this coming and had no problem with it. He simply would have moved on to the next great definition."
Besides, the office is "not really shutting down," an OFT source tells Defense Tech.
It is being split apart and embedded in two other areas of OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense]. The analysis and study portion of OFT is to be rolled into a new office as part of a larger reorg of OSD Policy. [More about that here -- ed.] All of the other initiatives here, like... Redirected Energy and Operationally Responsive Space are to go into a new office under [Director, Defense Research and Engineering] John Young...
So, in a sense, this is a good move. Since OSD had no interest in appointing anyone to replace Cebrowski, the office was hobbled.... If this is approved, OSD is saying we like this OFT approach [so much] that we are willing to apply it more broadly across the entire department.
Could be. But with costs piling higher and higher for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and with the budgets for many "transformational" projects swelling, fast -- I worry that this could jeopardize Cebrowski's work, not institutionalize it.
Rapid Fire 08/28/06 (Updated)
* Rummy: Korea no threat
* Nork nuke test site? (more here)
* Yoga vs. IEDs
* "Hacking the Himalayas"
* Holes in Heathrow case? (more here)
* Forward air control's big upgrade
* "Fissure-guided missile"
* Drones + cluster bombs
* Sleek, stylish pepper spray
* Hummer on steroids
* Total war, RIP
* New nuke sub debuts
* Cheney biographer: 9/11 nut
* Hamas big: we suck
(Big ups: ACE, RC, CP)
Missile Radar M.I.A.
When you're a kid in Little League, the first lesson your coach drills into you is to keep your eye on the ball. And what works on the sandlot goes double for missile defense: the better you can see the target, the higher your chances are of hitting it.
 That's why the Missile Defense Agency has been so hyped about its Sea-Based X-Band Radar, or SBX. The $815 million, 28-story, orb-like contraption has the ability, in theory, to tell which way a baseball is spinning -- from 3,000 miles away. That's the kind of vision any hitter would kill for. No wonder the SBX quickly became one of the centerpieces of the Bush Administration's revamped anti-missile strategy, after it took office.
But there's catch. In order to spot the most incoming ICBMs, the radar's converted oil rig platform has to be positioned near Alaska's Aleutian Islands -- an "unforgiving [stretch] of the Bering Sea where winter weather can be so violent that the islands have been nicknamed 'the birthplace of winds,'" the Chicago Tribune tells us. And considering how bad the SBX was roughed up during "its first long ocean voyage," in the comparatively calm waters from the Gulf of Mexico to Hawaii, that isn't inspiring a lot of faith in the system's survivability. Scheduled to leave Hawaii after repairs eight months ago, the SBX won't head out to Alaska until "at least later this fall." Needless to say, the radar will miss the next round of missile defense testing, scheduled for this week.
"That radar is absolutely packed with sensitive electronics, and... salt water, wind and waves don't go well with sensitive electronics," said Philip Coyle, who as assistant secretary of defense from 1994 to 2001 was the Clinton administration's chief weapons evaluator.
He went on: "The bottom line is that the designers of this system didn't begin to contemplate the realistic conditions under which the X-Band would have to operate. When you look at all the facts, you really have to wonder what the people who designed this thing were thinking..."
[What's] more, a recent independent assessment obtained by the Tribune lists dozens of concerns from naval and defense experts about the design and administration of the radar vessel...
Among the findings:
- The sensitive radar... is mounted atop a vessel that might need to be towed to safety in the event of rugged Alaskan seas, but its one towing bridle likely would be underwater and impossible for a rescue ship to use anytime waves reached more than 8 feet.
- Although the SBX may be hundreds of miles away from support ships, it lacks a quickly deployable rescue boat in the event of a man overboard, does not have a helicopter landing pad certified for landing the most common U.S. Coast Guard and Navy rescue helicopters, and its crews have not been trained "for heavy weather or cold-weather operations."
- And, ironically, the X-Band, considered one of the nation's foremost technologies in defending against foreign missiles, has minimal security itself. Many critics speculate that it is vulnerable to attack by enemy nations or terrorist groups.
"This is no surprise and again demonstrates MDA's [Missile Defense Agency's] stubborn refusal to accept that engineering and logistical limitations can be just as damning as anything else the weapon systems can come up against," says missile guru Victoria Samson, with the Center for Defense Information. "What with Thursday's test of the GMD [Ground-based Midcourse Defense] system, it would've been nice to see how the SBX would play in there, which it would have done - probably - if it'd made it to Adak [Alaska] last year as planned. Instead, what we're getting from the GMD tests are conjectures because there are too many placeholders to make up for the actual components which are missing."
Disaster Tech Pushes Ahead
So many things went wrong in the government's sucktastic response to Hurricane Katrina, it's hard to know where to begin to make fixes. One place might be the basics -- communicating, and getting a sense of the scene.
 In the days after the storm, while the feds and local officials floundered, ham radio operators and teams of guerrilla geeks took it upon themselves to keep Katrina survivors informed. Drone-makers sent unmanned spotters into the skies above New Orleans, to get a look at the devastation.
The efforts -- and so many others like them -- were beyond inspirational. But the impact of these self-starters was muted, because they couldn't share information or resources all that well. The infrastructure (both hardware and soft) just wasn't in place.
That's the problem a disaster response drill, conducted last week in San Diego, aimed to correct. Everyone from IBM to Sprint to Google to U.S. Joint Forces Command participated in the test, called Strong Angel III. And everything from inflatable antennas to high-speed wireless networks to text-message news feeds to games for humanitarian aid was tried out.
It didn't all work perfectly, as the New York Times notes.
Last Monday, the group began to assemble a makeshift command center at an abandoned building near the San Diego airport. But a state-of-the-art wireless network, intended to route video images, satellite map coordinates and other data — from an impressive array of mobile computers, software analysis tools and command programs — failed to come to life.
"Finally I said, 'Lights out! Everyone turn everything off and let’s start over,'" said Brian D. Steckler, a computer scientist at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who was in charge of more than a dozen interlocking networks at the heart of the command center.
Hundreds of computers and even cellphones were shut down, and then the network was slowly turned back on, segment by segment. Too many high-bandwidth applications had clogged the network, including a powerful video camera and "rogue" transmitters set up by participants intent on creating their own mini-networks.
But Strong Angel did meet its #1 goal -- to "mapping and developing" relationships for disaster response. Programmers from Microsoft and Google, for example, teamed up "to allow sharing [of] a single set of digital satellite maps seamlessly and to overlay event data relayed from emergency workers throughout the San Diego area," the Times said.
Most observers, like Defense Tech pal John Scott, agreed if these projects take the main lessons of the drill to the heart -- by keeping collaboration tools simple, low-bandwidth, and platform-agnostic -- they should be "hugely helpful for the next disaster."
Smoooooch!
Maybe I'm still in a touchy-feely mood, after my honeymoon. But all I want to do right know is give big two-arm bear hugs to Dan Dupont, David Axe, Sharon Weinberger, and the CDI Three. Their guest-blogging stints were even better than I hoped they would be -- and my expectations were pretty darn high. Thanks guys, for letting me have some peace of my mind while the wife and I wandered around Italy.
Bombers Away
We broke a story at InsideDefense.com yesterday that you'll be hearing more about soon. It's now up on Military.com:
The Air Force is proposing a $5 billion down payment for a next-generation long-range strike aircraft, money the service hopes will propel research and development needed to meet the Pentagon’s goal of fielding a new bomber fleet by 2018, according to sources familiar with new Air Force investment plans.
This robust commitment -- detailed in the Air Force’s proposed six-year spending plan, which was submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense earlier this month -- would accelerate bomber modernization by two decades in a bid to augment the effectiveness of U.S. air power in the Asia-Pacific region.
“The purpose of this initially is to do some studies, design trade-offs as well as research and development,” a source familiar with the Air Force’s new bomber plans.
For the official Air Force word on future bombers, try this.
. . . . And with that, I'm out. It's been fun. Thanks to Noah for another opportunity to sit in the guest editor's chair.
One shameless plug before I sign off: Go see this band. They're terrific. I'll be at their New York show Monday night.
Welcome back, Noah. And congrats, again.
-- Dan Dupont
Board Stiff
On Feb. 28, 2005, the Army took the unusual step of announcing in the Federal Register that the Army Science Board, a group of advisers to service leaders on technology and other issues, planned to hold an “open” meeting at the Institute for Defense Analyses in northern Virginia.
 This step is required under Defense Department and Army regulations. So why was it unusual? Two reasons: First, the ASB rarely holds open meetings, even though such Federal Advisory Committees are by law supposed to do everything possible to ensure public access to their deliberations.
And second: The notice of this particular open meeting was published three days after the meeting ended.
At least they announced that one. According to the Federal Register, the Army hasn’t announced a single ASB meeting in 2006, even though the board’s Web site – which otherwise is pretty much a wasteland – says it has met three times this year.
What gives? ASB officials told me more than a year ago that they were working on getting more staff and better compliance with the rules. But things haven’t changed much; in fact, they might be worse. Take a look at the ASB reports page, which, once upon a time, contained links to all of the board’s reports once they were cleared for public release – a long process, to be sure, but one with the right ending.
Now, if you’re lucky, you get a number for the report once it’s finished. Then it’s off to DTIC – the Defense Technical Information Center – to search for the report. But as the reports page shows, there are quite a few reports that haven’t yet seen the light of day (I had to file Freedom of Information Act Requests to get two, which were more than two years old by the time I got them).
This isn’t the way it’s supposed to work, and other Pentagon advisory groups – the Defense Science Board, especially – do a far better job at getting at least their reports out to the public, although they too keep almost everything tightly under wraps until the final report is done.
And the DSB is considered highly influential: In recent years, its recommendations on crucial issues like special operations forces and strategic communications have become Pentagon policy.
What about the Army Science Board? When I covered the Army closely back in the 1990s it seemed a similarly influential group; now, though, it’s tough to tell if anyone cares what they do.
There are lots of Army folks out there: What do you think? Does the Army Science Board have any clout? Does it do good work? Do you ever see anything from them?
-- Dan Dupont
Command Decision
Time has a piece today advancing the long-developing story of the Pentagon's plans for an African Command:
In what may be the most glaring admission that the U.S. military needs to dramatically readjust how it will fight what it calls 'the long war,' the Pentagon is expected to announce soon that it will create an entirely new military command to focus on the globe's most neglected region: Africa.
Pentagon sources say that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is close to approving plans for an African Command, which would establish a military organization to singlehandedly deal with the entire continent of Africa. It would be a sign of a significant strategic shift in Administration policy, reflecting the need to put more emphasis on proactive, preventative measures rather than maintaining a defensive posture designed for the Cold War.
That "significant strategic shift" is well under way. In 2002, the Pentagon set up the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa to support the war on terrorism in Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and Yemen, and it has long been an open secret that some kind of new command structure was coming to deal with Africa.
Kevin Maurer of the Fayetteville Observer has been on this story, too, writing earlier in August that "Senior special operations officers believe that the creation of an African Command would alleviate the cumbersome bureaucracy that is slowing progress on the Horn of Africa."
-- Dan Dupont
Rapid Fire 08/25/06
* Israeli use of U.S. bombs under investigation
* And Israel beefs up its submarine fleet
* Again: Sound familiar?
* More training, less parading for Army troops
* VoIP as crime-fighter
* Boeing's pay docked for GPS program problems
* The 'Hanoi Taxi' comes home
* Whither Rumsfeld the poet?
* 'One of the most highly publicized and scrutinized weapons employments over the last decade'
Calling All Space Experts
David Axe here. I'm working on a big piece for Popular Science on hypersonics and reuseable spacecraft ... and I need your help. If you're in industry or government and terms like "Hot Eagle", "Falcon", "HTV" or "CAV" mean anything to you, drop me a line. I need some insider perspective ... and I can guarantee anonymity.
Star Wars: The Next Generation
Get ready for a new round of "Star Wars" stories.
 Within the next couple of weeks, the Missile Defense Agency is scheduled to test its national missile defense system, again. If there's a successful intercept, expect the Bush administration and its backers to talk it up as another sign the system is ready to go. But if they miss, there's an out: It's not officially an intercept test, see, so while a hit would be nice, it's not officially what they're trying to do. Missing, in other words, is perfectly OK.
Regardless, you can be sure the results will lead to the usual spate of "will Star Wars work?" coverage.
It's been more than 20 years since Ronald Reagan made his so-called Star Wars speech, kicking off his grandiose plans for a global missile defense shield that came to naught. Yet we still can't shake the Star Wars moniker for missile defense of any kind, even the shorter-range programs that bear almost no resemblance to the old Strategic Defense Initiative.
Star Wars, the name, most often crops up in attacks on the system, as in here (to use just one recent example), but it still has mainstream media cachet, too. To wit: this Aug. 15 Reuters story.
Missile defense backers have long hated the name, feeling (quite correctly) that it is a derogatory dismissal of the whole premise behind missile defense, or at least the idea that ICBMs can be shot down effectively by other missiles. It's a science fiction movie; get it?
I also think the name's insulting. To the Star Wars movies, that is. (And I'm not even a fan.)
 Think about it: Star Wars was a smash hit from day one, and remains the most popular movie franchise ever. But Reagan's SDI vision was roundly decried as too far-out and too costly from the start, and those criticisms proved accurate. And while reviews may be mixed on the current crop of missile defense systems, they haven't exactly been big hits in testing.
If critics and reporters need a dismissive science fiction movie handle for missile defense, maybe they should try Star Trek. Like SDI, the original Star Trek show had an inauspicious start -- canceled in just its third season and seemingly relegated to history. Only a hard-core band of supporters kept the flame alive until movies and, later, new TV shows made it a hit again.
And just like the Trekkies, a group of star warriors kept Reagan's Star Wars dream alive throughout the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Once George W. Bush took over the White House, he brought along with him quite a few of those diehards -- Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, to name just three -- giving missile defense its best friends in power since Reagan. The next generation, if you will.
And while I don't want to belabor the analogy -- I'll leave that kind of thing to the Trekkies at The Corner -- let's not forget the nickname Bush's national security advisers picked for themselves during the 200 campaign: The Vulcans!
-- Dan Dupont
p.s. Can't resist: Go watch this.
Blue Notes
That's a lot of blue polyester:
All of the Air Force’s general officers and senior civilians were slated to meet behind closed doors late this week in a “blue summit” chaired by the service’s chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley. On the agenda were a variety of hot-button issues, including budget, personnel and organizational challenges, according to Maj. Glen Roberts, Moseley’s spokesman.
The session is also to address “strategic communications” and the service’s relationship with Capitol Hill, he told Inside the Pentagon this week.
The story (available here) adds that the summit could be held as soon as today, although details on time and place are considered sensitive due to security concerns.
-- Dan Dupont
Rapid Fire 08/24/06
* 'Crate-ology' 101 (hat tip: Wonk)
* Sound familiar?
* Fear of Iran, North Korea good for Lockheed and PAC-3
* Implanting RFID chips in soldiers?
* What scares Wired
* 4,000 hours in an F-15
* What does the war cost your city?
* Listen to an F-16 escort of a suspect Northwest Amsterdam flight
Hot Off the Presses
Just out on InsideDefense.com:
The Marine Corps is planning steep cuts to one of its largest modernization programs -- the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle -- as part of a wider effort to recalibrate its forces to better fight irregular combatants, according to internal Pentagon budget documents.
 The cuts are spelled out in a summary of the Marine Corps' new six-year spending plan obtained by InsideDefense.com. The plan also includes “significant changes” to tactical aviation, including purchases of 25 fewer MV-22 tiltrotor Osprey aircraft and 35 fewer Joint Strike Fighter aircraft between fiscal years 2008 and 2013.
The Marine Corps six-year program “has been rebalanced to shift resources from conventional to irregular capabilities and capacities,” states a 10-page executive summary of the service’s program objective memorandum for FY-08 to FY-13.
Sorry: This one ain't free. But it's available here. (And new users can get it free.)
UPDATE: This new report on Marine Corps equipment post-Iraq, which I linked to earlier today, has this to say on EFVs:
The Marines need a new Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) to replace the Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), but it is not clear that the service can fill all of its future needs with the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) given the system’s high cost. The Marines should seriously consider cutting back the number of EFVs that they plan to purchase from 1000 to between 600 and 700 vehicles. The Marines should instead consider purchasing a mix of EFVs and LAV II vehicles or other similar APCs. While these vehicles are not amphibious, the likelihood of the Marines storming heavily fortified beaches on the scale of WWII remains remote. Instead, the Marines should main tain a sizeable portion of the legacy AAV fleet as a strategic reserve in case there is a need to undertake a substantial amphibious operation.
-- Dan Dupont
Mines, anyone?
Let's face it: nobody cares about mine warfare. We're talking slow boring ships plodding around looking for submerged hunks of metal. No guns.  No missiles. No screaming fighter jets. No men in green facepaint slipping ashore in the dead of night. Even if mines are, historically, the biggest threat to U.S. warships, mine warfare is so unsexy that it's bound to get ignored until after a billion-dollar amphibious ship gets a hole ripped in it.
But all that's about to change. In a radical move signalling serious commitment to mine warfare, the Navy is abandoning (slow, hard to deploy) dedicated minehunters in favor of (fast, easily deployed) mine-clearing drones aboard destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships. The service is also revamping its airborne minehunting fleet, moving from big, unwieldy Sikorsky MH-53E Sea Dragons to the smaller Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk carrying wide range of new systems. Finally, Mine Warfare Command is merging with the Navy's antisubmarine warfare office to create a new "undersea warfare center of excellence".
Read the whole story at Military.com.
--David Axe
Knock on Wood
The forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs has a piece from Ohio State professor John Mueller that I'm almost afraid to link to.
Here's the hook: Mueller says "almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad."
Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.
OK, OK: Here's the link.
Looks like the American public isn't so sure:
As the five-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks approaches, nearly three-fourths of those responding to a CNN poll said they believe Osama bin Laden is planning another significant attack against the United States.
Seventy-four percent of the 1,033 adult Americans polled said they believe an attack is being planned, according to the poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation on behalf of CNN.
However, many don't think much of bin Laden's chances:
In results released Wednesday, 44 percent said they believe he will not succeed. The other 30 percent said the attack would be successful.
UPDATE: I'd recommend making sure you get the address for Foreign Affairs right. It's www.foreignaffairs.org, NOT .com. Let's just say the .com link is not safe for work.
-- Dan Dupont
Moonlighters Take the Prize
Marine All Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332 "Moonlighters" flying Boeing F/A-18D Hornets out of Beaufort, S.C., has won the Corps' annual prize for best fighter squadron, beating out 16 other Hornet units, Marine Corps News reports:
The Moonlighters' list of achievements is beyond compare, and includes becoming the first Marine tactical jet squadron ever to surpass 100,000 mishap-free flight hours in 2005. While deployed to Camp Al Asad, Iraq, from July 2005 to January they continued to build upon this record.
 I was embedded with 332 during their stint in Iraq, and I can vouch: they really are the best. Over Al Anbar province they flew dangerous missions at low level dropping bombs and firing guns to rescue Marines from tight spots. Just a couple weeks back I got an email from one Marine who begged me to help him get in touch with the unit. He had been one of their "customers" in Iraq and was convinced the Moonlighters had saved his life.
But there's more to the story than the Marine Corps public affairs machine allows. Due to a shortage of airframes and delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning (formerly Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF), 332 is decommissioning in March 2007, as I reported in National Defense Magazine:
“Obviously [JSF introduction] is a moving target, but it has slid to the right [past 2010],” [Navy Lt. Cmdr. Marc] Preston says. “Every time it slides, it affects Marine aircraft more than it affects Navy. Their issues are a
| |
