The cornerstone of the Army Future Combat System has come under more scrutiny this month with a scathing article in National Defense magazine that shows a key communications program is underperforming and taking too long to bear fruit.
The Joint Tactical Radio System has been touted by Army planners as a key ingredient in the FCS “system of systems,” allowing soldiers to communicate across the networks on a common radio architecture. The plan makes sense, and builds on revelations from the attacks on 9/11 that showed various government and civilian agencies couldn’t communicate with each other because they used distinct radio systems and networks.
The FCS (BCT) Family-of-Systems (FoS) are connected to the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) network by a multilayered transport layer with unprecedented range, capacity and dependability. The primarily mobile transport layer provides secure, reliable access to information sources over extended distances and complex terrain. The network will support advanced functionalities such as integrated network management, information assurance and information dissemination management to ensure dissemination of critical information among sensors, processors and warfighters both within, and external to the FCS (BCT)-equipped organization.
The FCS (BCT) transport layer does not rely on a large and separate infrastructure because it is primarily embedded in the mobile platforms and moves with the combat formations. This enables the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) network to provide superior Battle Command (BC) on the move to achieve offensive-oriented, high-tempo operations.
The FCS (BCT) transport layer is comprised of several heterogeneous communication systems including the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T). FCS (BCT) leverages all available resources to provide a robust, survivable, scalable and reliable heterogeneous communications network that seamlessly integrates ground, near ground, airborne and space-borne assets for constant connectivity and layered redundancy.
The FCS (BCT) Network Management System will be utilized to manage the entire FCS (BCT) network including radios with different waveforms, platform routers, and local area networks (LANs), information assurance elements, and hosts. It provides a full spectrum of management capabilities required during all mission phases, including pre-mission planning, rapid network configuration upon deployment in the area of operations, monitoring the network during mission execution and dynamic adaptation of network policies in response to network performance and failure conditions.
The military has been trying for years to standardize its radio communications but has run up against some serious technical and hardware barriers that still keeps common radios out of the troops’ hands. Remember stories about field commanders using Thuraya satellite phones and Aol Instant Messaging to pass information across the battlefield during the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003?
From National Defense…
During the past four years, the services (mostly the Army) have spent nearly $4 billion on new radios. By comparison, between 1998 and 2001, their radio purchases amounted to less than $1 billion, according to Defense Department estimates. More than 60 percent of all radios procured are either individual handheld or squad-level manpack.
Before the war, the services were not allowed to purchase radios unless they obtained a “JTRS waiver” from the office of the assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration. The policy aimed to discourage purchases of non-JTRS radios.
But Army officials complained that the waiver was a bureaucratic burden that hindered their ability to rapidly deliver radios to troops in Iraq. The Pentagon subsequently agreed to suspend the waiver, although it recently approved a limited policy that only applies to single-channel handheld radios.
Radio manufacturers, who had envisaged a financial boon from JTRS contracts, gradually realized that they could make better profits by ramping up production of existing radios in response to the military’s surging demand. Some contractors privately admit they have soured on JTRS, especially once they saw that their customers in the armed services had begun to lose confidence in the program.
So, National Defense shows Pentagon officials are starting to back off their forceful endorsement of JTRS, allowing the services to purchase more modern versions of the radios they have now.
As the program continues to lose support across the military services, Defense Department officials are engineering a last-ditch effort to save what is increasingly a shaky procurement plan. They also are backing away from earlier demands that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps stop buying their own service-unique radios in favor of a “joint” family of radios.
They’re better, for sure, but they still lock the services on their own communications track keeping the disjointed comms problem alive and raising yet more questions about the viability of the FCS program.
The investigative arm of Congress released an updated report Friday on the status of the U.S. military’s body armor acquisition efforts and the effectiveness of the armor the services’ are fielding.
The reports were conducted at the behest of the U.S. Comptroller General - the head of the Government Accountability Office – after news reports brought to light shortfalls in armor fielding and flaws in testing that resulted in tens of thousands of vest sent to the war zone that had not passed spec during quality assurance testing.
The latest GAO report found the Army and Marine Corps had effectively revamped their testing regimen and raised their specifications to meet emerging threats in the combat zone. It also marked one of the first times that a government entity has stated formally that the new Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert plates, or ESAPI, were developed to address the threat of armor piercing 7.62 rounds.
During my reporting on this issue, the services threatened me with everything short of a shank in a dark alley if I revealed the reasons behind the ESPAI buy. Specifically, the Marine Corps had a plate in its hands (that I knew about) with a hole in it from an armor-piercing round around the first of the year in 2005. They shared the plate with Army ballistics experts, who were concerned by the penetration as well.
The plate was examined at ballistics labs, including HP White in Street, Md., where the Army prefers to do its ballistic tests. Tungsten-carbide residue was found in the impact zone, leading experts to conclude the armor-piercing round penetration.
Thus the rush for ESAPI began…
The services seem to have gotten their act together when it comes to specifications and testing, the GAO report shows. Congressional auditors did mention, however, an initiative by the Pentagon’s office for operational test and evaluation to standardize the Army/Marine Corps testing regime - which is slightly different and conducted at separate NIJ-certified testing sites – that will be put into place in 2007.
I wanted to draw our readers’ attention to an article we posted this morning over at the main Military.com news site about a drive in the Senate to force the Army into a competition for a new standard-issue carbine.
I had a long conversation with a top aide to Sen. Tom Coburn who’s concerned over our – and Army Times’ – coverage of failings in the M4. It’s not so much that the M4 is a bad weapon … it’s just that there are better weapons out there that could be fielded just as easily.
Coburn - a medical doctor and relative newbie to the Senate - wrote a letter to the Army April 12 – faxing a copy to the office of Acting Secretary Pete Geren on April 17 – requesting that the service hold a competition for a new rifle. If the M4 wins out, the aide said, so be it. But it makes no sense to the first-term senator that HK416, SCAR and other qualified carbines (event he XM8) are just rejected out of hand.
Coburn has no weapons manufacturers in his state, so it’s not for parochial interests he’s insisting on the competition. It seems to be one of those rare occasions when a lawmaker is taking on an issue that just makes sense and helps the warfighter and isn't geared toward creating jobs in his state.
Here’s the full text of the letter to Sec. Geren:
The Honorable Mr. Peter Geren
Secretary of the Army
101 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0101
Dear Mr. Secretary,
I am concerned with the Army’s plans to procure nearly half a million new rifles outside of any competitive procurement process.
I understand that the Army decided to procure M4 Carbines in the early 1990’s to fill the gap between the M16 and 9mm pistol. At that time the Army specifically framed the requirement as the “Required Operational Capability (ROC) for the M4 Carbine.” M4 is a trademark name owned by Colt. Is it standard practice in Army acquisition to tie a requirement to a trademarked product?
I am certain that we can all agree that America’s soldiers should have the best technology in their hands. There is nothing more important to a soldier than their rifle, and there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon – not just a weapon that is “good enough.” Unfortunately, considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M-16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon.
In the years following the Army’s last Requirements Document, a number of manufacturers have researched, tested, and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability. To fail to allow a free and open competition of these operational weapons is unacceptable.
I would like to see the results of the surveys you have conducted in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please include our soldiers’ accounts of malfunctions, assessments of M4 reliability and how the Army is addressing those reliability concerns.
I believe the Army needs to rapidly revise its rifle and carbine requirements. Free and open competition will give our troops the best rifle in the world. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter, and I hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Tom Coburn
United States Senator
The Army has yet to respond to Coburn’s letter and has in the past been pretty dismissive of criticism about the M4. It’s understandable that the Army would shrug off negative stories from journalists and even some of its special operators who say the M4 isn’t the best weapon out there … they have big fish to fry with a war going on, including fleets of new armored vehicles, paying for the “surge” and Walter Reed-esque patient care issues. But when a senator gets involved – someone who has his hands on the purse strings – the Army might just take it a little more seriously.
We’ll be sure to update our readers on this issue as it develops.
After a week of rigorous and at times heated debate here at DT, I thought it might be good to use The Sunday Paper to remind us that we're all on the same team (except for those who read this site who are on the other team, of course).
As we previously reported he would, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking got a taste of weightlessness yesterday courtesy of a Zero Gravity Corporation modified 727. According to MSNBC.com, "the jet carrying Hawking, a handful of his physicians and nurses, and dozens of others first flew up to 24,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean off Florida. Nurses lifted Hawking and carried him to the front of the jet, where they placed him on his back atop a special foam pillow." The 727 did eight parabolic profiles.
I had a chance for a ride in NASA's "Vomit Comit," a modified 707, a few years back. It was an interesting experience. On this particular flight, the airplane flew 40 parabolas (50 degrees nose up to 30 degrees nose down) that afforded just less than 30 seconds of zero G each. As my host, a Navy SEAL and mission specialist, predicted, the engineers and assorted NASA staffers throughout the padded fuselage started out very enthusiasically, spinning each other and laughing. But by the tenth parabola, they were all airsick. By the fortieth they would have given their firstborns to get off that damn jet. But once we got back on the ground all agreed the experience was worth the nausea - sort of like a winging ceremony used to be back in the day.
The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency tested a key leg in its missile shield triad yesterday, shooting down both a sub-sonic cruise missile in the atmosphere and a ballistic missile in space with a ship-based interceptor.
To say the least, missile defense has been extremely controversial over the years, and it is a subject of heated debate over whether the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on systems over the years have been worth the cost.
But it is worth chalking up this test in the win column for the embattled agency.
In a first of its kind dual missile defense test, Raytheon Company-produced Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) simultaneously engaged targets over the Pacific Ocean.
This was the first time a U.S. Navy ship demonstrated simultaneous ship engagements against both cruise and ballistic missile targets. It was the eighth successful intercept for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system’s SM-3.
The SM-3 Block IA destroyed a short-range ballistic missile target in space while SM-2 Block IIIA engaged a cruise missile threat at a lower altitude. Both intercepting missiles were fired from guided missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) by the ship’s crew. The ballistic missile target was launched from the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai. The subsonic cruise missile target was launched from a range aircraft.
…This test, Flight Test Mission-11, was the second with the Block IA version of SM-3, and the first IA with a full-capability solid divert and attitude control system. Raytheon is delivering Block IA rounds for operational use on Navy cruisers and destroyers.
The SM-3 Block IA provides increased capability to engage short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The SM-3 Block IA incorporates rocket motor upgrades and computer program modifications to improve sensor performance, missile guidance and control, and lower cost. It also includes producibility and maintainability features required to qualify the missile as a tactical fleet asset.
It’s definately worth noting the complexity of such a test. Two different kinds of missile threats, tracked by the Aegis radar system that was feeding information to two different interceptors - each with its own seeker technology - to a terminal kill. Experts on both sides of the debate recognize the sterility of such tests. In the real world, adversaries might incorporate decoys and other defenses to keep their missiles from being shot down.
But, despite the incredible costs, it’s important to remember that well-meaning people are hard at work trying to solve a problem – and a threat – that has so far kept most nations helpless to confront militarily.
On a day when the political stars seemed aligned even stronger against America’s continued involvement in Iraq, I thought it might be a good idea to get a view of events from the front line.
A story that’s making its way across the net comes from a Marine posted in Ramadi, Iraqi, who takes exception to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s view that the war is lost.
WASHINGTON - A tough U.S. Marine stationed in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq has a message for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid: “We need to stay here and help rebuild.”
In raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.
“Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here,” Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site, www.patdollard.com.
“Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces,” Rock wrote.
Based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., Rock catalogued a series of grim daily traumas in Iraq, like getting covered in ash and sleeping under a dirty rug in an Iraqi family’s house, or watching “several terrorists die” on the same strip of pavement.
But he says he is optimistic about the future of a country that he says has “turned to complete s- - -” during a bloody insurgency.
He also spoke admiringly of the risks brave Iraqi citizens take every day.
“If Iraq didn’t want us here then why do we have [Iraqi police] volunteering every day to rebuild their cities?” he asked.
“It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - - more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.
“We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. And then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, ‘Hey, that’s not nice’ again.”
“And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time.”
Rock’s candid e-mail swept across the Internet after Dollard posted it on his site, and it was picked up by the Drudge Report and numerous other Web sites.
“What does [Reid] know about us ‘losing’ besides what he wants to believe? The truth is that we are pushing al Qaeda out and we are pushing the insurgency out. We are here to support a nation.”
Hat-tip to Pat Dollard who was there with my buddy that horrible night in Ramadi. RIP Almar and Matt.
Perhaps I can finally put up a post everyone can agree on (yeah, right), and especially on a day like today when I get comments like this…
Unreal. You sir, will never qualify for "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"
…Or this one…
You and Rumsfeld should enjoy a martini together.
If this article wasn't free to read, I'd cancel my subscription today. Not because of your opinion, but because you possess no expertise in the field in which you report on.
Alright, here you go guys: Journalists (like me) suck…
So says a new report from the Joan Sorenson Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University – though not in such pedestrian terms.
In a thorough analysis of media coverage during the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah war (which I covered from Cyprus and Beirut for the Military Times newspapers and USA Today), media sage - and no friend to its critics on the “right” - Marvin Kalb paints a disturbing picture of media bias, manipulation and outright advocacy for the Hezbollah cause.
I remember telling my colleagues back home that from my perspective at the US Embassy in Beirut, you couldn’t tell there was a war going on at all. Life continued as normal on the streets and civilians went about their daily business unencumbered. There was no smoke rising from the hills, no explosions, no panic. My observations fell on deaf ears, most suspecting I was a right-wing, Israel-loving nut.
The exhaustive Harvard study calls into question the rapid assertion by Human Rights Watch that the Israeli military committed war crimes and the media’s reluctance to hold Hezbollah to account for its own criminal behavior. The various instances of doctored photos (such as the above Reuters photo) and exaggerated casualty claims are mere sideshows to the outright failure to adhere to the journalistic mantra of balanced coverage without editorializing opinion.
Because Hezbollah functioned as a quasi-military force within its populace, protecting it, feeding it, housing it, and in general caring for its needs, the Israelis were quickly accused of hitting civilian targets with an indiscriminate callousness amounting to war crimes.
On August 3, Human Rights Watch specifically accused Israel of war crimes. Few seemed to note that before the war, on May 27, Nasrallah had actually—and publicly—embraced the guerrilla tactic of hiding soldiers among civilians. “[Hezbollah fighters] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories,” he said, adding, “You can’t destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army.”
By war’s end, it was clear that Nasrallah was right. Hezbollah, though severely wounded, remained a fighting force in defiant objection to all U.N. resolutions calling for it to be disarmed.
Israel defended its military operations by citing two relevant articles in international law: using civilians for military cover was a war crime, and any target with soldiers hiding among civilians was considered a legitimate military target. Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, framed her government’s argument in cold language. “When you go to sleep with a missile, “ she told The New York Times, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.”
Israel’s defense, though, fell on deaf ears, not only among diplomats but also reporters, as daily evidence mounted of civilian deaths. Hezbollah, whenever possible, pointed reporters to civilian deaths among Lebanese, a helpful gesture with heavy propaganda implications. Early in the war, reporters routinely noted that Hezbollah had started the war, and its casualties were a logical consequence of war. But after the first week such references were either dropped or downplayed, leaving the widespread impression that Israel was a loose cannon shooting at anything that moved.
There’s also a disturbing passage about possible complicity by the United Nations in Hezbollah’s many deadly ambushes of Israeli troops.
UNIFIL was the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. It consisted of roughly 2,000 troops stationed along the Lebanese-Israeli border from 1978 until the end of the 2006 war. Its mandate required “full impartiality and objectivity.”
During the war, it published information on its official website about Israeli troop movements, information that in military circles might well be regarded as “actionable intelligence.”
Take, for instance, its posting of July 25, 2006:
“Yesterday and during last night, the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north towards Bint Jubayl and south towards Yarun.”
Or, its posting of July 24, which disclosed that IDF forces stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were “significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers.”
It was part of UNIFIL’s responsibility to report violations of the ceasefire, including troop movements, to the U.N., but presumably this information was to be conveyed through confidential channels, not on the Internet, where the information in wartime could be as valuable as hard, military intelligence suddenly exposed to the light.
These postings, similar to others during the war, coincided with heavy fighting in the region. Israeli units came under severe Hezbollah attack.
It is impossible for outsiders to know whether Hezbollah used the information provided by UNIFIL, which was available to anyone with a laptop, or whether Hezbollah depended primarily upon information provided by loyal local supporters. However, no UNIFIL posting during the war contained any specific information relating to Hezbollah’s military movements, perhaps because they were not visible to UNIFIL or perhaps because UNIFIL did not choose to see the movements.
Frida Ghitis at World Politics Watch has an outstanding write up on the report. She points out the increasing role media coverage plays in a non-state strategy of asymmetric warfare.
Before long, Hezbollah had achieved a definitive propaganda victory. The media had not only acquiesced to tell Hezbollah's version of the war, they had started contributing to the creation of the narrative, with at least one Reuters photographer altering photographs to make Israeli attacks look more damaging. And many reporters simply failed to offer much context. The study quotes the New York Times' Stephen Erlanger commenting on a satellite picture published by his paper. The picture showed a southern suburb of Beirut, which was largely destroyed. Erlanger said it "bothered me a great deal," because the image with no context failed to show that this was a small part of a Beirut, and the rest of the city was largely undamaged by the war.
The Harvard paper shows the need for journalists to brace themselves and remain vigilant when they cover conflicts between open societies on one side, and media-controlling militias on the other. These conflicts, which we will undoubtedly continue to see, demand that journalists make a greater effort to provide context and to keep from become willing collaborators with one side. Islamic militant groups, such as al-Qaida and others, have openly described their strategy of manipulating the media and winning on the "information battlefield." Hezbollah, too, had a well crafted, and ultimately successful media plan.
In an open society, ground rules may be announced, but they are not likely to be observed or enforced. During the 2006 summertime war in the Middle East, it was Israel versus Hezbollah, led by the charismatic Hassan Nasrallah, and because Israel did not win the war, it is judged to have lost. In Iraq, in the not too distant future, it may well be the United States versus the Mahdi Army, led by the equally charismatic Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr. The challenge for responsible journalists covering asymmetrical warfare, especially in this age of the Internet, is new, awesome and frightening.
What’s more effective in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan: air power or boots on the ground.
Well if you ask the Air Force Chief of staff, he’ll tell you it’s his aircraft providing the greatest combat punch.
“[Air Force] Secretary [Michael] Wynne asked the staff last week to look at which component has had the biggest effect on attrition of hostiles. Staff came back and said ‘it looks like the air component is killing bad guys at a higher rate than anyone else…’ I have anecdotal evidence from the staff that says airpower is the most lethal of the components in wrapping up bad guys.”
“…As far as numbers of people killed, as far as wrapping up bad guys and as far as delivering a kinetic effect the air component – which also includes Marine and Navy air, by the way – is the most lethal of the components. I have not seen those numbers … but I thought that was a useful observation…”
I considered that position – which Moseley revealed during an April 24 interview - this morning when I saw the latest air power summery from Southwest Asia on the Air Force Web site:
4/25/2007 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNEWS) -- Coalition airpower supported coalition ground forces in Iraq and International Security Assistance Force troops in Afghanistan in the following operations April 24, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.
In Afghanistan, an Air Force B-1B Lancer provided overwatch for a coalition convoy near Qarah Bagh. No attacks were reported after the B-1B's arrival.
U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets provided a show of force for a coalition forces position near Saraw. A joint terminal attack controller confirmed it was successful and no further attacks were reported. The aircrews also provided overwatch for a coalition patrol in the same area.
French M-2000 Mirages provided a show of force for a coalition forces position near Asadabad. No attacks were reported after the M-2000s arrived.
In total, 41 close-air-support missions were flown in support of ISAF and Afghan security forces, reconstruction activities and route patrols.
Nine Air Force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Afghanistan. Additionally, four U.S. Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.
In Iraq, Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons searched for mortar positions and improvised explosive device activity near Baghdad. The pilots were then assigned to look for anti-Iraqi militia hiding nearby. They reported the coordinates of three hot spots.
Other F-16s performed armed overwatch for coalition forces who received small-arms fire near Salman Pak. The pilots reported three individuals hiding along a fence near a mosque.
Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs provided a show of force, releasing multiple flares, for a raid near Baqubah by coalition forces. A JTAC reported the show of force was successful. The pilots also provided reconnaissance in the area and reported suspicious activity to a JTAC.
F/A-18s provided a show of force, releasing multiple flares, for coalition forces receiving small-arms fire near Yusufiyah. A JTAC confirmed it was successful and no further attacks were reported.
RAF GR-4 Tornados provided overwatch to look for snipers for a explosive ordnance disposal team near Yusufiyah. The aircrews then were assigned to look for a truck involved in an engagement with coalition forces. The aircrew found a truck matching the description of the truck in the attack, at a building nearby. Individuals were reported to be unloading objects from the truck.
Other GR-4s provided shows of force for coalition forces near a crowd of approximately 250 people near Baghdad. A JTAC confirmed it dispersed the crowd and no attacks were reported.
In total, coalition aircraft flew 55 close-air-support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions supported coalition ground forces, protected key infrastructure, watched over reconstruction activities and helped to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.
Fifteen Air Force, Navy and Royal Australian Air Force ISR aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Iraq. Additionally, three Air Force and RAF fighter aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.
Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and C-17 Globemaster IIIs provided intra-theater heavy airlift support, helping to sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. More than 125 airlift sorties were flown; nearly 410 tons of cargo were delivered, and approximately 2,200 passengers were transported.
Coalition C-130 crews from Australia, Canada, Iraq, Japan and South Korea flew in support of OIF or OEF.
On April 22, Air Force, French and RAF tankers flew 50 sorties and off-loaded more than 3 million pounds of fuel.
Now, I don’t see any bomb dropping in there. But I’m willing to bet soldiers and Marines have been mixing it up in both Iraq and Afghanistan today, with more lethal effects than popping a few flares to disperse a crowd.
I wonder what the ground-pounders will say about Moseley’s – and the USAF secretary’s - conviction that airpower is killing more bad guys than Joes and Leathernecks.
-- Christian
Are We Sure About the MRAP?
Well it looks like the first spasm of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle orders has been launched, with the Pentagon inking a – get this - $481 million contract for 1,000 vehicles this week.
That’s a half a billion dollars for 300 of the 15-ton Cougar Cat-1 (MRAP-MRUV) vehicles and 700 of the 16-ton Cat-2 (MRAP-JEERV) behemoths - all going to Force Protection Industries, Inc.
Excuse me for being the skunk at the picnic, but I’m skeptical of the value of these purchases.
The MRAP is not a tactical vehicle. It is a specialized armored truck designed primarily for protecting EOD units and their gear from explosions while diffusing bombs or mines. The Marine Corps’ top gear buyer, Brig. Gen. Mike Brogan, admitted last month the MRAP was viewed by the Corps as a “boutique vehicle” for certain specialties. They asked for a limited quantity of these vehicles in the 2008 budget and 2007 wartime funding request based on that view.
Then what happened? You guessed it, Congress stepped in. After browbeating every service and DoD official they could over the meager number of MRAPs in the budget, Army and Marine officials snapped to and revamped their request to satisfy lawmakers’ new infatuation.
Remember again: the MRAPs are not tactical vehicles. Of course, neither is a Humvee (it was designed as a logistics vehicle), but it’s a lot easier to use as a tactical vehicle with current modifications than the MRAP in an urban counterinsurgency. The giant, heavy MRAP vehicle is ill-suited to the urban fight. You might as well drive around the city in a Bradley fighting vehicle.
I know I’ll probably get a lot of crap for this, but I think the services recognize that the MRAP isn't what they need but they’re responding to the congressional love affair with the vehicle because they have to. The push is forcing the services to buy MRAPs from nine different manufacturers, and though military officials insist they’re all similar mechanically, you know there are going to be widgets and nick-knacks that are different, requiring their own logistics chain.
And what will the Army and Marine Corps do with these vehicles after U.S. involvement in Iraq is drawn down, which no matter how you look at it is inevitable soon? The services are spending millions on the development of a new version of the Humvee that answers a lot of the shortfalls found in the 1980s-era vehicle, including a blast-deflecting underbody and gas-hybrid engines. But with thousands of MRAP vehicles sitting in motor pools around the country, it may be difficult to justify spending money on an improved Humvee.
My last problem with the MRAP is that it’s too big and intimidating. Fielding a vehicle that troops are supposed to travel in every time they go outside the wire that looks like it will crush you if you even look at it doesn’t seem to me to be a good way to win hearts and minds, and makes it difficult to interact with a population you’re trying to win over. At least in a Humvee you’re a ground level and can quickly jump out to pass a few soccer balls to the kids. Not so in the Cougar, which is so far off the ground and has such thick windows, it’s as if there’s no human in the thing at all.
What would Gen. Petraeus say if he were asked his honest opinion of the MRAP infatuation? Does it serve his counterinsurgency plan at all?
After nearly two years of effort, and constant revisions based on feedback from military and law enforcement users, an inventor based in Florida has devised a new rail system that can be retrofitted to the M9 Beretta standard milspec pistol.
The rail system, developed by David Woroner of Survival Consultants Intl., allows the user to fit a wide array of sighting systems, laser pointers, pepper spray adaptors and other components to the military (and police) issued sidearm. Dave has helped me on a variety of stories over the years dealing with weapons development, body armor technology and private security contractor issues and I’m happy to see that his Wor4 TacRail is getting good feedback from users and from the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal.
From Survival Consultants…
This is the only product that is specifically designed for the Beretta "type" pistol (M9-92FS), though it will fit many other Beretta licensed out designs, such as the Taurus series of pistols of similar specifications (as well as a multitude of S. African to S. American pistol licensees…
What our research revealed is that, overwhelmingly, shooters wanted the ability to add lower railed devices such as lights, lasers, etc. and the possibility of adding an "optical sighting system" on the top rail. In the design of the TacRail, SCI recognized that any "device" (like an optic system) can fail. So SCI introduced a slot into the design so that the iron sights are still completely active and useable. The other specification requested was to make the design so that "the slide can be removed, for field cleaning, without removing the TacRail."
I’m including this post to see what feedback our DT readers have on this component system. One of the things I like most about Dave’s TacRail is the “strike face” on the special operations version of the Wor4. It’s a pointed knob just under the barrel that can be used to say that special “hello” to a resistant bad guy.
I wish him luck and am curious to see what y’all have to say about it.
It's no secret that landing an airplane on an aircraft carrier isn't easy. It's the stuff of Tom Cruise flicks and Discovery Channel specials. And even the best pilots need to practice. In fact, for every carrier landing a Naval Aviator logs, he or she has done at least a dozen field landings simulating the carrier environment. This Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) generally takes place at "outlying" fields away from the main air station so as not to unduly clog up the traffic patterns.
But the east coast Navy has a problem. Cultural sprawl around Virginia Beach has forced officials to look for an alternative to the current outlying field at Fentress. FCLPs happen 'round the clock (like ice time for little league hockey in Michigan), and folks don't like jets flying over their heads at three in the morning.
So the Navy's looking for another spot. They thought they had a line on a couple of good locations in North Carolina in either Beaufort or Washington county, but those were shot down by Senator Elizabeth Dole, who cited the Navy's failure "to adequately address environmental and safety concerns about allowing fighter jets to land near a wildlife refuge." (Read "rich and influential retirees don't want noisy jets around them.")
But fear not. AP is reporting that Senator John Warner has suggested a site outside of Richmond, near Fort Pickett. And William D. Coleburn, the local mayor, loves the idea.
“We’re used to the artillery sounds, the booms at night at Fort Pickett, it’s the sound of freedom,” Coleburn said. “This is a different sound, but if it’s a different sound that also makes the cash registers ring and employs people, I would be interested in listening.”
Patriotism ain't dead yet, folks.
(Gouge: NC)
(Photo: F9 Panther Cougar doing FCLPs at Miramar way before the Marines came in a wrecked the place.)
In response to the deadly IED problem and the blast/heat effects of the makeshift bombs, the Army is developing a flame resistant coverall patterned in its ACU camouflage for vehicle crewmen.
The Army’s top gear buying and development command, the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based PEO Soldier, has a thorough write-up on its effort. Late last year, Marines from I Marine Expeditionary Force began wearing Nomex flight suits during vehicle operations on their own accord. When II MEF took command of the battlespace in al Anbar, the nomex suits became standard and the Corps launched its own effort to develop fire retardant uniforms and other clothing called "FROG" gear.
The Army has followed suit (excuse the pun) and seems to be homing in on a good solution for its soldiers. One of our contributors wrote an outstanding story on the ACU and suggested the fire-retardant evolution, so it’s good to see the Army moving forward on this initiative.
From PEO Soldier:
The Army has developed an improved one-piece uniform for mounted soldiers with enhanced fire resistance and durability, as well as providing better fit and function, all of which will aid against the effects of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
The improved Combat Vehicle Coverall (iCVC) is being evaluated by approximately 2,000 Soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division, the 3rd Infantry Division, and the 16th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Knox, KY. Widespread fielding is expected later this year.
Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier, headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Va, is directing the user evaluations. PEO Soldier designs, develops, procures, and fields virtually everything today’s Soldiers wear or carry. PEO Soldier is committed to increasing combat effectiveness, saving Soldiers’ lives and improving Soldiers’ quality of life.
MAJ Clay Williamson, PEO Soldier's Assistant Product Manager for Clothing and Individual Equipment, said that PEO Soldier requires rigorous testing before any article of clothing or piece of equipment is approved for use. “Everything is tested to make sure it is safe and highly effective before we field it,” Williamson said.
However, fielding a new version of the coverall does not mean the work is finished, Williamson explained. Research is ongoing so continual improvements can be made.
“All our fire-resistant uniforms are spiral-development efforts because of the urgency and nature of the threat that our Soldiers are facing. We field the best equipment that is available, and then use Soldier feedback to continue to make it even better,” he said.
The new coverall has an elastic back waist and adjustment tabs to customize fit, decrease bulk, and increase maneuverability for armor vehicle crews, thus improving mission effectiveness. The seat patch has been widened and lengthened to provide more coverage and to improve the uniform’s durability, and the uniform is made in the universal camouflage pattern.
The new coverall and other state-of-the-art equipment and clothing will be on display at PEO Soldier’s exhibit space, Booth 512 at the Armor Warfighting Symposium, April 30-May 3, 2007 at Fort Knox.
The Army’s fire-resistant clothing goes through laboratory flame testing and state-of-the-art mannequin flame testing, the latter at an independent facility at North Carolina State University. User evaluations are an important part of testing as well. “We are constantly seeking Soldier feedback to make further improvements,” Williamson said.
As part of the ongoing tests on the iCVC, an alternate Nomex-based fabric called Abrams material is being considered as a possible replacement for the current MILSPEC Nomex fabric. The new fabric, which is slightly heavier than Nomex, would double the durability of the uniform, hold up better to abrasion and offer better resistance to fading from sunlight.
Soldiers’ evaluations will continue through June, at which time their recommendations for improvement will be considered.
The Army is working on other fire-resistant clothing as well. The Flame Resistant Environmental Ensemble (FREE) will provide armored and aviation crew members with a multi-layered system that offers fire protection and comfort in a wide range of climate conditions. FREE consists of a base layer, midweight under layer, lightweight outer layer, intermediate weather outer layer, extreme cold-weather outer layer as well as hot- and cold-weather balaclavas, cold-weather gloves, wool socks, and a rigger belt. The outer layers protect from cold, wind and rain as well as fire.
With the FREE, which is undergoing user evaluations in Korea, Soldiers who have specialized jobs that expose them to fire hazards, will have the same type of extreme cold-weather gear the rest of the Army is receiving with the Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS).
A fire-resistant Army Combat Uniform (ACU) is also being fielded. Advanced fabrics enhance fire protection without sacrificing mobility and comfort. Fielding is about to begin on a fire-resistant Army Combat Shirt (ACS), which can be worn directly under Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), reducing the need for additional layers, thereby reducing heat stress while adding comfort and protection.
The long-sleeved ACS comes with a balaclava, which adds fire resistance to the head, face, and neck areas that previously were unprotected. When Soldiers add fire-resistant eyewear and pants, they have full-body protection from burns.
All of the fire-resistant clothing is washable and maintains protective properties for the life of the garments.
This is all part of PEO Soldier’s mission to make sure that our Soldiers have the best equipment available when and where they need it.
“It’s our job to give them the best equipment that our money and technology can produce,” said BG R. Mark Brown, Program Executive Officer Soldier.
In a wide-ranging interview today with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Michael “Buzz” Moseley, it came to our attention that the service had recently grounded its fleet of U-2 Dragon Lady surveillance planes due to dangerous fuel leaks.
Moseley used the occasion to bolster his case for funding to buy more satellite technology and RQ-4 Global Hawk high altitude aerial drones, a platform that has taken over most of the U-2’s spying job.
“Picture in your mind what a U-2 looks like,” Moseley said. “It’s nothing but fuel, an engine and one of our Airmen in a space suit.
So, if you’ve got leaks in the main sump tank that feeds the engine, adjacent to a wiring bundle arcing, you begin to paint a pretty interesting picture of an old airplane. So we said, not a good picture.”
The grounding lasted a couple weeks until the problems were isolated and fixed, he said.
With Global Hawk, the Air Force can send the drone on a mission for 30 hours vice 11 hours for a piloted U-2, unless you want to subject the pilot to a lengthy decompression.
“The computer chip doesn’t know whether it needs to be decompressed or not,” Moseley said.
Though the RQ-4 is due to replace the entire inventory of U-2s, the last of the spy planes will be kept in the air because they carry a high-tech signals intelligence package that the Global Hawk does not yet have. PaCom needs those U-2s for snooping missions over North Korea.
But Moseley said the days of Cuban Missile Crisis icon are indeed numbered. With the merger of the Global Hawk training squadron and the U-2 training unit at Beale, the pilots who learn to fly the drone go to the same school as those that fly the manned plane. That’s got to be pretty spooky for those space-suited Airmen.
The RQ-4 will ultimately receive an upgraded sigint package so the U-2 can be fully retired, an outcome the recent grounding proved couldn’t come soon enough.
“We will begin to go through these and retire them out so we don’t have to worry about a hole in the fuel tank next to a wiring bundle arcing next to a person in a space suit at 60,000 feet plus. Not good!” Moseley said.
-- Christian
New Armor Collars for Joes
One of the most innovative military equipment designers in the country has been awarded a $17 million contract for one of its body armor components.
Brooklyn, N.Y.-based Crye Precision has developed one of the most impressive body armor vest designs available today. It’s a technological leap in terms of wearability, coverage and comfort beyond any designs I am aware of. The armor “chassis,”
as Crye terms it, harkens back to the Spartan cuirass and later Roman chest plates worn in combat, and the Army is tinkering with Crye’s design for its Future Force Warrior development up at Natick labs in Massachusetts.
The institutional Army has taken notice and decided to purchase Crye’s nape neck protector, presumably for its humvee gunners who are more exposed to a roadside bomb blast and sniper fire than the passengers. The neck protector has a higher profile than the standard body armor neck protector and incorporates a small ballistic plate in the back of the collar.
It’s a big victory for a small company on the cutting edge of body armor design, and it will be interesting to see how far Crye’s designs go in the future for all the services’ continuing body armor development.
-- Christian
Tora Bora II
Military.com is reporting today that Afghan security forces have surrounded a village near Kandahar that is reportedly sheltering some 200 Taliban fighters.
The rebels were found in the village of Keshay, which is in the Taliban heartland. The story says the rebels were there for a meeting when the obviously tipped-off ASF cut off their exit and demanded a surrender. The report says Taliban rebel leader Mullah Dadullah could be in the town as well, but so far has refused to surrender(photo from Counterterrorism blog).
This could be the decapitating blow allied forces were looking for in the smoldering Afghan conflict. Or, it could be a replay of Tora Bora, where payoffs and shifting alliances allowed al Qaeda and Talib fighters to escape.
Let’s hope that the lessons of the Tora Bora battle have been learned and that the ASF – as well as their NATO mentors – are up to the challenge.
The ambitious F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program took a huge step last week when the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Kenneth Krieg, approved of the first low rate production lot for the conventional takeoff and landing version of the aircraft.
Krieg approved money for two new CTOL jets, but more importantly, he also approved funds for long-lead items to produce six of the “jump jet” STOVL versions of the JSF.
That’s got to warm the heart of the Marine Corps, which, as most of you know, decided against the hedge-play the Navy made in buying the F/A-18E/F(and G), instead counting on the STOVL Lightning II to replace their tactical aircraft fleet of AV-8B Harriers.
A couple months ago, the Navy’s top acquisition official, Delores Etter, said the STOVL JSF remains a “top priority” for Navy buyers. Krieg’s move lends weight to the Marines’ case (as does the international pressure to produce the plane). The Corps put all its eggs in one basket and, at least for now, it seems their gamble is paying off.
But the proof is in the pudding. Will the STOVL JSF be able to shrug off its weight problems and other technological roadblocks? Will the Navy continue to funnel scarce resources into a program that the “sea service” may conclude is of marginal importance given continued TacAir integration initiatives and congressional momentum to boost shipbuilding?
We’ll have to stay tuned on that. But at least for now, the Corps can rest a little easier because the money’s there to start building their new jump jets and the program’s international partners have a reason not to cast their eyes about for another alternative.
While most of us were probably enjoying the warm weather and taking care of some springtime chores this weekend, 80 soldiers were running, jumping, swimming and crawling their way toward a finish line that truly separates the men from the … uber-men.
My former colleague Gina Cavallaro covered this year’s “Best Ranger” competition down at Fort Benning, Ga., and I know it’s not “techy,” like most issues covered on this site, but I think these guys deserve some serious props.
A team of two Army special operators won this year’s contest (pictured at left)– 34 year-old Master Sgt. Walter Zajkowski and 36 year-old Maj. Liam Collins, both Wisconsin natives and former Best Ranger contestants.
They beat out an impressive field of soldiers far younger than they, and watched as nearly half the 40 teams who entered fell out of the contest.
1. Team 29, Maj. Liam Collins, 36, and Master Sgt. Walt Zajkowski, 34, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, N.C.
2. Team 25, Capt. Andrew Farina, 27, and Capt. David Uthlaut, 27, 25th Infantry Divison, Hawaii.
3. Team 19, Sgt. 1st Class Billy Pouliot, 30, and Sgt. 1st Class Adam Nash, 30, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
4. Team 18, Staff Sgt. Michael Broussard, 23, and Sgt. Luke McDowell, 22, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
5. Team 23, Sgt. Nathan Anderson, 28, and Sgt. Andrew Wallace, 27, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
6. Team 35, Capt. Jeff Soule, 27, and Sgt. 1st Class Robert Hoffnagle, 30, 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, Ga.
7. Team 33, Staff Sgt. Shayne Cherry, 23, and Sgt. Jeff Decker, 26, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
8. Team 21, Sgt. Brandon Farmer, 22, and Spc. Aaron Werner, 23, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
9. Team 4, Capt. Bruce Hoffman, 38, and Sgt. 1st Class Dan Jenkins, 33, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, N.C.
10. Team 24, Sgt. Jeremy Heinlein, 23, and Sgt. Thomas West, 22, 25th Infantry Division, Hawaii.
11. Team 34, Sgt. 1st Class Michael Hack, 29, and Sgt. 1st Class Jerry Higley, 31, 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, Ga.
12. Team 7, Staff Sgt. Blake Simms, 28, and Capt. John Spencer, 31, 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, Ga.
13. Team 9, Staff Sgt. Brandon Greenway, 23, and Command Sgt. Maj. Doug Greenway, 47, U.S. Army Infantry Schools, Fort Benning, Ga.
14. Team 37, Capt. John Ulsamer, 26, and Capt. Jim Wiese, 11th Infantry Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
15. Team 41, Sgt. 1st Class Eric Turk, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, N.C., and Sgt. 1st class Isaac Grunewald, 30, 11th Infantry Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
16. Team 32, Cpl. Jody Chandler, 21, and Staff Sgt. Fernando Gonzalez, 26, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
17. Team 5, Sgt. 1st Class Travis Lloyd, 32, and Staff Sgt. Jeff Nail, 29, 5th Ranger Training Battalion, Camp Merrill, Ga.
18. Team 10, Sgt. 1st Class Joshua Weisensel, 29, and Sgt. 1st Class Joe Williams, 30, Henry Caro Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Fort Benning, Ga.
19. Team 36, Staff Sgt. Jason Diaz, 24, and Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Scott, 28, 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, Ga.
20. Team 22, Spc. Jeremy Billings, 22, and Spc. Raul Romero, 24, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.
21. Team 31, Sgt. 1st Class Robert Allen, 32, and Sgt. 1st Class Calvin Owens 39, 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, Ga.
A big “Hooah!” to all the finishers (and to all the competitors) who participated in the 60 grueling hours of the 24th annual Best Ranger competition.
It is a bitter cold Washington morning, the kind that can't decide whether to rain, sleet, or snow. The sky looms dark and dappled above us. Gusts of wind stir leaves across the road and around the precise marble rows. An aide remarks that the umbrellas are in the car. The senator cradling the yellow roses he will place on a young man's coffin squints at the sky and says, "Not during this, it won’t.”
We are waiting for the funeral procession to arrive. The line of vehicles drives towards us, along a road framed by trees, stark black limbs naked but for the first hints of budding leaves. Five young men of the 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, New York, the most deployed division in the United States Army, the one pledged to "Climb to Glory," stand easy together in their Class As. The wind carries bits of their conversations. They are talking about their brother, a young man of 22, killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan.
Standing out from the badges and medals festooning their breasts, is the mark of the warrior, the Distinguished Combat Infantryman's badge. One of them shifts uneasily on his still healing leg . . . another Taliban Marksmanship Medal, the young man mutters, referring to his Purple Heart. They exude vitality, trim and fit in their green uniforms, black berets set at jaunty angles. I am so proud of them. Part of me that wants to join them. These are men who, as Senator Max Cleland says, "have been there, done that, and have a few holes in their t-shirts." Those of us who have served in combat understand. Ours is a patriotism that is personal: our loyalty lies with the comrades we love, a love forged by adversity: a love that few will ever understand. And it comes at far too dear a price.
I turn to the representative of Arlington National Cemetery and ask, "How many now?"
"Around thirty or so a day," he replies. "About half are the usual, World War II, Korea, and some Vietnam, most of the others are from Afghanistan and Iraq. Arlington is very busy these days."
When I worked in the Pentagon we used to call Arlington the "Marble Garden." Standing in the midst of the endless rows of white marble, I see much more than that. The names and the dates of their lives speak to all who come here. My eyes glide along the marble biographies. One catches my eye, Maj. Phyllis Wilson. 1959-2007. Patriot, Mother, Grandmother, Purple Heart recipient, Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran. So many names; so many Bronze Stars; so many lost futures.
Even as we stand, and the black hearse rolls up, I can hear the distant volleys of other brave men and women returning to the earth. The Army Old Guard, escorts to the fallen, appear, as does a young brigadier general and a chaplain. With silent precision the Old Guard glides the casket from the hearse and turning in unison, take their first steps towards the end of this day’s duties. We stand to attention and salute the passing casket, honoring the man inside as much as the flag that covers him.
The family falls in behind the casket and to our left, on a knoll, stand six riflemen. The senators walk with the family. One of them, a combat veteran himself, tells them how proud he is of their son and how sorry he is for the sacrifice. Hands try to reassure and comfort; words of sympathy are whispered. The wind freshens; coats are drawn tighter.
The coffin rests above the ground, draped in a flag, rippled by the breeze. The Old Guard fold the flag in a well-rehearsed rhythm, solemn and precise. The mother and father watch. A perfect star marked triangle is handed to the general. He walks slowly to the mother and kneels, handing her the flag and offering the words that most only hear in movies: "A grateful nation . . ." She sobs. Her husband holds her.
The air is tinged acrid with the cordite of the volleys. The lone bugler sounds "Taps," each note more sorrowful than the last.
My April morning at Arlington is over.
There are many such cemeteries. All Americans should visit one. We must never forget the courage and sacrifice of those who lie there, and we must never forget the circumstances that brought them there.
"A Navy Blue Angel jet crashed during an air show Saturday, plunging into a neighborhood of small homes and trailers and killing the pilot, the county coroner said.
"Witnesses said the planes were flying in formation during the show at the Marine Corps Air Station and one dropped below the trees and crashed, sending up clouds of smoke. At least one home was on fire."
Early reports say it was Blue Angel No. 6 that crashed, and presumably LCDR Kevin Davis was piloting that F/A-18 Hornet.
This is part of LCDR Davis' bio from the Blue Angels site:
"Kevin reported to Fighter Squadron 101 (VF-101) at NAS Oceana, Virginia, for training in the F-14 Tomcat and was the Top Stick in his class. In July 2000 he reported to the VF-11 Red Rippers where he completed deployments aboard the aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67). While with the Red Rippers, Kevin served as the airframes/corrosion branch officer, air-to-ground training officer and head landing signals officer. His deployments included extended operations in the North Arabian Sea and Arabian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
"In July 2003, Kevin transitioned to the F/A-18 Hornet through Strike Fighter Squadron 125 (VFA-125) at NAS Lemoore, California, and then reported to the Fighter Composite Squadron (VFC-12) Omars, stationed at NAS Oceana, Virginia. While at VFC-12, Kevin served as a Navy adversary pilot providing valuable air-to-air training for fleet squadrons. In December of 2004, Kevin graduated from the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) as an adversary pilot. During his tour at VFC-12, Kevin worked as the schedules officer, legal officer, FRS/SFARP officer and assistant operations officer.
"Kevin joined the Blue Angels in September 2005. He has accumulated more than 2,500 flight hours and 200 carrier arrested landings."
Defense Tech passes its deepest sympathies to Kevin's family and the rest of the Blues.
-- Ward
Sad End to a Sad Week
We too often get caught up in the marvel of watching these select men and women fly and we forget that these aviators run the risk gauntlet much like those out in the fleet. Indeed, during the show the narrarator emphasizes that the flight maneuvers and displays are symbolic and representative of those maneuvers that are needed when flying from a forward deployed carrier.
The aircrew realize this, as well. Prior to any recap during a debrief, when their turn comes up to speak, the Blue Angel pilots start off their comments with a "Glad to be here, Boss", an acknowledgement to their commanding officer that they are aware of the fact that they are indeed fortunate to represent the Navy and the United States in this venue and they recognize their comrades who are flying on the pointy tip of the spear around the world, without the crowds and the adulation that goes along with being a flight demonstration pilot, be it Blue Angel or Thunderbird or Snow Bird or Red Arrow or any of the teams.
Don't forget to say a prayer this evening for the pilot's family.
Four of the nation’s top military strategists told Congress this week what modernization plans they’d scrap and how they’d change military priorities.
These aren’t the dried up formers who populate the news talk shows with punditry based on a limited rolodex of graying colleagues, but men who have been there and done that. The panel of experts included former military brass and Pentagon officials who are involved in policy-making today - giving their opinions greater weight than those from the cable channels.
The list included former 24th Infantry Division commander and Clinton-era Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey; former commandant of the Army War College and a man who knows military history better than the back of his hand, Maj. Gen. Robert Scales; former Reagan-era Pentagon official and oft-consulted GWOT critic Lawrence Korb and head of the Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Andy Krepinevich.
Scales is heavily involved in current Army war planning and in the development of new counterinsurgency doctrine. Korb is someone the DoD often talks to for his counterpoints of the Iraq war. McCaffrey has a key to the Oval Office - often providing his insight to administration planners and the president. And Krepinevich had been involved in writing the Quadrennial Defense Review and works on a range of strategic planning for the Army and other services.
In a wide-ranging and fascinating hearing this week, the four told lawmakers what they’d do to change the current DoD modernization plans, realigning resources to areas they say will better position America for the conflicts of the future. Their views were sometimes in conflict, but overall, they were remarkably concurrent – and at times, quite radical.
Take a “sizable number” of the current Army brigade structure and create irregular warfare units capable of counterinsurgency and humanitarian operations.
Disagreed with Krepinevich on creating counterinsurgency forces and “going light.” The U.S. may have to confront China at some point, he explained.
Didn’t think bringing U.S. forces back from bases in Europe and Okinawa was a good idea, but said since that’s a done deal, America needs to invest heavily in re-constituting its strategic airlift capability. He called the C-17 Globemaster III a “national asset.”
“I love the C-17 as much as the M-1 [Abrams] tank,” he said.
Thinks the future of FCS needs to be figured out by the beginning of 2009 or it should be turned into a semi-permanent R&D program.
Believes foreign language training is so important that the military should pick out service members “by threes and say ‘you’re going to 90 days of language training.’ ”
Said the U.S. needs to “properly” equip the Afghan and Iraqi army with modern gear. Quit pawning off “junk Soviet armor” and sell them equipment that can help them win, including a fleet of modern helicopters. The Iraqis are getting 70 helos which “aren’t enough for them to control the country,” he said. “We need a new ‘lend-lease’ for our allies.”
Extend the purchase of Los Angeles class subs, pushing them off into the future.
Cut down on nuclear weapons stockpile and modernization which will save the Pentagon money for other, more pressing needs. “We need to lead by example,” he said.
Stop spending so much money on ballistic missile defense. The program “is the least likely threat … we spend more on missile defense than on the entire Coast Guard,” Korb pointed out, adding that the Coast Guard deals with a much more realistic threat.
“I can’t understand FCS,” he said. The Army has done a poor job explaining what it will do and what it’s for. The Pentagon should slow down its development.
Marines do not need a new amphibious vehicle, he said, referencing the Corps’ troubled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program.
Scrapping the FCS program is “dead wrong” (Scales has been a longtime booster of FCS for the Army), though it “needs some tweaking.”
Need to continue to field “heavy” forces – 81 percent of military deaths are with dismounted infantry, mounted infantry face a 10 percent greater chance of survival when mounted.
The U.S. needs a “full spectrum force,” he added, saying if abandon FCS then you’re confining the military to purchase “old Cold War” gear.
Does not agree with Krepinevich’s “specialization” theory, saying troops trained in a variety of missions can do “full spectrum” operations. What’s important are “skills not structure. … Brigades don’t do that, people do that.”
Need to focus on officer and NCO education by creating a “soldier sabbatical” program that allows them to take time off from the service to go to graduate schools and study “alien cultures and the art of warfare.”
I hope this provides a little food for thought as Congress and the administration consider the 2007 supplemental and 2008 base budgets.
You’ll remember the post we put up on Monday exposing the flub by the folks at Boeing who didn’t pay close enough attention to a full-page newspaper advertisement the company sponsored that day.
The ad - which promoted a PBS documentary running that day about the experienced of U.S. troops in Iraq (the documentary was excellent, by the way) - shows what appears to be an Iraqi soldier in place of what clearly should have been an American. Anyone with even basic knowledge of the military should have recognized the AK-47 crooked in the soldier’s arm. Not a U.S. weapon, and I don’t care how many people perpetuate the myth that American troops carry AKs in Iraq, it’s extremely rare.
Putting a soldier with an AK in his arm on the full-page ad wasn’t what the promoters were going for, I’m sure.
Well, after four days of teeth-gnashing, the Washington Post (my local paper) published an article in its “In the Loop” section pointing out the error and attempting to make some sort of explanation for it. We rest our case, gang…
"It could turn out to be that that is an Iraqi soldier," said Richard Robbins, who directed the film. "We are trying to get to the bottom of it." But Robbins said Jacob Bailey, the award-winning Air Force photographer who took the picture, "thinks it probably was an Iraqi soldier, as do we."
A big shout-out should go to all our readers for engaging in the discussion on this one. I’m pretty confident we were the only ones on the net to catch this error and our coverage helped move the Post – and maybe others – to print their story.
My good friend Mike Goldfarb - who edits the Worldwide Standard blog - put together a good report on the Air Force’s search for a new combat search and rescue helicopter to replace its ageing HH-60 Pave Hawks.
The Air Force awarded the contract last year to Boeing for a CSAR version of the massive CH-47 Chinook. Remember that the Pave Hawk is a medium-lift helo, the 47 is a heavy-lift one along the lines of the CH-53.
Boeing’s competitors immediately protested the decision to Congress and the GAO upheld their protests, telling the Air Force to redo the contract. And the service’s chief was lukewarm on the pick anyway…
The Boeing HH-47 costs more and doesn't meet the requirements for consideration, but that's not all. The aircraft is, simply put, not a good fit for the search and rescue mission. And this is where Congress has gotten involved. In February, Air Force chief of staff General Michael Moseley told a Congressional hearing that "the Chinook would have not been his first choice, but that the Air Force would make it work," according to the Hill. And later told reporters that "I am not sure [the HH-47] is the one that I would have picked, but I am not the guy that picks."
I’m not sure where to come down on this one, but Goldfarb weaves together all the disparate strands of the story in a pretty concise tale…
Of the criteria that were evaluated, some appear irrelevant to the CSAR mission, and were not included in the initial RFP, while other crucial factors seem to have been given little weight. The Lockheed US101 has three engines, and can fly on just two. The Chinook has two engines and in theory might fly for a time with one, but "how long and how far it can fly that way depends on load and conditions," according to the company spokesmen. For some reason this was not scored by the Air Force in its evaluation. Cargo requirements, at which the Chinook excels, were given preference by the Air Force in evaluations--though cargo would seem to be a secondary consideration in search and rescue missions.
Got some time to kill on orbit, astronauts? Why not have that elective surgery you've been thinking about?
The Associated Press reports today that doctors and scientists from the University of Washington are working with NASA to develop a surgical robot that could work in the crowded confines of a space vehicle.
According to the article, "The portable robot, which can be controlled over the Internet by a human surgeon many miles away, is being developed with money from the U.S. Defense Department to be used to treat wounded soldiers on a battlefield, to perform complicated surgery on patients in remote areas of the developing world and to help sick astronauts in space.
"The difference between the robot surgeon demonstrated at the University of Washington on Wednesday and others that are being used today in American hospitals involves portability and communications, said Professor Blake Hannaford, co-director of the UW BioRobotics Lab.
"All the portable parts of this device weigh about 50 pounds and can be transported and reconstructed by non-engineers at remote sites. Robot surgeons currently being used in hospitals weigh several thousand pounds, are not portable and can't be easily broken down and reconstructed."
Update: DT gougemaster and Inside Defense guru Dan Dupont rightly flags the error of a "surgery in space" post sans "Silent Running" reference. Thanks, Dan.
I’ve been planning to do a post on this for a while but hadn’t got the chance with all the other stuff going on. But I want to draw your attention to a story that our friends over at Defense Industry Daily have updated recently.
There are few things I’d rather see when the rounds are zipping by from an insurgent ambush than the slow, low swoop of an A-10 Thunderbolt II overhead. The “Warthog” is one of those just purely American planes that says “bigger and badder is better.” No frills here. Just an armored bathtub, run-flat tires and a huge gun that says “hey buddy, wanna play?”
Well, after years of a fighter mafia dominance that kicked the A-10 to the curb, Air Force officials finally woke up and realized all anyone cares about these days is putting warheads on foreheads, not shooting down MiGs from 10 miles away. So the blue-suiters have finally given the Hog its due and funneled some much-needed money to the workhorse CAS platform. And now they’re accelerating the Warthog renaissance.
From DID:
The Precision Engagement modification is the largest single upgrade effort ever undertaken for the USA's unique A-10 "Warthog" close air support aircraft fleet. When complete, it will give them precision strike capability sooner than planned, combining multiple upgrade requirements into one time and money-saving program rather than executing them as standalone projects. Indeed, the USAF has accelerated the PE program by 9 months as a result of its experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The entire A-10 fleet will be modified over 4-5 years, at an estimated total contract value of $168 million. While A/OA-10 aircraft continue to outperform technology-packed rivals on the battlefield, this set of upgrades is expected to help keep the aircraft current until the fleet's planned phase-out in 2028.
To date, A-10 fleet upgrades have been somewhat patchwork and piecemeal. This program changes all that. An April 2, 2007 GAO report places the A-10 Precision Engagement program's total overall cost is estimated at around $420 million in an April 2, 2007 GAO report.
Lockheed Martin Systems Integration - Owego is the prime contractor and systems integrator under the direction of the A-10 program office (508th Attack Sustainment Squadron), leading a team that includes Northrop Grumman of St. Augustine, FL; BAE Systems of Johnson City, NY; and Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) of San Antonio, TX. The Air Force awarded the Precision Engagement development contract to Lockheed Martin in 2001, and as the prime contractor Lockheed is expected to deliver a total of 356 kits over 5 years, at an estimated cost of $168 million. Lockheed Martin received the production contract in February 2005, with the first production kits delivered to Hill AFB in March 2006.
While the program was originally supposed to consist of several spirals, these plans were modified in light of USAF requests and needs. The program now consists of 2 increments, with JTRS fielding left as an open item to be addressed once the JTRS AMF equipment is available.
Twenty years ago, the US Department of Defense decided to replace the .45-cal M1911 handgun with the 9mm M9 Beretta as the standard-issue sidearm.
To say this decision was controversial is an understatement.
You will find plenty of defenders of the M9, such as this one, but also many, many critics. The critics say the M9's 9mm bullet lacks the "knock-down" power to immediately disable a human being. If this human being is shooting at you, you'd also prefer a bullet that could make this person stop.
I give you the Air Force Future Handgun program, which has just entered the market survey phase. The air force says it "may specify" a .45-caliber round, which is larger than the 9mm and the same size used on the M1911 phased-out in the late-1980s.
The air force program comes several months after the army and Special Operations Command cancelled the Joint Combat Pistol program, which also sought to bring back the .45-calibre sidearm.
History may be repeating itself. Legendary Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay kept interest alive in the Colt M16 rifle while the army hopelessly pursued the Springfield M14. Will the air force now usher the .45-calibre sidearm back into the inventory, with the army again forced to play follow-the-leader?
So my main man Rob Curtis is back in the sandbox for a five-week trip with a cub Air Force Times reporter covering Air Force security operations and training missions there.
Rob and I worked for a couple years on a documentary project and have been through some pretty heavy times together.
I wanted to direct you to some photos he shot of the business end of an explosively formed penetrator roadside bomb that struck a vehicle belonging to the unit he’s embedded with. We’ve both seen the effects of an IED, but I’ve never seen anything like this.
American officials are unanimous in their belief that this weapon comes from Iran. If so, I don’t understand how this doesn’t prompt more consternation from the public and politicians on both sides of the aisle – and of the Iraq war debate.
That may or may not be true. But the thought that one of my bros was just one patrol away from being maimed or killed by a weapon designed and/or built in Iran to maim and kill Americans is pretty upsetting…
It’s also helpful to note this exchange between CNN’s Barbara Starr and Multinational Corps-Iraq commander, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno on Friday…
Q General Odierno, Barbara Starr from CNN. You spoke about Iran again. Are you able yet to tell us that there is direct evidence that it is the Iranian government or the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Al-Qods that is directly ordering this interference in Iraq? Are you learning anything from the Al-Qods member -- people you still have in custody? Are you able to carry your evidence any further than just they're out there and they’re causing interference?
GEN. ODIERNO: I would just say right now -- I'm only willing to say that it's clear that the Qods Force is involved in what's going on here by supplying training, money and weapons. We're still working other aspects of it, but I'm not willing to comment on anything along those lines.
I would say, though, it is clear that they continue to interfere, the Qods Force continues to attempt to interfere in Iraqi -- in operations inside of Iraq. We continue to intercept weapons. We know there's money that's flowing in from Iran to certain insurgent groups in Iraq, and we will continue to work through this.
And in fact we're working now to determine whether they are in fact not only providing support to Shi'a groups but also Sunni insurgent groups. We don't have any specific proof of that yet, but there's been some indications that that could in fact be the case.
Q Very briefly, why would the Iranians be supporting Sunni groups?
GEN. ODIERNO: I think it's mainly because they want to continue to create chaos in Iraq. They do not want this government potentially to succeed. But additionally, I think they want to try to tie down coalition forces here. And it's clear that they are attempting to affect what's going on inside of Iraq on a daily basis, and we have to be very aware of that, and we will continue to be aware of that and work it.
Makes you think about the timeless idiom: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I know the story has been floating around for a couple of weeks, but as media attention focuses on the security operations in and around Baghdad, I thought it would be worthwhile to remember there’s a lot of activity going on to stabilize the Sunni-majority al Anbar province in western Iraq.
I’ve spent a lot of time out there embedded with Marine and Army units over the past few years and its at least somewhat heartening for me to hear from a variety of sources that the Marines’ strategy of enlisting the local populace in the struggle against al Qaeda and the anti-government Sunni insurgency is starting to pay off.
According to Kim Kagan’s latest Iraq report, tribal chiefs and clan leaders are enlisting their members in greater numbers to join police and army units, pushing the influence of Sunni AQ out of the province.
In March 2006, al Qaeda controlled Ramadi and Anbar in the doctrinal sense. U.S. forces slowly spread through many of Ramadi’s neighborhoods through security stations and combat outposts. They cleared al Qaeda from the government center, which was its stronghold in Ramadi. In March 2007, al Qaeda no longer controlled Ramadi, and in fact, U.S. and Iraqi forces controlled many parts of the city in a doctrinal sense.
A critical mass of the civilian population in Ramadi supported counterinsurgency efforts. Ramadi’s tribal sheiks organized and led a movement, the Awakening, when they decided to expel al Qaeda from their city. They led their population not only to reject al Qaeda, but also actively to oppose the organization. They recruited thousands of Anbaris to join the Iraqi police, effectively increasing force presence in the city and throughout the Euphrates River Valley. Their efforts, combined with U.S. efforts, spread the al Qaeda opposition movement from Ramadi, the capital city, into other cities in the provinces.
And in case you want to just dismiss the report thinking Kim is simply a shill for the neocons on this, just consider her sourcing on the assessment, which includes the New York Times, LA Times and AP.
The Marine strategy was starting to work in late 2005, when operation Steel Curtain was launched in response to AQ harassment of a western tribe that controlled the smuggling routes from Syria. That sentiment gradually made its way down the Euphrates River valley, ending up in the provincial capitol of Ramadi, where Marines and their local tribal allies have wrested back control.
Now I realize that as Gen. Barry McCaffrey remarked to senators yesterday: “the American people have walked away from this war and they are not coming back,” but still, the Marines who control al Anbar deserve credit for their counterinsurgency strategy.
Counterinsurgency operations in Anbar helped reintegrate the cities of the province. Poor security, including insurgents’ control of the Euphrates River and the roads, isolated Anbar’s cities from Ramadi in 2006.
As U.S. and Iraqi Security Forces secured the river, Ramadi, and the other cities of the river valley, smaller towns and villages were able to contribute to police recruiting drives and improve security in outlying areas. Linking the cities within the province is a necessary prerequisite for ensuring that the provincial government can govern and assist the entire province. Prime Minister Maliki’s visit was a symbolic and practical first step toward establishing a working relationship between the provincial government in Anbar Province and the central government in Baghdad.
It’s been a long, painful road (as I know from very personal experience), but even if America leaves Iraq with its tail between its legs, at least the Marines stuck to their plan...and it seems to be the only one that’s really paid any dividends.
-- Christian
Good Call on the M9
Military.com contributor, Capt. Eric Coulson, who wrote a thought-provoking article on the failings of the ACU, has penned another story for us that calls into question the call by an increasing number of shooters that the M9 pistol is a dog...
Read his entire article below:
The biggest failing of the M9 Beretta pistol has always been that it was not the M1911 in .45 ACP. More than 20 years after the pistol’s adoption as the standard sidearm of the US Armed Forces, many devotees of the 1911 and the .45 caliber claim that was a better pistol. In fact the M9 has proven itself time and time again in combat with US Forces in Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Although a combat proven pistol, I decided to put the M9 through its paces when I arrived in Iraq. There was nothing scientific about my testing. We do not have a fancy range to do precision shooting and make measurements. I wanted the subjective hard day-in-day-out test of the firearm with the dust and sand: Could I pull out the weapon and run through 15 rounds and make them all lethal shots at 25 meters?
I attempt to maintain my pistol on a daily basis, however I will not exaggerate and claim that it is always spotless. So when I realize we had a range and some 9mm ammunition available, I decided to forgo cleaning my M9 to see what the real consequences would be if my weapon was not clean.
On range day, I took my Beretta that had more than its fair share of dust and sand on it, four Checkmate magazines and 60 rounds of 9mm Full Metal Jacket ammunition to the range. Over a half-hour period I fired the pistol from kneeling and standing positions. I fired single shots and controlled pairs. I used the slide release and manually charged the weapon. In those 60 rounds, I had no failures to feed, no failures to eject, and no failures to fire. Had I needed the weapon that day to save my life, it was up to the task.
Shooting itself is a perishable skill, but I found that I had not lost a step after spending much of the last two years shooting my Glock 19 on private ranges back in the United States. I would not have won any competitions, but at 25 meters on a man-size target, I was able to place all of my shots in the torso or the head.
The biggest complaint from users during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom has been failures related to the Checkmate magazines. Evidently, the Department of Defense has worked with the manufacture to eliminate these problems.
I am curious if some of those problems might not be related to the amount of time the magazines remain loaded. Considering the pistol is used as a backup weapon in most instances, the magazines can remain loaded for weeks at a time if not longer. The lengthy compression of the springs can cause the springs to lose some of their strength. I rotate mine on a weekly basis to prevent excessive spring use. Users might consider this if they experience a problem.
There have been no significant developments in pistol design since the adoption of the M9 that would warrant the adoption of a new pistol. However, there are two things the Armed Forces should consider in equipping service members with pistol.
Laser sites: a pistol such as the M9 has fixed sights. The fixed site requires the shooter to focus on the blade of the front site, while aligning the rear site and the target, causing the latter two to be fuzzy. Laser sites when properly aligned allow the shooter to focus on the target, where the focus should be. There are two types of lasers on the market, external and internal lasers. The internal lasers replace the guide rod and as such replicate the path of the bullet most accurately. The next contract for pistols should include an internal laser requirement.
Night sites: even if the military adopts an internal laser, one should always have a back up. On this pistol this means relying on the iron sites. The current sites on the Beretta are three-dot plastic. The dots have worn off over the years on many of these weapons. Replacing these with high visibility tritium sites would make more sense.
The Beretta M9 is a good pistol with a proven combat capability. My own experience has increased my confidence in the weapon system. While one should always do their utmost to ensure their weapon is clean and in optimal firing condition, it is also good to know the weapon can save your life, if it has seen a few hard days moving around the battlefield. The Department of Defense has done well by this pistol selection.
Although wars are often justified under the banners of lofty tenets, they are just as often fought over resources. And as the Associated Press reports today, it's not unthinkable that as global warming changes the resource status quo, conflicts will erupt between peoples competing for those resources.
A few highlights from the article:
"One of the biggest likely areas of conflict is going to be over water," said [retired General Charles] Wald, former deputy commander of U.S. European Command. He pointed to the Middle East and Africa.
The military report's co-author, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, also pointed to sea-level rise floods as potentially destabilizing South Asia countries of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam.
Lack of water and food in places already the most volatile will make those regions even more unstable with global warming and "foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," states the 63-page military report, issued by the CNA Corp., an Alexandria, Va.-based national security think tank.
Mother Nature's potential WMD sort of raises the bar of imminent threat, doesn't it?
It’s a full page advertisement that ran today in the Washington Post (and maybe other papers) sponsored by the Boeing Co. that calls attention to a program running tonight on PBS called Operation Homecoming.
From the ad:
…Operation Homecoming is a unique documentary that explores the first-hand accounts of American troops who have participated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…
…the film opens a profound window into the experiences of those serving in America’s Armed Forces…
AMERICAN troops and AMERICAN armed forces…
Now look at the picture again…
The soldier is holding an AK-47…
Doesn't look to me like it's of an American Soldier…
A Boeing spokeswoman said the photo was provided by the documentary maker. She said they hadn’t gotten any calls about it and had never noticed that it was not of an American serviceman.
Now, let me get this straight. Boeing makes practically every weapon the U.S. military uses today (I know I’m exaggerating, but keep with me here). They’re one of the lead systems integrators for the Army’s Future Combat System program, so they know what today’s troopers carry. With all that experience, you’d think at least someone would have enough insight to raise their hand and say: “Wait a minute guys, this isn’t an American…?”
My old friend Bryan Bender had an interesting story today in the Boston Globe on a new initiative within the Pentagon to oversee the inner workings of the Joint IED Defeat Organization.
It looks as if the Pentagon wants to get its arms around the incredible number of projects JIEDDO is working on and to better account for the billions of dollars being spent each year on countermeasures and anti-IED tactics.
The IED Task Force will be co-chaired by retired Army Lt. Gen. Paul Funk, whom Bender reports is a noted Iraq war critic. Funk commanded the 3rd Armored Division during the Gulf War and has been a semi-frequent guest on news talk shows criticizing the administration’s rush to war.
Coming on the heels of reports that the White House is having a hard time finding someone to become its War Czar, it seems the administration is running out of reliable allies even to honcho top military programs.
We’ll see if the Task Force can help the military come to grips with the deadly counter-IED problem.
Well, I've been covering the V-22 Osprey for nearly 10 years as a defense reporter. It started for me in 1999 as an intriguing new platform. A hybrid airplane/helicopter that sated my sense of fascination with “leap-ahead” technology, the Osprey was just to the point of being fielded when a horrific crash in the spring of 2000 in Arizona killed 19 Marines – mostly infantrymen who were passengers on a test flight.
Despite a firm stance from the Corps that the Osprey could still be fielded, another crash in December of that year shocked the service into shape and the program was put on hold.
Over the intervening years, mainstream reporters grew increasingly skeptical of the aircraft, aligning with think-tankers, former DoD testers and the rest of the trade press against what they saw as an overly complex and accident-prone aircraft.
That’s part of the reason that, despite all those years writing stories about the Osprey, I had never ridden in one. Until last week.
A short disclaimer is probably in order here. I have always been a contrarian when it comes to the Osprey. I do not see any alternative but to make tiltrotor technology work. Helicopters have a physical limit. They can’t go more than a certain speed because of the drag of the rotors. Now I’m sure I’ll get some people much smarter than me to argue this, but when it comes down to it, helicopters are just not going to cut it for much longer. We need the Osprey, and I have always believed the V-22 would revolutionize STOVL flight and be very effective for the Corps.
Now, back to the test flight.
After a short press conference announcing its first deployment, the Marine Corps set up a press junket for reporters to take a ride on the tiltrotor transport and see for themselves how different the plane is from the helicopter it’s due to replace – the CH-46 Sea Knight.
On April 13, 20 of us flew off the Pentagon helipad on a Sea Knight that was part of the presidential fleet. While the interior was a lot nicer than the 46s I’d flown in during deployments to Iraq and elsewhere, it still performed like the old phrogs I knew and (grudgingly) loved: slow and low…
We landed on a field at Quantico and watched as our CH-46 departed and two Ospreys came screaming overhead. Their speed and size was jaw-dropping. The rotors are huge and they moved across the sky much quicker than a 46 ever could.
After a short interview with the squadron commander, Lt. Col. Paul Rock, it was time for the ride. We filed onto the aircraft, strapped ourselves in and lifted off. I kept my eyes out the back window and also scanned the small side window to see how the nacelles (the engine and rotor housings at the end of each wing) were oriented. We flew most of the first minutes of the flight with the nacelles at a sort of 45 degree pitch.
Then it all changed.
As soon as the pilot shifted the engines to full forward, transitioning to conventional flight, the Osprey lurched ahead, pulling all of us toward the rear of the aircraft. It was really hard to stay upright the thrust was so dramatic. It reminded me a bit of a catapult shot off an aircraft carrier (notice in the video how fast the ground flows below, and see how hard it is to keep the camera steady when the Osprey banks to the right or left).
We jinked and jived over the rolling woods of Quantico, then evened out and glided in for a quick landing in a pretty large field. I noticed the whiff of burning grass as we settled down, an indication of the intense heat streaming out of the powerful engines in helicopter mode. We hovered a bit more – turning left and right – then lifted out dramatically and sped ahead in conventional flight. After more banking and turning (with a few of my colleagues making use of the airsick bags handed out before the flight) the Osprey alighted once more on the field where we began.
I’ll let you judge for yourself how impressive the Osprey’s flight characteristics are (please forgive how raw the video is). But I’ll tell you something, every single one of us – even the pukers – was beaming when we emerged from the plane. It was one of the most exciting rides I’ve ever taken – and I’ve taken some pretty cool ones.
I wish the program luck. But the plane is going to take some getting used to for infantrymen who aren't used to flying all the time.
Maybe the Corps should stock up on airsick bags to prepare for the first deployment.
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) - The Fengyun - "Wind and Cloud" - 1-C weather satellite was a proud worker in China's space program. Launched in May 1999, it provided a wealth of information that scientists used for forecasting floods, sandstorms and disturbances in space caused by solar activity.
Now, it has been reduced to a nebula of debris. And that may prove to be its most lasting legacy.
In January, China blasted the Fengyun 1-C into oblivion with a land-based anti-satellite missile from its southwestern Xichang spaceport. It was the first kill of a satellite by a land-based missile ever conducted by any nation, including the United States and Russia.
The message was hard to miss: China is ready - and increasingly able - to challenge the U.S. military advantage in space.
"Competition is moving toward the new frontier, space," said Arthur Ding, a research fellow at Taiwan's National Chengchi University.
To space and military experts, China's success is no surprise - its military-run space program has taken a great leap forward in recent years.
It launched its first manned space flight in 2003. A second mission in 2005 put two astronauts into orbit for a week, and a third manned launch is planned for next year. This year, China plans to launch a probe that will orbit the moon.
On Saturday, the country launched a Long March 3-A rocket that sent a navigation satellite into orbit as part of its effort to build a global positioning system, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. The satellite is the fourth China has launched as part of the Compass navigation system, which is expected to be operational in 2008.
But some see the anti-satellite missile as evidence that China's program is taking an alarming direction.
"The successful test of a Chinese direct-ascent anti-satellite weapon represents a new and dangerous phase of Chinese foreign policy," said Tom Ehrhard, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, a military think tank.
"Despite official statements about its 'peaceful rise,' China aims to challenge the internationally recognized sanctity and neutrality of the 'commons,' those areas like international waters, airspace, cyberspace and space itself," he said.
A host of other nations - from Japan to Israel - have spy satellites collecting military data, and the United States also has been considering weapons in space.
Satellites are already the eyes and ears of the U.S. military, used to guide missiles to their targets, provide detailed information on enemy positions and movements and make immediate, global communications possible. The next step, first envisioned during Ronald Reagan's presidency, would be weapons such as lasers that could be used from space to destroy or disable enemy satellites or possibly even targets on the ground.
U.S. military planners have long warned that the satellites they depend upon are vulnerable. A 2001 report by a commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld, then defense secretary-designate, said the U.S. is "an attractive candidate for a space Pearl Harbor" and the country needed to develop systems to protect them.
China and Russia, which like Washington have signed the 1967 treaty outlawing weapons of mass destruction in space, advocate a complete ban on anti-satellite and other space weaponry. The Bush administration, however, blocked a U.N. resolution to that effect in 2005. Beijing and Moscow resubmitted a similar proposal this year.
Beijing says it wants to bring Washington back to the negotiating table, and that its satellite kill was in line with its larger goal of demilitarizing space.
"China opposes the weaponization of space and any arms race," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. "The test is not targeted at any country and will not threaten any country."
Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed after the satellite kill that Moscow continues to oppose weapons in space and criticized Washington, not Beijing, for planning space-based weapons, which he said was the reason behind the Chinese test.
"We must not let the genie out of the bottle," he warned.
The United States and Soviet Union also shot down satellites, but didn't use ground-based missiles. The U.S. did it in 1985 with an air-launched missile, and the Soviets used a hunter satellite to approach its target and then fired at it.
Bill Sweetman, an analyst with Jane's Space Systems and Industry, said the Chinese test does not violate any treaties, but deliberately hits at a sensitive nerve.
"The Chinese are aware of a difference between them and the U.S.; the U.S., and Western forces in general, are highly dependent on low Earth orbit assets such as imaging spacecraft and GPS, but the Chinese are not," he said.
The test, he noted, was also sure to hold Washington's attention for years to come. The debris from the satellite will continue to float in space, a hazard to other spacecraft.
"You fill low Earth orbit with high-velocity buckshot," he said.
The Sunday Paper
Milblogs have become increasingly prevalent as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn on. Soldier-journalists employ blogs for myriad reasons: to provide their audience "unfiltered" news updates, as a forum for political commentary, or simply as a means to collect their thoughts on virtual paper - a therapy of sorts.
And while the quality of user generated content varies wildly across the web, when it's good it transcends the medium. This post by Derek McGee is one such example. It reminds me of some of Tim O'Brien's most honest work and is a suitable Sunday read. (Note: Asterisks in place of letters are mine.):
On Being Home
By Derek McGee
I am home now; it’s nice I guess. Things are different. So am I. It is hard to get excited about things, anything really. Food is all right, I get sort of excited about that, and women — well one anyway. Maybe I’m more mature now; maybe I’m just bored, I don’t know.
I gave up hunting. I regret this because I love venison. I never was very good at hunting and now I just don’t want to do it anymore. I never actually killed a deer, but I scared the hell out of a few. What is the point? They don’t even shoot back. Part of me wants to never touch a gun again, and part of me wants to wrap my hands tightly on my old sixteen, get the scope dead-on, lovingly reapply the camouflage tape, strap two magazines together, throw a round in the chamber, use the meaty-tip of my thumb to flirt with the safety, and go home to Fallujah.
It’s not that loud noises terrify me. It’s just that I don’t respond appropriately to them. My heart goes off like a Led Zeppelin drum solo, my diaphragm sprints, pulling-in far more oxygen than I need, and I want to fight back. But there is no one to fight, there is nowhere to go, nothing to do. I’m supposed to just go on normally, but my body doesn’t know that and though I tell it, sometimes it takes a while for it to listen. There was a time, when a noise that didn’t belong was heard, people looked at me for some leadership, they wanted me to tell them where to go, and what to do; now they just look and think: who is the weirdo hyperventilating at the bar because a waitress dropped a tray. This woman I see at the Vet Center said that the body can reabsorb adrenaline in five to ten minutes. She said to control my breathing and concentrate on something else and remind myself that I really am normal. It works. She is a very smart lady.
I don’t sleep that much at all. Unless of course I’m drunk. It gets tedious though, to start drinking nightcaps at seven so that sleep will come at two. It’s actually worse than just tedious; it’s harmful. You think that drinking will make things better, but it doesn’t. It lets the bad thoughts in. It lets the irrational thoughts in. I spent twenty minutes at a bar the other night, pretending to play a golf video game even though I didn’t have any quarters and I hate video games and I don’t play golf. I watched this little jerky computer-generated guy in funny clothes drive a few white pixels towards a flag. He never got the ball there but I wasn’t thinking about him; I was thinking that if I had taken the vehicles and checked up on the foot patrol instead of deciding to give my worn-out men a break — I wanted them to get a chance to take their gear off for a minute, the patrol was almost back anyway — if I had checked their route for them, maybe, just maybe…who knows. So, this stupid f**ker in plaid pants sucks at golf and now Mike and John are gone and when I said goodbye they couldn’t hear me because there were holes in their heads that maybe wouldn’t be there if I had decided to check up on the damn patrol. Drinking doesn’t help.
The smart woman at the Vet Center explained it to me. She is very smart. You see, for seven months I ran around everyday wearing eighty pounds of armor plates, ammunition, grenades, water, maps, little cards telling me how to say, “Where are the weapons hidden?”, bandages and tourniquets and this powder that burns the skin to stop the bleeding, radios, and little cards that say, “Sorry we destroyed your house — go here and we’ll give you money.” It was hot and we carried all this stuff and when we took it off we lifted weights and ran and did all these things. Now I am home. I just had an operation and I sit around and do nothing except take Vicodin, which kills pain that I don’t really feel anyway. I don’t follow the directions; no, I save it up for special occasions. What the hell are special occasions?
Well, she tells me (the smart lady), my body is just not used to inactivity. She says that if I exercise, my body will feel normal again, and I won’t wake up five to six times a night. I suppose she is right. I want to tell her that I don’t mind waking up every forty-five minutes or so, it is a nice break from the dreams, but I’m afraid she’ll think I’m crazy. She is a shrink and has to deal with crazy people all day, so I don’t want to burden her any further. Tomorrow I will start running, or maybe the day after. I should stop smoking and drinking tomorrow, or the day after, as well. I tell her this. She smiles and nods and hands me a card where she has written the time I’m supposed to see her next week. This is good. I’ll come back next week and tell her that I should stop smoking and drinking tomorrow — or the next day.
I wake up early and feel compelled to get stuff done, like all good motivated people. I can’t get back to sleep, there is too much to do. I’m ready to hit the ground running and get everything accomplished. I’m so overcome with energy, even though I only got three hours of sleep, that it is hard not to flop around and wake up the beautiful girl next to me. I have so much I want to do, I can’t go back to sleep now. I should be studying maps and intelligence reports. There has to be a pattern to these ambushes. What if we put a sniper team in over Route Fran? They might see something. F**k it, let me bring my team in there overnight, we’ll shoot something. Are we carrying enough ammo? Are the vehicles ready? What can I do to keep the next patrol from taking casualties? I don’t actually think about any of those things. What I think is that I should be doing something important now, but I’m not. Eventually the beautiful girl next to me will wake up, look over and see me staring at the ceiling, and most likely think: I wish he would get motivated enough to clean his room and do his laundry.
I miss all the guys. If they were all around me, piled into bunk beds, I would be laughing right now. We always laughed no matter how lousy things were. You didn’t think about the bad stuff — well you thought about it just enough to make jokes about it. One day — there were many, actually — I was fairly certain I wasn’t going to make it. Not just me, we all thought like that when things got bad. It wasn’t paranoia; three marines had burned into nothing and one was found walking around alive, but still on fire, two days earlier and we were going to the same spot to show the world we weren’t scared. Don’t tell anyone, but we were. “Elwell,” I said to my driver, “I have no clean laundry.”
“Me neither; where are we going with this?”
“Well, I don’t want my parents to get a box of dirty underwear and socks.”
“All right, I see where you’re going. You’re saying that today isn’t a good time for us to die.”
“Well,” I said, “I don’t want to be a pain in the ass. But if it’s all the same to you, why don’t we just die some other day.”
“Fine,” he said, “I guess I’ll just stay away from the roadside bombs today. But Sergeant,” he continued, paternally, “you really should stay on top of your laundry; you’re a Sergeant for Christ’s sake.”
Somewhere around then my girlfriend left me, or I pushed her away — I don’t blame her, love happens sometimes, that’s all. I found out that she was gone from an email she forwarded to me, which had come to her from her new boyfriend. She sent me this joke — I don’t even remember what it was — because she wanted to make me laugh. She didn’t realize that the email also contained a week’s worth of replies to replies between them. They seemed good for each other. It hit me in the face like a two-by-four.
Everyone said that they were disgusted because it was the worst time for someone to have to deal with a break-up. They were so wrong. It was the most thoughtful thing she ever did for me. When else can you say, “Well, my girlfriend is banging some other dude? Who cares? At least I’m not on fire. When does the next patrol leave?” If she had waited until I got home, when I would have had time to think and dwell on things; well that would have been bad timing.
The next day, when we were leaving the wire, I told everyone in my vehicle, “Don’t worry, boys. Nothing can happen to us. I’m invincible right now.”
“What the f**k are you talking about?”
“Well, think about it. There is no way God would let my ex-girlfriend and her lousy new boyfriend get my life insurance money.”
“It’s still in her name, you moron? Why don’t you change it?”
“Because,” I said, shocked at their ignorance, “Then I wouldn’t be invincible.”
It was always like that, always jokes. But they’re off living their lives somewhere else now, and it just isn’t as funny anymore. I see some of them from time to time. I talk to them as well.
I’ve seen a lot of bad behavior from my friends, since being home. I watched them beat the bejesus out of a guy at a bar for not really doing anything at all — except maybe not backing down convincingly enough. Since then I’ve heard that two broke their hands on faces and one had his jaw broken for him; those are just the ones I know about. When we talk on the phone they tell me, in a light sort of way, about the bender they’re on and about the many wild fights that just seem to find them. Me too. We pretend it’s funny. Once I blurted into the phone, “Loud noises make me act, well, you know, a little odd.”
“You’re fine,” my friend said, “Just thinking about loud noises makes me act odd. I almost passed out in Best Buy the other day because of anxiety. You should talk to someone at the Vet Center. They’re giving me these anti-anxiety pills.”
“I don’t want pills,” I said.
“But you want to talk. Go see them. They’re smart.”
After September 11th I became addicted to CNN. I kept it on 24/7, even when I was sleeping. That lasted for years. I don’t watch the news anymore. Every time I see a clip of those in Iraq, I feel a guilt that makes me squirm. Why am I here on a couch with a beer and this girl, who I really like and everything is so great for me, and they are doing my job for me? I don’t belong here. I should be there. I don’t watch the news anymore.
I have been punched on two different occasions since being home. Both times I froze and didn’t do anything about it. I was afraid. It’s not that I didn’t know what to do. I do. I can. It wasn’t that I was afraid of whomever it was that was punching me. I was afraid that if I started punching back I wouldn’t stop. The last time I punched back, I stood in the turret of a humvee and sent four hundred rounds of 7.62mm, belt-fed ammunition into a residential neighborhood, into houses, peoples’ houses, and there was a mosque there, too. I didn’t ever want to stop. Part-way through I stopped shooting for a moment, ducked into the vehicle, opened the rear left door and kicked a cooler and everything else out. Then I sat on the roof of the humvee, lifted my legs up to my chest, eased my finger back onto the trigger, and the soothing “bup-bup-bup-bup-bup-bup-bup-bup” began again. Below me, where my feet had been so firmly planted seconds before, they shoved the body of Captain John McKenna. I didn’t know at the time that it was my platoon commander. I didn’t know anything that wasn’t in my gun sights. We sped off to the nearest base and I threw bandages down to the guys in the vehicle, pulled the radio receiver up from below — everyone else was too busy to talk on the radio — and it was then that I heard, from Gallagher, who was holding John’s head, “Hang in there, Sir.”
I prayed for the first time in a decade. I thought I had forgotten how. It comes right back. I suppose it is comforting to know that the next time I need to pray it will come back again. I tried to think of something profound to say. Something that would penetrate the unconsciousness and revive the man below me.
“Don’t give up, you tough Irish f**k.
That is what I said. It was ridiculous and crass, but if anything would have worked, that might have been it. It didn’t matter. He was dead even before his knees had given out and left him pouring his life onto the filthy streets of Fallujah. We didn’t know that. He was gurgling and twitching and we wanted him to live so I said it again.
“Don’t give up, you tough Irish f**k.”
I don’t want to talk about it anymore.
So, I forget what my point was, but I think it has something to do with this; if you get a deer this year, I would love some of the meat.
Note: This post appears in Derek McGee’s beautifully-produced small press book WHEN I WISHED I WAS HERE: Dispatches from Fallujah, which can be ordered directly from The Crumpled Press.
The Marine Corps announced the first operational deployment of the controversial MV-22 Osprey will be a combat tour to western Iraq.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway said the New River, N.C.-based “Thunder Chickens” of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 will deploy to al Asad air base Iraq in September.
The Corps had declined to reveal the location of its first real-world deployment of the Osprey for months; leading some to speculate the transport would be sent on a lower-profile deployment to guard against programmatic shock-waves should something go wrong.
“This deployment directly supports our number one priority: Marines and sailors in contact at the tip of the spear,” Conway said during a press briefing announcing the decision.
“It’s been a road marked by some setbacks, lots of sacrifices and the success of these Marines standing before you today,” he added, with the Corps aviation chief, Lt. Gen. John Castellaw, standing at his side.
(DT staff note: Defense Tech salutes the Marine Corps on this announcement and wishes VMM-263 all the best.)
Legally-speaking, the business of killing even in war can be quite tricky.
Consider that the military now operates dozens of armed unmanned vehicles -- in the air, on land and in the water. That number is expected to rise exponentially in the near future.
The Law of Armed Conflict dictates that unmanned systems cannot fire their weapons without a human operator in the loop. As new generations of armed robots proliferate, the pressure will inevitably increase to automate the process of selecting -- and destroying -- targets.
Now comes the weird part.
A new legal interpretation has been proposed within the military to deal with the thorny issue of removing humans from the trigger-end of the killing process.
Here's how it works: program all armed robotic vehicles to aim only at weapons, not humans. For example, an autonomous vehicle spots an insurgent with an AK-47. The robotic vehicle is authorized to destroy the AK-47. If the human is killed in the process, that's what's called "collateral damage."
This particular legal theory is the brainchild of John S. Canning, chief engineer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. His presentation on the subject can be downloaded here:
I have written about Canning's proposal in Jane's Defence Weekly. For its part, legal representatives in the Office of the Secretary of Defense has disavowed any knowledge of or interest in Canning's proposal.
Australian and New Zealand troops deployed to East Timor, a tiny, impoverished country adjacent to Indonesia, patrolled around the clock to ensure peace and quiet for Monday’s presidential election.
Around 1,100 Australian and 150 New Zealand soldiers work alongside 1,500 U.N. police from more than 20 countries and native security forces to suppress gangs, quell political violence and hunt down a rebel army led by former police officer Major Alfredo Reinado.
East Timor, population 1 million, broke away from Indonesia in 1999 following a brutal 20-year occupation and formally declared independence in 2002. Australian troops entered the territory in 1999 to help suppress pro-Indonesian militias, and again last year when marauding gangs and rebelling security forces threatened to collapse the current government under President Xanana Gusmao.
The capital city of Dili has been mostly peaceful in recent weeks, with just a few outbreaks of violence. Gangs in the pay of the major political parties battled in the streets on Thursday, the last day of campaigning, but only a handful of injuries were reported. Australian army Corporal Steven Clacy, 24, attributed the relative calm to the stepped-up peacekeeper presence. “It’s been quiet the last few weeks because we’ve been flexing.” Clacy said he sleeps only three hours at a time due to his intensive patrolling schedule.
The boost to Australian and New Zealand operations included more vehicle patrols, foot patrols and surveillance flights by helicopters, according to Australian army Brigadier Mal Rerden, commander of the peacekeeping force. He added that his troops retained a “response capability” to deal with any unexpected crises. “This type of response can include deployment of a quick-reaction force, the deployment of armored vehicles as well as air support.”
Australian armored vehicles armed with heavy machine guns idled in downtown Dili on Thursday morning and, later in the day, a quick-reaction force in trucks speeded to a nearby neighborhood to help U.N. cops deal with clashes between young supporters of presidential frontrunners Jose Ramos-Horta, the current prime minister, and Francisco Guterres, whose party is headed by former prime minister Mari Alkatiri, ousted after last years’ riots. Authorities fired tear gas to disperse the combatants; several motorcycles were set on fire.
Dili was quiet for Monday’s elections. Timorese gathered in the shade at downtown polling stations, sipping soft drinks bought from street peddlers. Voters emerging from the polls wiped their ink-stained fingers on their pants. “It’s a good start to the nation-building,” Japanese ambassador Hideaki Asahi said while a touring one polling place near the site of Thursday’s violence.
Stability in Timor is critical to Australian plans for the region. In February Canberra signed agreements with Dili establishing a framework for joint oil exploration in the Sea of Timor. Royalties from Timorese oil are worth an estimated $20 billion to Canberra over several years; Dili’s share is somewhat smaller.
The two companies competing to design a more precise way for the Army to put artillery on bad guys wrapped up a shoot-off last month at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz.
BAE Systems and Alliant Techsystems are working with the Army to design and field a low-cost, low-tech way to make “dumb” artillery rounds smarter. It’s called the Precision Guidance Kit, and the long and short of it is it’s basically a fuze screwed on to the end of a standard 155mm or 105mm round that houses a GPS guidance package and a series of “spoiler”-like fins to help it home in on its target.
The intent is to have a 50-meter Circular Error Probable with the PGK system. Later, the Army wants an even more precise artillery guidance kit that delivers a 10-meter CEP.
According to BAE:
The testing included 20 rounds of various test configurations including fully autonomous GPS guided rounds. BAE Systems fired M549 Rocket Assisted Projectiles (RAP) to a range of about 20.5 kilometers. All test objectives were adhered with all rounds functioning properly. The GPS guided rounds demonstrated the ability to acquire GPS within the desired time and the ability to maneuver within the required 50-meter CEP.
As Maj. John Moorhead, munitions branch chief at the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, wrote in the Jan.-Feb. issue of Field Artillery Magazine:
…Commanders will be able to select PGK as the munition of choice when mitigation of collateral damage is a concern at extended ranges and precision munitions are neither available nor feasible. In addition, improved accuracy with PGK could lessen the logistics resupply burden. Depending on the mission, units could sustain fires longer without ammo resupply. This would free transportation assets for other missions on the battlefield…
…PGK will provide commanders the option of scalable precision to more closely match the round to the task. Instead of firing large numbers of projectiles to attack a target as specified today in AFATDS, the commander will be able to choose PGK to “tighten up the shot group” and achieve the desired effects with fewer rounds. Using PGKs, units will be able to service more targets in the same span of time, resulting in a better overall efficiency and use of UBLs. Firing fewer rounds also will decrease the crews’ susceptibility to counter-battery fires, increasing their survivability…
Here’s how the system will work:
…Handling and storing PGK will differ very little from other fuzes; PGK will have the same dimensions as a standard NATO fuze. The only exception is it may require special handling if the wing-like control surfaces are exposed and fixed in the final solution.
Upon receipt of a fire mission requesting PGK, Cannoneers mate PGK to the projectile in a similar manner as with current fuzes. Using the enhanced portable inductive artillery fuze setter (EPIAFS), Cannoneers set/load (program) the PGK the same as any inductively set fuze, transferring all mission-essential data (fuze mode, howitzer and target location) necessary for PGK to function reliably.
It takes less than 10 seconds to pass all the fuze mode and GPS mission data to PGK. Once fired, the PGK-equipped projectile acquires GPS during flight and follows a normal ballistic trajectory to apogee (top of flight path) where the processor begins calculating the estimated miss distance to determine when to deploy the control surfaces (brakes or canards). At the optimal time during the descending leg of the trajectory, the control surfaces deploy and begin correcting the flight path.
Control surface deployment time is critical. The processor estimates the miss distance and uses the surfaces to make small corrections to the trajectory, guiding it to the intended aim point…
And the anticipated timeline:
...The PM anticipates fielding of Increment 1 sometime in FY09. PGK’s acquisition strategy will follow an incremental developmental approach to prove the concept. Once the program achieves a 50-meter CEP, production will begin for limited quantities of Increment 1 for fielding while development begins on Increment 2.
A long-range goal for Increment 3 is to leverage the 155-mm PGK technologies for PGK use with 105-mm projectiles. The initial version of PGK may be robust enough to meet the 105-mm howitzer requirements, but only time and testing will determine its compatibility...
It’s about time the Army made their dumb artillery less, well, dumb. Maybe fielding the PGK in numbers will give artillery units a needed rebound from the provisional jobs they’re increasingly tasked with in today’s counterinsurgency fight.
BAE Systems has some cool video of their version of the PGK with some downloadable grafix as well.
If you’re feeling down, depressed, tired, bored or just all together dreary today, buck up…things could be worse.
A lot worse.
Just consider if you were all those things and next to, nearby, within eyesight, hearing range or even watching one of these on television.
I know it’s a little on the macabre side of things, but Amazing Filtered Things blog has put together a collage of detonated nuke pictures that are just wild. It almost gives you a headache looking at them – that is, of course, unless one of them is of your boss’s office or [?INSERT ANOTHER DESERVING TARGET HERE?].
The "Fighter Mafia" boys at the Center for Defense Information say the Raptor is a pig. According to the DID article "F-16 program analyst Pierre Sprey and author James Stevenson argued that the F-22's fuel:weight ratio, wing loading, and acceleration are inferior to existing fighters. They contend that numbers, acceleration, fast changes in energy state, and a 360 degree cockpit view count for more in [dogfights]."
But Raptor driver Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver basically says concerns regarding maneuverability are moot when one considers the capabilities of a Fifth Generation fighter like the F-22: "It's amazing the information you have at your fingertips." He claims that in no-holds-barred mock battles with F-15s, F-16s and the Navy's F/A-18 Hornets, he and other Raptor pilots generally "destroy" their adversaries before those foes even realize they're around.
So who's right? Are the days of "gettin' in the phone booth" over? Or will aerodynamic performance and pilot skill still matter when all the high-techery goes kaput in the heat of battle?
In a noteworthy use of what we in the tech business call a "killer app", Google has teamed with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and is using its online mapping service to call attention to atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Detail on this unique use of Google Earth technology can be found in the video below. Although the plight of those in Darfur inarguably demands the world's attention, DT presents this to highlight the power of tech employed to its potential, not for political reasons.
Graham Warwick at Flight International updates the status of JSF's cutting edge helmet system:
"Lockheed Martin has begun flying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with the helmet-mounted display (HMD) system that will be the primary source of flight information for pilots of the stealthy combat aircraft.
"Developed by Vision Systems International (VSI), the HMD was used by chief test pilot Jon Beesley for the first time last week, on the 10th test flight of the F-35. Previous sorties were flown using only head-down instruments as the F-35 is the first fighter in decades to fly without head-up display (HUD).
"The HMD provides a 'virtual HUD' capability, says VSI, presenting flight symbology as well as displaying day and night imagery from the F-35's 360° distributed-aperture infrared sensor and electro-optical targeting sensor.
"Replacing the HUD with a helmet-mounted display requires precise head tracking and low-latency graphics processing, says VSI.
"Developing the JSF HMD has presented tough challenges, particularly clearing the helmet-mounted optics for safe ejection at speeds up to 450kt (830km/h). VSI says the HMD demonstrated structural integrity up to 600kt in tests leading to flight certification."
No HUD? What are the Hornet drivers going to do? And will we replace "HUD cripples" with "Helmet cripples"?
I’m checking on the accuracy of the report, but I thought it would be worth giving this story from “Debka file” a closer look.
I usually take Debka’s entries with a grain of salt, but I gotta tell you, sometimes they’re eerily on the mark. Rumor has it, the site is a public voice for the Israeli intelligence services, dropping hints to real or imagined threats in hopes of smoking out reality. On this one, I’m only too happy to oblige.
Debka’s latest post hints that al Qaeda is starting to develop its own electronic countermeasures to U.S. anti-IED technology. As has been reported on these pages quite frequently, the U.S. relies heavily on electronic means to detect and defeat roadside bombs. It seems that AQ is getting in on the act – possibly with Iranian help.
Soon after [electronic jammers] were fitted on US military vehicles and went into successful use, al Qaeda came up with a device capable of jamming and disarming both US electronic measures by radio signals. The Islamist terrorists thus escalated their challenge to the US military by introducing electronic warfare.
Their success has boosted the US and British death toll in Iraq. Of the 50 US and UK soldiers who died in Iraq in the first 9 days of April, 30 were killed by IEDs. Al Qaeda’s mystery device is believed by military experts to account for the soaring rate of effective roadside bomb hits on American vehicles, even those fitted with the new counter-measures...
...al Qaeda is suspected of acquiring its advanced electronic warfare technology from Iran, which also supplies the IEDs to Iraq’s Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. Tehran owns an interest in the successful performance of its weaponry on Iraq’s battlefields and, most of all, in proving its technology is superior to American systems.
The notion doesn’t seem too far fetched. When it comes down to it, a lot of the back and forth on IEDs is a low-tech game: washing machine timers, radio phone transmitters, garage door openers, cell phones. Maybe it’s not so hard to counter American counter-measures after all?
Against my better judgment, I want to add some legs to the story we posted today on the imminent release of Jack (Keith) Idema - the notorious mercenary/self-proclaimed “Super-Patriot” – from an Afghan prison where he was held on criminal charges for running his own little interrogation center/torture chamber.
I have been following this story for several years now, ever since Idema popped up early on in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as both a “humanitarian worker” who helped save National Geographic reporter Gary Scurka’s life and a covert special operative for the CIA (or some other super-secret, unknown, three-letter ‘OGA’) that helped single-handedly secure victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists for U.S. and Northern Alliance forces.
The embarrassing book “written” by Robin Moore in 2003 titled “The Hunt for bin Laden: Task Force Dagger” unmasked Idema as the primary source for the pitiful account and sent the blogosphere swirling. (That’s Idema on the cover)
By the way, Moore is famous for his first-person account of Army SF indoc - the only journalist ever to undergo the famous "Q" course - in the book titled "The Green Berets."
One of the most brilliant investigations of Idema’s various cons can be found at the Flogging the Simian blog. For years, the blog has tracked Idema’s self-promotion and questionable connections. Is he a former Army Special Forces operator? Was he hired by the CIA/State/US government to help insert spec ops personnel into Afghanistan, track bin Laden with his own mercenary group of has-beens and wannabes, deliver humanitarian aid to war refugees in northern Afghanistan, etc?
You be the judge. But I’ll tell you, this is one of the most entertaining and intriguing stories popping up during a long war that has since had very few of them. And with Idema’s release, we’re sure to hear much, much more about the U.S. government’s secret deals with said Super-Patriot to find the world’s most wanted men and single-handedly save America from the evil doers…
-- Christian
From iPod to 'Grip Pod'
I ran across this little item today from a story in Leatherneck magazine.
As part of the Marine Corps’ Marine Enhancement Program – a sort of rapid-prototyping initiative housed in the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va. – the service is beginning to field a new accessory hand-grip for the M4 and M16A4 with forward rail system that houses a retractable bi-pod.
The so-called “Grip Pod” is a bit wider than most forward grips and deploys a telescoping bi-pod with a quick push of a button. This little device could give just about anyone the same kind of stabilized precision attached to designated marksman rifles or similar specialized weapons.
What next, a forward grip with a retractable Ka-Bar?
It’s a debate that's been raging since the early 1990s – one that pits American Sailors against their Marine brethren.
As the last of the Navy’s battleships was put into mothballs in 1992, the Corps increased its plea for a replacement of the venerable 16-inch guns that, since WWII, had softened the enemy before storming ashore. But the Navy has spent billions on aircraft carriers and cruise missile ships, largely ignoring a combat capability it sees as a relic of a bygone era.
These days, the Marines have the puny 5” guns of the Navy’s destroyer and cruiser fleet to guard their backs and soften up targets – a gun that at 13 nautical miles range, barely touches the lethality of the retired battleship’s arsenal.
But soon there could be hope. After years of back and forth, the Navy now seems serious about developing - and paying for – an advanced cannon round that can support Marines ashore with volume fires from their 5” gun-equipped ships.
Built with guidance fins, a GPS-enabled seeker head and a rocket motor to launch the round higher, the Extended Range Guided Munition can hit targets farther away from shore more accurately than today’s 5” ammo.
Using the Raytheon-developed ERGM, the Navy hopes to reach out and touch bad guys from at least 43 miles. That’s nearly double the range of a battleship’s guns, which put warheads on foreheads at 24 miles.
But don’t get your hopes up Devil Dog. This has been a constant tug-of-war between the Marines and Navy since the decommissioning of the battleships in the early 1990s. The Navy loves its planes and long-range missile firing ships. Why isn’t that enough fire support for Marines who rarely assault beaches these days?
But the Marines still want dependable volume fires in any weather. Cruise missiles and F-18s aren’t going to cut it when the sky turns into soup or a ship’s captain has to justify firing a $750,000 Tomahawk missile for covering fire to Marines in contact. Ain’t gonna happen.
The Navy may be stalling for the next-gen gun – an electromagnetic rail gun to replace the 5-incher. But Marines need this support now, and it’s good to see the Navy’s starting to take this requirement seriously.
Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier welcomes Soldier feedback on all its products, including the Army Combat Uniform (ACU). Feedback from Soldiers has already led to several improvements to the uniform, many of which have been incorporated in ACUs delivered since March 2006.
The ACU is intended to last an average of 180 days in combat. It is made of the same 50/50 nylon/cotton blend fabric as the Enhanced Hot Weather Battle Dress Uniform (EHWBDU) and Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU) with the addition of a wrinkle-free treatment. Technical testing has shown ACU fabric exceeds all of the performance requirements, including tear strength, of the BDU and DCU fabric. Soldier feedback indicates they generally prefer the functionality of ACU over the BDU, especially while wearing Interceptor Body Armor.
Operational requirements call for the ability to quickly strip the ACU of all identifying patches. Given the state of today’s technology, that means hook and loop backing for cloth patches and pins and clutches for metal badges. The ACU uses hook and loop fasteners extensively. A durability problem with some of the early production of the fasteners was identified. Incorporating an improved hook tape with stiffer backing, alternate methods of sealing the edges of the tape, and improved sewing methods significantly improved the fasteners durability.
Soldiers also identified a problem with the closure on the trouser cargo pocket. This issue was traced to the hook tape which is apparently causing the loop tape to stretch and lose holding power. PEO Soldier is working with the suppliers of hook and loop tape to resolve this. Meanwhile, the cargo pocket has an elastic drawcord with a barrel lock that acts as a backup closure.
In response to the durability of the crotch, it has been redesigned using a heavier thread, more fabric in the seam, and stronger stitches. This redesign has more than doubled the strength of the crotch. Additionally, PEO-Soldier is awarding contracts to incorporate repairs to strengthen the crotch of the earlier ACU trousers still in the supply system.
Fire resistant (FR) uniforms are the subject of a recent Operational Need Statement (ONS) to provide additional FR uniforms. PEO-Soldier developed a fire resistant version of the ACU that provides similar FR protection to Nomex, but offers improved durability, breathability, moisture wicking, and comfort. ACU production contracts have been amended to produce the FR ACU, and deliveries are expected to begin July 2007.
There has been much discussion about the Universal Camouflage Pattern used on the ACU. Extensive laboratory and field tests were conducted on 11 candidate patterns and colors during development. MultiCam, then called Scorpion, was one of the patterns subjected to a series of laboratory and field evaluations, in multiple, realistic, operational environments under varied terrain and lighting conditions in 2003-04. The camouflage pattern selected was determined to provide the best overall effective concealment in multiple, operational environments, including urban, woodland, and desert scenarios.
The lighter colors required to obtain effective camouflage in multiple environments have posed a challenge for stain removal. Extensive laundry tests of the ACUs have been conducted to determine if the ACU soils more easily that the darker woodland BDU. Tests show the ACU and BDU stain similarly, but the darker color of BDUs hid stains. PEO-Soldier has been working with industry to incorporate a stain-release finish without compromising the performance of the wrinkle-free finish or other treatments, such as permethrin.
PEO-Soldier remains fully committed to incorporating Soldier feedback in the continual improvement of the ACU.
-- Christian
iPod Armor Update
DT just received an update on the iPod armor story. I can't vouch for the authenticity of the post, but thought I'd pass it along anyway since many of you have asked about Apple's follow-up, etc.
The iPod was how Kevin Garrad found out he was shot. This is the real story.
Kevin said he got into the fight with the insurgent and afterwards he did not know he was even shot. He said he returned to his bunk after the patrol, put on his earbuds and began to clean his weapon.
He said: “you get into a ritual out there.”
No music came on. He dug around in the pockets where he kept the iPod and pulled out the twisted hunk of metal that is in the pictures. He said that was how he found out that he had been shot during the fight. He was happy that his armor worked.
He said the upgraded armor he was wearing could stop the AK-47 round. It was not the newest armor that is in Iraq now, but it was an upgrade. This was his second iPod that he had brought to Iraq. The first had been damaged earlier and the store would not replace it, even with the additional warranty he purchased.
The pictures are what happens when an AK-47 bullet hits an iPod.
(Gouge:CM)
-- Christian
Virtual Gunfights
The mad scientists at the Office of Naval Research have just signed a contract to build two high-tech battle simulators for Marines to practice their lethal trade in a virtual environment.
Chief of Naval Research Rear Admiral William E. Landay III has announced the funding of a $1.3-million "Tech Solutions" project to deliver advanced infantry immersive training to Marines. This project will field two systems by the fall of 2007. The first system will be installed in the I MEF Battle Simulation Center at Camp Pendleton, California, and the second will be installed in the new Marine Expeditionary Rifle Integration Facility opening this summer near Quantico, Virginia.
The Infantry Immersive Trainer (IIT) is one of several virtual environment training projects that recently emerged out of a decade's worth of Office of Naval Research (ONR) science and technology investment. IIT will focus on treating Marines and Sailors and their supporting equipment (e.g., weaponry and information systems) as an integrated system to enable Naval warriors to win and survive in battle…
…The requirement for infantry immersive training was initiated in the spring of 2006 by Lieutenant General James Mattis, the current I MEF commanding general, while he was commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command. The U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education Command has incorporated this requirement into the Squad Immersive Training Environment Urgent Needs Statement.
Both the Army and Marine Corps have taken increasing advantage of realistic simulators that help infantrymen and other troops deal with the stresses of combat and the kind of shoot-no-shoot situations that often crop up in urban combat environments and counterinsurgencies.
For a while now, the Corps has been using FATS trainers for their troops and has migrated into using them for convoy practice, close air support training and artillery coordination. Range space is at a premium these days and with ammo resources devoted increasingly to the war, troops have fewer and fewer opportunities to train with the real thing.
The value of simulated training for ground forces is certainly debatable, but you can’t ignore the impact aircraft simulators have had on keeping aviators current and better prepared for in-flight emergencies. I’ve seen Marines and Soldiers use simulators like these for several years stateside and at prep bases in Kuwait and they seem to get real value out of them.
Officers and NCOs are big fans of the simulators because they allow Soldiers and Marines to make mistakes in a non-kinetic environment, so when they do get a few hours on the live-fire range, they can really concentrate on their TTPs rather than have to rehash basic rifleman skills.
-- Christian
The Sunday Paper (Special Insert)
Science fiction and military tech go together like Peeps and Easter, so for today's Sunday Paper I wanted to make sure DT visitors knew about the "Editor's Desk" podcast interview I did a couple of days ago with some of the principals from "Battlestar Galactica," including Richard Hatch (pictured) who played Apollo on the first version of the series and plays Tom Zarek on the current one.
If you're a fan of the show, which just finished its third season on the Sci Fi channel, I submit this podcast is a "must listen." And if you're not a fan, as a latecomer myself I'm here to tell you you should be.
Oh, and you'll note the photo is autographed especially for you . . . you DT visitor-person reading this right now. Nice touch, huh? No problem. You're worth the effort.
As a follow-up to my EMALS interview with Capt. Rorke, the cats and traps czar at NAVAIR, I spoke with Capt. Michael Schwartz, the Future Aircraft Carrier Program Manager at NAVSEA.
Capt. Schwartz provided some details behind Capt. Rorke's somewhat cryptic references regarding the future catapult system's "shipboard integration challenges." And DT is pleased to report all is well.
First, EMALS did indeed exceed its alloted real estate at one point, but that issue actually forced engineers into the realization that - because of excess capacity - they could get away with three energy storage devices per catapult instead of 4. Real estate concerns gone.
Schwartz also explained EMALS has the reliablity and survivability features that the legacy system does not: Any of the energy storage devices can serve any of the cats. "Right now [with the current steam catapult system] if a component breaks, that cat is down," Schwartz said. "With EMALS that won't be the case."
And the weight problem? Well, get a load of this: Each catapult exceeds its target weight by 100 tons. The solution? No action required. They're simply going to suck it up. Schwartz explained that the USS Gerald R. Ford is designed to weigh 100,000 tons, give or take 5,000 tons. So a mere 400 tons is noise.
And here is where old skool brownshoes start to feel the years raging by: Because there's no steam plant to warm up and components to elongate, etc., there will be no need to shoot "no loads" before flight ops commence. And the EMALS system doesn't have a water brake to stop the shuttle at the end of the stroke. The system simply uses reverse magnetic polarity to stop. So there won't be that skull-jarring smash at the end of each cat shot anymore. Peace in Wardroom One! The squadron bubbas will actually be able to hear each other's stories now.
Additionally, cat shots can be programmed to be extremely smooth while still giving aircraft the proper end speed off the bow (and waist). No more INS alignment-dumping shots like Cat 4 on Indy back in the day. Strap on some AIM-54s and a TARPS pod . . . now that was a shot, my friends. And this sort of programming around EMALS has built-in safeguards that will eliminate the need for aviators to roger a weight board as they taxi up to the cat. (So what are Super Hornet WSOs supposed to do while the pilots are spreading the wings?)
Throw in UCAS sharing the flight deck come 2020 and you have a recipe for paralyzing future shock. Alas, Capt. Schwartz allayed my fears somewhat: "We want to honor the time-tested mechanisms that have served to make carrier aviation safe," he said. "People will still be in the loop where required."
Alright, how many gigs does it take to stop a 7.62 round?
I’m not sure, but if you look at this photo, it takes at least 20G to slow one down.
The pic may have already made the rounds on the net, but it’s worth a second look.
How about a little Good Friday contest?
Question: How many more tactical uses are out there for the ever-popular iPod?
(I’ll post the winning comments as they come in)
DT reader "mrnitropb" writes:
Use the chrome side as a tac mirror for looking around corners.
Use it to listen to Arabic/Farsi language tapes. English track listings for Arabic phrases, choose an aproppriate phrase and share the earbud with person.
Hook up a speaker for that "Ride of the Valkrie" effect before hitting a zone.
I have heard of use #3, though the tune was far more head-banging than Wagner...
...and "RJB1012" passes along his (tongue-in-cheek?) ideas:
turn it on and use it as a tactical light when entering a room
turning the ipod on and off so the light can be used for signalling
something to keep the POWs entertained....
take the old ipods, as an all out last resort, and just throw it at 'em
We posted an excellent story today written by one of our contributors critiquing the Army’s new combat uniform. Eric Coulson, who commands an engineer company doing some IED-busting in the sandbox, tackles the issue of the uniform’s color scheme, construction and materials.
One thing he mentions is the under-the-radar popularity among some in the military of a new pattern called “multicam.” The Army’s Natick Soldier Systems Center is looking at multicam for its defunct (sort of) Future Force/Land Warrior ensemble.
While the multicam looks good for a woodland - or even urban - environment, I wonder how it would work in the desert. The most popular desert pattern in Iraq is the Marine Corps’ desert MarPat scheme, which blends in well against the mud-brick construction of Iraqi buildings and can barely be seen through night vision goggles with a desert rock backdrop.
There are some photos out there on the net of operators wearing the multicam in Southwest scrubland, but that’s with a lot of green around. Surely the folks at Natick are hard at work tweeking the multicam pattern for multi-environment use.
The newly-named USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is the first of the next generation of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, and with these ships are plans for the incorporation of radical new technology.
The most basic mission of an aircraft carrier is to launch and recover . . . duh . . . aircraft. The Electro-magnetic Aircraft Launch System is being fielded to take care of what we call the "shooting off the pointy end" or launch part.
In very basic terms, the legacy steam catapult system uses energy to "push" the shuttle down the track to launch aircraft. EMALS uses magnetic fields to "pull" the shuttle to affect the same end.
EMALS consists of four major subsystems:
Linear Induction Motor (LIM)
The LIM, developed in a configuration for the flight deck, is a compact, modular, integrated structure. The motor design will tolerate the range of conditions experienced in the flight deck environment and operating scenarios. The simple moving shuttle will interface with the aircraft in the same manner as the existing catapults.
Power Conversion Electronics
The power conversion electronics derive power from the energy store and convert this power to constant-current ac with increasing frequency and voltage to drive the shuttle along the launch stroke. Based on solid-state technology that GA uses in its line of commercial power equipment, the power electronics are packaged as compact modules in cabinets that are located below-deck in the carrier.
Shipboard Energy Store
The shipboard energy store consists of rotating energy storage machines connected to the power trains and LIM.
Control System
The EMALS achieves a peak-to-mean force ratio much lower than those of steam catapults by using a state-of-the-art control system to control the current into the LIM. (Source: General Atomics)
So what are the basic advantages of EMALS over the time-tested steam catapults? "We don't have all that steam piping running all over the ship," Capt. Steven Rorke, NAVAIR's program manager for shipboard launch and recovery systems, explained during a recent interview with DT. "The steam stays in the plant generating electricity and then the electricity runs around the ship."
The second major attribute is the growth potential of the system in terms of dealing with what Capt. Rorke called "the air wing of the future" including unmanned vehicles. "We can control the launch sequence much more precisely."
And lastly, Rorke claimed EMALS will require fewer Sailors to operate and maintain.
"The technology is proven," said Rorke. "We developed a full-scale but about half-length track that we tested at the Naval Engineering Station at Lakehurst to prove the control theory and the logic. We're in the phase now of building shipboard representative equipment."
But although "the technology is proven," like all good acquistions programs, issues remain unresolved. For EMALS the main issue is non-trivial: Will it fit on the carrier? "We're not the only customer on the ship," Rorke said. "Finding real estate to put everything in is a challenge."
And as with most aircraft development programs, keeping the weight of the system under control is a challenge.
In any case, the folks at General Atomics, NAVAIR, and NAVSEA have some time to figure it out. CVN 78 isn't scheduled to sail into harm's way until 2015.
So it seems the Israeli army is dumping the M4 and jumping on the “bullpup” design bandwagon, fielding a new Tavor-built TAR-21 assault rifle to its troops that looks more like the Austrian Steyr and British Enfield L85 rifle.
This is significant because the Israeli military is one of the only other modern armies in the world that has fielded the M4 as widely as the United States. It’s unclear whether the Israelis are changing their weapons because of the M4’s notorious jamming problems, or if they were just looking to update their assault rifle with integrated red-dot/laser sighting and shorten the rifle – which a bullpup design let’s you do because the barrel and receiver is essentially in the butt stock.
But checking out the video, it looks like a pretty good piece of gear to me.
Headshots at 300 yards with a bullpup? The shooter may have been a former sniper, but that’s still a tough shot to make standing up with such a short weapon.
(Gouge: WaZinn)
-- Christian
Gov't Says Osprey's On Track
In DT's ongoing quest to bring our readers both sides of the story and the full truth in all matters defense and tech, we offer this press release forwarded to us by Jamie Darcy at the V-22 program at NAVAIR:
MV-22 on track for Initial Operational Capability
WASHINGTON — The MV-22 Osprey has accomplished two major steps required for initial operational capability (IOC) with completion of a major Block B operational test period and a successful IOC Supportability Review pre-board, program officials announced at a press conference April 4.
Col. Mathew Mulhern, V-22 Osprey Joint Program Manager, and Gene Cunningham, Bell Boeing V-22 Deputy Program Manager, briefed reporters at the Navy League Sea-Air-Space Expo in Washington on the MV-22’s progress toward combat readiness. The Marine Corps’ tiltrotor is expected to earn the go-ahead this summer for operational deployment, bolstered in part by the aircraft’s high performance under mission-representative testing in February and March.
Marine Tiltrotor Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22) put the Block B Osprey – the combat configuration of the aircraft – through its paces for that evaluation period, known to testers as OT-IIIA. Crews completed 120 Block B flight hours and an additional 65 hours on Block A aircraft, in real-world scenarios over 18 days in the California and Arizona deserts. Crewmembers from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 (VMM-263) and Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204 (VMMT-204) also participated.
“Although the official test report won’t be issued until later this month, initial results tell us that the Osprey really showed its full potential, both in terms of mission performance and reliability,” Mulhern says. Block B improvements for the Bell Boeing tiltrotor include the Ramp Mounted Weapon System, retractable refueling probe, personnel hoist and fast rope system, mission auxiliary tanks, and numerous reliability and maintainability upgrades.
“The aircraft did very well. We were actually above our normal mission-capable averages for those three weeks,” says Lt. Col. Denny Sherwood, VMX-22 aircraft maintenance officer. Maintenance resources and supplies were all in keeping with standard deployment planning, he says. “We had the aircraft we needed to accomplish all the missions despite the high op tempo.”
Those missions included a 2,100 mile self-deployment, assault raids, company insertions, recon insertions and extractions, casualty evacuations, tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel, noncombatant evacuation operations, and battlefield logistics. Missions involved fast rope and personnel hoist operations, external lift of the M777 Lightweight Howitzer, 1,200 rounds fired from the Ospreys’ M-240D ramp-mounted machine guns, and 22 aerial refuelings. A third of the flying was done at night, including eight aerial refuelings.
Crews faced multiple ground threats day and night, to validate and refine the tactics, techniques and procedures for objective area entry and threat reaction. They also integrated their operations with F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8 Harriers and AH-1 Cobras. For troop delivery and recovery missions, the MV-22s carried 22 to 24 Marines, along with their gear. Average mileage per mission was 725 nautical miles, with the four VMX-22 aircraft logging a total of 30,000 miles during the evaluation period.
“We absolutely went out there and operated in a very operationally representative manner,” says VMX-22 Commanding Officer Col. Keith Danel. “You name it, we did it, and the aircraft held up very well. And we operated it in a gritty, windy, austere environment, and maintained a very high tempo.”
The Marine Corps has extensive experience operating the Osprey in the desert, and Sherwood said many maintenance lessons have been learned along the way. Besides prior operational testing in the desert in 2004 and 2005, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 (VMM-263) completed an extended training deployment to Naval Air Facility El Centro, Calif., in September and October 2006.
Operating under deployed conditions in the sand, squadron maintainers generated mission capable rates with their Block B Ospreys on par with goals for actual deployment.
“We know that if the Osprey deploys to the desert, it’s going to see the same increased wear and tear that the every other aircraft sees over there. So we’ve planned our logistics support accordingly,” Mulhern says.
On March 23, the Osprey program earned a passing grade on its logistics support plans for first deployment from the final IOC Supportability Review pre-board, which has convened every six months over the last two years to track logistics planning.
“It’s not enough to give a capable aircraft system to the operators. You have to deliver it with all the support necessary to keep those aircraft up and flying over the long haul, whenever and wherever they’re needed,” says Mulhern.
The IOC Supportability Review board membership includes the Second Marine Aircraft Wing, Commander Naval Air Forces, Marine Forces Command, the Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Inventory Control Point and other key agencies. Their endorsement will be a required precursor for the Marine Corps to declare the Osprey ready for deployment. That decision is expected this summer, following a positive OT-IIIA report and final capability additions to VMM-263’s Block B Ospreys.
Beyond the positive performance of the aircraft and identification of remaining corrective action items, Danel says OT-IIIA has larger implications for validating the acquisition strategy adopted by the Marine Corps and Program Office for the MV-22. He points out that while the formal Block B operational test period has only just concluded, individual Block B capabilities have been tested incrementally over the last year and delivered to the Fleet for training and integration as soon as they were cleared.
“We’ve produced interim assessment reports on capabilities as they’ve been available . . . In the old acquisition system, we would have done OT-IIIA and then cleared the Fleet to fly Block B. Because we’ve released capabilities as they’ve been tested, the squadrons are nine months to a year ahead of where they would have been. It really speaks volumes about the successfulness of spiral development, spiral testing and interim reporting.”
“It’s up to the Marine Corps and the Department of Defense to decide when and where to deploy this aircraft,” Mulhern said. “But we’re committed to ensuring they have the capability they need and all the support to employ it anywhere in the world.”
I had an interesting chat yesterday at the Navy League’s “Sea Air Space” symposium in Washington with an official from Raytheon who was pitching a new system aimed at communicating with submarines more quickly than previous methods.
The funny thing about it is how simple the system really is. And I kept wondering, “Why hadn’t anyone thought of this before?”
It’s called Deep Siren, and it’s a first step in providing real-time communications with submarines operating far below the ocean surface. It all started back in late 2004, when at a Navy/industry symposium the service’s then chief of nuclear reactor programs told an audience that industry should get off its duff and develop a way to talk to subs in a timelier manner.
In the past, subs had to come to the surface to communicate, using antennas that received pre-recorded messages from home base. A sub commander read down the list to see which messages he already had and took in the ones he didn’t. He then fired off his message, and slinked back to the murky deep. Not exactly a good way to have a timely conversation with your commander, admitted William Matzelevich, electronic systems sales executive for Raytheon.
So, what Matzelevich’s team did, is they took a standard Navy sono-buoy, rejiggered the guts a bit, tweaked the algorithms and acoustics and set up a “secret decoder ring” housed in a laptop that can translate the messages into comprehensible language. Sound strange? It isn’t.
Basically, the system Raytheon’s developed allows a sub commander, or a surface commander, to send a message or data through a commercial Iridium satellite phone connection to one of these communications sono-buoys. The buoy then transmits the message through a series of “boinks and bings” to the sub, which can receive the signal up to 150 miles away from the buoy. The computer onboard the sub translates the “boinks and bings” into language: “Reposition to coordinates, etc., etc., etc…” The sub captain can then respond to the message sending his own series of “boinks and bings” that then rings the ship captain’s Iridium phone.
It remains to be seen how far this initiative gets. So far, the program is suckling off Pentagon and Navy experimental program dollars that are never very consistent – it’s still not a program of record for the Navy. But the Navy is moving ahead to fund an overall communications architecture for its fleet that will include real-time or near-real-time communications with subs. Hopefully something like this will become standard, especially since today’s subs have become an integral part of joint operations where speed is key.
-- Christian
Do JSF Delays Mean More Super Hornets?
Roxana Tiron at The Hill is reporting today that Boeing using delays in the Joint Strike Fighter program as an opportunity to sell more Super Hornets to the U.S. Navy.
Roxana writes that "the stakes are high, for Boeing could eventually be inched out of the domestic fighter jet business if the Navy does not buy more F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets after fiscal 2012." She also mentions a brewing foreign military sales battle in Australia between Lockheed (the JSF prime contractor) and Boeing.
For the Navy's part, they would certainly love a good excuse to add more Super Hornets to their defense budget wish list. The airplane has proved reliable, maintainable, and capable. And the AESA radar is arguably a next-generation "game changer."
The competition between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin should do nothing but get more intense as time goes on here. DT will be watching . . .
I just wanted to call everyone’s attention to the story we’re running today on the Army’s new body armor design. As some of you may know, body armor is a subject about which I have spent a considerable amount of coverage over the years (no pun intended, I swear).
What I found in my reporting put the Army and Marine Corps in a defensive crouch for years, prompting major recalls of body armor production lots that had not passed quality assurance testing.
While the ground services haven’t changed the fundamental components of their body armor, both the Army and Marine Corps have redesigned their vests to make them more comfortable and safer than the Point Blank-manufactured Interceptor. The latest design from the Army is a positive step in this regard. Having spent a lot of time in body armor in war zones, I have never been a fan of the Interceptor design for comfort and coverage reasons, and it’s good to see that the services have made changes.
DT obtained photos of the new Army vest from PEO Soldier, so let’s take an inside look at what changes have been made.
You’ll notice in the first photo (front view) that the vest wraps around the body more efficiently and has integrated side-plate carriers that can adjust up and down. There’s also a pull-tab just below the chin that allows the wearer to doff the vest in a hurry. Also, check out all the MOLLE webbing – attachment points for mag pouches and accessory pockets.
In the second photo (back view), you’ll see a large outer pouch for the ESAPI plate. The larger ESAPI was always harder to fit in the Interceptor pocket and was exposed to the elements from the upper flap. There’s also a larger haul loop on the back to drag your wounded buddy out of harm’s way. You can also see the inner mesh lining of the vest that helps wick moisture away from the body.
The last photo (open front view) shows a more detailed look at the inner components of the new IOTV, its wrap around fit and the neck and chin guard integrated into the collar. Also notice the side access point on the left shoulder. That’s so medics can get to wounds easier and also allows a soldier to vent the vest in stifling heat.
At first blush, I’d say the Army has done a good job picking its new design. Soldiers will be a lot more comfortable in the thing and it seems as if the vest will offer more protection from blast scenarios than the Interceptor. What isn’t shown in these pictures is the inner cummerbund – which helps distribute the weight onto the waist – and a new lower-back protector to protect the kidneys and other vital organs where the vest tends to ride up.
The next step in body armor design will likely be a fundamental shift in ballistic resistant components. As far as I know, the new Army vest is made of the same materials as the prior one: Kevlar panels with boron carbide ceramic and Dyneema-backed plates. Both components are heavy and ceramic is hard to manufacture and is a delicate material. I understand from some sources that Pinnacle’s Dragon Skin armor was not one of the 17 designs submitted to the Army last year. I’m not sure why, but leaps in protective technology and design are sure to be incorporated into the next armor sets fielded by the Army and Marines.
The Virginian Pilot is reporting today that the Joint Forces Command has undertaken a new effort to develop technology to help troops navigate in urban environments. According to the article "the aim is to develop a hybrid tracking system using various navigation sensors and radio waves that could be used when GPS isn't available, such as inside buildings or underground in tunnels or in caves."
The plan is to get several prototypes to the Marine Corps for testing by May 2008. The effort has two purposes -- to help field commanders keep track of individual troops as they carry out missions and to allow Soldiers to monitor their own locations. Jim Benson, the director of advanced technology for the Anaheim, Calif.-based Interstate Electronics said it could help eliminate "friendly fire" deaths, citing the highly publicized case involving Pat Tillman, an Army Ranger killed in Afghanistan by fellow Soldiers.
The Pentagon announced yesterday its “new starts” for the 2007 Joint Capability Technology Demonstration program. The program has morphed this year from the “Advanced” Capability Technology Demonstration program to the current “Joint” one, which emphasizes a needs-based approach over a “gee-wiz, look what we found” model where the Pentagon pushes the new technologies on the services.
There have definitely been some good products emerging from this program – including laser-resistant eyewear and helmet visors – and it’s encouraging to see some useful ideas earning the DoD cash once again.
Fiscal 2007 New Starts:
Tactical Service Provider (TSP) - Mobile, wireless high-throughput broadband connections over long distances
Mapping the Human Terrain (MAP-HT) - Visualization of socio-cultural information
Joint Multi-Mission Electro-Optical System (JMMES) - Counter camouflage, concealment, and deception
Smart Threads Integrated Radiation Sensors (STIRS) - Radiation sensors for state-of-the-art maritime interdiction and battlefield radiation detection
For the full gouge on all the programs, check out the Pentagon’s JCTD site.
-- Christian
"Roger, ball, Drone. You're high . . ."
Images like this one really get my attention because they bring the theory of UAVs to carrier-based life. But, first things first. Always awesome Amy Butler reports today at Aviation Week that the U.S. Navy is finally accepting proposals for stealthy unmanned combat aerial system (UCAS) vehicles that can demonstrate a capability to operate from carriers. According to Amy's report "Boeing and Northrop Grumman have been dusting off their earlier X-45 and X-47 designs for the Navy's recent request for proposals (RFP) on the UCAS-D (demonstrator) program. The RFP involves a specific set of requirements for carrier operations, including catapult launch, arrested landing and deck handling."
So we take another step toward the day when a Hornet pilot looks over from where he's parked under the island and sees an unmanned vehicle taxi past on its way to the cat.
And so too closer is the day when a Hornet pilot gets cut out of the spin pattern by an unmanned vehicle. And, while we're on the subject, who will the air boss yell at over the radio when an unmanned vehicle pulls power in the wires?
You might think the Army would still be shy over publicity for the Aerial Common Sensor (ACS, for short).
Some of you will recall that ACS was the acquisition program that got cancelled in January 2006 in a most embarrassing fashion. Somehow, Lockheed Martin promised the Army that they could squeeze a 20,000-pound sensor on an aircraft with only 14,000lbs of extra room … and the Army bought it.
There were lots of reasons and justifications given for the oversight, but, really, it was just a dumb mistake. The army threw away $200 million and five years of wasted time.
So it was a bit surprising this week to see ACS back in an Army news release.
Of course, the need remains to replace the Army’s RC-7 and RC-12 with a spy aircraft built after the Apple IIe computer generation. (The Navy’s need to replace the EP-3 also lurks in the background, but they have other options than ACS.)
So, for the Army, the need remains, but so does the question: How?
The ACS is supposed to be a platform that can see all and hear all. In the intelligence world, that means you need a very sophisticated TV camera and an antenna receiver that can pick up everything from a high-bandwidth fire control radar system to a low-bandwidth cell phone held by the trigger-man of an improvised explosive device.
That is asking a lot for any one sensor to do.
With so many competing demands for cash, a next-generation spy aircraft may not be at the top of the Army’s budget priority list.
Look for the Army to start cheap with an “off-the-shelf” sensor. One candidate often floated in industry circles is Northrop Grumman’s Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload (ASIP). It is already flying aboard the U-2 spy plane and is selected for two unmanned aircraft – the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9B Predator.
The TV camera - also known in the military as a “charge-coupled device” - may be added to this system, or that part of the payload could be outsourced to another unmanned aircraft, such as the army’s RQ-7 Shadow or MQ-12 Warrior.
For some Monday morning reading, take a look at an exclusive interview with counterinsurgency guru, Gen. David Petraeus, obtained by our friends over at the Op-For blog. I’ve excerpted some of the interview - conducted by author and military historian Richard S. Lowry – but you can read the entire article here…
“[The Iraqis] have endured a lot. They are a resilient people; it’s a nation of survivors. It’s a nation of people that in many respects have endured enormous oppression.”
“You have to then say that every place in the country is different and that there are certainly nine provinces in the south that are relatively calm. Certainly there are challenges in various places at various times but they are ones that the Iraqis generally can solve if they have too. And, then of course there are the three Kurdish provinces that are very calm [and are] relatively progressive in the sense of free market economics within a still somewhat central governmentally run economy, but there is a lot of private investment.”
“It’s a big competition right now among a variety of groups; and, again in an environment, in Baghdad in particular, [that is] very heavily colored by an influence of the sectarian violence.”
“Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions” of Iraqis have been displaced.
“Most damaging of all,” General Petraeus contends that the situation “has reinforced suspicions or created suspicions where there weren’t any between Sunni and Shia in a country in which there is a fair amount intermarriage between the sects in the past and where sectarian violence was not a huge issue, perhaps partly because Saddam ruled with an iron hand and put down the Shia all the time.”
“In Anbar Province an encouraging development is the rise of Sheiks and tribes who want to fight against Al-Qaeda and to secure their own areas to contribute to the Iraqi Security Forces, in particular in there own areas.”
“Baghdad, a city the size of Los Angeles, is spread out and very diverse. What you have there is almost a tale of two cities to some degree. It is a tale of one city that is predominantly Shia, those areas in which security is pretty good. Al–Qaeda is trying to get in and blow them up periodically but the checkpoints are stopping a good bit of that. Where commerce has returned, the markets have reopened. We have hardened all the markets. And I’m talking about enormous markets that have tens of thousands of people. Those areas have bounced back very, very well.”
“Then you have the mixed areas though that are still in the sense battlegrounds…All it takes is one death squad just to really literally ruin the neighborhood. They are fault line neighborhoods or they are Sunni Arab neighborhoods that are under threat from both Al-Qaeda, who’s trying to retain them as logistical routes or safe havens, and by, in some cases, Shia extremists who are trying to expand into those areas or to push into another block or another neighborhood.”
“You have to have a national government. You have to have national direction. I think the army is one of the better stories. It is a mixed bag in some cases but, by in large, the army has some quite good units, quite heartening units. I was just up in Ninewa Province for example and there are two pretty good Iraqi Army Divisions up there. In fact, we have only a single battalion contributing to the security in Mosul, in large measure because there is a pretty good Iraqi Army Division, pretty good police chief and police force. It is not perfect. It’s under threat. Al-Qaeda is trying to open a new front there. They did manage to break guys out of a prison. There are all kinds of pressures and challenges. But that’s actually a place where you can see the future of a smaller coalition presence and Iraqis stepping up to the plate and taking over. I wouldn’t say its easy there because you have some real ethnic challenges between Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds.”
“Hopefully, we can create a window for opportunity for the Iraqi leaders so that they can bridge some of the differences [and] achieve true national reconciliation. And if they can’t, then we gotta look each other in the eye and say it's not gonna happen and say we need a Plan B.”
And ‘Plan B’ may come as a congressional mandate in March 2008, when U.S. forces are due to begin leaving a shattered Iraq.
Our friend Joe at Defense Industry Daily has done some brilliant analysis of DoD contract award announcements and come up with the following: The military spent over $4 billion in awarding gas contracts during the month of March 2007 alone. This figure exceeds last year's by over $1 billion.
The hefty sum adds some immediacy to what Steve Trimble reported here some weeks ago. (At this rate the military may be bankrupt by 2050.)
In a surprise move, early Sunday the White House announced that President Bush asked longtime confidant and political advisor Karl Rove to vacate his position within the administration.
“Effective immediately, Karl Rove is no longer part of the Bush White House,” acting White House spokesperson Dana Perino said in a very brief statement early Sunday.
While the president was unavailable for comment at press time, he did hint at the move during his weekly radio address on Saturday. “A great banjo player once wrote, ‘The times they are a-changing,’” Bush said toward the end of his remarks. “Change is, how do you say . . . good.”
A Bush insider who spoke on the condition of anonymity stated that the president had grown tired of Rove’s polarizing counsel. “The president simply realized he wants to be the decider not the divider,” the insider said. “And so it’s time for Karl to move on.”
The source also mentioned that President Bush didn’t care for how Rove styled his hair: “More than once I’ve heard the president quip, ‘Nice mullet,’ to Karl.”
Rove had no comment for the press corps as he made his way to his courtesy car for perhaps the last time, but he was heard to mumble, “This is either the work of George Wilson or a really obnoxious April Fools joke.”
