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” o
