The Sunday Paper

This week's cover article in Time magazine is about the V-22. The title of the article - "A Flying Shame" - gives you a pretty good indication of writer Mark Thompson's thesis.

I was contacted by Thompson in late August. During our half hour conversation I offered pretty much the same thoughts I put out here some months ago regarding the Osprey's warfighting potential, including my belief that the airplane really could "change everything" in terms of how the Marine Corps fights.

Well, Thompson left out the part where I indicated my support and hopes for VMM-263's success and resultantly I am presented as a "critic."

Serves me right, I guess. I dealt with this type of reporter for three years in support of the program and was often frustrated by what they left out of the final product. That's what I get for attempting a complete thought with a reporter who's reverse engineering a story. I should have used my "risk communications" training during this conversation.

As I've written here before, Godspeed to the "Thunder Chickens" and all who work in support of the V-22 around the fleet. I hope to be proved wrong with my (now well circulated) concerns, including the mishap rate. In fact, I'm planning on it.

Here's a video of Colonel "Bluto" Walters, USMC - former CO of VMX-22 - addressing Thompson's points on Fox News.

As always, we'll be keeping DT readers up on what's happening - both good and bad - with this crucial first deployment.

-- Ward

Why We Fight: Friday Follies Edition

In this week's edition of the Friday Follies, here's why we at DT are confident of victory in Afghanistan. With professionals like these, no one else stands a chance.

Have a great weekend...

-- Christian

Army Sees Budget Crunch Looming

From a story we posted on Military.com this morning...

It's like calling the auto parts store and ordering a new battery that you're not sure you can pay for two months from now.

That's the situation in which the Army finds itself given the funding delays imposed by Congress for the 2008 fiscal year that begins Monday.

Army Secretary Pete Geren said Sept. 27 he's frustrated that Congress is continuing to dither on approving the money he needs to run the service, with some reports indicating lawmakers might not be able to approve a defense budget until January.

Instead, lawmakers plan to use a budgeting tool called a "continuing resolution" that will fund the overall government, including the Pentagon, at 2007 levels for only 45 days. That ambiguity hurts the Army's ability to purchase needed equipment, such as vehicle repair parts.

"If we were to find ourselves in a situation where we had multiple 45-day [continuing resolutions], we can't run an organization like the Army with that kind of predictability," Geren told a group of defense reports at a breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C.

"We've got to be able to plan months out and years out," he added.

The Senate has yet to agree to a Pentagon authorization bill or its version of the DoD appropriations bill. That could happen by mid-October but the House and Senate version have to be reconciled then agreed to before the cash can start flowing.

The clock is ticking, though, with the House set to recess for the year in late October and the Senate scheduled to recess in mid-November.

Geren explained that the funding uncertainty makes it nearly impossible to plan for upgrades and other initiatives that need some lead time. For example, it's difficult to commit to payments for new Bradley Fighting Vehicle transmissions if the Army is uncertain whether it will have the funds to pay for them a couple months down the road.

"To have uncertainty hanging over the head of an organization that 'will the next tranche of money come 45 days from now, 60 days from now?' That's hard to plan, it's hard to invest," Geren explained.

With the Army spending about $18 billion per month just to run the service, the lack of funding stability makes life hard for Army planners to pay the bills.

"If we do find ourselves in a 45-day type of a funding approach, that will make things hard for the Army that will make things expensive for the Army," Geren said. "Much of our support force requires longer-term investments that you can't turn on and turn off."

-- Christian

Are the French Looking to Sling Lead for NATO?

France is expected to soon rejoin NATO's military command after a 40-year absence. The French government withdrew from the NATO military structure in 1966 (although remaining a member of NATO's political-policy structure). France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has placed strong emphasis on France's relationship with the United States. And, he recently declared that he would soon undertake "very strong" initiatives on European defense and give France "its full place" in NATO.

Subsequently, Defense Minister Herve Morin said that he was "convinced that European defense will make no progress unless France changes its political behavior
within NATO."

Then-general Dwight D. Eisenhower established NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) as the principal command of NATO's military forces in Paris in early 1951. The headquarters remained in the Paris area until in February 1966, when French President Charles de Gaulle stated that the changed world order had "stripped NATO of its justification" for military integration and that France was therefore justified in re-asserting its sovereignty over French territory. Consequently, all allied forces within France's borders would have to come under
French control by April 1969.

Soon afterward, France stated that it was withdrawing from the NATO military structure and that the NATO Headquarters, the NATO Defence College, and SHAPE and its subordinate headquarters must leave French territory by April 1967. (NATO Headquarters was based in Paris, in the Palais de l'OTAN, currently occupied by the Université Paris-Dauphine.)

Subsequently, NATO's military headquarters were relocated to Casteau, north of the Belgian city of Mons.

Despite having withdrawn from the NATO military structure, French naval forces conducted bilateral exercises with other NATO navies, including the U.S. Navy. And, certain U.S.-French weapon agreements were undertaken, especially for upgrading American-built tanker aircraft and ship-launched missiles. The French joined other NATO forces in the Bosnia conflict as well as the 1991 assault on Iraq to free Kuwait, which Iraqi forces had taken over the previous summer.

Although the previous French government was not supportive of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the French did send forces to Afghanistan. However, earlier this year France withdrew its 200-strong special forces from Afghanistan; those ground troops were participating in the U.S anti-terror operation code-named Enduring Freedom. The then-Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said, "There is a general reorganization of our [troops]." However, the 1,100 French troops engaged in the separate, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force remain in Afghanistan.

U.S. forces have also worked with French forces in Djibouti in northeast Africa. (Djibouti is a small, impoverished republic just north of the Horn of Africa on the strait of Bab el-Mandeb. It is bordered by Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea, an area of great political and economic turmoil.)

The United States has used the French military-air base in Djibouti for several combat and support operations in the region. Indeed, the case can be made that—despite its public stance—the French have been most helpful to several U.S. military activities.

-- Norman Polmar

AF Brass Bristle at Drone Decision

The Pentagon's number two official tried to throw cold water on this cat fight, but it seems that the fur is still flying.

On Sept. 13, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England forwarded a memorandum to the service chiefs and top Pentagon officials rejecting a recommendation that the Air Force be the central authority for high and medium-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles.

Air Force brass figured since they do most of the flying these days, the atmosphere - and most everything in it - should be their domain.

But over the last several years the Army has expanded its use of UAVs - particularly medium altitude ones - and they were dead-set against letting their sister service tear control of those assets out of their hands.

What England did was to shift oversight responsibility to the Pentagon, convening a task force that will examine UAV issues and map out a coherent strategy for all the services to develop drone needs, missions and systems, so resources aren't wasted and there's better coordination.

But that doesn't sit well with some top Air Force commanders who see this as more of the same.

"A committee has often been described as a cul-de-sac down which good ideas are lured and then quietly strangled," said Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command, during a panel discussion with top Air Force generals in Washington.

"My thought is let's put somebody in charge of this, let's hold him accountable, and let's see if he can't sort this out," he said.

The Air Force's top general was more diplomatic in his criticism, arguing that England's decision is still new and a lot could come of the task force developing the UAV roadmap.

"There has to be a better way to do this," said Air Force chief, Gen. Michael "Buzz" Moseley. "I'm not unhappy with the steps that [England] has made in these first steps. There are more steps to go."

Moseley pointed to the need for an overall concept of operations, standardization in how to communicate and guide UAVs, a coherent way to manage all the drones flying around the battlefield and what will be needed to protect drones from an increasing air defense threat.

"This is a recognition of the environment that we have identified as Airmen because this battlespace is something we are very familiar with," Moseley added.

Drones have become an increasingly important part of military operations over the last decade. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the need for pinpoint surveillance of enemy activity, given the rugged terrain and inner-city warrens insurgents covet.

The explosion of unmanned systems has led to the recent debate over control of the drone fleet, a matter of particular worry to the Air Force which is concerned that the growing swarms of UAVs could endanger their manned and unmanned planes.

On the other hand, Army officials are reluctant to cede control of their drones for fear they won't be distributed overhead where they're needed most by commanders in combat.

"Now we're in a situation where the Army and the Air Force are essentially competing for production of UAVs. And that's not good," Keys said.

Nevertheless, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council - a Pentagon panel that advises civilian officials on the overall needs of the services - recommended this summer that the Air Force assume the role of "executive agent" for UAVs.

Then England stepped in.

"There's more work to be done; more demonstrating competency to be done; better work on defining requirements; better work on defining capacity. That's ahead of us," Moseley said.

It is unclear how this debate will eventually shake out. With the separate reports that need to be issued, the coordination of procurement and the development of an overall UAV architecture for all the services, there will certainly be more inter-service jockeying as the plans take shape.

"I'm not sure we don't know where every convoy is ... and whether I've got [surveillance] assets in the right place to see what needs to be seen before they drive into an ambush," Keys said. "That's what an executive agent works through to provide the capability to connect all these things."

-- Christian

The Body Armor Debate Hits PBS

A quick head's up here. My friend Paul Solman, the economics correspondent for PBS's News Hour show, just broadcast his package on the body armor procurement controversy.

While he doesn't mention Defense Tech by name, he did afford us a screen shot and pulled documents from my previous work on the story with Marine Corps Times newspaper.

Follow this LINK to watch the program.

-- Christian

Anti-Piracy Missions for Global Hawk

The commander of U.S. Air Force assets in the Pacific said Tuesday he’d like to see high-altitude, long-endurance surveillance drones like the RQ-4 Global Hawk perform non-military missions to protect commerce in the region.

Gen. Paul Hester told a gathering at the Air and Space conference in Washington he’s been in discussions with regional commanders and Pacific Rim governments over the last two years to see how the Air Force could patrol economic choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca, using Global Hawk and other drones.

“There’s a much broader array of things that we can do with ISR platforms, both RQ-1 Predators and Global Hawks,” Hester said. “Where does ISR play into the performance of all of us and our desire for peace and security in the Pacific – to secure [and] guarantee the economies of those countries better throughout the Pacific? And how do we protect those lines of communication – both air and sea lines of communication? Almost half of the world’s oil passes through the Malaccan Straits every day.”

Hester said he’s been talking to regional governments to see if drones could extend their ranges by stopping off at friendly bases – something he called “gas-and-go” operations.

“Is there a way that we can use in a consortium-style operation ... in a way that we can share information?” he wondered.

In the end, though, Hester has a pretty good point. It’s what former Marine Commandant Mike Hagee called “Phase Zero” operations. Those all-seeing eyes could keep potentially bad situations from getting totally out of hand.

“I call it the left end of the low end of operations where we provide those eyes, ears and information for decision makers – both military and political – then we have the ability to solve problems early as opposed to waiting until later when we’ve got our guns drawn and we’re pointing them at each other,” Hester said.

The Global Hawk is scheduled to deploy to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam in 2009 to replace the U-2 missions over the Korean peninsula. Hester said he’s planning a test-run of his economic security theory with a single Global Hawk next year “to see what the Global Hawk can bring us.”

-- Christian

Israeli Commandos in the Mix

Well, the story of the Israeli incursion into Syria is beginning to get some granularity. It now appears that Israeli commandos may have been involved as well. What a totally gutsy move. And, if true, it also shows that Israel took the target seriously enough to send in ground forces.

Our friends at Stratfor passed this along to us synthesizing the latest information threads:

Another leak appeared via the Sunday Times, this time with enough granularity to consider it a genuine leak. According to that report, the operation was carried out by Israeli commandos supported by Israeli aircraft, under the direct management of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. It had been planned since June, just after Barak took office, and had been approved by the United States after some hesitation. The target was in fact nuclear "material" provided by North Korea, according to that leak.

All of this makes perfect sense, save one thing. Why the secrecy? If the Syrians have nuclear facilities, the Israelis should be delighted to make it public. Frankly, so should the United States, since the Bush administration has always argued that nuclear proliferation to rogue states, including Syria, is one of the key problems in the world. The Syrians should be spinning the story like crazy as well, denying the nuclear program but screaming about unprovoked Israeli-U.S. aggression. The silence from one or two parties makes sense. The silence from all parties makes little sense.

Looked at differently, Israel and the United States both have gone out of their way to draw attention to the fact that a highly significant military operation took place in Northern Syria, and compounded the attention by making no attempt to provide a plausible cover story. They have done everything possible to draw attention to the affair without revealing what the affair was about. Israel and the United States have a lot of ways to minimize the importance of the operation. By the way they have handled it, however, each has chosen to maximize its importance.

Whoever they are keeping the secret from, it is not the Syrians. They know precisely what was attacked and why. The secret is not being kept from the Iranians either. The Syrians talk to them all the time. It is hard to imagine any government of importance and involvement that has not been briefed by someone. And by now, the public perception has been shaped as well. So, why the dramatic secrecy designed to draw everyone's attention to the secret and the leaks that seem to explain it?

Let us assume that the Sunday Times report is correct. According to the Times, Barak focused on the material as soon as he became defense minister in June. That would mean the material had reached Syria prior to that date. Obviously, the material was not a bomb, or Israel would not have waited until September to act. So it was, at most, some precursor nuclear material or equipment.

However, an intervening event occurred this summer that should be factored in here. North Korea publicly shifted its position on its nuclear program, agreeing to abandon it and allow inspections of its facilities. It also was asked to provide information on the countries it sold any nuclear technology to, though North Korea has publicly denied any proliferation. This was, in the context of the six-party negotiations surrounding North Korea, a major breakthrough.

Any agreement with North Korea is, by definition, unstable. North Korea many times has backed off of agreements that seemed cast in stone. In particular, North Korea wants to be seen as a significant power and treated with all due respect. It does not intend to be treated as an outlaw nation subject to interrogation and accusations. Its self-image is an important part of its domestic strategy and, internally, it can position its shift in its nuclear stance as North Korea making a strategic deal with other major powers. If North Korea is pressed publicly, its willingness to implement its agreements can very quickly erode. That is not something the United States and other powers want to see happen.

Whether the Israelis found out about the material through their own intelligence sources or North Korea provided a list of recipients of nuclear technology to the United States is unclear. The Israelis have made every effort to make it appear that they knew about this independently. They also have tried to make it appear that they notified the United States, rather than the other way around. But whether the intelligence came from North Korea or was obtained independently, Washington wants to be very careful in its handling of Pyongyang right now.

-- Christian

San Fran Again

First USS Iowa. Then high school ROTC. Then the Blue Angels. Now the US Marine Corp. How much more dis'in can the US Military take from the city and 'burbs by the bay?

A new advertising campaign by the Marine Corp has a their Silent Drill Team (an absolutely amazing display of precision and discipline) being filmed at various places around the US. You can see the products here.

When they wanted to film, on September 11 no less, on California Street in downtown San Francisco, the group was denied a permit to film. While initial inquiries by the press to Stefanie Coyote, the executive director of the San Francisco Film Commission, received the "unavailable to comment" response, Coyote later said to KGO-TV that "traffic control was the issue."

"Traffic control".

So what did the Marines do? They went to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for the final segment of its "America's Marines" TV commercial then proceeded to New York City and filmed at Times Square where, apparently, traffic is less of an issue that in San Fran.

Yet another slap in the face of the US Military by a shrill anti-military area or a prudent exercising of civil traffic control by sage city elders?

You decide.

--Pinch Paisley

Bombs vs. Bayonets? USAF Picks Bombs

The Air Force may have adopted a doctrine on irregular warfare - combating insurgents and guerrillas while trying to win the hearts and minds of a local population - but it's not about to abandon the advantages of airpower and sophisticated weaponry in the name of "fighting fair."

Maj. Gen. Allen Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center, made that pretty clear today at the Air & Space Conference sponsored by the Air Force Association in Washington, D.C.

Peck - noting that the Air Force's irregular warfare doctrine stipulates that military actions must come second to influencing the population you're trying to win over - heard that an earlier speaker said that just using airpower, even on a legitimate target, gives the enemy a propaganda opportunity.

The argument made by the earlier speaker is that enemy troops will claim the Air Force attacks them from the air but will not come face to face to fight them.

It was obviously not a question Peck usually gets. Or, perhaps, one he’d ever heard.

"We should eschew capabilities that the enemy doesn't have and just drive up and put a bayonet in his chest because that's the only capability they have?" Peck asked. "We're using weapons from the air, and that's cheating? And we're doing it at night and we have precision weapons and they don't? I don't even know how to respond to that."

The fact is, Peck said, "I don't want a fair fight."

The Air Force drew up an irregular warfare doctrine that was approved by Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley on Aug. 24. A key part of the doctrine is that while combating and defeating the enemy, you don't things to turn the civilian population against you.

Legitimacy and influence are critical, according to the doctrine, and "the battle of arms" must work in harmony with "the battle for influence," but not become more important.

Still, it’s warfare. And somebody has to decide when a particular action is necessary - even if it may be viewed negatively by the population.

If the target is a mosque, for example, "chances are something like that, the approval level is going to be pretty high," Peck said, with the person making that call likely being the one who will have to publicly justify it later.

-- Bryant Jordan

Drone Cargo Drops

First robot planes took pictures of things too far away or in too dangerous an area for U.S. troops to see.

Then they strapped missiles on the drones, firing them at terrorist targets and knocking out IED emplacers. Robotic killers were born.

Now think about UAVs acting like mini-C-17s.

Trolling through the kiosks at the Air Force Association’s “Air and Space” conference in Washington, I came across a pretty cool product that’s been developed by Textron Defense Systems.

The Universal Aerial Delivery Dispenser is an underwing bomb-like pod that can carry as much as will fit in its nearly five foot-long, eight inch-diameter canister. Weighing in at a bantam 40 pounds unloaded, the “U-ADD” as it’s called, can carry a load of ammo, first aid equipment or other cargo to a pre-selected GPS coordinate. After the UAV drops the canister, a parachute deploys to ease its landing.

Textron’s Richard Sterchele said the U-ADD has been tested already on the RQ-5 Hunter, MQ-9 Reaper and works on the RQ-1 Predator, which can carry about 140 pounds under each wing. He said though the Army hasn’t formally bought the system, the spec ops community has expressed an interest in the system’s ability to deliver covert materiel to remote locations with great stealth.

“I don’t even know some of the things they want to drop with this. And I don’t think I want to know,” Sterchele said.

And, oh, it can also deliver a “lethal,” cluster bomb-like payload or ground sensors and sonobuoys.

-- Christian

AFSOC V-22 Set for Major Tests Next Month

The program director for the Air Force spec ops version of the V-22 said Tuesday the tiltrotor aircraft should begin initial operational test and evaluation flights by late October or early November.

Col. Tarik Abboushi said at a breakfast meeting with reporters he’s drawing upon prior testing by the Marine Corps to get their MV-22 operational to help inform his test regime, but added he’s concentrating on working through the integration of key subsystems, including terrain-following radar, defensive countermeasures and navigation systems.

Abboushi also said AFSOC has issued a requirement for an “all-quadrant gun.” Currently the CV-22 uses a ramp-mounted weapon system for defensive fire. Abboushi said it was unclear whether the all-quadrant gun would require design changes, but he said he's pretty sure major changes will probably not be needed.

The CV-22 is expected to breeze through IOT&E for a go-ahead by Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center to enter into initial operational capability with AFSOC in early 2009, Abboushi said.

-- Christian

C-5 Upgrade Costs Climb

The Air Force senior leadership confirmed Monday that the estimated cost for upgrading the C-5 Galaxy fleet is far above what contractor Lockheed Martin has contracted for - a circumstance that may threaten the future of the upgrade program.

"We see the disparity [in the figures] and we see that no matter whose costs you use the cost of the program is going to go up through at least the 15 percent if not the 25 percent, which requires a Nunn-McCurdy announcement," Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said Monday at the Air Force Association symposium in Washington, D.C.

Under the Nunn-McCurdy Pentagon budget statute, a cost overrun of 25 percent or more requires the Defense Department to make a case for keeping the program alive. To do that it has to show the program is critical to national security, that there is no other viable alternative, and the department must demonstrate that the problems that caused the overruns are under control.

Former senior Air Force leaders have said the Air Force may use the cost breach to justify killing the C-5 program. The program to re-engine the giant cargo carrier and also upgrade the avionics has been estimated to cost about $13 billion.

Air Force officials said the service is trying to reconcile the costs now, and intends to give Lockheed its "best shot" at showing it can do the program within cost. Lockheed has previously said it could do the re-engining work for about $83 million per plane.

But former senior Air Force officials and others report that the service thinks it will actually cost up to $119 million per plane.

Both Air Force chief Gen. Mike Moseley and Wynne say they are now trying to explain to Congress and the Defense Department that a formal announcement of contract breach could be coming. The two have made no secret of the fact they'd like to get rid of at least some C-5s, but Congress to date has made that impossible by requiring the service to keep the entire existing fleet intact.

"Right now there are two laws on the books which we are complying with," Wynne said. "One is to finish the testing on the airplanes [already upgraded] and the other prohibits us from retiring C-5s, and we're in compliance with those."

"If the money sounds right and Congress holds the laws together," he said, "we're going to execute the C-5" program.

-- Bryant Jordan

Scope Helps Troops See Around the Bend

“Keep your head down” is good, sound advice when you're being shot at.

But in combat, that's not always an option.

Sometimes you’ve gotta return fire like a "Hail Mary" pass - over a wall or around a corner – without necessarily being able to see your intended target.

But one of the combat accessories making a showing at this year’s “Air and Space” conference sponsored by the Air Force Association in Washington, D.C., could take away a lot of the guesswork from firing from behind obstacles, replacing it with a specialized sight that operates like a periscope.

The ParaScope Urban Combat Sight, developed by MTC Technologies of Dayton, Ohio, and being sold by Tactical & Survival Specialties Inc., has been two years in the testing - including by Marines in Iraq, said MCT Senior Vice President Robert D. Shuey III.

The device is mounted behind any existing scope - including night-vision optics - projecting the target image, with the targeting laser dot, back through it at any angle.

Shuey said the feedback from the Leathernecks has been positive.

"If you ask us if we like it, the answer is yes. If you ask for it back, the answer is we lost it," he said of the Marines’ response.

The company has been doing small-scale production of sights - fewer than 1,000 - but is now beginning to ramp up their manufacturing.

The sight is made up of multiple prisms, Shuey said, but is solid and ruggedized; no sand gets in to interfere with it or block vision.

Best of all, it requires no power source – meaning no batteries to lug around - and it'll pinpoint objects up to 100 meters away, he said.

-- Bryant Jordan

(EDITOR: Jordan is a freelance military reporter based in Washington, D.C., and is a contributor to Military.com and Defense Tech.)

General Needs Laser Cutter Now

The general in charge of operations for coalition forces in northern Iraq had an interesting technical request during an interview with fellow bloggers this morning (Sept. 24). He had a lot of other things to say, of course, but I thought DT readers would be particularly interested in this little tidbit.

When asked what kind of gear items he needed that he didn’t already have, Brig. Gen. Mike Bednarek applauded the money and effort put into devising counter IED technology and getting urgent needs out to the field, but had one simple request.

I’ll paraphrase a bit here:

“If I could have one thing that could help me right now, it would be some sort of low-power laser cutter that we could mount to a Humvee and as we drive along, it would cut command detonation wires along our route.”

This perked my interest and I’d like to see if any DT readers have some input here. This idea certainly makes sense, but I wonder if there’s anything out there already to meet Bednarek’s demands, or whether this problem has already been considered and deemed unworkable.

I’ve seen that weird IR triggering device that has been recently retrofitted to Humvees – the one that looks like a big, flat black square on a pole extending from the front bumper – which is used to detonate EFP roadside bombs. But I don’t know if there’s something out there like the laser cutter Bednarek needs.

Let us know if any of you have heard anything about something like this. I’d like to be able to put someone in touch with the general if there is – maybe we here at DT can do a little more than debate amongst ourselves. Maybe we can help someone save a few lives in the process…

-- Christian

Defense Tech at AFA

Just an FYI to all DT readers...

Our editorial schedule will be a little off-kilter for the next few days. We'll be covering the annual Air Force Association "Air and Space" conference in Washington, D.C., from Sept. 24 to the 26th.

We'll try a little of the "live blogging" thing, but there still might be some lag time for the material as we cut the wheat from the chaff to deliver nothing but the most relevant info to our readers.

Keep coming back throughout the next couple of days for updates on AFA news.

-- Christian

Building the Drone Hive

British-based BAE Systems is proposing a sea-going mother ship for unmanned vehicles (UXV) of various types. A BAE news release sent out a few days ago describes the new warship as “the UXV Combatant, designed to operate in a future battle space dominated by land, sea and air unmanned vehicles. Using a proven naval hull form to launch, operate and recover large numbers of small unmanned vehicles for extended periods, the UXV plays the role of mother ship -- a permanent base and control centre for the futuristic unmanned land, sea and air vehicles...”

An artist’s concept of the 8,000-tonne warship shows a low-observable (stealth) design with two large island structures amidships, recessed missile launchers forward, and a large flight deck area aft for operating Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). The ship’s hull and combat systems will be a development of the Type 45 destroyer.

The first Type 45 destroyer -- HMS Daring -- is now on sea trials. The Royal Navy plans to procure eight of these ships, which have a full-load displacement of some 7,350 tonnes and are 500 feet in length. The gun/missile-armed ship has helicopter facilities.

The UXV support ship, apparently based on an enlarged Type 45 design, will have a lower hangar deck for storing and maintaining UAVs, while the two flight decks will have a variable ski-jump ramp to accelerate the launch of heavily loaded UAVs.

The ship would also support Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV).

While the Royal Navy has made no commitment to construct such a ship, BAE Systems believes that a UXV support ship could be operational by 2020.

The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program that is now underway provides for at least three LCS mission configurations -- anti-surface craft, anti-submarine, and mine countermeasures. All of these configurations will make extensive use of UAVs and, depending upon the configuration, will also operate surface and underwater unmanned vehicles.

The U.S. Navy is also developing a large, carrier-based Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) based on the technology demonstrator designated X-47B. Developed by Northrop Grumman, the UCAV derived from the X-47B will be a multi-mission aircraft with a flying-wing configuration. It will operate from large-deck aircraft carriers. They will operate employing arresting gear and catapults, as do manned aircraft, and they will be integrated into conventional carrier air wings.

But the proposed BAE Systems’ UXV support ship will -- with the U.S. Navy’s LCS program -- be the world’s first specialized ships for operating unmanned vehicles. These will certainly lead to a marked change in the nature of naval operations.

-- Norman Polmar

The Sunday Paper (Real Estate Section)

Sick of neighborhoods where all the houses look the same? Tired of the lame options your builder is offering when you try to move on your dream home? Well, fret no more.

For the low, low price of $100,000 you can own this gutted TWA 747 hulk.

Now, never mind how you'd get it from the California desert to your lot, the bigger question we have for DT readers is this: How would you design your interior? First class lounge as widescreen TV room? Baggage compartment as finished basement for the family teens? Cockpit as breakfast nook?

Don't worry about budget. Let your imagination run wild.

Over the next few days the DT staff will judge the best interior design idea. Winner gets a super-cool Military.com T-shirt and props in a future DT post.

(Gouge: Gismodo, CM)

-- Ward

Typhoons come to Saudi Arabia

No, not the weather-type, although that would be interesting just to see the reaction of the Global Warming crowd.

These are of the Eurofighter-type Typhoon, generally considered a 4.5th generation fighter, and the Saudis are purchasing 72 of the for either £6bn (or £ 4.43bn, depending on the news site,or €6.4 billion or about $8-12bn USD) which is part of a larger £20bn arms deal between the Saudi government and the British defense contractor BAE Systems.

As Kris Alexander wrote here on DT back in February of this year, this is just the expected result of ..."Iraq-fueled tension in the Middle East...setting off a defense buying binge." Lots of money flying around there, but that is nothing new.

The Typhoon itself is a fine looking and performing fighter, ranked up there with other aircraft from the past decade or so, including the French Dassault Rafael, the the various SU-27 derivatives, the F/A-18 E/F and the latest versions of the F-15.

With supercruise, a digital cockpit, direct voice inputs for specific aircraft functions, canards to augment flight capabilities, the ability to carry all the current inventories of weapons (advanced short and medium range IR and radar missiles, anti-ship missiles, laser guided bombs, laser designating pod, internal gun, the works) to meet any mission requirement, the jet is one sweet machine. I just wonder about its stealth abilities against enemy radars with that big delta wing and those huge square intakes.

With two EJ200 afterburning engines (or "reheat" as the Brits and folks over there call it), each motor puts out 13,500 lbs of thrust in military and 20,000 lbs of thrust in full blower. Compared to the F/A-18 GE F414s, which pump out 14,000 and 20,000 respectfully, they compare favorably but keep in mind the historical differences between an Air Force land-based jet and a Navy jet and even a less powerful engine will still make the Air Force jet do eye-watering things because of its greater thrust-to-weight ratio.

Max takeoff weight is 51,200 lbs (compare that to the Tomcat's 72,000 max t/o weight!) and again this personifies a land-based Air Force-type strike-fighter capability - a light aircraft with beasty engines that can haul the mail and doesn't need the extra strength and weight necessary for carrier operations.

Bottom line with this Saudi deal is a couple of things. It widens an already wide gap with the main threat in the region, that being Iran's increasingly antiquated and anachronistic menagerie of an Air Force with its Dassault/Sukhoi/Grumman/McDonnell Douglas/Northrop dinosaurs (what an International Flight Museum that would make!) and its home-grown Saeqeh twin-tailed F-5 knockoff. Should any aerial conflict arise that would involve the Iranian air order of battle, this patchwork air force really wouldn't last long against any regional air capability with the possible exception of Iraq's C-130s and helicopters.

The other element is to watch the Peyton Place aspect of this as BAE goes under the microscope of the US Justice department for accusations of bribing the Saudi government and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former ambassador to the United States and now head of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council during a $86 billion Al-Yamamah arms deal (including Hawk and Tornado jets) negotiated in 1985. This investigation comes after Britain's "Serious Fraud Office" (what a *great* government agency name!) dropped its investigation of BAE Systems based on national security reasons.

More information on the Typhoon is here at the Eurofighter home page and here at FAS.

Stay tuned!

--Pinch Paisley

What Actually Happened in the Syrian Desert?

One of the stories that’s been intriguing the heck out of me over the past couple of weeks is that Israeli air strike into Syria.

Just today, the most solid facts of the strike have leaked out, but Bush administration officials are still publicly mum on the aerial attack that reportedly took out a nascent nuke capability deep in northern Syria.

The reports show that a North Korean ship docked at a Syrian port just a few days before the strike loaded with a shipment of “cement” (ya, right...). Here’s what the reports are saying:

Unlike its destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israel made no announcement of the recent raid and imposed strict censorship on reporting by the Israeli media. Syria made only muted protests, and Arab leaders have remained silent. As a result, a daring and apparently successful attack to eliminate a potential nuclear threat has been shrouded in mystery.

"There is no question it was a major raid. It was an extremely important target," said Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence officer at Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "It came at a time the Israelis were very concerned about war with Syria and wanted to dampen down the prospects of war. The decision was taken despite their concerns it could produce a war. That decision reflects how important this target was to Israeli military planners."

Israel has long known about Syria's interest in chemical and even biological weapons, but "if Syria decided to go beyond that, Israel would think that was a real red line," Riedel said.

And something else...

Some current and former American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because information about the raid remained classified, said they believed that the site was involved in Syria’s missile program. They said that Israeli intelligence officials believed that they had evidence that the activity at the site involved North Korean engineers believed to work in the nuclear program.

So far, several current and former American officials who have been involved in evaluating the Israeli claims say they are not yet convinced of a nuclear connection. Yet the enormous secrecy around the findings, both here and in Israel, suggests that the activity that prompted the Israeli attack involved “more than a run-of-the-mill missile transaction,” one official said, noting that the Israelis took considerable risks in carrying out the attack.

Actually, I also wonder whether the Syrians would take such a huge risk, though pressure from their Iranian task masters could have outweighed the suicidal nature of this potential program.

But what’s most intriguing about the strike is what it says about Syria’s air defense system. Some claim that the Syrians have one of the most advanced SAM and radar-tracking architectures manufactured in Russia – the same one used to protect Tehran – called the Pantsyr. Apparently the unstealthy F-15I Israeli aircraft were able to make it into Syria without being shot out of the sky, and some reports indicate that they snuck their way out through Turkey either with permission or without.

I’ve heard that the jamming of the Syrian air defenses was so severe that it shut down civilian comms inside Lebanon for the better part of a day. Pretty impressive; and that could be why Iran has been largely silent on the matter – it would tip their hand that they are as vulnerable as the Syrians.

From our partners over at Stratfor:

Likely spooked by the IAF's intentions behind the overflight and with only a feeble diplomatic defense against Israel, the Syrians are being extremely cautious not to provoke a military confrontation with the Jewish state. Syria has even refrained thus far from massing troops along the border in response to Israel's military buildup in the Golan Heights, revealing that Damascus lacks the confidence and capability to risk a fight at this stage.

Debka has a good analysis of the air defense angle.

Western intelligence circles stress that information on Russian missile consignments to Syria or Iran is vital to any US calculation of whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. They assume that the “absolute jamming immunity” which the Russian manufactures promised for the improved Pantsyr missiles was immobilized by superior electronic capabilities exercised by the jets before they were “forced to leave.”

Syria took delivery in mid-August of 10 batteries of sophisticated Russian Pantsyr-S1E Air Defense Missile fire control systems with advanced radar, those sources report. They have just been installed in Syria.

Understanding that the Pantsyr-S1E had failed in its mission to bring down trespassing aircraft, Moscow hastened Thursday, Sept 6, to officially deny selling these systems to Syria or Iran and called on Israel to respect international law. This was diplomatic-speak for a warning against attacking the Russian-made missiles batteries stations where Russian instructors are working alongside Syrian teams.

Western intelligence circles maintain that it is vital for the US and Israel to establish the location and gauge the effectiveness of Pantsyr-S1E air defenses in Syrian and Iranian hands, as well as discovering how many each received...

...The courage, daring and operational skills of the air crews must have been exceptional. They would have needed to spend enough time in hostile Syrian air space to execute several passes at varying altitudes under fire in order to test the Pantsyr-S1E responses. Their success demonstrated to Damascus and Tehran that their expensive new Russian anti-air system leaves them vulnerable.

We’ve clearly not heard the last of this story. As more details trickle out and as Iran possibly ramps up its condemnation of the attack when its president arrives at the U.N. next week, Defense Tech will continue to report the more intriguing angles of what could be the beginning of a much wider confrontation.

-- Christian

Avoid Another Va. Tech Part II

Alright, back to the "law enforcement" portion of Defense Tech.

My bro David Woroner from Survival Consultants International is laid up in the hospital for some pretty serious stuff today, but he managed to text over this story about a shooting on the University of Delaware campus that shut down classes.

This assault obviously raises the alarming specter of the Va. Tech shootings and prompts me to post the second part of Dave’s recommended solution to the recent outbreak of campus shootings.

I invite you to slice and dice his analysis, but I also ask you to keep Dave in your thoughts as he undergoes some pretty serious surgery in the coming days...

Part II

Follow Up: In the Aftermath of the release of the of Gov. Timothy Kaine’s panel report, while not scathing, did say “the alert should have been issued, and classes should have been closed.”

Too often we see what can happen, and how fast… The term I use: “Everything can change in a Second” still applies. We all know that’s what it comes down to for businesses (private or public) and educational facilities. It is about the bottom line, cash and PR. The Liability vs. Cost of this “Professional Security Presence” can be easily offset.

If Virginia Tech had armed professionals there, they would have engaged. There may have been casualties, but not so many. Also, from a business perspective, how much are you now gonna have to pay those 30 odd families who lost young ones in litigated settlements? I can guarantee you this: “cheap” is not the word I would use.

If you had the professionals onsite, in a court of law, it would be easily shown that the overseeing entity provided security for the employees, students and visitors to the best of their abilities. In my opinion, that would be the courts final say. Its all about “Did you do everything you could, or at least show you tried to avert some situation such as this.” Follow the above or get ready to get sued out of business. When there is blood in the water, the sharks will come.

Depending on the size of a venue, Professional, Armed Security is a must.

Overview:

These Professionals should not be walking around in battle dress, but a specific dress delineates who the good guys are. Proper dress is very important in this scenario.
Active shooters, terrorists and other unforeseen plans will always be there from now on, get used to it, prepare.

This security presence is not intended to be the creation of a secret police, police state mentality in the venue. The idea is to always be constitutionally bound by fairness, law and contain the ability to incorporate checks and balances within itself. It must protect the protected from becoming the target of an out of control security member or members. It should also be decisive and final in case of an event. It should come from proper team selection and overall creation of the intended group, to include all three key components of the security field.

The three components are Private Security, Prior Military, Prior Law Enforcement within the scope of the American Society of Industrial Security. This will surely bring together a force that will be able to work together from different viewpoints, both learned and lived.

Finally, an off property training location is necessary to engage in learning, training and cross training in all of these learned prior experiences - to include methodologies, communication, real-time maneuvering and live-fire exercises. This must be supported by the entity employing/engaging such professionals. The operators must work out plans in real time scenarios, to discover any internal flaws and fix them. You can only do this when you’re sweating, engaging, etc. The world goes to a different level when an event takes place.

Also, in the contract, it must state that administrators, owners, CEO’s, etc. may not intervene and attempt to persuade or order the security group to engage or cease. There is a lockout and protection clause from the hiring entity in the case of certain events.

Communications shall consist of:

Contact w/ each other and the security base as well as a channel for switching to “interweave”, which would allow security and law enforcement (local, state, federal) in the case of an event to coordinate. Complete loop communications is essential.

These Professionals will quickly delineate the property and everything on it to understand points of flow, large grouping areas. It’s also important to develop operational plans for multiple scenarios on all parts of the property being secured.

The event at Va. Tech. should clearly illustrate the need for an overall, all-encompassing notification and threat level “all electronic device notification system.” What this means is that sending out an email is not satisfactory. The administration personnel must be taught to pass to the Security Center all threatening phone calls and any type of written or verbal intelligence. The Security Center head (at the time) [and this is a 24/7 operation] should receive all data and distribute it to professionals on the property immediately. These professionals can delineate the level of threat and respond appropriately.

This does not infer that Regular Campus Police should be removed. Rather this is an add-on specialized unit, and it should have information flowing back and forth between regular campus police, the security center and, in case of an event, all know to switch to X channel for interwoven communications.

Returning to the “all electronic device notification system” - this system would do the following:

Install Strobe type flashing units around the property. This strobe is only to be activated if an “entire property notification” has been sent. This property wide strobe would let everyone on property know (even if they were not electronically connected that something “was going on”) to seek out someone with an electronic device to get the following “threat ladder” information:

(Example Only, each security unit would devise a specific set of parameters)

Green - All Clear and safe to move about freely.

Yellow - Receipt of information that there MAY be a problem, though not overly serious at this time, monitor your electronic device for any updates. (No Strobe)

Orange - A low-level threat or incident is confirmed and all should remain calm, stay where you are or seek cover, shelter, lock doors within your current placement. Notify the Security Center if you positively can identify a threat (this will set in motion a number of “false positives). Be prepared to Respond/Not Respond, and perhaps some administration can be taught to help with this situation.

This would be a situation for all law enforcement, security center to “switch to interwoven channel.” (Slow Strobe?)

Red - Imminent or Active extremely dangerous event taking place at this time.

Do Not Move From Where You Are. (See Part 1 of SCI’s Intel Brief)
Same Steps as Orange pretty much for public, but this activates Local LE, Campus Police, Security Center “interwoven communications/full interweave” PRE planned specific areas for all entities LE/Security to gather if appropriate, or go directly to a plan already known and sent to all on interwoven channel. (Rapid Strobe?)

This information MUST over ride, and deliver to multiple sources this information. All cell phones, pagers, computers, phone systems, etc. must receive the same / or more detailed information. All devices must receive these ladder steps.

I have specifically avoided how to setup the Security Center & Camera’s/Camera Placement, as there are very good reasons for keeping them not available to potential threats.

-- David Woroner

So what do you all think?

-- Christian

Let Bots Do the Dirty Work...

A little Friday Follies with your morning coffee.

I guess now we know why robot EOD techs are so popular in the Sand Box...

All I can say is "ouch!"

(Gouge: CM)

-- Christian

The Cloudy Future of the JSF

So, is it time to significantly cut the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter buy, leave the 2,400-odd airplane program alone or cut it altogether?

That’s the quandary a prominent D.C.-based defense think tank wrestled with during a briefing to Hill staffers, reporters and Pentagon officials Wednesday. Researchers with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said the per-plane cost has grown by $20 million since the program’s original $60 million per-plane estimate in 1997. In 2008 dollars, the JSF program will wind up costing $242 billion.

That’s certainly a hefty sum.

Read the entire "U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans: Near Term Report"

But the interesting thing is that the CSBA analysts switched their earlier position on cancellation, recognizing that at least some JSFs will be necessary for a future Air Force fighter mix. Additionally, it seems that the cost savings from cutting the 1,763 Air Force buy in half would net about $300-$500 million per year – a total cut of the roughly 600-plane Navy buy would save about $500 million per year across the program.

As a RAND aviation analyst stated at the briefing, that’s not a huge savings in the grand scheme of Pentagon budgets. And others say it is unlikely the Air Force will want to cut the JSF buy and substitute them with more modern Block 60 F-16s.

One CSBA analyst, former Pentagon PA&E chief and Vietnam-era fighter pilot Barry Watts, claimed that the need for JSFs is shrinking with the demonstrated success of precision munitions and smart artillery. The CAS mission the JSF would largely shoulder, he said, is going the way of the “horse cavalry.”

While it is beyond the scope of this report to estimate what a sensible F-35A/F-16 replacement ratio might be, it seems clear that one-for-one is too high. Thematuration of guided munitions and battle networks argues that fewer advanced fighters will be needed in the future than were required in the prior era of industrial-style warfare in which most munitions missed their aim-points or targets.

As I am sure many DT readers will agree, if anything, CAS is more important now than ever. Artillery is NOT effective in an urban fight and smart shells are still a ways off for general use. Attack helicopter squadrons and fixed-wing assets are taxed to the max in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of those missions are for close air support and the balance tend to focus on surveillance. So if the argument is that the JSF can afford to be cut because its CAS mission is shrinking, there’s not much to stand on.

Now, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne argued that the service’s TacAir fleet is ageing at a considerable rate – airframes now average around 24 years old - and are forecasted to be nearly 27 years old by 2010. So some kind of wholesale replacement needs to occur. And what’s the closest program to fruition? The JSF.

One intriguing idea that the analysts didn’t hit was instead of buying new F-16s, maybe the Air Force – and the Navy, for that matter - could accelerate the development of unmanned combat air systems. There’s been a lot of advancement on UCAVs and it seems to me that might be a more viable option than buying less stealthy, manned, legacy aircraft.

There will be a lot of pressure on Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps budgets in the coming years. Ships are expensive, bombers cost a lot and so does a larger Corps. It seems that the analysts are right in saying something’s got to give – and it’s most likely going to be fighter aircraft buys. Some say the Air Force aimed high on its JSF number anticipating a cut in the future, and everyone knows the Navy’s less than enthusiastic about the JSF with Super Hornets still coming off the lines. That leaves the Marine Corps, who’s technologically complex STOVL fighter has its own road blocks, not to mention that the Navy holds the purse strings for Marine air.

The CSBA logic:

From the standpoint of military necessity, a major concern is
that DoD’s current air power modernization plans may be unbalanced
in favor of fighters, vice longer-range strike aircraft. In future wars, US aircraft may have to operate at far greater distances than they have in the recent past. In particular, US air forces operating in Asia and the Pacific might well have to travel several times farther than US air forces typically had to during the Cold War. There also appears to be a growing need for aircraft that can loiter over the battlefield long enough to find emerging, fleeting or otherwise time-sensitive targets.

From the Air Force perspective, Wynne can say all he wants, but in the end he’s got a lot of big ticket items his service needs to buy: satellites, bombers, tankers, F-22s; and something will surely have to give.

-- Christian

AF Sec Calls China Sat Kill an "Egregious Act"

A top Pentagon official leveled sharp words at China Wednesday, reacting with some of the most candid and unambiguous language yet to that country's destruction in January of a satellite in space with a ground-launched ballistic missile.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne called the shoot-down an "egregious act" and said the Chinese sent a clear message to the U.S. military that its aging satellite force is under threat.

"We were not surprised, we were shocked," Wynne said at a Sept. 19 meeting hosted by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank. "What was shocking about it was the denial."

"Was it part of a plan; was it not part of a plan?" Wynne wondered. "That's what was shocking about it."

Wynne said the shoot-down of a 1990's-era Chinese weather satellite in polar orbit has forced astronauts aboard the international space station to avoid the debris field scattered in the intercept, and he concluded that China now claims space as a legitimate battlefield.

Future enemies "want to make sure that you will not want to get involved" in a conflict, Wynne reasoned.

"They can pin-prick you, they can threaten you - as China has with shoot-down of the satellite - just to tell us 'you don't think you're safe up there,' " he said. "Space is not a sanctuary anymore."

The Chinese government was silent on the shoot-down - and the international condemnation that resulted - for weeks after the Jan. 11 hit, and has been murky on the issue ever since. In June, U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace said he had not raised the issue with his Chinese counterparts during a meeting in May.

A Pentagon report released this summer assessing the Chinese military said the test was an example of China's pursuit of asymmetric countermeasures to American military prowess.

"The test put at risk the assets of all space faring nations and posed dangers to human space flight due to the creation of an unprecedented amount of debris," the report stated. "The direct ascent ASAT system is one component of a multi-dimensional program to generate the capability to deny others access to outer space."

Wynne's comments are some of the strongest yet from a senior Pentagon official and indicate how seriously the military considers Chinese anti-satellite weapons development. America's increasing reliance on space-borne assets to guide weapons, conduct long-range communications and keep an all-seeing eye on potential enemies could become the Pentagon's Achilles Heel in a future conflict, many analysts fear.

The move prompted Air Force planners to redouble their efforts to come up with ways to defend U.S. space assets from destruction. But officials are reluctant to replace a $1.5 billion satellite, only to have it destroyed by a $100 million ASAT missile.

"If space comes under attack, maybe we don't want to put up big, expensive retainer forces, maybe all we want to put up is just enough to kick the crap out of whoever shot at our satellite - kind of send a message to them," Wynne said. "And then we'll put up another expensive satellite."

Other experts wonder whether the Pentagon could reduce its dependence on satellite systems - particularly those used for GPS navigation - and position more assets in the atmosphere, leaving fewer targets for enemy ASAT weapons to hit.

Whatever defensive solution is adopted, the Air Force faces an aging fleet of satellites that are running out of fuel to keep them in orbit, Wynne said. Now, the service is faced with a potential investment of $20 billion per year to replace its space-borne fleet in the face of an aggressive threat from ASAT weapons.

"Right now, the satellites have gone up all in a peaceful mode," Wynne said. "I do think we should have some defensive mechanisms, but it is very hard to defend a satellite you're actually trying to talk to."

-- Christian

Osprey on the Way

Our friend Dave Montgomery has a story about the Osprey's first deployment in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer:

The first combat squadron of tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys has
quietly set off to Iraq, ushering a new and controversial form of aerial technology into 21st-century warfare. A Marine Corps aviation squadron and 10 Ospreys sailed for Iraq on Monday aboard a small Navy aircraft carrier known as an amphibious assault ship, said a Marine Corps spokesman, Maj. Eric Dent.

The USS Wasp's departure from the New River Marine Corps Air Station near Jacksonville, N.C., was made under tight security with no advance public notice and no ceremonial speeches by Marine Corps officials. "It was just another workday for the squadron," Dent said.

Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, nicknamed "The Thunder Chickens," will be based at the Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq for at least seven months of combat operations.

The Marine Corps Ospreys, known as MV-22s, will be used to ferry Marines as well as cargo throughout the predominantly Sunni Anbar province. Dent, citing "operational security," offered limited details about the deployment and said he was not allowed to discuss the timetable of the trip or scheduled arrival in Iraq. The V-22s could conceivably leave the Wasp en route and fly the rest of the way.

The "rest of the way" is presumably whatever distance remains once the Wasp inchops to the Persian Gulf . . . a couple hundred miles at best (or worst).

DT readers will remember the discussion here months ago about whether or not VMM-263 would "self deploy," which is to say, fly over with tanker support. A Boeing official told us that after the program's experience translanting two airplanes to the Farnborough Air Show -- with one having to divert to Iceland enroute -- the powers that be elected to use the traditional "fly aboard the amphib" method to get the squadron to theater.

Godspeed to the "Thunder Chickens." We'll be watching with great interest.

-- Ward

Army Gets Sweet New Combat Threads

PEO Soldier has now begun to outfit its troops with a sleek new "combat shirt" that is comfortable under body armor and also has flash-resistent properties to stave off the severe burns that can result from roadside bombs.

It looks pretty cool, and I know from interviews with PEO Soldier officials that they put a lot of thought into this new uniform item. I gotta say, one thing that's been a result of continued combat operations with such an adaptable enemy is the near-constant refining of services' gear. The Soldier of today looks pretty darn different from the Soldier of Kosovo days - or even from those of the kick off of OIF.

From our story on Military.com...

The flame-resistant ACS is in development for use under body armor. It is designed to replace two layers, the Army Combat Uniform jacket and moisture-wicking T-shirt, thus reducing bulk and heat stress.

"As providers of the world's best equipment to the world's best Soldiers, we collect and rely on Soldiers' input and ideas to constantly improve all of our products," said Brig. Gen. R. Mark Brown, Program Executive Officer Soldier. "All of our clothing and equipment is battle-proven and live-fire tested. Those labels can't be earned in a laboratory."

The ACS features a mock-turtleneck, long sleeves in the universal camouflage pattern, flat seams that reduce bulk and chafing and built-in anti-abrasion elbow pads. The shirt is moisture-wicking, anti-microbial and odor-resistant.

The latest version of the shirt includes upgrades based on Soldier feedback collected since the shirt was first distributed in the spring for limited-user evaluations.

"Even though we developed the Army Combat Shirt to be lighter, more comfortable and breathable, we listened to Soldiers who tested it and said they wanted it to be even more breathable and comfortable," said Maj. Clay Williamson, assistant product manager for clothing and individual equipment. "The fabric that made up the torso of the ACS was replaced with a fabric that provides breathability that is off the charts."

However, to retain modesty, the original fabric was maintained in the mid-chest area. Both fabrics have a four-way stretch.

Another change that increased breathability was replacing the elastic cuffs designed to keep out sand with adjustable cuffs similar to ACU jacket cuffs. The cuffs can be loosened for ventilation or tightened to keep out sand and other debris. Changes were also made to the neck band.

Although the ACS was designed to be worn under the Interceptor Body Armor, test participants noted the short breaks between patrols made it impractical to change into the ACU jacket. They wanted changes to the ACS that would identify them and their unit. In response, hook and loop tape was added to the right sleeve to accommodate a name tape, rank and infrared flag. The left sleeve also sports hook and loop tape for a unit patch.

The ACS with the most recent improvements will be available in late September for follow-on user evaluations. The shirt is still a developmental garment, and further fielding will be determined by the Department of the Army.

-- Christian

Opening Up the PLA

Major progress is being made in increasing the "transparency" of China's armed forces - known collectively as the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). "Transparency" is a Washington term as senior U.S. military officers, defense officials, and analysts seek to know more about the strength and intentions of China's defense establishment.

The outgoing chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, visited China in March 2007 and gave the PLA high marks for the access that he was given. Pace was allowed to see China's newest fighter aircraft and was given a ride in the PLA's most advanced tank. "They took me to places no other U.S. officer had been," Pace said. "They took me to their private offices. They took me to their command centers and showed me their maps and their plans."

More recently, Admiral Mike Mullen, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations who will relieve General Pace as JCS chairman this fall, returned from a China visit. Mullen declared that he now had a better grasp of the PLA modernization efforts and "There's a long way to go, but I'm reassured...I'm very encouraged about their commitment to continuing to improve this relationship."

Reportedly, other Pentagon officials are less impressed, noting that U.S. military officers are routinely denied access to Chinese sites during trips there, even as the Americans allowed visiting Chinese officers into some of the Un