Since this is the last Sunday Paper for 2007 it seems appropriate to pose a "year in review" sort of question: Who would you pick as "Defensetech's Newsmaker of the Year"? Why?
My pick is General David Petraeus. From the Surge to the Moveon.org NYT ad, he's been the man in the middle of this year's national debate. And do you see Iraq in the headlines this morning? (Bin Laden's new audiotape doesn't count . . .) Temporary fix or whatever, the man has orchestrated some impressive damage control. Another indicator of his impact is that candidates who bring up Iraq while stumping on the trail sound about six months removed from current events . . . and that's why you hear them talking about it less and less. I'm not saying we won, I'm just saying . . .
The US Air Force is experimenting with a synthetic fuel that could become a cheaper fuel-alternative for the entire US military and even commercial aviation, officials say.
As the cost of a barrel of oil approaches $100 and US reliance on foreign oil sources grows, the Air Force, the single biggest user of energy in the US government, wants to find a cheaper alternative. Air Force officials think they may have found it in a fuel that blends the normal JP-8 fuel, currently used for the military's jet engines, with a synthetic fuel made from natural gas and liquid coal.
The 50-50 blend is less expensive – between $40 to $75 per barrel – and it burns cleaner than normal fuel. The synthetic fuel is purchased from US-based suppliers and then blended with the military's JP-8 fuel.
"We're making sure the Air Force is ahead of the curve so we can utilize this domestic resource instead of having to be both dependent on foreign sources and send dollars offshore instead of spending the dollars here in the US," says Kevin Billings, a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force helping to oversee the initiative.
Last week, on the 104th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight, the Air Force flew a C-17 Globemaster III from Washington state to New Jersey, the first transcontinental flight using the synthetic fuel. The flight was an attempt to demonstrate that pilots could fly the plane, considered a "workhorse" of the Air Force fleet, using "syn-fuel" without degrading the performance of the plane's engine.
The service hopes to have all its planes certified to run on the fuel within the next five years. And by 2016, the Air Force hopes to meet half their US demand for fuel using the synthetic blend, first used in the 1920s, but further developed during World War II.
So can we call the Air Force "tree huggers?" Or are they just pennie pinchers? Whatever...seems to me their experiments could have serious positive consequences for civilian air travelers like us.
-- Christian
Robot Surgeons Closer Than You Think
While aboard a DC-9 aircraft, a remote operator uses a robot to suture a section of simulated tissue.
If a robot surgeon is treating you, your life is in danger. That's not due to any machine-borne malice, but because current research into autonomous surgery is focused on battlefield casualties barely clinging to life and astronauts injured on distant planets. To demonstrate how that research is progressing, Silicon Valley-based SRI International and the University of Cincinnati held a series of tests this past September that sound like a cross between a PR stunt and a B-movie: human doctors squaring off against a robotic surgeon aboard a nose-diving DC-9 aircraft.
During periods of zero gravity and sustained acceleration of 1.8 g's, a robot made incisions and applied sutures on simulated tissue, while a human surgeon did the same. The purpose: to measure just how precise a remote-operated robot can be, especially in a turbulent or gravity-free environment. SRI hasn't released its results, but according to PM Advisory Board member Dr. Ken Kamler, who participated in one of the flight tests, the robot seemed to hold its own—until its compensation software was turned off. "The difference was huge," Kamler says. "It was virtually impossible [for it] to tie a knot." But with compensation engaged, the bot performed as well as it did on Earth.
And so the tests' true purpose was to showcase SRI's software. "We're not mimicking a surgeon," says Tom Low, SRI's director of medical devices and robotics, "but looking at what a robot can do better." By focusing on adaptive algorithms, SRI wants to move away from remote telesurgery and closer to autonomy. The company plans to build a system for NASA that could treat an astronaut on Mars, where communication delays of more than 20 minutes would make telesurgery impossible...
Guns, guns, guns...I know you all can't get enough! So I've decided to throw you a bone here and call your attention to a story we've just put up over at the Military.comWarfighter's Forum.
Now, I've written about the Magul Masada on these pages before, but our friends over at Soldier of Fortune had an opportunity to test fire one of these innovative rifles out in Colorado. They've been kind enough to let us cross-post it here and at Military.com.
A quick note: I actually met the folks from Magpul at the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Warrior show at Quantico last October. The young guns there are charged up about their new rifle and have launched a grass-roots effort to gather interest in the American-designed-and-built alternative to the M4. With the sandstorm test concluded and the debate on the cusp of heating back up on an M4 alternative, it's worth giving the Magpul Masada a second look.
Here's an excerpt of the "Masada Test Shoot" story. For more, check out the entire story at Military.com's Warfighter's Forum...
Just when most of us thought we'd seen it all, Magpul Industries Corp., of Boulder, Colorado, brought their new Masada tactical rifle to Orlando and literally stopped the 2007 SHOT Show. Immediately apparent was that this was not just another 5.56mm NATO rifle, not by a long shot. Blending the best materials with state-of-the-art production methods, the Masada also combined new ideas with long-standard operating principles to bring an advanced rifle to the 21st Century table.
The company began with a soft (rubbery) polymer device that resembles a jock strap for a magazine, and Richard Fitzpatrick became an "overnight" success with his Magpul from which his innovative company got its name. Not only does the Magpul make it infinitely easier to get your magazine out of its pouch, but is also protects it when it hits the pavement during a speed reload.
Next came Rich's first M16 stock. He and I laughed when I recounted introducing him to a huge firearms manufacturer a few SHOT Show's ago. To my horror, the marketing folks treated Rich like hammered dog s--t, telling him his product would never sell. Not only did it sell well -- to the U.S. military – but Magpul now has a rifle that could leave that other company's entry howling by the side of the road.
A group effort, the Masada is the creation of Magpul's founder, Richard Fitzpatrick, Mike Mayberry, Eric and Brian Nakyama and Drake Clark. The Masada is initially produced in 5.56x45mm NATO (.223 Rem.), and is operated by a conventional short-stroke gas piston.
However, the rifle will likely also be produced in several other calibers, to include 7.62x39mm (already produced), 5.45x39mm, 6.8x43mm SPC and 6.5mm Grendel.
Using a now-conventional rotating multilug bolt and carrier, the Masada also has many surprises. As such, it will be exciting news for American law enforcement, not to mention the U.S. military and those of friendly foreign countries. Make no mistake about the latter element, as Richard Fitzpatrick is a former U.S. Marine and damned proud of it. Recently I traveled 300 miles over "the mountain" to Denver for a first look and live fire test of the Masada and of Magpul.
Unless a designer is influenced by "something" other than history, he or she may come up with something that looks like it escaped from a science fiction movie, and firearms are no exception. We've all seen them come and go, and come and go again. Not so with the Masada: Oh, your eye will be captivated by the rifle at first glance, but it will be magnetic instead of the all too usual, "What the...?"
Somewhat suggestive of the M16 rifle, the Masada does have some things in common with that rifle. From the gas block forward, the barrel in either light or heavy configuration, is essentially M16, and will accept a SureFire Suppressor mount or those of virtually any other manufacturer.
-- Christian
Pirate Hunting Drone Boats Unleashed
The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard have expressed interest in the 30-ft.-long Protector, which comes mounted with a machine gun and could be retrofitted for commercial use.
Robots versus pirates -- it's not as stupid, or unlikely, as it sounds. Piracy has exploded in the waters near Somalia, where this past week United States warships have fired on two pirate skiffs, and are currently in pursuit of a hijacked Japanese-owned vessel. At least four other ships in the region remain under pirate control, and the problem appears to be going global: The International Maritime Bureau is tracking a 14-percent increase in worldwide pirate attacks this year.
And although modern-day pirates enjoy collecting their fare share of booty -- they have a soft spot for communications gear -- they're just as likely to ransom an entire ship. In one particularly sobering case, hijackers killed one crew member of a Taiwan-owned vessel each month until their demands were met.
For years now, law enforcement agencies across the high seas have proposed robotic boats, or unmanned surface vessels (USVs), as a way to help deal with 21st-Century techno Black Beards. The Navy has tested at least two small, armed USV demonstrators designed to patrol harbors and defend vessels. And both the Navy and the Coast Guard have expressed interest in the Protector, a 30-ft.-long USV built by BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Israeli defense firm RAFAEL.
The Protector, which comes mounted with a 7.62mm machine gun, wasn't originally intended for anti-piracy operations. But according to BAE Systems spokesperson Stephanie Moncada, the robot could easily fill that role. "Down the line, it could potentially be modified for commercial use as well," she says. Instead of being deployed by a warship to intercept and possibly fire on an incoming vessel, a non-lethal variant of the Protector could be used to simply investigate a potential threat.
A favorite tactic of modern-day pirates is to put out a distress call, then ambush any ships that respond. The unmanned Protector could be remote-operated from around 10 miles away, with enough on-board sensors, speakers and microphones to make contact with a vessel before it's too late. "Even without the machine gun, it could alert the crew, give them some time to escape," Moncada says.
The 55-mph Interceptor could become the long-range patrol boat of the future, while the jetski-size Sentry (inset) could help prevent a terrorist plot such as Al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in December 2000.
Read more about the pirate-hunting robot boat and other stories from our friends at Popular Mechanics in an exclusive feature on Military.com.
-- Christian
Wing Suits Could Change the Face of Spec Ops
I caught a segment during this morning's "Today Show" that documented this jump and was blown away by the flight path control these jumpers have. The bald jumper went on to say that he's shooting for a "no parachute" capability with wing suits. Now, as any student pilot knows, a flared landing takes some practice, so you can imagine how tricky arresting a gigantic rate of descent with a wing suit would be - not to mention, unlike powered flight, if you mismanage your energy, you are totally hosed.
But if daredevils can standardize the move, the implications for special operations are tremendous. HALO is sneaky, but it still has a finite vul window. If you never slow down until the end of your landing skid (not rollout), your vul window is basically nil.
Here's a quick look at these dudes playing chicken with Christ. Check it out . . .
Here's an interesting story ripped from the headlines at Military.com. I'm intrigued by this idea and I'm wondering if some of our more informed readers out there can add some light to this subject.
BALI, Indonesia - While great nations fretted over coal, oil and global warming, one of the smallest at the U.N. climate conference was looking toward the heavens for its energy.
The annual meeting's corridors can be a sounding board for unlikely "solutions" to climate change - from filling the skies with soot to block the sun, to cultivating oceans of seaweed to absorb the atmosphere's heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
Unlike other ideas, however, one this year had an influential backer, the Pentagon, which is investigating whether space-based solar power - beaming energy down from satellites - will provide "affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind."
Tommy Remengesau Jr. is interested, too. "We'd like to look at it," said the president of the tiny western Pacific nation of Palau.
The Defense Department this October quietly issued a 75-page study conducted for its National Security Space Office concluding that space power - collection of energy by vast arrays of solar panels aboard mammoth satellites - offers a potential energy source for global U.S. military operations.
It could be done with today's technology, experts say. But the prohibitive cost of lifting thousands of tons of equipment into space makes it uneconomical.
That's where Palau, a scattering of islands and 20,000 islanders, comes in.
In September, American entrepreneur Kevin Reed proposed at the 58th International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad, India, that Palau's uninhabited Helen Island would be an ideal spot for a small demonstration project, a 260-foot-diameter "rectifying antenna," or rectenna, to take in 1 megawatt of power transmitted earthward by a satellite orbiting 300 miles above Earth.
That's enough electricity to power 1,000 homes, but on that empty island the project would "be intended to show its safety for everywhere else," Reed said in a telephone interview from California.
Reed said he expects his U.S.-Swiss-German consortium to begin manufacturing the necessary ultralight solar panels within two years, and to attract financial support from manufacturers wanting to show how their technology - launch vehicles, satellites, transmission technology - could make such a system work. He estimates project costs at $800 million and completion as early as 2012.
At the U.N. climate conference here this month, a Reed partner discussed the idea with the Palauans, who Reed said could benefit from beamed-down energy if the project is expanded to populated areas.
"We are keen on alternative energy," Palau's Remengesau said. "And if this is something that can benefit Palau, I'm sure we'd like to look at it."
Space power has been explored since the 1960s by NASA and the Japanese and European space agencies, based on the fundamental fact that solar energy is eight times more powerful in outer space than it is after passing through Earth's atmosphere.
The energy captured by space-based photovoltaic arrays would be converted into microwaves for transmission to Earth, where it would be transformed into direct-current electricity.
Low-orbiting satellites, as proposed for Palau, would pass over once every 90 minutes or so, transmitting power to a rectenna for perhaps five minutes, requiring long-term battery storage or immediate use - for example, in recharging electric automobiles via built-in rectennas.
Most studies have focused instead on geostationary satellites, those whose orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth keeps them over a single location, to which they would transmit a continuous flow of power.
The scale of that vision is enormous: One NASA study visualized solar-panel arrays 3 by 6 miles in size, transmitting power to similarly sized rectennas on Earth.
Each such mega-orbiter might produce 5 gigawatts of power, more than twice the output of a Hoover Dam.
But how safe would those beams be?
Patrick Collins of Japan's Azabu University, who participated in Japanese government studies of space power, said a lower-power beam, because of its breadth, might be no more powerful than the energy emanating from a microwave oven's door. The beams from giant satellites would likely require precautionary no-go zones for aircraft and people on the ground, he said.
Rising oil costs and fears of global warming will lead more people to look seriously at space power, boosters believe.
"The climate change implications are pretty clear. You can get basically unlimited carbon-free power from this," said Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society in Washington.
"You just have to find a way to make it cost-effective."
Advocates say the U.S. and other governments must invest in developing lower-cost space-launch vehicles. "It is imperative that this work for `drilling up' vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately," concludes October's Pentagon report.
Some seem to hear the call. The European Space Agency has scheduled a conference on space-based solar power for next Feb. 29. Space Island Group, another entrepreneurial U.S. endeavor, reports "very positive" discussions with a European utility and the Indian government about buying future power from satellite systems.
To Robert N. Schock, an expert on future energy with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, space power doesn't look like science fiction.
The panel's 2007 reports didn't address space power's potential, Schock explained, because his team's time horizon didn't extend beyond 2030. But, he said, "I wouldn't be surprised at the beginning of the next century to see significant power utilized on Earth from space - and maybe sooner."
-- Christian
Could the USAF Buy Growlers?
According to Aviation Week, they just might...
Industry and Pentagon sources say USAF has made little headway on its lingering electronic attack requirements. The service had been pursuing a standoff jammer based on the venerable, and powerful, B-52. But the program cost crept upward around $7 billion, too much in the Pentagon’s tight budget environment. Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, USAF’s military deputy for acquisition, acknowledges that some in the Pentagon are pushing the Air Force to buy Growlers designed for Navy requirements. He counters, however, that an EA-18G would not be survivable in the penetrating role as the Air Force transitions from F-15s and F-16s to an all-stealth combat fleet. USAF officials don’t like to talk much about it publicly, but they are looking for a jammer that can escort the high-end stealthy fighters if necessary in the future. The Marine Corps, by contrast, is looking ahead to an electronic attack version of the F-35B, which won’t be available when existing Navy Prowlers retire in 2012. Hoffman says there is a “natural progression” to the Joint Strike Fighter as a jammer, but USAF still wants something in the near term.
I really like this idea. The Super Hornet is marginal as a fighter/bomber but it's rugged airframe and load capacity may prove a formidable replacement for the Prowler. And who needs stealth in an EA aircraft? Isn't EA the opposite of stealth? Banging trons til you get through...
(Gouge: NC)
-- Christian
Inside DPRK's Unit 121
Military planners and security experts have intensified their shouts of concern about the development of cyber weapons and the distinct possibility of a cyber war. Cyber warfare is not new. It has been in modern military doctrine for the past decade not to mention the number of terrorist groups who have threatened the use of cyber weapons against the west. However, what has changed is the number of countries that posess these capabilities today.
The North Korean military created a new unit that focuses solely on cyber warfare. The unit, dubbed Unit 121, was first created in 1998 and has steadily grown in size and capability since then. Interest in establishing cyber war forces shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but North Korea’s intense effort stands out among the top ten nations developing cyber weapons.
Unit 121 Capabilities Assessment:
Force Size: Originally 1,000 - Current Estimate:17,000 Budget: Total military budget $6 billion USD. Cyber Budget $70+ million. North Korea’s military budget is estimated to be the 25th largest in the world. Goal: To increase their military standing by advancing their asymmetric and cyber warfare. Ambition: To dominate their enemy’s information infrastructure, create social unrest and inflict monetary damage. Strategy: Integrate their cyber forces into an overall battle strategy as part of a combined arms campaign. Additionally they wish to use cyber weapons as a limited non-war time method to project their power and influence. Experience: Hacked into the South Korea and caused substantial damage; hacked into the U.S. Defense Department Systems. Threat Rating: North Korea is ranked 8th on the Spy-Ops cyber capabilities threat matrix developed in August of 2007.
Capabilities Cyber Intelligence/Espionage: Basic to moderately advanced
weapons with significant ongoing development into cyber intelligence. Offensive Cyber Weapons: Moderately advanced distributed
denial of service (DDoS) capabilities with moderate virus and malicious code capabilities.
North Korea now has the technical capability to construct and deploy an array of cyber weapons as well as battery-driven EMP (electro magnetic pulse) devices that could disrupt electronics and computers at a limited range.
In the late spring of 2007, North Korea conducted another test of one of the cyber weapons in their current arsenal. In October, the North Koreans tested its first logic bomb. A logic bomb is a computer program that contains a piece of malicious code that is designed to execute or be triggered should certain events occur or at a predetermined point of time. Once triggered, the logic bomb can take the computer down, delete data of trigger a denial of service attack by generating bogus transactions.
For example, a programmer might write some software for his employer that includes a logic bomb to disable the software if his contract is terminated.
The N Korean test led to a UN Security Council resolution banning sales of mainframe computers and laptop PCs to the East Asian nation. The action of the United Nations has had little impact and has not deterred the North Korean military for continuing their cyber weapons development program.
Keeping dangerous cyber weapons out of the hands of terrorists or outlaw regimes is next to impossible. As far back as 2002, White House technology adviser Richard Clarke told a congressional panel that North Korea, Iraq and Iran were training people for internet warfare. Most information security experts believe that it is just a matter of time before the world sees a significant cyber attack targeted at one specific country. Many suggest the danger posed by cyber weapons rank along side of nuclear weapons, but without the physical damage. The signs are there. We need to take action and prepare for the impact of a cyber war.
An excellent piece today from Josh Partlow at the Washington Post...looks like the F-15 problems are getting worse...And USA Today reported a couple days ago that the Pentagon's comptroller Tina Jonas put the breaks on shutting down the F-22 line.
From the Saturday Post:
Air Force inspectors have discovered major structural flaws in eight older-model F-15 fighters, sparking a new round of examinations that could ground all of the older jets into January or beyond, senior Air Force and defense officials said...
...Current and former Air Force officials said that the grounding of the F-15s -- on average 25 years old -- is the longest that U.S. fighter jets have ever been kept out of the air. Even if the jets are cleared for flight, they add, it could take six months to get the pilots and aircraft back to their normal status...
...The disclosure of the cracks comes amid intense Air Force lobbying for the purchase of additional new fighter jets. The Air Force wants to replace its aging F-15s with 200 more F-22 Raptors beyond the 183 already approved by Congress and the Defense Department. Senior Defense Department officials have not agreed that the additional planes are needed or supported their purchase. The F-22s, which cost $132 million each, are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a Bethesda-based firm...
And our boy Winslow Wheeler, who doesn't suffer fools, has a perfectly reasonable solution: fix 'em.
...Some outside analysts have said that the F-15 problems can be fixed and that the extra F-22s are unnecessary. "I don't suspect that the Air Force is lying when it says it has discovered stress fractures in the longerons of the F-15s," said Winslow Wheeler, an expert at the Center for Defense Information and a longtime opponent of purchasing additional F-22s. "But there's no big deal about that. Fix it."
Wheeler said Congress should look into the F-15 issue. In another prominent case, involving refueling tankers, several independent study panels concluded that the Air Force had exaggerated the structural consequences of aging for older planes so that it could make a better case for leasing new ones.
Air Force photos of the damaged beams show clearly visible cracks toward the rear of the fighters' cockpits. Photos and drawings provided to The Washington Post show cracks in similar locations on both sides of the planes and that the F-15 that crashed had undetected damage behind the cockpit.
-- Christian
Russia Completes Hybrid Submarine
Russia's Sevmash shipyard at the Arctic city of Severodvinsk has completed a hybrid submarine powered by a diesel-electric plant and a small nuclear reactor. Designated B-90 and named Sarov, the submarine was completed on 17 December.
The submarine is known as Project 20120 in Russian design terminology. She apparently employs the small nuclear reactor -- known to some engineers as a "teakettle" -- to keep a charge on the battery, providing essentially unlimited underwater endurance on relatively quiet electric propulsion. In effect, this is an Air-Indpendent Propulsion (AIP) system.
The "teakettle" concept is not new. The Soviet Navy deployed a Project 651 (NATO Juliett) cruise missile submarine (SSG) in 1986-1991 with a similar diesel-electric/nuclear plant. That craft had a pressurized-water reactor with a single-loop configuration coupled with a turbogenerator. The Soviet report stated that the sea trials "demonstrated the workability of the system, but revealed quite a few deficiencies. Those were later corrected."
However, no follow-on efforts were undertaken at that time. (The Soviets built 16 diesel-electric Juliett SSGs from 1963 to 1968.)
The B-90 was designed by the Rubin design bureau in St. Petersburg. Construction was begun at the Krasnoe Sormovo shipyard in Nizhnii Novgorod (formerly Gor'kiy), and the submarine was then transported through the inland waterways to the Sevmash yard for completion.
There is no available information on the size of the B-90 program. In the past the Soviet Union was an early leader in AIP-type submarines. As early as 1938 the Soviets began development on a "single-drive" submarine that could operate diesel engines while submerged and surfaced. After World War II the Soviets built the Project 617 (Whale), an AIP submarine based on German technology. She was followed by 23 coastal submarines of Project A615 (Quebec), which were torpedo and gun-armed combat craft. Other AIP experiments followed.
Today several navies are operating AIP submarines, with the U.S. Navy having "borrowed" the Swedish AIP submarine Gotland in 2005-2007 to serve as an anti-submarine target for U.S. carrier task forces. The Gotland, according to Swedish officers, could not be located by U.S. naval forces in exercises until the submarine "wanted to be found."
The Soviet B-90 may be a follow-on submarine to the Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines that have been transferred in large numbers to other navies, including China and India. The B-90, especially when operating in coastal or littoral waters, could pose a significant threat to Western maritime interests.
Our Defense Tech contributor who keeps a close eye on the Middle East, Aharon Etengoff of Weaponsurvey, reports:
The Israeli Defense Ministry holds high-level talks with the Pentagon on purchasing the Phalanx B, or C-RAM, a rapid-fire cannon to protect strategic installations against Palestinian projectiles. It should be noted that the C-RAM (manufactured by Raytheon) is fully operational and available for immediate deployment.
The C-RAM is a radar-controlled gun adapted from a US Navy original, which can fire 4,500 rounds a minute and destroy incoming mortar bombs before impact. According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the Land-based Phalanx Weapon System (LPWS) "is a reconfigured variant of the widely sold Phalanx 20 mm shipborne close-in weapon system [that] combines a 20 mm M61A1 Gatling gun with a Ku-band search-and-track radar featuring closed loop spotting."
Sean Osborne, Associate Director of NEIN Military Affairs & NEIN Blog:
"The C-RAM is deployed at US FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) all over Iraq - not just in the so-called Green Zone. C-RAMs success rate in shooting mortar rounds and other incoming indirect ordnance out of the sky is better than 85% according to data I've received from those who've installed these systems in Iraq. C-RAM counter-fires which miss the incoming target do not simply fall to ground - each 20mm round is fused to self-destruct if contact is not made with the target.
The IDF Research & Development Directorate's (MAFAT) refusal to acquire and deploy the C-RAM system in defense of Sderot or other Israeli towns is several echelons below unfortunate, and appears to be couched in political considerations which have nothing to do with the suffering of the citizens of Sderot. The non-acquisition is sending a message of abandonment to the women and children of Sderot who are under severe traumatic stress and psychological pressures not unlike that of soldiers in combat."
Uzi Rubin:
"This is a very effective system for protecting strategic installations...It covers a radius of up to a kilometer and would be ideal for protecting key installations like power plants and IDF bases."
"This [Palestinian rockets] is a close-to-home threat that has an impact on the home front as well as the national morale...Our ability to deal with this threat is difficult until being almost impossible in certain places."
The massive cost overruns and some technical problems with the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Coast Guard's new cutters of the Deepwater Project led a key member of Congress to propose a merger of the two programs. Representative Gene Taylor (Democrat-Mississippi) has told Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead and Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen that the two services should look to pursue a "common hull" for LCS and the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter program.
Representative Taylor said "We can't afford to keep repeating mistakes," referring to the massive ship acquisition and development problems that both services have had with key shipbuilding initiatives. He made his proposal to the service chiefs at a congressional hearing on 13 December.
Admiral Allen subsequently said that he plans to meet with Admiral Roughead in January to discuss a number of issues, and a common hull could be on the agenda. However, both service chiefs said that their ships use different concepts of operations, and developing a single hull could present requirement challenges. Ironically, early in the development of the LCS the Navy spoke of possible collaboration with the Coast Guard, but the Navy's requirement for an LCS speed in excess of 40 knots quickly ended Coast Guard interest in a joint program.
There is also irony in the situation as the Department of Defense pays for national security features in Coast Guard ships -- guns, fire control, some radars, and, in the past, missiles and sonars.
The Navy has already cancelled two LCS hulls earlier this year because of costs, while the problems have led to the "firing" of the LCS project manager and the Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Ships. The Coast Guard's first 418-foot-long national security cutter, the Bertholf, recently completed the first set of builder's trials, and the second ship is scheduled to be launched early next year. This program has been plagued by cost and technical problems.
Representative Taylor's comments came during hearings of the House Armed Services Committee. The solons pressed the two admirals and Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway on why the new maritime strategy does not include a direct force structure outline and does not focus on the potential threat posed by the modernization of China's navy.
The maritime strategy outlines a broad future plan that includes increased maritime partnerships, a focus on the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific regions, and an emphasis on humanitarian and disaster relief missions. However, it does not provide specific ship or other force requirements for the services, leaving in effect the almost meaningless 30-year shipbuilding plan that the Navy proposed to Congress last year.
Representative Duncan Hunter (Republican-California), the committee's senior Republican member, asked Admiral Roughead why the rise of China and its naval force were not mentioned specifically in the new strategy. Roughead replied the document "looked at changes in navies around the world," including China. He was hesitant to list China as a direct peer rival, but did note China's overall shipbuilding capabilities, civilian and military, could surpass Korea's as the best in the region someday.
Mr. Hunter also asked why the new maritime strategy does not detail how the force structure of the three services should adjust to a changing global environment. Hunter specifically called attention to the problems in LCS acquisition as preventing the Navy from having the force levels it will need to meet global challengers. He said, "I am pleased that you have cooperated to develop this strategy, but you're not going to be able to deliver if you cannot afford the force that will make this strategy a reality. What are you planning to do to get control of requirements and to enable the acquisition community to more effectively manage their programs?"
Similarly, Representative Taylor called the new strategy a "nice brochure," but said the document should have given greater prominence to the Marine Corps and its need for more amphibious ships. Admiral Roughead explained that he has talked to General Conway about the number of amphibious ships the Navy should acquire and there is "not much daylight" between them on the issue.
General Conway said that he "can live with" at least 30 operational amphibious ships and that 33 - the current number - would be the right number to ensure the proper level of readiness at all times.
The Navy's number of 33 ships is not a realistic count of the amphibious force. The two fleet command ships, the Blue Ridge (LCC 19) and Mount Whitney (LCC 20), are included in the count; neither is a "lift" ships and both are configured and employed as fleet flagships. Also included is the long-delayed San Antonio (LPD 17), which has been in commission almost two years but has not yet deployed, and the Mesa Verde (LPD 19), commissioned earlier this month and unable to deploy for several months.
Neither the new maritime strategy nor the 30-year shipbuilding plan nor the Navy's method of counting ships is realistic for the issues that will face the United States in the coming years.
The Army has opted to delay testing of new body armor designs that can stop powerful armor piercing bullets and vests that contain flexible plating much like the controversial Dragon Skin armor.
Citing industry requests, the Army's top gear buyer told Military.com the test firing on so-called "XSAPI" and "FSAPI" armor would be held off until March 2008.
"Some body armor manufacturers told us they needed a little more time to get long-lead materials and to test new designs before they could submit them to us," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier.
Brown said the new armor designs would likely be tested at Aberdeen Test Center, Md., beginning in March and finished up by June. Testing on the new designs was previously set to begin last fall.
The Army was pressured into launching a new solicitation for body armor designs after lawmakers held hearings on Capitol Hill to delve into the debate surrounding Dragon Skin, which is made by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor. An NBC News investigative report in May claimed that the flexible Dragon Skin armor was far more protective than the current Interceptor system, which uses two rigid ceramic plates to stop armor-piercing bullets.
The Army came out swinging before the NBC report aired, claiming Dragon Skin had catastrophically failed several make-or-break tests it had conducted -- the same kinds of tests used to certify all body armor systems submitted to the Army for fielding.
But that didn't stop some Dragon Skin advocates from claiming the fix was in, prompting a House Armed Services Committee hearing June 6 that pitted Pinnacle chief Murray Neal against the anti-Dragon Skin Army brass.
Nevertheless, the committee's ranking member, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), called for a side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Interceptor run by government engineers and overseen by both congressional and Pentagon auditors. That led to the Army's June 20 request to industry for both flexible armor designs like Dragon Skin -- which incorporates a series of interlocking ceramic disks rather than a single rigid plate -- and for a so-called "XSAPI" plate which could stop armor piercing rounds the current ESAPI can't.
Brown said part of the delay in testing comes from industry's inability to create an XSAPI plate that comes in under the weight limit of about seven pounds for a size "large" plate, about a pound more than the current ESAPI.
"One thing troops in the field have told us is they don't want any more weight with a new armor system," Brown said, adding that preliminary submissions for XSAPI have been too heavy.
For his part, Pinnacle's Neal says he plans to submit Dragon Skin samples for the upcoming test and is glad the Army is finally taking his technology seriously.
"The extensions, as we have been told by several Army personnel, are primarily for the current manufacturers to fix the plates that have been run through preliminary testing and that are not passing with enough percentage to guarantee passing the [final] testing," Neal said in a email to Military.com, adding he's only too eager to pit his flexible -- otherwise known as "scalar" -- system up against any comers.
Another top body armor designer who has a scalar system of his own said he doubts many companies other than Pinnacle will submit a flexible vest. Allan Bain, president of Evolution Armor, said the Army is right to delay the process to make sure any new submissions have realistic chance of success, though his company has declined to participate.
"The Army is looking for a state of the art system, and there is a lot of pressure by Congress to make every effort on a major purchase like this to ensure that the armor purchased is truly the best performed by unbiased testers and evaluators," Bain said via email. "So they are not rushing it."
Here's a story we're posting tomorrow morning at Military.com, but I thought I'd give DT readers a little preview. It's like manna from heaven: an M4 story and a body armor story all in one week!
FROM TOMORROW MORNING'S MILITARY.COM FRONT PAGE:
The Army has opted to delay testing of new body armor designs that can stop powerful armor piercing bullets and vests that contain flexible plating much like the controversial Dragon Skin armor.
Citing industry requests, the Army's top gear buyer told Military.com the test firing on so-called XSAPI and FSAPI armor would be held off until March 2008.
"Some body armor manufacturers told us they needed a little more time to get long-lead materials and to test new designs before they could submit them to us," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier.
Brown said the new armor designs would likely be tested at Aberdeen Test Center, Md., beginning in March and finished up by June. Testing on the new designs was previously set to begin last fall.
Nineteen senators are pressuring the White House and Pentagon to "rightly fund" C-17 production by including it in the forthcoming fiscal 2009 budget request due to Congress in February.
Two letters, dated Dec. 13, were dispatched; one each went to White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Both letters encourage the Bush administration to stop looking to Congress to plus-up funding for Boeing's strategic airlifter production line in Long Beach, Calif.
"We encourage you to work with DOD leadership to have C-17 funding added to their budget," the senators say to Nussle. "While Congress has sustained C-17 production in recent years, it is unrealistic to presume that it will be able to continuously support needed production through congressional adds."
Congress has provided funding to keep the production line open in the last two years; orders now stand at 190. The senators, however, tell Gates that the strategy of relying on congressional plus ups "is no longer viable."
The production line would close in 2009 without additional money, and without a nod from the government, Boeing would be forced to close operations at its suppliers. The senators note that about 30,000 jobs around the country contribute to C-17 production. Suppliers are now being funded by Boeing in hopes that the U.S. government will buy more of the massive airlifters.
The Pentagon's requirement for strategic airlift is about 300 aircraft. It has about 111 C-5s, which are in disrepair and subject to a $17 billion re-engining project before they can provide sufficient reliability. However, past requirements studies have not taken into account use of the C-17 as an intratheater airlifter, the increasing end strength of the ground forces, addition of an Africa Command and the demands of the war on terrorism. The Pentagon is planning to undertake a new Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study next year.
Citing skepticism about the future of the C-5 modernization program, U.S. Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of U.S. Transportation Command, has told Congress he needs at least 250 C-17s to handle his missions.
Read more on the C-17 push from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.
-- Christian
Russian SLBM Gives Trident a Run for its Money
From an alert DT reader...
Russian Sub Test Fires Ballistic Missile: Navy Spokesman
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW Dec 17, 2007
A Russian submarine on December 17 successfully test-fired a new ballistic missile from the Barents Sea to the far east of the country, a navy spokesman said.
The Sineva missile was launched from the submerged submarine "towards the Kura test ground in Kamchatka," navy spokesman Igor Dygalo told AFP.
"The head section of the missile reached the test ground on time," he said.
Russian television showed the missile thrusting out of the sea at the start of its trajectory.
The Sineva, which has the NATO classification Skiff SS-N-23 and a range of 8,900 kilometers (5,500 miles), was brought into service by Russia’s navy this July.
It is designed to carry four individually targeted warheads, according to the Interfax news agency.
Our reader comments:
I was ready to issue kudos when it occurred to me that SS-N-23 (R-29RM) is not a new missile.
The people at GlobalSecurity.org state that: The R-29RM is a three-stage liquid-propellant missile carrying four or ten MIRV. Compared to the R-29R the missile has a larger launch weight (40.3 to 35.5 Tons) providing a heavier payload (2800 kg to 1650 kg) to a greater maximum range (8300 to 8000 km). The R-29M incorporates a number of significant design changes relative to the predecessor R-29R. Flight tested in 1983...deployed in 1986.
To some, it is considered the best in the world in terms of energy-mass ratio and provides better modernization potential compared to the "really, really new" Bulava SLBM. Because it is not new, does not make it unsuccessful, just not a new success.
"Power to the People" is what I say...Thanks to reader BD for the gouge.
In the spirit of fairness, I'm posting the response to my M4 story by the Army's Paul Boyce. He posted this in the comments section of the story on Military.com.
Recently Army testing laboratories at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., subjected the M4 carbine and three other weapons to a severe environmental test called the "Carbine Extreme Dust Test." The lab environment allowed engineers to push the weapons beyond their technical limits to help us understand what is required of weapons on today's battlefield.
The weapons were exposed to "heavy dusting," harsh conditions similar to an intense and sustained dust storm, several times for 25 hours. There were ten weapons of each of the four different types of carbines. Each fired 6,000 rounds (60,000 rounds per type). The Army noted all the weapons in the test performed well: the number of stoppages all the carbines exhibited was roughly one percent or less of the total rounds fired by each, meaning the weapons had over a 98 percent reliability rate under these unique conditions. Though the M4 performed exceptionally well, it came in fourth compared to the other three carbines in this particular extreme single-environment (dust as the only condition) testing.
The Army is taking these test results seriously; our Soldiers require and deserve capable, quality weapons. These preliminary results revealed or confirmed several areas for potential materiel improvements to the M4 and the other weapon types in the test.
The M4 is a thoroughly tested and battle proven carbine that meets or exceeds the existing operational requirement. The M4 is one of the most improved pieces of Army equipment: there have been over 390 upgrades since it was introduced into the force. The M4/M4A1 is the only design that is qualified against the current requirements. In a survey by the independent Center for Naval Analysis in December 2006, 89 percent of Soldiers surveyed reported overall satisfaction with the M4. All soldiers surveyed had engaged in a firefight in Iraq in the previous 12 months. In the same survey, only 3 percent experienced a weapon stoppage that caused an inability to engage the
enemy for a significant portion or all of a firefight. Only 1 percent
indicated that the M4 should be replaced.
Lastly, 94 percent of M4 users were satisfied with accuracy; 92 percent with range; and 93 percent with rate of fire.
The Army will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the equipment it provides its most valuable asset: our Soldiers. Soldiers in turn have shown confidence in the battle-proven M4.
-- Christian
Israel Wants JSF As Soon As Possible
Israel plans to keep its aerial domination of the Middle East intact, and that includes buying Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, accelerating its first deliveries, and deciding whose advanced equipment will be packed into the stealthy strike aircraft.
A senior Israeli air force (IAF) official says those major areas of concern appear to be on the right track because of an "understanding" with the U.S. officials. Washington's representatives are more ambiguous, saying that there has been no official change to Israel's F-35 program.
"The plan is that we will get the F-35 as soon as it's possible," the senior IAF official says. He says the service will end up with more than 100 F-35s, but he would not confirm the size of the purchase or that Israel is asking that the initial delivery date be accelerated by two years to 2012. The IAF wants the JSF "the minute it is available."
"Israel has a unique requirement, it doesn't operate in a coalition, [and it has a] different kind of strategic relationship" with the U.S. than the other F-35 partners," says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin's vice president and general manager for the F-35. However, he says the overseas release of the first export aircraft will be no sooner than 2014.
The purchase, which could include an initial batch of 25 aircraft, is still being negotiated. Brig. Gen. Johanan Locker, head of the IAF's air division, was in Fort Worth as recently as late November.
Israel's ambitions to integrate indigenous weaponry also pose some problems for the program. The weapons road map for the Blocks 1-3 F-35 standards has already been drawn up with no Israeli weaponry on the list. Partner nations are currently working on a list for Block 4, but there's pressure to cut weapons from the process rather than add them. Israel undoubtedly will want its F‑35s to carry the Rafael Python 5 air-to-air missile and possibly its successor, as well as the Rafael Spice family of precision-guided weapons.
Moreover, an influential retired IAF general says total sales will be limited by the JSF's disadvantages. He points to its overdependence on stealth, a single crewman and what could be proprietary U.S. avionics.
"Eventually somebody will come up with a way to detect it," he says. "A stealthy configuration also means you can't carry additional weaponry on the exterior. The weapons system is more important than stealth. Israel will have F-35s, but not as many as we once thought."
Smaller numbers won't detract from the aircraft's deterrence value, he concedes. Even a small fleet will ensure a first-day-of-war, surprise-strike capability. But once daily combat operations escalate, nonstealthy aircraft aided by standoff weapons, escort jammers and information operations will sustain air operations.
Nonetheless, he worries that the JSF will start showing its limitations within five years. Among the drawbacks will be its one-person crew. As a result, "we can't operate the F-35 by itself," the retired general says. "We really need two-seaters, with one person concentrating on flying and someone else focused on the strike mission. One man can't take advantage of all the options," particularly since JSF capabilities will include jamming, information warfare and network attack.
Inevitably, the avionics will present an area of contention. For example, Israeli aerospace officials say they can offer a tailored, active, electronically scanned array radar for less money than an AESA bought from the U.S. However, many of the electronic warfare and attack techniques are routed through the radar to produce jamming, false-target and other effects at ranges of 125 mi. or more. As a result, integration could be difficult and expensive.
Elta, the electronics division of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), has a version of the AESA, according to the retired general. "We need our own radar that we don't share with others. We also need our own advanced radar warning and active jamming." The Israeli AESA was flown last year; but for now it remains a generic system, not tailored to any specific aircraft—although it's sized for an F-16, an Elta official says. Flight trials are continuing.
For more on Israel's request for the JSF from our friends at Aviation Week, please visit the full story on Military.com.
-- Christian
...And Here's the Rest of the M4 Story...
The primary weapon carried by most soldiers into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan performed the worst in a recent series of tests designed to see how it stacked up against three other top carbines in sandy environments.
After firing 6,000 rounds through ten M4s in a dust chamber at the Army's Aberdeen test center in Maryland this fall, the weapons experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem. Stacked up against the M4 during the side-by-side tests were two other weapons popular with special operations forces, including the Heckler and Koch 416 and the FN USA Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, or Mk16.
Another carbine involved in the tests that had been rejected by the Army two years ago, the H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones. The Mk16 experienced a total of 226 stoppages, the 416 had 233.
The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages -- termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear -- the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem.
"The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the Army's top equipment buyer, in a Dec. 17 briefing at the Pentagon. Soldiers "have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made."
Though Army testers and engineers are still evaluating the data, officials with the Army's Infantry Center based in Fort Benning, Ga., said they planned to issue new requirements for the standard-issue carbine in about 18 months that could include a wholesale replacement of the M4. But the Army has been resistant to replace the M4, which has been in the Army inventory for over 18 years, until there's enough of a performance leap to justify buying a new carbine.
"We know there are some pretty exciting things on the horizon with technology ... so maybe what we do is stick with the M4 for now and let technologies mature enough that we can spin them into a new carbine," said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat development at the Army's Infantry Center. "It's just not ready yet. But it can be ready relatively rapidly."
That's not good enough for some on Capitol Hill who've pushed hard for the so-called "extreme dust test" since last spring. Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn placed a hold on the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren earlier this year to force the Army to take another look at the M4 and its reliability.
In an April 12 letter to the still unconfirmed Geren, Coburn wrote that "considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon." He insisted the Army conduct a side-by-side test to verify his contention that more reliable designs existed and could be fielded soon.
Despite the 98 percent reliability argument now being pushed by the Army, one congressional staffer familiar with the extreme dust tests is skeptical of the service's conclusions.
"This isn't brain surgery -- a rifle needs to do three things: shoot when you pull the trigger, put bullets where you aim them and deliver enough energy to stop what's attacking you," the staffer told Military.com in an email. "If the M4 can't be depended on to shoot then everything else is irrelevant."
The staffer offered a different perspective of how to view the Army's result. If you look at the numbers, he reasoned, the M4's 882 total stoppages averages out to a jam every 68 rounds. There are about 30 rounds per magazine in the M4.
By comparison, the XM8 jammed once every 472 rounds, the Mk16 every 265 rounds and the 416 every 257 rounds. Army officials contend soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.
"These results are stunning, and frankly they are significantly more dramatic than most weapons experts expected," the staffer said.
Army officials say the staffer's comparison is "misleading" since the extreme dust test did not represent a typical combat environment and did not include the regular weapons cleaning soldiers typically perform in the field.
So the Army is sticking by the M4 and has recently signed another contract with manufacturer Colt Defense to outfit several more brigade combat teams with the compact weapon. Service officials say feedback from the field on the M4 has been universally positive -- except for some grumbling about the stopping power of its 5.56mm round. And as long as soldiers take the time to clean their weapons properly, even the "extreme" dust testing showed the weapon performed as advertised.
"The force will tell you the weapon system is reliable, they're confident in it, they understand that the key to making that weapon system effective on the battlefield and killing the enemy is a solid maintenance program and, just as important, is a marksmanship program," said Sgt. Maj. Tom Coleman, sergeant major for PEO Soldier and the Natick Soldier Systems Center. "So, you can't start talking about a weapon system without bringing in all the other pieces that come into play."
That's not enough for some who say the technology is out there to field a better, more reliable rifle to troops in contact now.
"It's time to stop making excuses and just conduct a competition for a new weapon," the congressional staffer said.
-- Christian
M4 Comes in Last Place in Dust Test
Well, the results are in...and it doesn't look good for the M4 carbine.
You'll remember that Defense Tech and Military.com were on top of the story of worries over the M4's reliability in the dusty conditions found in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn insisted the Army conduct side-by-side testing between the M4, SCAR, 416 and XM8 in an "extreme" dust environment.
Well, the tests are complete and it seems the M4 came in dead last against its competitors. And, guess what...the Army's not budging. The M4 is still the best.
I'll have the full story posted tomorrow morning at Military.com, but here's a preview: Ten of each weapon; 6,000 rounds per weapon; 120 rounds fired per "dust cycle" (and when they say dust, they mean DUST...testers had to wear respirators and Tyvec suits); wiped and light lube every 600 rounds, fully cleaned and lubed every 1,200 rounds.
XM8: 127 Class I, II and III stoppages. Mk16 (5.56 SCAR): 226 Class I, II and III stoppages. HK 416: 233 Class I, II, and III stoppages. M4: 882 Class I, II and III stoppages.
Army top gear buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown: "The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon. Soldiers "have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made."
An "in the know" congressional staffer: "These results are stunning, and frankly they are significantly more dramatic than most weapons experts expected. It's time to stop making excuses and just conduct a competition for a new weapon."
Be sure to check out the full story tomorrow morning at Military.com.
With 120 countries now in the cyber arms race, intelligence agencies around the world are working to assess their offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. Developing cyber weapons does not require the massive infrastructure usually associated with conventional arms. A couple of PCs and a couple of smart programmers and you have all you need to create a cyber weapon.
Advanced Data Weapons have unique capabilities that make their detection and elimination much more difficult than conventional viruses and trojans.
Self morphing malicious code applications
Electronic circuitry destruction capabilities
Self encrypting / decrypting of malicious code
External disruption capacity of wireless networks
Exploitation of unreported vulnerabilities in common commmercial software
Working with Intelomics and Spy-Ops, two international cyber security companies, we were able to collect enough data to construct the high level cyber threat matrix featured above.
As with the conventional arms race, countries with significant defense spending have taken the lead in the cyber arms race. But that trend is rapidly changing. In the past few years malicious code with advanced features has been created for under $3,500 USD. We are beginning to see the emergence of cyber arms dealers. The cost of cyber weapons are in range of poor and developing countries.
Question: who is more dangerous in the cyber weapons race – nation states of a single rogue hacker?
After a swift and (for competitors) apparently trouble-free development, IAI-Elta expects the Coformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) to reach formal initial operational capability (IOC) with the Israeli Air Force in the first quarter of 2008. In fact, the Gulfstream G550-based system is already flying missions with IAF crews, as the service conducts training and familiarization flights; crews have been training on the simulator in parallel with flight tests, which started in Israel last fall.
But the crews may not be flying for much longer. CAEW is already designed so that it does not need radar operators on board the aircraft. With a wideband datalink, it's intended to feed information to a ground station, and ultimately will be part of a tight network that also includes signals intelligence, maritime patrol and ground-surveillance G550s.
The final step is to take the flight crew off the aircraft, according to Avishai Itzhakian, general manager for IAI-Elta's AEW division. Speaking at IQPC Defence's AEW conference in London last week, Itzhakian outlined the project's goal -- to provide continuous air, land, sea and electronic surveillance with a constellation of UAVs.
It got interesting when someone asked when that might happen. "It's not so far away," he said, and pointed out that a Northrop Grumman speaker, talking about the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program, had just referred to Boeing's proposal based on an optionally piloted G550. "You can figure this out for yourself," he said.
Read more about drone radar zappers from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.
-- Christian
The Sunday Paper (Sports section)
This week's big news centered around the "Mitchell Report" and its allegations that steriod use around Major League Baseball involved many more players than just Barry Bonds. Superstars like Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte were dragged into the juice blender. Worse still, perhaps, is the notion that adult leadership knew about the use of performance improving substances but turned a blind eye. Here's an excerpt from today's Washington Post:
Perhaps what is most chilling in the Mitchell report is the casual business-as-usual comments of general managers and scouts as they discuss what they assume is the steroid use of players such as Lo Duca and Gagne. No problem, just factor it into the price of the deal, like a bad knee or a problem hitting the change-up. The report also gives us new characters to disrespect, such as Giants General Manager Brian Sabean who, when his trainer brings him information about drug use, says, in effect, you take care of it. Or Cards Manager Tony La Russa, who once told "60 Minutes" how much he knew about steroids in his Oakland clubhouse long ago yet, when quizzed for details by Mitchell, suddenly says he "exaggerated" for TV.
So as the media (including DT, obviously) hits "puree" we're all obliged to figure out how we feel about the issue. So your Sunday Paper question is this: Is this scandal much ado about nothing or a sad commentary on the pressure to win in professional sports or something else altogether?
-- Ward
Libyan-French Connection Rekindling?
It seems a long time ago that Muammar Gadaffi was the root of all evil, doesn't it? Those were the good old days of "Freedom of Navigation" ops (remember the "Line of Death"?) and VF-32 Tomcats picking on kids coming off the short bus.
Of course, Gadaffi has done an "Abominable Snowman after the dental work" and made nice with the world, right? Well, Joe at DID has an interesting report about Libya's recent outreach to . . . wait for it . . . FRANCE.
Here's a bit:
Libya's military has traditionally been Soviet supplied, alongside some equipment from France. The demise of the Soviet Union, the 1990s drop in oil prices, and Libya's pariah status all combined to choke military modernization – but Libya's new political direction, and the rise in oil prices, are changing that. Unsurprisingly, there have been widespread reports in recent days that France and Libya have signed a Memorandum of Understanding covering arms deals worth up to EUR 4.5 billion, including the first foreign sale of the Rafale fighter. Has France learned the lessons of Morocco and Saudi Arabia? Can the Rafale find an export home at last? Will the deals come to fruition?
Meanwhile, Christian and I are flying back from corporate headquarters on the west coast, so we'll be post-light for the rest of today. See you for the Sunday Paper.
The global military community witnessed the first cyber war earlier this year.
While many consider the three week attack on Estonia a non-event, others point to it as a sign of things to come.
One of the most common cyber attack strategies is the network effect on the weakest link theory. The strategy requires the aggressor to identify and attack the weakest link on the network, and then use it as a cover to give the appearance of legitimacy and rapidly propagate the malicious code throughout the rest of the network.
The weakest link could be a system missing one of its security patches or an ill configured firewall. DoD networks withstood an estimated 80,000 attacks in 2007 so they are fairly well hardened and fortified.
That is not the case with many private sector systems. Cyber defense requires a much tighter cooperative relationship between defense organizations and the private sector. At this time there are NO minimum security requirements for computer systems. In the private sector system protection goes from next to nothing to as hardened as DoD systems. Addressing the weakest link will be the greatest challenge and threat to protection our nation’s Information Infrastructure.
[Editor's Note:DT contributor Kevin Coleman is a strategic advisor and certified management consultant with technolytics and the former Chief Strategist of Netscape.
Russian Fleet Sails Into Med
In his latest move to demonstrate that Russia is again a world power, President Vladimir Putin has sent an 11-ship carrier task force to the Mediterranean Sea. Speaking at a Kremlin conference also attended by Putin, Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov said that the sole Russian aircraft carrier, two large anti-submarine ships, and a guided missile cruiser, along with replenishment ships from Russia's Northern and Black Sea Fleets as well as 47 naval aircraft would be part of the task force that will operate in the "Med" beginning in mid-December. It is not clear if submarines are included in the force.
Earlier this year, Admiral Vladimir Masorin, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, called for restoring a permanent Russian presence in the Mediterranean. He declared that the Mediterranean was a strategically important zone for the Black Sea Fleet. The Soviet Navy had maintained an almost continuous naval presence in the Mediterranean from the mid-1960s until the demise of the Soviet Union in late 1991. Since then Russian naval operations there have been intermittent and brief.
The current deployment of the nation's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov, has been delayed for two or three years because of the poor condition of the ship and the lack of qualified carrier pilots. Reportedly, there are only about a dozen Su-33 shipboard multi-role aircraft available for the Kuznetsov. The Su-33 -- with the NATO code-name Flanker-D -- is a carrier-based version of the highly capable, Mach 2-plus Su-27 land-based aircraft.
The remainder of the ship's air group probably consists of a few Su-25 (NATO Frogfoot) attack-trainer aircraft and helicopters. The latter include Ka-27 Helix anti-submarine and rescue variants, and Ka-31 Helix helicopters configured for the Airborne Early Warning (AEW) role. The Ka-31 has large air-search radar suspended under its fuselage which folds upward for landing and takeoff. (This is a variation of the British Sea King AEW-configured helicopter concept.)
A Russian spokesman has said that the Kuznetsov task group would
