I'm just fascinated by this stuff According to a report today, DARPA plans to flight test two hypersonic demonstrator vehicles beginning in 2009.
There's been a lot of talk about hypersonics and what the flight regime can and can't do for civilian and military applications. And finally there's going to be some proof in the putting. It'll be interesting to see the dynamic effects of such speeds and whether the science is there to build hypersonic planes and missiles.
Details have emerged of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) plans to test fly its two expendable dart-shaped Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV)-2 demonstrators.
To be launched by Orbital Sciences Minotaur solid-fuel rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, HTV-2a will fly in May 2009 and HTV-2b will follow in the October of that year.
While the two flights have separate trajectories they will both impact near the Kwajalein Atoll test site in the Pacific Ocean. HTV-1 was a ground test demonstrator.
The first flight will demonstrate performance characteristics, and the second cross-range manoeuvring as well as thermal protection system performance.
The two HTVs will use inertial navigational measurement units and global positioning system (GPS) for guidance, while testing satellite communications and GPS reception through the plasma that will surround the vehicles during their flight.
"The HTV-2 will have a plasma probe onboard [to examine the hot gases] and we are expecting it to have good lift-over-drag performance," said DARPA's tactical technology office deputy director Steve Walker, speaking at the 15th AIAA International space planes, hypersonic systems and technologies conference in Dayton, Ohio on 28 April.
The article also mentions another flight demonstrator that will demonstrate some radical flight characteristics:
The next flight demonstrator after HTV-2 will be Blackswift. Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne were working on a waverider type vehicle called the HTV-3 but there are no plans to build this and the concept has been designated HTV-3X.
Blackswift is a reusable hypersonic demonstrator and the prime contractor for its construction and flight test is yet to be selected.
Should be an exciting year for exotic flight regimes.
(Gouge: NC)
-- Christian
It's not $640 toilet seats, but...
Most of the Pentagon's weapon systems cost much more than they should, are built much more slowly than they could be and the entire system needs fundamental reform.
Those were the conclusions of most lawmakers and one senior defense acquisition expert at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington earlier this week.
Perhaps most damning, senior staff member Michael Sullivan from the Government Accountability Office told lawmakers that the system had not really been any better or worse when he started investigating defense procurement in 1986, though he conceded there were some recent small signs of improvement.
The hearing's poster child for botched Pentagon buying was a $13.2 billion Marine Corps program called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The program for the updated AAV started in 1996 when the Marines issued a contract to General Dynamics. Initially, the program won plaudits for its innovative management and it passed through the program definition and risk reduction phase in mid-2001. Then things began to fall apart. The Marines issued a contract for the next phase of the program which was supposed to cost $712 million but quickly rose by the end of 2006 to an estimated $1.2 billion.
The modernized amtrac, according to a report prepared for the Oversight Committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), weighed too much to carry combat-ready Marines and still go as fast as it should. It operated only four-and-half hours before requiring major maintenance instead of the planned 47 hours. It was so loud that Marines could not speak to each other and had to wear ear plugs.
Originally, the Pentagon planned to buy 1,025 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles for $8.4 billion. Now the military plans to buy 593 for $13.2 billion. Costs per vehicle, according to the committee's report, have increased 168 percent and production has slipped eight years.
But the Marines' EFV was certainly not alone in being a botched acquisition, Sullivan told the committee. His testimony noted that not one of the 72 weapons programs his office reviewed used "the best practices standards for mature technologies, stable design and mature production processes…" He told the committee that "acquisition problems will likely persist until DoD provides a better foundation for buying the right things, the right way." Right now, the military promises it can do too much, and underestimates how much weapons will cost.
The stakes are enormous. The Defense Department plans to spend $900 billion over the next five years on developing and buying weapons. Current programs are usually 21 months late in getting initial capabilities to the soldiers, Marines and airmen who need them. That is five months later than an analysis done in 2000 indicated, according to Sullivan's prepared testimony. Almost 45 percent of the Pentagon's major acquisition programs are paying more than 25 percent more per system than originally planned, compared to 37 percent of programs in 2000.
The biggest problems Sullivan found in his examination of defense spending were: requirements that grew and grew and grew; turnover of program managers that raised issues of "continuity and accountability;" too much responsibility in the hands of companies for work that used to be done by government officials; and difficulty overseeing the increasingly complex job of software development.
The two Pentagon officials at the hearing conceded there was room for improvement but insisted the system is not broken and is actually beginning to improve.
James Finley, deputy undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and technology, said that when he underwent Senate confirmation many people believed the process was broken. After his first 90 days in office he concluded they were wrong. "We needed to add discipline to the process and ensure that the basic blocking and tackling in executing the acquisition process was done correctly," he testified.
Senior Pentagon leaders developed a three-year plan and is 26 months into implementing that plan. It includes greater focus on the beginning of a program to make sure prototypes are used to get a better handle on performance, cost, how to build the system and how long it will take to build, Finley said. The Pentagon has cut the paperwork for reviews by half and has standardized red, yellow and green indicators for cost, schedule and performance. There is greater focus on program stability - keeping funding steady and limiting turnover of key personnel -- and the Pentagon created earned value management system "trip wires" to help identify problems on a monthly basis, Finley said.
-- Colin Clark
U.S. Swaps AKs for M16s for Afghan Army
In a sharp break for a military with long experience wielding the battle-tested AK-47, the Afghan national army is set to replace its entire inventory of Kalashnikov rifles with the American-made M-16.
By the end of the year, the U.S. military plans to ship about 55,000 used Marine Corps M-16A2 rifles to Afghanistan with the intent of outfitting every soldier in the Afghan army with one by the late spring of 2009. So far about 6,000 M16s, including Canadian C-7 variants, have been fielded to Afghan units and about 6,000 M-4 carbines have been in the hands of Afghan commandos since May 2007.
Officials in charge of the $44 million modernization effort recognize the difficultly in transitioning a largely illiterate force from a weapon designed for the third world to one that requires intensive maintenance and marksmanship. But the new, more accurate weapons are already proving their worth on the battlefield.
"When the commandos go into a fight against an enemy that's armed with AKs, it's not a fair fight. And even fire against 'spray and slay,' it's not a fair fight at all," said Army Col. Mike McMahon, who heads up the modernization program for the Afghan army.
"The competence you get [from the M-16] and the confidence is just incredible."
The effort to abandon decades of experience with the venerable Kalashnikov is in part an attempt by Kabul to make a symbolic break from its insurgent past, where genocidal battles with AK-47-toting Soviets and Taliban religious zealots weigh heavily on the memory of Afghanistan's post-September 11 government, McMahon said.
Similar efforts are in the works to supply the new Iraqi army with M-16s as well.
But the enhanced performance and increased assurance gained by wielding the M-16 and its variants come at a cost. Early efforts to train the Afghan army on the M-16 have been mixed, with some soldiers sticking to their trigger-happy ways -- firing triple the amount of ammunition that a typical U.S. trainee would -- and others using diesel fuel to lube the finely-tuned carbine as if it were an AK.
"The Afghans called this the 'Black Kalashnikov' -- it was nothing different than just a plastic weapon," McMahon explained. "They figured out very quickly -- after they went through zeroing -- that it was way different than the Kalashnikov, and you didn't fire all your rounds at the same time."
The M-16s do take some getting used to, McMahon said, and some long-standing habits have to be broken. For one, Afghan troops can't just pick up any M-16 and fire it with any hope of hitting what they're aiming at. Each soldier has his individual weapon zeroed to his particular shooting style and is accountable for that weapon's whereabouts.
And no more ripping off a 30-round magazine shooting from the hip, McMahon said. The M-16 is designed to be fired from the shoulder, so forget the "spray and slay" shooting style.
Initial training on the M-16 with the 205th Afghan Army Corps in January was mixed, mainly because there were too few instructors with deep enough range and marksmanship know-how to get the students up to speed. So a new program has been launched along the lines of the M-16 training regimen in Iraq to hire six teams of 12 civilian contract instructors who will teach Afghan non-commissioned officers how to use the new rifle.
In a classic "train the trainer" model, those NCOs will then be in charge of teaching Afghan grunts on the M-16, giving small unit leaders the added benefit of perfecting both their rifle and management skills.
"We see a huge secondary benefit in terms of development of the NCO corps by doing this; in teaching them how to train, how to run ranges and how to teach" other soldiers, McMahon said. "Also this gives them a system that will have a devastating impact on the enemy in terms of almost revolutionizing the army."
-- Christian
Boeing and Air Force In Lovers Spat
A great analysis on the tanker deal from my old friend Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute who's name is "Mud" to pro-Boeing lawmakers...
If you want to understand how former allies end up going to war -- or former lovers end up getting divorced -- take a look at how Boeing and the Air Force are treating each other in their angry confrontation over the award of a next-generation tanker program to Northrop Grumman. Boeing expected to win the contract, and now finds itself facing the prospect of losing a 50-year aerial refueling franchise (and $100 billion in sales) while its main rival in the commercial airliner business sets up shop on Boeing's home turf. Boeing is convinced it should have won, and is spending millions of dollars on lawyers and advertising to press its case in a formal complaint to the Government Accountability Office.
Air Force leaders, on the other hand, believe that Boeing is willfully mis-stating the facts in a bid to obscure the inferior performance of the plane it proposed. A marathon session of Air Force acquisition experts two weeks ago concluded that none of the 200 issues raised by Boeing in its complaint to GAO was likely to be upheld, and that whatever minor problems the accountability office might uncover would be far from sufficient to overturn a competitive outcome the service says was not close. Beyond the merits of Boeing's case, Air Force officials are insulted by the tone of the company's public statements, which have used phrases such as "deeply flawed" and "severely prejudiced" to describe the tanker selection process.
The deterioration of Boeing's relationship with its biggest government customer hit a new low last week, when Air Force insiders began hinting darkly that the company had encouraged Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill to question the ethics of the service's chief of staff in a letter concerning an unrelated contracting matter. The notion that Boeing would do such a thing seems exceedingly unlikely, since the chief was widely believed to favor Boeing's tanker bid and the company's relationship with McCaskill is lukewarm at best (even though its defense unit is headquartered in her state). But the tone of Boeing's tanker campaign has led at least some service officials to believe the worst about the company, a feeling that is spreading far beyond tankers. For instance, the service has probably delayed announcing award of the GPS III satellite contract in part because it fears another Boeing protest.
What's fascinating about this confrontation is that the two parties embrace completely contradictory views of reality, and yet the partisans on each side are absolutely convinced that their version of the facts is the only true account. If there's anyone inside Boeing who thinks the tanker competition was rigorous and transparent, I can't find them. And if there's anyone inside the Air Force that thinks Boeing's protest has any merit, they're hiding from me. The stark difference in how the combatants see the same events seems more like a case study in Balkan politics than the button-down world of defense acquisition.
A sage observer of human nature commented in the Wall Street Journal some years ago that the great achievement of American capitalism was to channel impulses that led to rape and pillage during earlier civilizations into constructive forces for economic progress. That's an important insight, but sometimes in the rough and tumble of competition we see hints of how recently mankind emerged from the jungle. When rival cultures begin hating each other, their behavior can easily spill beyond the bounds of rationality. So Boeing and the Air Force need to catch their breath, tone down their rhetoric, and realize that they both still need each other to succeed.
Two highly significant contracts that were awarded by the Department of Defense last week will have great impact on the rapidly increasing role of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in the U.S. armed forces. The first, on 21 April, was for phase one of the Vulture program intended to provide an unmanned aircraft with an endurance of five years. The second contract, announced a day later, was to acquire the RQ-4N variant of the Global Hawk for the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program.
The Vulture program -- under the aegis of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) -- envisions a vehicle carrying a 1,000-pound payload drawing five kilowatts of power that is able to remain aloft for an uninterrupted period of at least five years while remaining in the required mission airspace 99 percent of the time.
The Vulture phase one contracts were awarded to Aurora Flight Sciences, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. According to DARPA, the Vulture program will focus on developing innovative technologies and approaches for in-flight energy collection (e.g., from solar panels) or refueling in flight and ultra-reliable systems or systems that could be repaired in flight. Other technologies that will be developed include multi-junction photovoltaic cells, high specific energy fuel cells, extremely efficient propulsion systems, advanced structural designs.
In the second phase of Vulture the contractors will refine demonstrator designs, continue technology development, and conduct an uninterrupted three-month flight of a sub-scale demonstrator. Phase three will consist of a continuous 12-month flight of a full-scale demonstrator.
In some respects the Vulture will be a corollary to the Helios UAV program. That vehicle was a long, thin, flying wing intended to fly higher than any unmanned aircraft ever. It passed an altitude of 76,000 feet on its first solar-powered test flight on 14 July 2001. Operating from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai, Hawaii, no problems were encountered during the 10-hour, 17-minute flight. A flight the following 13 August took the UAV to 96,863 feet.
The Helios crashed two years later. A 247-foot-long flying wing that measured only eight feet front to back, Helios was a $15 million aircraft controlled from the ground by pilots using desktop computers. Its 14 propellers were driven by small electric motors powered by solar cells built into the wing. Helios was built by a partnership of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and AeroVironment Inc. of Monrovia, California.
While the Venture's primary goal will be endurance rather than altitude, it will also be a high-flyer, able to provide unprecedented surveillance and other functions over a designated area.
In a less prosaic UAV effort, a year after proposals were received, the Navy has selected Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk for the BAMS program. The $1.16 billion cost-plus-award-fee contract will develop the RQ-4N variant for persistent maritime Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) data collection and dissemination.
The Global Hawk is the largest operational UAV ever produced, having a 116-ffot wingspan, a length of 44 feet, and weighing almost 26,000 pounds with a 2,000-pound internal payload. The UAV first flew in February 1998 and soon entered U.S. Air Force service. It continues in production.
In U.S. Navy service the RQ-4N variant will compliment the new P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMMA), which is planned to replace the long-serving Lockheed P-3 Orion. The BAMS/RQ-4N platform may be particularly useful in some of the electronic intelligence missions flown by the EP-3E aircraft as well as various one-of-a-kind Orion environmental and oceanographic research missions.
And, looking to the long term, the BAMS/RQ-4N, with its current endurance of almost 24 hours and large payload, may eventually perform other missions in direct support of the fleet, such as Airborne Early Warning (AEW).
These two UAV efforts -- the long-term Vulture and the near-term BAMS -- are further indications of the increasing significance of unmanned vehicles to U.S. military operations.
The U.S. Army plans to build and launch into orbit a constellation of satellites for the first time in roughly 50 years. And it plans to build the cluster of eight miniature communications satellites within as little as nine months, defense officials told Military.com.
The roughly $5 million effort is part of the Army's commitment to what is known as Operationally Responsive Space. The joint program, based at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., was created in May 2007 after years of vigorous prodding by Congress to get the U.S. military to change how it conceives of, builds and flies satellites.
For the Army, this is "a pathfinder project to fulfill an urgent need for beyond line of sight communications capability," said James Lee, chief of strategy and policy for Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala.
Lee's office set up a task force in March to decide how the Army should tackle the deployment of space assets. And the money for the service's satellite effort is coming from Army coffers, Lee added.
The requirement for the bantam-weight sats -- which measure about 30 inches square and weigh around five pounds -- was generated by a combatant commander whom Lee declined to identify. But you can get some idea who it is by the mission he described for the so-called "cubesats."
The satellites should provide communications for Army units below the brigade level operating in parts of the world where the military has no current secure satellite communications, such as Africa, Lee explained.
The only services available in those regions come from commercial vendors, he said, and they're often not American-owned.
In addition to providing needed communications links, the effort would also help build the Army's overall space capabilities, Lee said.
"We feel it's important to have experience at an engineering level to build space capabilities, even if it's a simple as a cubesat," he said. Army engineers will work alongside designers from a Huntsville-based company called MilTec, which will build the first six satellites. Space and Missile Defense Command will build the last two.
"We believe we have the expertise but many of our scientists don't have hands-on experience," Lee said.
All eight satellites will be launched together, either on a Minotaur or Falcon rocket. Minotaur, a four-stage solid fuel rocket that uses decommissioned Minuteman missile rocket motors, is built by Orbital Sciences Corp. The Falcon 1 is built by PayPal millionaire Elon Musk's SpaceX Company.
The Minotaur has flown seven times and the Falcon has launched twice but has not successfully lofted a payload into orbit.
The satellites will fly either in a swarm or will be flown in a loose formation. And Lee said the Army wants members of its space cadre to do the flying.
A senior Defense Department official who tracks space programs was supportive of the Army's plans, calling the move "great news." And in a sign of just how much the Air Force has dominated space systems and operations, the official noted that, "a little competition never hurt anyone."
And Lee was careful to avoid offense: "We don't really want to replace the Navy or the Air Force." But with today's strategic realities, and the limited resources currently available in orbit, the Army wants to make sure it plays its part.
-- Colin Clark
MEDIA WARFARE - Hacking Live Television
Last week while working on cyber attacks against media web sites I discovered some information I thought you might benefit from reading.
One of the more significant concerns with cyber warfare is a targeted attack against the news media. There are two different strategies that play here. The first possibility is a disruptive strategy -- where the cyber attack disables the media from reporting on activities and disrupting their ability to inform the public about events that are or have just taken place. The second strategy addresses the use of the media as a source of misinformation. Misinformation and disinformation campaigns are easily mounted and you can even find this tactic addressed in the well known work "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. We have assessed the implication of both of these scenarios using the Scenario Based Intelligence Analysis Tool created by Spy-Ops. The result of that analysis is below.
Scenario 1 - Media Disruption
An attack against the entire media sector in an attempt to disrupt its ability to communicate with and inform the public is rated a 2.3 on our risk scale.
Scenario 2 - Dis or mis Information
An attack against a primary new source with the intent to inject mis-information for public dissemination is rated a 4.1 on our risk scale.
In support of the higher risk and increased likelihood of success in this type of attack is the following account of events that took place on June 17, 2007. The viewers of a Czech television channel watching a Web cam program monitoring weather in various Czech mountain resorts saw a nuclear explosion taking place in the Krkonose or Giant Mountains in the northern Czech Republic. CNN Europe reported that members of a Czech art group were responsible and got in trouble for hacking a television broadcast and inserting the phony video of the nuclear explosion.
One can only imagine the psychological impact on the viewers that witnessed this prank. The TV channel CT2 said that they received frantic phone calls from viewers who thought a nuclear war had started. By the way, just recently the artists were acquitted of the charges stemming from the fake nuclear blast on TV.
In a conversation I had with a security consultant he told me: "Sure it could happen in the U.S. today. The media industry has not made the necessary security improvements since the Captain Midnight incident in the late 80s."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez harshly criticized the US administration again after the unauthorized passing of the USS George Washington along the coast of the Latin American country. Chavez promised to bury the USA in the 21st century.
“When Americans appear near our shores with their navy, the George Washington aircraft carrier, one should not forget that it happens at the time when we together with Brazil are creating the Defense Council of South America,” Chavez said in a speech that was broadcast by all TV and radio channels of Venezuela.
“In this century we will bury the old empire of the USA and will live with the American nation like with a brotherly nation, because over 40 million of its citizens live below the poverty line,” the Venezuelan leader said.
I'm beginning to get a kick out of that guy...
(Gouge: NC)
-- Christian
Crash-Proof UAVs Fly Blind at MIT
Here's another great story from our friends at Popular Mechanics that looks at cutting edge research into drones that fly autonomously inside structures. That's something that until now could only be done (barely) by wheeled mini-bots. But as you can see from this report, engineers still have a long way to go.
It's not the most attractive spy bot, but the unmanned aerial vehicle hovering some 20 ft. away is doing its job. For now, that means staying right where it is, weaving ever so slightly under the weight of the webcam strapped to its back. There's nothing particularly interesting to look at with this UAV, a commercial four-rotor model that any RC hobbyist could put together. But no one is piloting this modified drone -- it's flying autonomously, stabilized a few feet above the floor of MIT's RAVEN lab. Like most of the aircraft tested here, this model is a puppet, receiving input not from onboard processors, but from a nearby computer.
As it continues to buzz in place, an array of 18 motion-capture cameras tracks the UAV, providing 3D positioning data to determine just how stable it is. Specifically, those baleful red cameras -- the same kind Hollywood visual effects teams use to transpose an actor's movements to a computer-generated counterpart -- are tracking the tiny Styrofoam balls attached to the drone. On the computer monitor, these balls show up in real time, mapping the UAV as a cluster of dots, swaying in midair. I'm somewhere between impressed and bored when the drone begins to drift. A second later and it slams into a plexiglass divider, as hard as a hockey player.
It will take some time to figure out why this little craft suddenly lost control. But that's the point of RAVEN, or Real-Time Indoor Autonomous Vehicle Test Environment, where geeks capture every flight -- and collision -- in painstaking detail. There are no accidents here, just problems that haven't been sufficiently analyzed. "RAVEN gives us the freedom to test whatever we can build," says Jonathan How, director of MIT's Aerospace Controls Lab. "And we can build wonderful things, even in 24 hours."
One of the researchers has done just that, and is now preparing to fly a drone that was redesigned, then cobbled together out of lightweight foam core. Of course, this isn't exactly the next generation of missile-packing Predators; the toylike creation in front of me, with its circular wing and miniature nose-mounted propeller, is more of a testbed than a prototype. All of the UAVs covering nearly every surface of this lab, from high-end RC planes the size of a small child to a store-bought flying insect produced by WowWee, are just tools to develop flight control algorithms for indoor robots.
As challenging as it is to make something fly itself, designing a drone that can function indoors is even harder. For an indoor UAV to meet all of the military's expectations, it would need to be able to fly into a building and find a suitable spot to perch and observe, all without relying on GPS contact. "The ultimate vehicle is a bat that you can download data from," How says. Bats have the ability to perch, plus echo location to detect obstacles, and the agility to keep from slamming into them.
At the moment, nothing in development can effectively pull off even one of these functions, much less all three. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, for example, are sticking to basic navigation, with a small robot helicopter that uses sonar and cameras to avoid bumping into obstacles while flying indoors. But the lab here has a novel approach: Instead of focusing on building better sensors or more powerful vehicle-mounted processors, researchers at RAVEN are fine-tuning the mechanics of autonomous aerobatics. The 18 motion-capture cameras provide a perfect sensing environment, and the dedicated computers in the lab, which communicate with the test drones via radio transmitters, provide the brainpower. "People might say our UAVs aren't autonomous," How says, "but in this environment, the entire system is autonomous."...
Military.com has an interesting story about a "bum bot" that rolls around an Atlanta neighborhood:
Cars passing O'Terrill's pub screech to a halt at the sight of a 300-pound, waist-high robot marked "SECURITY" rolling through downtown long after dark.
The regulars hardly glance outside. They've seen bar owner Rufus Terrill's invention on patrol before - its bright red lights and even brighter spot light blazing, infrared video camera filming and water cannon at the ready in the spinning turret on top.
"You're trespassing. That's private property," Terrill scolds an older man through the robot's loudspeaker. The man is sitting at the edge of the driveway to a child care center down the street. "Go on."
The man's hands go up and he shuffles into the shadows. Almost immediately, a group of men behind him scatters too.
The Bum Bot's reputation, it seems, has preceded it.
The electronic vigilante - on the beat since September - has enraged neighborhood activists, who have threatened protests. Street people say it's intimidating. And homeless advocates question the intentions of its inventor, who uses the Bum Bot as a marketing tool and a political prop.
Software used for years by hackers and criminals have now become mainstream and, as we have mentioned before, hacking and cyber crime have been professionalized. As such, tool kits that enable these activities have been packaged for sale and wide dispersion across the Internet. These cyber attack tool kits make it possible to automate hacking, espionage, fraud, and much more. These top hacking tools are now being sold for prices ranging from less than $100 and up to $50,000.
And you won’t believe this: The most advanced packages come with customer service/support. In at least one case the package includes 12 months of technical support and updates to ensure the kits stay up to date on the latest web vulnerabilities.
Arguably the most advanced hacker tool kit is MPack. According to Intelomics, MPack is a PHP-based malware kit with high quality key-logging capabilities that sells for between $500 to $1,000 USD and the first version was released in December of 2006. It is believed to have been produced by RBN, a multi-faceted cybercrime organization and appears to come with support and monthly updates.
RBN and their support units provide scripts and executables to make MPack undetectable by antivirus software. Every time MPack is generated it looks different to the anti-virus engines and it often goes undetected. The modularization of delivery platform and malicious instructions is a growing design in cyber weapons. MPack is very popular and powerful. In June 2007, it was used by a single person to attack and compromise over 10,000 websites in a single assault.
FACT: In 2007 a new piece of malware was identified every 45 seconds.
These tools have become common place and are quite affordable. Paul Henry, VP at Secure Computing, estimates there are currently about 68,000 cyber attack tools available for download and the number is growing fast. In some cases these tool kits are sold under the heading of "Penetration Testing Products," a legitimate and useful product.
However, the automation that enables multi-site scanning and intrusion would have very little applicability in the real security testing world. Experts have estimated that the underground market for cyber attack tools is in the hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide.
Note: MPack should not be confused with mpack, which is a harmless command-line utility.
Common Cyber Weapons and Attack Tools:
MPack, SQLNinja
Shark 2, WFuzz
Nuclear, ProxyStrike
WebAttacker, Wireshark
IcePack, httpRecon
John the Ripper, Exploit-Me
USB thief, Burp
Kismet, Metasploit
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced today the re-establishment of the U.S. Fourth Fleet and assigned Rear Adm. Joseph D. Kernan, currently serving as commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, as its new commander. Fourth Fleet will be responsible for U.S. Navy ships, aircraft and submarines operating in the Caribbean, and Central and South America.
U.S. Fourth Fleet will be dual-hatted with the existing commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command (NAVSO), currently located in Mayport, Fla. U.S. Fourth Fleet has been re-established to address the increased role of maritime forces in the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of operations, and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to regional partners.
"Re-establishing the Fourth Fleet recognizes the immense importance of maritime security in the southern part of the Western Hemisphere, and signals our support and interest in the civil and military maritime services in Central and South America," said Roughead. "Our maritime strategy raises the importance of working with international partners as the basis for global maritime security. This change increases our emphasis in the region on employing naval forces to build confidence and trust among nations through collective maritime security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests. "
Effective July 1, the command will have operational responsibility for U.S. Navy assets assigned from east and west coast fleets to operate in the SOUTHCOM area. As a result, U.S. Fourth Fleet will not involve an increase in forces assigned in Mayport, Fla. These assets will conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narcoterrorism, and theater security cooperation (TSC) activities. TSC includes military-to-military interaction and bilateral training opportunities as well as humanitarian assistance and in-country partnerships.
U.S. Fourth Fleet will retain responsibility as NAVSO, the Navy component command for SOUTHCOM. Its mission is to direct U.S. naval forces operating in the Caribbean, and Central and South American regions and interact with partner nation navies to shape the maritime environment.
Kernan will be the first Navy SEAL to serve as a numbered fleet commander.
And it's being honchoed by a SEAL?! Look out Citgo, we're coming to get you...
-- Christian
Watchdog Says Shape Up ISR Systems
Congress' watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, is warning that the Pentagon needs to improve how it plans for and manages development of critical intelligence and surveillance systems.
In a report released April 23, the GAO said the military has struggled "to improve integration across DOD and national intelligence agencies" hampered by the widely differing missions and bureaucratic cultures of the intelligence agencies.
This is not an academic exercise. The report notes that the military plans to spend $28 billion over the next seven years to field a wide array of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. That's just airborne systems and does not include spy satellites, with their traditionally hefty price tags.
The GAO report cites one example where the Pentagon "had difficulty obtaining complete information" on top secret "national" assets - usually a veiled reference to highly classified radar and electro-optical satellites - "because of security classifications of other agency documents." Also, budget wars have hampered the effort to improve coordination across the intelligence enterprise, the GAO report says. In classic understated fashion, the report says that "disagreements about equitable funding from each budget have led to program delays."
The Pentagon has drawn up an "ISR Integration Roadmap" but it does not appear to help much, if the report's language is parsed carefully. The roadmap does not "provide a long-term view of what capabilities are required to achieve strategic goals or provide detailed information that would make it useful as a basis for deciding among alternative investments."
The GAO reviewed 19 intelligence and reconnaissance systems proposals and found that 12 "sponsors" - this could be a combatant command, an intelligence agency or a service -- "did not complete assessments, and the completeness of the remaining seven sponsors' assessments varied." Perhaps most worrying, was the office's finding that the entity charged with overseeing these crucial decisions - the Battlespace Awareness Functional Capabilities Board -- "lacks adequate numbers of dedicated, skilled personnel to engage in early coordination with sponsors and to review sponsors' assessments."
The report's authors recommend that Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and James Clapper, undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, to work together and develop "a comprehensive source of information on all ISR capabilities." Also, Gates should also put in place a monitoring process to make sure the capabilities board and those it works with do a better job. Finally, the report's authors say the capabilities board's staffing levels and their expertise should be reviewed.
-- Colin Clark
Catch the "Buzz" with C-Double
All right folks, you're about to get a true "first."
Over the last several months, Ward and I have been brain storming, kicking, screaming, cajoling, whining and moaning to put together a new product for Military.com that focuses heavily on investigative reporting of the defense industry.
Well, our temper tantrums have paid off and we're going to launch the new online blog/newsletter in May (which will remain nameless until launch). But in the meantime, I'd like to introduce the product's new editor, Colin Clark.
I've known Colin my entire career and we've been good friends out on the hustings as we both kicked over rocks for the next big story. He's a powerhouse in the defense industry news business, with a resume that sports stints at Defense Week, Defense News, Congressional Quarterly and, more recently, Space News.
While we're putting together the final design and wrapping up marketing plans for Colin's new gig, he's going to keep the engines turning and post his content here. He knows he's being thrown into a pot of boiling oil head first with you guys, and I don't expect you to pull any punches.
So please welcome Colin and we all look forward to his kick butt reporting.
-- Christian
US Sells Secret Anti-IED Tech to Iraq
The U.S. has taken the unprecedented -- and some would say questionable -- step of selling some of its most sophisticated counter-IED technology to the Iraqi government, equipping specialized police, military and interior ministry troops with electronic systems designed to detonate roadside bombs and jam triggering signals.
Officials from Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq announced April 20 that its foreign military sales office had sold the Iraqis 411 Lockheed Martin-built "Symphony" counter-IED systems. A few of the Symphony systems are already up and running on Iraqi government vehicles, the command said, with the rest due to be installed by the end of the summer.
"This system will afford the Iraqi security forces long-term, independent counter-IED protection and relieves coalition troops from this responsibility so the latter may perform other tasks," said Army Lt. Col. Will Flucker, the command's Symphony program manager, in an April 20 release. "This system is a critical part of security transition from the coalition forces to the government of Iraq and integral to developing [Iraqi security forces] into a long-term partner in the global war on terror."
But some might see handing over America's most sophisticated and top secret counter-IED technology to Iraqi ministries, whose loyalty to Baghdad is less than certain, as extremely risky. Electronic jammers like the Symphony have saved American lives in a war where the roadside bomb is the number-one killer, and the possibility that an Iraqi official could hand over the technology to an insurgent or unfriendly government is all too real.
"You have to assume that about the third one that we ship over there is going to go straight out the back door," said John Pike, director of the Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-area defense research group. "We have a fundamental dilemma here in trying to indigenize these security forces."
Due to its highly-classified technology, Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Ellen Mitchell refused to discuss Symphony's capabilities or the Iraqi sale. A 2007 Pentagon contract announcement called the Symphony a "programmable, radio-frequency IED defeat system that is vehicle mounted."
The Army's Flucker acknowledged the risk that the technology could wind up in the wrong hands, saying the $51 million deal had been inked only after "numerous technical and administrative delays."
"Most of the administrative hurdles are related to providing effective technology to the partner nation while ensuring such technology is not compromised and does not proliferate beyond Iraq's borders," Flucker wrote Military.com in an email response to questions.
The Iraqi system will incorporate anti-tamper technology along with a fill or operating code that periodically expires and must be renewed in order for the system to operate, and the use of "trusted agents" to handle, control and distribute the operating code, Flucker added.
And that accounts for part of the lengthy "administrative" delays that kept the Symphony -- which costs about $78,000 per system -- out of Iraqi hands for nearly two years.
"This requires a combination of technical and administrative controls that require testing and refinement before they can be implemented with a high degree of confidence," Flucker said.
Pike said that electronic jamming of IEDs is a problem of physics -- there are a limited number of frequencies used to trigger IEDs and the jammers attack all of them. So a Symphony winding up in the hands of the insurgents would have limited utility.
"Whatever waveform it is using to jam ... will by definition be disclosed to the enemy when you turn it on," Pike said, adding that measures to prevent tampering or unauthorized use seem to work.
"I think that they are secure at least to the extent that Iran can't do anything about it," he said.
The Symphony systems will be doled out to Iraqi special forces, ministry of defense officials and interior ministry troops -- including Iraqi army, police, national police and explosive ordnance disposal units. The deal includes a nine-month support contract from Lockheed Martin to "ensure the units function properly and the Iraqis can properly utilize the systems to their full advantage," officials said.
Aside from protecting Iraqi officials, troops and police from roadside bomb ambushes, Flucker hopes the deal will help get more U.S. troops off the road by freeing them up from the dangerous and tedious duties of convoy escort.
"Affording counter-IED protection to the [Iraqi security forces] has been a partnership endeavor from the outset," Flucker added. "Given the theater IED threat, the [government of Iraq] and the coalition have wanted to make this happen for some time now."
-- Christian
Gates Addresses ISR, UAV Difficulties
This article first appeared in the Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is establishing a Pentagon task force to find new and innovative ways to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) to combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gates announced the new team during a speech at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., on April 21. During the speech, Gates said getting the military branches to field more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) quickly to support requirements for U.S. Central Command has been "like pulling teeth."
The task force will be led by Bradley Berkson, director of program analysis and evaluation.
Gates says that the Air Force may "require rethinking long-standing service assumptions and priorities about which missions require certified pilots and which do not." The Air Force trains certified pilots to operate the Predator while the Army does not require pilots to operate its similar Warrior UAV.
Commanders overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan say they have a shortfall of ISR collection in theater, and they specify that they want more full-motion video -- a capability provided by Predator, Warrior and Shadow systems.
The Air Force, however, says it is fielding Predators at an unprecedented rate. One Pentagon official says the service is expected to field its 25th "combat air patrol," (CAP) consisting of four air vehicles and ground support equipment, by June 1. This is double the number of CAPs in the theater about a year ago.
The limiting factor for fielding more Predator units quickly is training Predator crews. The Air Force’s schoolhouse at Creech Air Force Base, Nev., is training about 160 crews per year, according to Air Force officials. However, that is not enough to operate the additional Predators being fielded. Additional funding will need to be included in the Air Force budget to increase training capacity to 240 crews per year in fiscal 2009.
Gates’ new task force will explore whether and how to push more UAVs and crews to support operations in Iraq, as well as other technological responses that could help support the massive intelligence requirements there.
The most difficult weapons decision by the new administration that enters the White House next January will likely be the fighter issue -- how many and what kinds of fighters should be procured for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
The George W. Bush administration--with Secretaries of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Robert M. Gates -- has mapped out a fighter procurement strategy. Particularly controversial was the decision to produce only 183 to 187 F-22 Raptor advanced fighters for the Air Force. But many Air Force leaders believe that the service needs as many as 381 F-22s to bridge a "fighter gap" until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) becomes available in numbers. The recent problems with the F-15 Eagle have provided ammunition for the advocacy of more F-22s in the near term.
Meanwhile, some Navy officials are becoming concerned about a "fighter gap" in that service. Their solution would be to increase the current procurement of F/A-18E and F Super Hornet aircraft. These strike-fighters would be for Navy service as the Marine Corps has kept with older F/A-18s and does not fly the E/F models.
All three services plan to acquire specific variants of the F-35 JSF -- officially named Lightning II, a moniker that is rarely used. But what impact would additional buys of F-22s or F/A-18s have on the F-35 program? Air Force Major General Charles R. Davis, the F-35 program executive officer, was recently quoted in Defense News (7 April 2008) stating, "Any time there is a discussion of a service or country pulling out airplanes from the program, the other service leaderships get very concerned. But we have told the Navy that buying them [F-35C aircraft] sooner at greater rates gives you a lower cost and more capability on your [carrier] decks than any other buying profile."
In realty, the Air Force has the least interest in near-term procurement of the F-35 JSF as it would take several years to buy up to an F-22 force of 381 aircraft. Similarly, the Navy is pleased with the F/A-18 Super Hornet for the next decade or more. That aircraft has both a fighter and attack capability, and the nature of expected air threats -- both in terms of quantity and quality -- should be effectively countered by the Super Hornets. Also, an "all F/A-18 Super Hornet force" -- including the new A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft -- simplifies maintenance and training.
More critical is the U.S. Marine Corps situation. The Marines now fly the F/A-18C and D variants and, of course, the AV-8B Harrier STOVL aircraft. Both will be in need of replacement within a decade and the F-35B STOVL is the planned -- and needed -- replacement. STOVL aircraft can operate from the Navy's large carriers as well as the so-called amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHD), which are "flattops" as large as World War II-era fleet carriers but lack catapults, arresting gear, and angled flight decks.
Similarly, the Britain is planning procurement of the F-35B to succeed the less-capable Harriers flown from their carrier decks (by Royal Navy and Royal Marine pilots).
In the long-term, the U.S. Air Force has discussed buying about a thousand F-35A and possibly other JSF variants to replace all of its F-15/F-16/A-10 aircraft.
Thus, there are major fighter issues to be addressed when the new administration is sworn in next January. Because of aircraft production line and component concerns, some decisions will have to be made quickly. Still, an objective, all-service study of U.S. fighter requirements and options should be conducted as soon as possible by the new administration -- preferably during the November -- January transition period.
-- Norman Polmar
Problems Crop Up During Deepwater Trials
Sea trials have found eight major concerns with the Coast Guard's new National Security Cutter, but service officials say they are confident the ship, christened Bertholf, will pass acceptance tests soon.
Northrop Grumman Corp. is building the Bertholf as part of the Coast Guard's Deepwater Modernization program, a $24 billion effort to upgrade the agency's ships, aircraft and communications gear. So far, it's been a bumpy ride -- the Coast Guard had to shelve one of its boat projects as too ambitious, while another project foundered after eight upgraded 123'-foot cutters proved unseaworthy.
Now the Coast Guard is hoping the Bertholf will change the project's momentum. The ship is a few months behind schedule, but Coast Guard officials say there haven't been any big hiccups this year. The mid-April acceptance trials were a big milestone -- the Coast Guard wants to accept the ship by the end of this month so it can start training its crew. The latest list of technical issues hasn't dented the agency's optimism.
"These acceptance trials are good news for the Coast Guard because the number of starred cards written for Bertholf is extremely low, considering this is a first-in-class ship. The Coast Guard is confident that the contractors will be able to resolve all materiel deficiencies aboard Bertholf in a timely manner," Coast Guard spokeswoman Laura Williams said Monday.
The Navy also put a good spin on the Bertholf's performance. The latest trials turned up about 2,800 "trial cards", which identify areas that need more work. That compares to between 6,000 and 16,000 cards for first-in-class Navy ship. In addition, about 1,360 of the Bertholf's trial cards dealt with previously identified issues. This led the Navy to commend the Coast Guard's "superb quality assurance" while managing the project, the Coast Guard said.
Here's the new ship's honey-do list of major things that need fixing, as identified by Coast Guard and Navy inspectors:
- Machinery Control Monitoring System: a computer system that enables automated or manual operation of main propulsion and electrical systems.
- Line Shaft Bearings-These bearings support and align the ship's propeller shafts. The bearings require maintenance and re-alignment.
- Mooring Line Controllers-The Navy recommended modifying these line controllers for portable operation to improve crew safety.
- Gantry Crane Hoists-Designed to raise and lower the NSC's cutter boats (Short Range Prosecutor and Long Range Interceptor), the hoists require adjustment to the wire ropes and swivel hooks.
- 57mm Ammunition Hoist-The ammunition handling system's brake must be repaired for safe operation.
- Incinerator-Requires repair for testing.
- Flight Deck-The Navy wants the Coast Guard to correct 14 deficiencies before BERTHOLF earns certification for naval flight operations. These deficiencies include: removing hoses from the flight deck; installing sound power communications between stations on the flight deck; installing additional tie downs; correcting flight deck markings for the Aircraft Ship Integrated Secure and Traverse (ASIST) system, etc.
In addition to this major list, there are 78 other items that require additional safety-related adjustments, the Coast Guard said. The new ship also has started TEMPEST testing, a Pentagon protocol required for classified communications systems, the agency said.
Integrated Coast Guard Solutions, the Lockheed Martin-Northrop Grumman joint venture that is coordinating a big chunk of the Deepwater contracting, did not have comment on the acceptance trials when contacted Monday.
So yesterday Gates dressed down the Air Force during an address at its war college in Alabama. He said getting the service to deploy enough drones to Iraq and Afghanistan was like "pulling teeth" and he cited the struggle as an example of services refusing to adapt to the new era of warfare.
His criticism was greeted with quiet applause by many in the analyst/journalist/military world who are mainly concerned that the Air Force is focusing too much of its efforts on legacy platforms like the F-22. Don't get me wrong, I like it when a defense secretary shows a little backbone and acts like he's leading the services rather than being led by them (or Congress).
But I think we should inject some perspective into his undiplomatic attacks. I'll get this one out of the way first: Can you imagine the outcry if it had been Rumsfeld who delivered this critique? When the former secretary slapped the Army upside the head, he was slammed for being too wedded to an outmoded "revolution in military affairs" mentality and that he favored technology over manpower. Army generals initiated a whisper campaign to discredit him. And after a while it worked. Wonder if the powerful Air Force brass will start the same thing? Only time will tell.
I also think it's a bit unfair to say the Air Force is stuck in the old ways of doing business:
In my view we can do and we should do more to meet the needs of men and women fighting in the current conflicts while their outcome may still be in doubt," he said. "My concern is that our services are still not moving aggressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield."
He cited the example of drone aircraft that can watch, hunt and sometimes kill insurgents without risking the life of a pilot. He said the number of such aircraft has grown 25-fold since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to a total of 5,000.
Gates has been trying for months to get the Air Force to send more surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, like the Predator drone that provides real-time surveillance video, to the battlefield.
"Because people were stuck in old ways of doing business, it's been like pulling teeth," Gates said. "While we've doubled this capability in recent months, it is still not good enough."
If you really think about it, the Air Force has been pretty agile in this fight. They've deployed Airmen as provisional convoy security teams, sent over explosive ordnance disposal teams to augment Army, Navy and Marine IED hunters, scattered hundreds of tactical air controllers around the globe to help the ground pounders in close air support missions, their planes fly constantly over Iraq and Afghanistan helping spot IEDs, killing senior insurgent and al Qaeda leaders and tracking bad guy mortar teams. The service has done a lot of filling in on missions it's not traditionally done before and stepped up to the plate with little complaint.
Maybe complaining about the number of UAVs the Air Force has deployed is reasonable. A colleague in one of my email loops put it this way:
Gates apparently does not know about the real issues involved in deploying more Predators, and is paving the way to the inevitable day when an Army Warrior crewed by 19-year-old NCOs has a midair with a loaded C-130, directs a barrage of guided artillery on to a school bus or puts Hellfires through a group of allied vehicles.
The Air Force argues the delay in deploying UAV squadrons is due to training needs back home. My colleague above might be going a little far in his analogy -- I don't think we need winged aviators necessarily to fly UAVs on all missions -- but his point brings up a larger issue that Gates ignores in his UAV critique.
The bottom line is ALL the services need to adapt to a new way of fighting, and in large part they have. Now the Air Force's obsession with the F-22 is an easy mark for critique. But at least someone's thinking about air-to-air while everyone else is handing out soccer balls and building insurgent network wire diagrams.
-- Christian
Cyber-Holes in Your Software
New software vulnerabilities are announced all the time. In fact, according to the NITS database, last year a new software vulnerability was announced every 57 minutes.
A software vulnerability is defined as a flaw in a software program which may allow a third party or program to gain unauthorized access. Some experts say that over 70% of the nearly 7,000 vulnerabilities discovered last year were exploitable remotely. This remote capability makes them valuable assets for cyber attackers.
The ability to rapidly respond to and mitigate the risks posed by these vulnerabilities is one of the most important parts of computer and network security. Vendors rapidly respond to the reports of newly discovered vulnerabilities in their products. But wouldn't we all be better off if the vulnerabilities did not exist in the first place?
I consulted a 25 year veteran of the software industry that hails from one of the icons of the software industry and posed the following question to him: Based on your experience, how often do software vendors investigate the root cause of reported vulnerabilities? He said, "They Don't -- they jump in and try to create a patch."
I followed up and asked so you are saying they do not look to see if the vulnerability was purposefully programmed? After a significant pause he said, "We never considered that possibility, we only worked to respond to the vulnerability."
If that's not bad enough think about the amount of software being developed offshore. Product liability exists in virtually every other category except software. How would you react if every 57 minutes your car dealer called you and said there is a problem with your car? We have been conditioned to accept software products with these problems and have allowed organizations to protect themselves by hiding behind the armor of the "Software License."
If software vendors, whose products run our critical infrastructure, do not investigate if these vulnerabilities are actually acts of espionage, that would seem to be a critical flaw in our efforts to protect ourselves against cyber attack.
I guess it's not news unless AP or one of the majors reports it, but today's lead story on Military.com has an interesting advance on the M4 debate.
It seems that Colt's strangle hold on the Army's carbine buy might be slipping as M4 oponents on Capitol Hill look to the 2009 budget season as an opportunity to force a competition for a new carbine.
There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."
Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in its role as the military's principal buyer of firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for continued M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon.
"We haven't made up our mind yet," Radcliffe says.
As you already know from our reporting here, the gas system on the M4 has been criticized for being way too maintenance intensive. The AP story goes into all that and delivers a pretty good summary of the testing and debate so far.
It also advances the story a bit by injecting another senator into the "let's have a competition" camp, as well as former Army chief Jack Keane voicing agreement with Coburn.
In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89 percent were satisfied with the M4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19 percent of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.
And the relationship between the Army and Colt has been frosty at times. Concerned over the steadily rising cost of the M4, the Army forced Colt to lower its prices two years ago by threatening to buy rifles from another supplier. Prior to the warning, Colt "had not demonstrated any incentive to consider a price reduction," then-Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, an Army acquisition official, wrote in a November 2006 report.
Coburn is the M4's harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the "SCAR," made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany's Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M4, their manufacturers say.
The SCAR is being purchased by U.S. special operations forces, who have their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't.
Or won't.
"All I know is, we're not having the competition, and the technology that is out there is not in the hands of our troops," says Jack Keane, a former Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M4 replacement before retiring four years ago.
Again, I think it's important to give the troops the best technology out there. And if there's something that takes a beating better than the current system, let's field it.
The dispute over the M4 has been overshadowed by larger but not necessarily more important concerns. When the public's attention is focused on the annual defense budget, it tends to be captured by bigger-ticket items, like the Air Force's F-22 Raptors that cost $160 million each.
The Raptor, a radar-evading jet fighter, has never been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the troops who patrol Baghdad's still-dangerous neighborhoods or track insurgents along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there's no piece of gear more critical than the rifles on their shoulders. They go everywhere with them, even to the bathroom and the chow hall.
Yet the military has a poor track record for getting high-quality firearms to warfighters. Since the Revolutionary War, mountains of red tape, oversize egos and never-ending arguments over bullet size and gunpowder have delayed or doomed promising efforts.
I don't know how many times I've worried about this very thing happening to me during one of my many embeds. I know the troops don't like reporters very much and sometimes the Port-a-Jon is the only option.
The MULE (Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment) is roughly the size of a Humvee, but it has a trick worthy of monster truck rallies. Each of its six wheels is mounted on an articulated leg, allowing the robot to clamber up obstacles that other cars would simply bump against.
Right now, it's slowly extricating itself from the caved-in roof, undulating slightly as it settles into a neutral stance on the asphalt. This prototype's movements are precise, menacing and slow. When the final product rolls onto the battlefield in six years, it will clear obstacles in stride, advancing without hesitation. And, like the robot cars that raced through city streets in last fall's Pentagon-funded DARPA Urban Challenge, the MULE will use sensors and GPS coordinates to pick its way through a battlefield. If a target is detected, the machine will calculate its own firing solutions and wait for a remote human operator to pull the trigger. The age of killer robots is upon us.
But here at defense contractor Lockheed Martin's test track, during a demonstration for Popular Mechanics, this futuristic forerunner of the robot army has a flat tire. "Actually, this is good," says Michael Norman, Lockheed's project manager for the prototype. "You'll be able to see how quick it is to swap in a new tire." He nods toward an engineer holding an Xbox 360 controller and wearing a gigantic, gleaming backpack that contains a processing computer.
The engineer taps a handheld touchscreen. One of the robot's wheeled legs rotates upward, and a two-man crew goes to work. Each leg has its own hub motor to allow for a variety of positions. If one leg is blown off by enemy fire or a roadside bomb, the rest are able to soldier on, with the robot automatically adjusting its center of gravity to stay mobile. It's highly functional. But with its engine powered down -- it runs on a Mercedes-built engine originally modified for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) -- and one leg cocked gamely in the air, the MULE doesn't look so tough right now.
In fact, the MULE isn't ready for battle. Barely a year old, the prototype is a product of the Army's Unmanned Ground Vehicle program, which began in 2001. It has yet to fire a single bullet or missile, or even be fitted with a weapon. Here at the test track it's loaded down with rucksacks and boxes, two squads' worth of equipment. At the moment, the MULE has no external sensors. "We're 80 percent through the initial phase," Norman says, "but we don't have the perception fully tested. It knows heading and speed, but it's blind."
In other words, it's essentially one of the world's biggest radio-control cars. And, eyeing the robot's familiar controller, I realize I might have a shot at driving it. I know my way around a video-game console, but the engineers are noncommittal about my request to drive the MULE.
The goal, of course, is for the MULE to drive itself. Sitting a short distance away is the prototype's future, a full-size mockup of a weaponized variant, its forward-facing machine gun bracketed by missile tubes. The gleaming sphere set on a short mast looks precisely like a robot's eyeball. It will visually track moving targets, allowing operators to zoom in for a closer look before pulling the trigger. According to the Army, this giant prop represents a revolutionary shift in how we will wage wars. This is the face of the robotic infantry.
Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) have already flooded the battlefield. There are at least 6000 robots in use by the Army and Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan. For years these small, remote-control vehicles have allowed troops to peek around corners and investigate suspected bombs. And while unmanned aerial vehicles have been loaded with missiles since 2001, the arming of ground robots is relatively uncharted territory.
Last June the Army deployed the first-ever armed UGVs. Three SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Remote Direct-Action System) robots landed in Iraq, each equipped with an M249 light machine gun. These UGVs are essentially guns on tracks, a variant of the remote-control Talon bots routinely blown up while investigating improvised explosive devices. When the trio was approved for combat duty, the potential for historic robot-versus-human carnage lit up the blogosphere. Never mind the dozens of air-to-ground Hellfire missiles that have already been launched by a squadron of armed Predator drones over the past seven years -- this was a robot soldier, packing the same machine gun used by ground troops.
The historic deployment ended with a whimper after the Army announced that the SWORDS would not be given the chance to see combat. According to a statement from Duane Gotvald, deputy project manager of the Robotic Systems Joint Project Office, which oversees robots used by the Army and Marines, "While there has been considerable interest in fielding the system, some technical issues still remain and SWORDS is not currently funded." The robots never fired a shot, but Gotvald pointed out that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division used them for surveillance and "peacekeeping/guard operations."
The nature of the robots' "technical issues" remains an open question. The Army has not released details, and officials with Foster-Miller, the Massachusetts-based contractor that developed the SWORDS, refused interview requests for this story. But according to Col. Barry Shoop, deputy head of West Point's electrical engineering and computer science department, the reason armed UGVs continue to lag behind UAVs is because of their mission: close-quarters firefights. "The technical challenges are greater," Shoop says. "Think of the kind of image and graphics processing you need to make positive identification, to use lethal force. That's inhibiting."
It's a shame that this program is doing so poorly, but I guess we could all see it coming. I remember covering the competition a few years ago and the pitch was that the companies would have a new plane ready in time for Bush to fly off the South Lawn in it when he leaves office in January 2009.
Wishful thinking as usual.
Our friends at Av Week sent us an interesting story on new electronic defenses that're being put on the bird:
The VH-71 presidential replacement helicopter is going to bring with it classified capabilities, as well as some slightly more visible semi-secrets.
Perhaps highest on the classified list is the helicopter's protection from electronic attack. Program officials admit to it being hardened to electromagnetic pulses (EMP) generated by nuclear explosions. But they clam up when quizzed about the Pentagon's newer threats that include high-powered microwaves (HPM) that can be generated by non-nuclear means, including suitcase-sized devices such as those manufactured by the German firm Deihl.
"Nice try, but we're not going to discuss waveforms," says Capt. Donald Gaddis, the departing program manager and rear admiral candidate. A Defense Science Board report on directed energy weapons, circulated around the Pentagon starting last December, says that kinetic weapons may be replaced by HPM devices for "airborne-defeat of electronic systems."
That can be applied two ways -- airborne HPM devices to disable air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles, ground vehicles, aircraft and helicopters; or ground-based weapons that serve as anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems. The report also urges the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to undertake a program to "discover and assess emerging laser and high-power microwave capabilities available to the full range of potential adversaries. HPM could be used to disrupt electro-optical sensors and onboard electronic elements of surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
In addition, disruption of computer-based assets, perhaps without knowledge of the cause, is possible." One of the crucial capabilities of the AgustaWestland-designed VH-71 is the advanced communications system that ensures very important persons such as the president and cabinet members can talk to any government agency or organization at any time. A communications manager can ensure datalink connections (including UHF satcom, ARC-244 FM high-powered radio, Inmarsat commercial satellite and voice-over-Internet-protocol) to any of the 14 passenger positions.
I just received this release from Humvee manufacturer AM General describing its team concept for the development of the next-generation tactical transport: the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.
As you all know, I think the JLTV project is a long time coming and is an exciting opportunity to leverage armor, powerplant, mechanical, vehicle systems and weapons advances since the design and fielding of the Humvee.
Its good to see some many companies jump into the program -- and there's a part of me that's glad to see AM General isn't fighting for the services to cling to its current technology, but is instead getting on the bandwagon with a strong effort on JLTV.
From "General Tactical Vehicles (a conglomerate of AM General and GD Land Systems):
Leveraging over 120 years of combined experience in the design, production and support of more than one million combat and tactical vehicles, General Tactical Vehicles has submitted its proposal for the Technology Development phase of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program.
GTV's offer for the JLTV optimizes survivability while maximizing power and payload. The approach focuses on commonality of systems and components along with modular armor, resulting in an innovative and agile vehicle system that will provide enhanced crew protection, considerable cargo capacity, ready transportability and unprecedented networked mobility.
"Our JLTV will provide America's Soldiers and Marines a vehicle with the strong performance, flexibility, protection and sustainability they need across the full range of missions, locations and operational scenarios," said Don Howe, GTV's JLTV program director. "GTV's JLTV will give our armed forces the rapid deployability, reliability, networking capabilities and survivability they need today and in the decades ahead."
General Tactical Vehicles applies proven technologies along with a modular design that will accommodate continuing advances in armor and vehicle systems. "While it's a significant advancement in design, it's also affordable and practical," said Howe. "Combined with manufacturing readiness that allows an accelerated path to production, our design will make the JLTV program a smart, low-risk investment for America's armed forces and taxpayers."
Innovative features of the GTV design include:
Lightweight hybrid hull structure which provides a low-profile and blast-resistant vehicle designed to survive current and future threats
Parallel arm adjustable height suspension to give the vehicle increased mine blast protection without jeopardizing air and sea transportability;
Semi-active suspension ensuring safety enhanced mobility and crew comfort
Proven propulsion systems with a high horsepower-to-weight ratio to maximize payload, plus a driveline that gives the vehicle tough off road capabilities
Digital cockpit with C4I technologies connecting the crew to other units and systems
A unique modular and scalable trailer that has mobility equal to the JLTV vehicle itself.
General Tactical Vehicles is a joint venture between AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics formed to provide the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps a low-risk, affordable, technically advanced and economically sustainable solution to their Joint Light Tactical Vehicle requirements. In 2006, both AM General and General Dynamics were awarded JLTV "Best Technical Approach" trade studies by the Office of Naval Research.
I've asked AM General for a photo or artist's rendition of the vehicle, but I'm intrigued by this idea of a "modular and scalable trailer." [Sounds like their making the vehicle itself smaller to generate a lower profile and adding a trailer for gear and other stuff. I wonder how well this is going to go over with the Army and Marine Corps. They could read it as just something else to break]...
EDITOR: good call dear readers, indeed a trailer is probably part of the RFP. I understand the need and the compatibility issues Ed, roger all and good input. Thanks!
-- Christian
Exclusive: Raytheon Wins Big Bucks for Missile Radar Move
Raytheon Co. won a $400 million Pentagon contract this week to move a missile defense radar from the Marshall Islands to the Czech Republic.
So far, the company has only received about $5 million to start planning for the transfer. But more work under the contract could be in train before long -- a Missile Defense Agency spokesman said Thursday that a permission deal with the Czech Republic could come "within weeks."
The U.S. wants to put an X-band radar in the Czech Republic to work with a missile interceptor site in Poland, to defend Europe against attack from Iran. Neither Poland nor the Czech Republic has given final go-ahead, however, and Russia continues to oppose the deal. For its part, the U.S. insists the interceptors would pose no threat to Russia, or even change the current military balance between Russia and Europe.
Raytheon's new award is an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract that extends through 2013. The initial task order covers money only for "site surveys, studies, analysis, planning, design, and similar activities," as provided for in the 2008 defense budget. Congress restricted what MDA can spend on the plan until the host countries have given the all-clear.
The X-band radar that will be used in the Czech site comes from the Marshall Islands, where it has been for about a decade. MDA says that radar is no longer needed for U.S. missile defense testing, which has moved away from the Marshall Islands to California and Alaska. So Raytheon will disassemble it, upgrade it and move it to Europe.
Because the radar has already been built, there won't be that many opportunities for local industry. But Raytheon says it's already talking to Czech officials about ways to get local workers involved in the project.
Official announcements of the new contract are expected in coming days from Raytheon and from MDA. The Defense Department announced the deal in one of its daily contract roundups. Earlier this year, Boeing received a similar contract to begin work on its plans for the Polish interceptor site.
-- Rebecca Christie
Osprey Fire Injures Marine
DT friend and Osprey investigative reporter for the Ft. Worth Star-TelegramBob Cox sent me an alarming note today. Turns out a V-22 at New River caught fire in the nacelle a month ago and no one seemed to catch it until now (yep, not until after the $10 billion contract award for 167 new MV-22s). According to Bob's investigation, this isn't a new problem.
And it looks like there's still more concern about an oil cooling system that's malfunctioning, risking gear box damage.
From the Star-Telegram's Sky Talk blog:
Just two weeks prior to that award, yet another Osprey operated by Marines in North Carolina suffered an engine nacelle fire, a recurring problem. The good folks at Amarillo.com backed into the story a few days ago with a nice story on a local Marine who had to be hospitalized for inhaling too much fire suppressant while extinguishing the blaze.
No word yet on the degree of damage to the aircraft, which was apparently on ground at the time preparing to take off. A similar fire a few months ago, that broke out in flight and required an emergency landing in the middle of nowhere, essentially destroyed the engine nacelle -- the compartment on the end of the wing that contains the jet turbine engine -- and left the wing itself in very bad shape, according to both Marine and Bell sources.
The Marines have had a number of these fires over the last couple of years but fortunately none have caused a crash. No word on whether there have been any fires involving V-22s in Iraq, which were the first to have a nacelle fire prevention fix installed. What happens is hydraulic and other flammable fluids leak inside the nacelle and then get ignited by hot engine components.
The Marines have acknowledged that the Osprey's reliability in Iraq (and stateside) continues to be less than desired and now have said the aircraft's engines are wearing way too fast. Then this week we learned of another significant problem that has popped up in Iraq.
It seems that the oil cooling system that supplies both a generator and one of the tilt-rotor gearboxes has a nasty tendency to go bad, allowing temperatures to rise to levels that could damage the gear box components. On four occasions V-22s at forward bases were grounded until repairs could be made. generators aboard the aircraft has a problem with its oil cooling system.
An internal Marine memorandum says it has been very fortunate that the cooling system hasn't failed in flight and forced a flight crew to make an emergency landing in hostile territory. The memo says the oil cooling system is lasting just 25 percent of its expected life.
All I can say is that when I spoke with maintainers, pilots, crew chiefs and squadron officials in Iraq, nothing like this came up. They mentioned slip ring failures and avionics hiccups from the fine dust, but nothing as alarming as nacelle fires and oil cooling system failures.
And a Marine spokesman told me the fire on March 14 happened because someone neglected to remove an engine intake cover. I should have more on this later.
So, thanks again to Bob Cox for the head's up.
-- Christian
Some New Tanker Gouge
Ok, so I met today with a senior Northrop Grumman official who chatted with me about the ongoing Tanker Tango from the NorGrum/EADS perspective.
Sure, a lot of the conversation was about KPPs this, and job opportunities that. But he dropped a couple news tidbits I thought I'd throw your way.
First of all, the official told me the Air Force had formally submitted a request to the GAO to throw out the Boeing protest on Wednesday.
This is different from an earlier request to dismiss. That one concerned issues Boeing had brought up in their protest that the Air Force considered invalid, such as WTO conflicts and government subsidies.
GAO rejected that request for dismissal, so the Air Force compiled its case against the Boeing protest on the merits of the company's specific allegations, this official told me. The service has asked the GAO to dismiss the protest in its entirety.
I asked for a copy of the AF protest, but couldn't get it because the companies need to redact any proprietary information before it can be released.
Second, and kind of along the same lines, it turns out the Air Force, stung by the last tanker implosion that forced its secretary out of office and jailed two Boeing officials, Red Teamed the heck out of the tanker award before it was announced. I've been thinking all along that it seems to me the Air Force wouldn't risk a mis-dotted "i" or an un-crossed "t" given its previous experience.
Well, the NorGrum official told me that for a month and a half, the Air Force convened a Red Team of the Army and Navy's top procurement officers, staffers from Pentagon acquisition chief John Young's office and Pentagon IG officials at Wright Patterson Air Force base. The team was tasked with poking holes in the contract process to make sure there could be no protest from either side on how the Air Force handled the competition.
So it seems, on the face of it, that if proponents of the protest are trying in some way to impugn the Air Force on a slip shod process, assuming this Red Team happened, it doesn't hold much water.
Again, I just thought I'd pass along the info. And, I'd be happy to speak with Boeing's tanker team any time to get their side of the story if they offer.
-- Christian
Robot Targets Men in Iraq
Yesterday afternoon we ran a story on Military.com about a U.S. drone strike that killed four Shiite "militants" in Basra.
An unmanned U.S. drone fired two Hellfire missiles at militants attacking Iraqi soldiers in a Shiite militia stronghold in the southern city of Basra on Wednesday, killing four of the gunmen, the military said.
The airstrike in Basra occurred about 1 a.m. after militiamen attacked an Iraqi army patrol with rocket-propelled grenades on the eastern side of the Hayaniyah district, the U.S. military said. A vehicle suspected of containing more weapons and ammunition also was destroyed.
To me this strike seemed interesting for it's "close air support" flavor. Up until only recently, the armed Predators and Reapers have been used primarly for strategic and infrastructure strikes. We all know about drones going after HVTs in a "surgical" hit, but this time it seems they were used to support Iraqi troops on the ground.
We also saw reports of drones being used in this way during last week's fighting in Sadr City.
Does this signal a paradigm shift in the use of combat drones? I'd be interested to know what the coordination for CAS is with this kind of asset -- what's the response time? Seems to me it's a good idea in a place where US assets are thinly distributed like Basra. And as the US withdraws more and more troops over the coming years, we could see a lot more of this kind of drone-kills-man scenario.
-- Christian
MRAP Review
Here's a great first-person review of the MRAP from my good friend who posts as "Slab" on OpFor.
In January, my team traded out our well-worn M1114 Up-armored HMMWV for a 4X4 JERRV, one of the models of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles purchased by the Marine Corps. We were pretty excited to have the new vehicle, especially after our first look inside. I mean, the thing looks like the Cadillac Escalade of tactical vehicles. The IED threat in our little slice of Al Anbar had long since dropped to non-existent, but it felt good to have something that was specifically engineered to combat the threat, you know? It didn't take long for the novelty to wear off, however, and by the end of the deployment we had taken to operating mainly from a Humvee again. The MRAP is a superb EOD and convoy security vehicle (the acronym JERRV stands for Joint EOD Rapid Response Vehicle), but it is merely a passable utility and/or fighting vehicle. The thing was obviously designed with the EOD mission in mind, and if any operator input was incorporated into the design, it clearly did not come from the infantry community.
On the good side, it is obviously better equipped to resist blast-type mines and IEDs than any other vehicle in the inventory. On top of the increased protection, the MRAP has a fantastic communications system installed, much better than what we had in our Humvee. Most ANGLICO Humvees look like Monster Garage rejects - additional antennas installed in weird places, additional radios installed in all sorts of unauthorized fashion, all trying to maximize the communications capability of our vehicles. Here we had a vehicle that came with brand new multiband radios, all tied in to an intercommunications system. Although many of the comm capabilities are completely unnecessary for most units, it almost seemed like this thing was made for ANGLICO. In addition, the designers were definitely looking to improve crew comfort in these things - the seats are much more comfortable than the ones in a Humvee, the Vehicle Commander's (VC) seat was MUCH roomier than in a Humvee (even my 155 lb ass ends up wedged between the door and the Blue Force Tracker mount in a Humvee), the air conditioning system was top-notch, etc.
For a motorized infantry mission, however, the MRAP's shortcomings are many. It handles atrociously offroad. The suspension is incredibly stiff, with the end result being that you must be tightly strapped in to survive the jostling in the back of the vehicle. Well, my radio operator sits in the back, and those wonderful radios I mentioned before are placed in such a way that the only person who can readily access them is the gunner. Someone that I would prefer keep his attention oriented, you know, outside the vehicle. My radio guy can certainly reach around the gunner's legs and work on the radios, but not if he's tightly strapped in trying to survive the ride.
Because we frequently live and fight from our vehicle, we have to carry an assortment of odds and ends for our radios, weapons, and ourselves. Things like water, MREs, ammunition, spare barrels for the machinegun, and spare items for the radios. The jostling that I just mentioned makes it nearly impossible to store any of these items in the interior of the vehicle without significant modification. We tried removing one of the seats and putting in a wooden box with space for some of these items, but many items were tossed completely out of the box and ended up strewn about the floor of the vehicle. There is a complete lack of weapons stowage for passengers in the rear of the vehicle, and the weapons racks for the driver and VC are designed for M16s, not M4s. One aspect that seems to elude many tactical vehicle designers is that motorized infantry typically store their sustainment load (i.e. rucksacks) externally (see below). This allows the vehicle's internal space to be utilized for items that I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, which must be readily accessible throughout the day. Sustainment items can typically wait until a long halt of some sort before they are needed. Yet, the MRAP has no provision for strapping a rucksack to the outside of the vehicle.
The MRAP is a vehicle that is well-suited for a particular niche, but due to pressure from people such as our lawmakers in Congress, it has been pressed into service in roles that it is not suited for. For a unit that never leaves a paved surface, and rarely spends more than 24 hours outside of some sort of operating base at a time, the MRAP's protection and communications capabilities make it a superb asset. For units that must remain expeditionary, be able to operate in a wide variety of terrain and pursue the enemy wherever he is found, the MRAP is ultimately a poor choice, and I in retrospect I am very glad that Gen Conway is reducing the number of these vehicles on order. Personally, if given the choice, I would take an M1114 or M1152 HMMWV over the JERRV 4X4, and would seek other means to reduce the IED threat through such things as tribal leader engagement and refining mounted patrol TTPs.
For more reading on the subject, try Defense Tech. As you can see, Christian has been leveling similar criticism since last year. Christian's article is one of the more down-to-earth articles I've seen on the subject. He and I had a good discussion about personal body armor at the Milbloggies last year, it looks like we are of generally the same opinion on the MRAP issue as well.
The IDF recently deployed the Keshet 120 mm Autonomous Self Propelled Recoil Mortar System (manufactured by Soltam Systems Limited) that the head of the Army Headquarters Weapons Department, Lieutenant Colonel Eren Garnet, explained would enable a battalion commander to fire artillery autonomously. "The battalion commander should be able to guide the fire in the unit he commands as opposed to requiring outside assistance."
The Keshet can be integrated on any M1064 Tracked Vehicle and is currently in serial delivery to the US Army, the IDF and other customers. The autonomous mortar system is capable of a maximum range of 7KM (with NATO std unassisted bombs) and can fire all types of 120mm smooth bore ammo. Its rate of fire burst is 16 per minute (intense burst, 4 rounds). The total weight is 750kg, elevation (deg) 40-85 and traverse (deg) 360.
According to Valentec Systems Inc., the Keshet offers commanders of infantry and armor unique enhanced operational capabilities. Indeed, improvements in inertial navigation systems and a sophisticated target acquisition system further enhance the accuracy of mortar ammunition delivery.
IDF Lieutenant Colonel Tal Aharon notes that the "Keshet weapons system is, without a doubt, the most advanced weapons system of the Infantry Corps."
Other Mortars Compared:
The XM1204 Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar (NLOS-M) is a turreted, self-propelled mortar vehicle with a four man crew. The NLOS-M is currently in development for the U.S. Army and is a component of the Future Combat System.
The Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar (NLOS-M) offers unparalleled responsiveness and lethality (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/fcs/bia/050923_resupply_rfi.pdf) to the Unit of Action (UA) commander. The mortar provides fires in close support of tactical maneuvers that include destructive fires and special purpose fires. While working as part of an NLOS-M battery, the Non-Line-of-Sight mortar-firing Precision Guided Mortar Munitions deliver lethal fires to destroy targets and provide area suppression in support of UA companies and platoons.
The command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) network enables the FCS NLOS-M)fire control system to conduct semi- to autonomous computation of technical fire direction, automatic gun lay, preparation of the ammunition for firing and mortar round firing. Vastly improved handling, loading and firing systems will be another centerpiece of the NLOS-M. The mortar platoon will also retain a dismounted 81mm mortar capability for complex terrain.
According to Chinese Defense Today, the YW-381 self-propelled 120mm mortar system is mounted inside the troop compartment of a YW-531 APC and is capable of an indirect fire range of 7,700m. The 13.2t mortar is mounted (or fixed) on the APC floor, and cannot move in traverse. As such, the mortar tube elevation range is limited to 45-80 degrees. Auxiliary weapon include a Type 59 12.7 anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on the APC's roof.
The Russian Tulpan is based on the GMZ tracked minelaying vehicle carrying an externally mounted M-240 240 mm breech-loading mortar on the hull rear. The M-1975 mortar (130kg per projectile) is capable of a 9,650m range, but an extended range munition could possibly raise the range to 20,000 m. The Tulpan is limited to a firing frequency of one round per minute. However, the Tulpan can also fire laser-guided, armor-piercing, chemical and nuclear rounds.
Enemy Forces notes that the 240-mm mortar is lowered into the firing position under remote-control and when in position can be elevated from +45 to +80° with a traverse of 8° left and right. The sighting system is located on the right side of the mortar.
Growing concerns with the U.S. having enough Army and Marine Corps land forces to react to potential unforeseen crises overseas are drawing attention on Capitol Hill.
The concerns come as lawmakers craft fiscal 2009 defense bills and eye post-Bush administration budget-making, keeping in mind the looming potential for a significant number of troops operating in Iraq for years to come and the strain that deployments so far have placed on the volunteer U.S. military.
"We have had 12 military contingencies in the last 31 years, some of them major and most of them unexpected," House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said at a recent hearing.
"We must have a trained and properly equipped force ready to handle whatever comes. But my strong concern is that our readiness shortfalls and the limitations on our ability to deploy trained and ready ground forces have reached a point where these services would have a very steep uphill climb with increased casualties to respond effectively to an emerging contingency," Skelton said.
Skelton made the remarks at an April 9 hearing with the four-star vice chiefs of the Army and Marines, both of whom admitted that they were not satisfied with their respective service's so-called strategic depth to respond to crisis scenarios like the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan.
Army Gen. Richard Cody testified that the Army remains "out of balance," repeating what has become a common official Army phrase referring to the need to recruit, station, train and equip soldiers for more than just counterinsurgency operations.
"The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies," Cody said.
"Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies," the Army vice chief said.
Defense industry advocates seem to see budget cuts coming and they're trying to get out of the way.
The Aerospace Industries Association on Tuesday called on policy makers to start thinking about defense spending -- and consider ways to make sure weapons purchases don't get pushed aside. Operating costs and personnel are getting more expensive, the big trade group said, and the next administration will also face a host of other budget pressures. But that won't stop the Pentagon's airplanes and helicopters from getting older, or ease the need to replace them, the group said.
"Our country's current path for military aerospace modernization is not viable," AIA's new defense modernization manifesto said. "As part of adequately funding national defense, DoD needs to increase annual procurement spending to a steady state range of $120 billion–150 billion, in constant dollars, simply to modernize an aging, increasingly obsolete and potentially vulnerable force."
The trade group said Congress needs to keep passing emergency spending bills, so that war costs don't make modernization unaffordable. It also called for the next administration to give a little extra thought to the defense budget, so that weapons buying won't fall to the bottom of the priority heap as military support costs rise.
"By 2013, over a 25-year period, the operations and support element of the budget will have more than doubled — faster than the growth in the defense budget itself. In contrast, investment will increase by slightly more than 50 percent, well below the growth path of the general budget.
These trends suggest an ongoing, permanent change in composition of the defense budget," the trade group said. "Continuing this trend beyond current projections will make it even more difficult for defense planners to adequately resource the investment spending upon which our military superiority and technological edge depends."
-- Rebecca Christie
Special Metals Intrude on Rescue Helo Bid
In today's headlines at Military.com, we ran the following story on still more delays to the re-bidding of the CSAR-X competition. This time it's one of Congress' protectionist mandates, forcing the bidders to restrict the use of imported specialty metals.
From Military.com:
The long-anticipated awarding of a $10 billion contract for a military search-and-rescue helicopter has been delayed again -- from July to October -- to comply with changes in the law restricting use of imported specialty metals.
Boeing said April 14 that it had received a draft of the new bid proposal, called Amendment 6, in what the Air Force calls its CSAR-X competition.
Great...this is going to help us with domestic competition, entry into world markets and smoothing over images of a "go-it-alone" foreign policy isn't it?
And, as if Boeing needs more headaches as it wages the Tanker War with EADS/NorGrum...
The latest draft of the bid request, which incorporates changes in the law on the use of specialty metals, was issued last week. Boeing said April 14 that it would submit comments and questions today.
Boeing said the drive shaft, transmission, leading edges of the blades, and other critical parts contained high-strength steels, titanium and other specialty metals.
It could not say how much foreign specialty metal is used in its CSAR-X entry or the Army CH-47 F and G models, which it builds in the suburbs of Philadelphia for transport and special-operations missions. The United States has long sought to use domestic sources for those metals.
The rivals are single-rotor aircraft: Sikorsky H-92 Superhawk and Lockheed Martin US101, which is based on a design developed in Europe. The US101 has been selected for the new "Marine One" presidential helicopters and is destined to replace the aging Sikorsky VH-3D Sea Kings in that role.
And doesn't this restriction seem to prejudice anything made in Europe, like the US101? So much for free and open competition in a world market. Maybe the Soviets had it right after all...
-- Christian
Lobby Worries About Saudi F-35s
In 1992, the first line combat air strength of the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) consisted of approximately 200 aircraft, organized into six fighter/ground-attack squadrons and five fighter-air defense squadrons. However, the RSAF declined during the 1990s' as the Kingdom's F-5EIIs and F-5s lost substantial operational capability.
In September 2007, Saudi Arabia and Britian signed a deal for the sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon fighter aircraft for 4.43bn (British pounds). The deal followed a £21bn al-Yamamah contract negotiated by the Thatcher government and involving the sale of BAE Systems Tornado jets and medical equipment.
Now, the US is reportedly considering a sale of the advanced stealth F-35 Lightning II to Saudi Arabia. In an effort to maintain military superiority, Israel has asked the Bush administration to purchase the the F-22 Raptor, despite the fact that foreign sales of the aircraft are currently banned by Congress.
In addition, Israeli defense officials have requested two new advanced JDAM models (laser-guided and immune to jamming) to offset the standard JDAM smart-bomb kits sold to Saudi Arabia that converts existing 500-, 1,000- and 2,000-pound unguided free-fall bombs into accurately guided "smart" weapons.
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., has expressed concern over US arms sales to Saudi Arabia, noting that the Kingdom “has not been a true ally in furthering the United States interests in the Middle East,” and noted that “about 40 percent of all foreign fighters [in Iraq] are Saudi.”
However, according to US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States will “help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran."
Nevertheless, Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association has compared the Bush administration arms sales policy of “sell, sell, sell” to throwing “gasoline on a brush fire.”
The possibility of a rogue pilot or the eventual overthrow of the Saudi regime also concerns officials and analysts. Dr. Michael Donovan of the CDI emphasized that “as of Sept. 11, [Saudi] stability can no longer be taken for granted...The Islamic values upon which they based their authority for so long are now, seemingly, in conflict with forces they could not control even if they chose to do so.”
The NSA is not the only agency with advanced eavesdropping capabilities.
Cyber espionage is getting renewed attention as fresh evidence emerges of computer spying against corporations and government agencies here and abroad. Late last year MI5 warned British companies of Chinese espionage activities. Computer Security Professionals have stated there is growing evidence of attacks from China and other countries. Zhao Shangse, an official from the Chinese embassy in London, has denied the allegations. This is not new. Way back in 2001 when we were preparing for my congressional testimony and demonstration we considered hacking the computer and using the webcam and built-in PC microphone to look and listen in. We had to scrap that plan when we found out that we had to use a dial up modem to connect in the hearing room.
Other stories report that similar malicious code is in use by corporate and government spies alike. With the growth of VoIP this takes on a new and more significant risk. In November of 2007, CISCO Systems confirmed it is possible to eavesdrop on remote conversations using Cisco VoIP phones.
Multiple computer manufacturers admitted that microphones attached to their workstations can be used to eavesdrop on conversations near the computer. I discussed cyber spying with the experts at Spy-Ops and they strongly recommended microphones on systems in sensitive areas be either physically switched off or totally disconnected from the system. In addition, they told me that last year the global cost of industrial espionage topped $1.5 trillion dollars.
After four years of construction, the U.S. Coast Guard expects to accept its first National Security Cutter by early May, but testing and shakedown runs could delay full deployment for almost two years, according to a top Coast Guard official.
The cutter Bertholf is at sea, undergoing acceptance trials with a crew supplied by contractor Northrop Grumman and under the supervision of the U.S. Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey, said Rear Adm. Gary Blore, the Coast Guard's assistant commandant for acquisition.
"It's been a long time coming but I'm glad we're here," Blore told reporters in a teleconference from Coast Guard headquarters, adding that the acquisition process, which he conceded has been criticized in the past, "has taken a little bit longer than I would have hoped." That's one reason the Navy was brought in as an outside inspector.
He said the Bertholf's prospective captain, the Navy and a Coast Guard board will recommend whether or not to accept the 418-foot, 4,300-ton vessel, which is expected to cost $640.7 million. Instrument testing of the ship's command, control, computers and communications systems are being conducted to ensure that commercial-off-the-shelf systems are properly shielded so that classified communications don't emanate beyond the ship, posing security risks. Blore said he was "not optimistic" the C4ISR equipment would be certified for classified transmissions by May 1 "but we'll know what the issues are" that must be addressed.
If all goes according to plan, the Coast Guard will take possession of the Bertholf by the first week in May, Blore said. The Bertholf is scheduled to be commissioned a Coast Guard cutter on Aug. 4 and posted to its permanent berth in Alameida, Calif. But Blore noted that additional trials, training and systems testing could take about 22 months before the Bertholf is fully deployed.
Among those tests could be takeoffs and landings of the Navy's Fire Scout vertical unmanned aerial vehicle (VUAV). The National Security Cutter is designed to carry two helicopters and two VUAVS but last year the Coast Guard scrapped its Eagle Eye VUAV program. "We're already talking with their squadron [PMA266] out of Patuxent River to see if they would like to bring Fire Scout on board" the Coast Guard cutter, Blore said.
A little shameless self promotion here folks, but as you know in January I spent a few days embedded with VMM-263, the first MV-22 squadron deployed to combat.
As my previous story subtly indicates, I was pretty impressed with the aircraft and was happier to fly 250 mph at 9,000 feet than 150 mph at 300 feet in a war zone situation. Even with the lack of armament -- which we can argue about later -- it seemed a lot safer going fast and high, than slow and low.
Well, I finally put together a video from the footage I shot doing a day of missions with a two ship formation. I posted it on Military.com's Shock and Awe sight, but I also wanted to show you all so you could slice and dice the performance.
I hope you enjoy it.
-- Christian
FCS Can't Get Any Love
In the key areas of defining and developing FCS capabilities, requirements definition is still fluid, critical technologies are immature, software development is in its early stages, the information network is still years from being demonstrated, and complementary programs are at risk for not meeting the FCS schedule.
Even though the development of FCS will finish late in its schedule, commitments to production will come early. Production funding for the first spinout of FCS technologies and the early version of the FCS cannon begin in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Why? Because the Oklahoma congressional delegations insist on it for Ft. Sill's sake.
Production money for the core FCS systems will be requested beginning in February 2010, with the DOD fiscal year 2011 budget request—just months after the go/no-go review and before the stability of the design is determined at the critical design review. In fact, by the time of the FCS production decision in 2013, a total of about $39 billion, which comprises research and development and production costs, will already have been appropriated for the program, with another $8 billion requested.
Doesn't this seem a little backwards? Of course it does. If you're smart, get the money first -- before you've determined if the system really works, right? Can you imagine if we were saying the same thing about missile defense?
Also, the Army plans to contract with its lead system integrator for the initial FCS production, a change from the Army’s original rationale for using an integrator. This increases the burden of oversight faced by the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
No way...make it too confusing for anyone else to make sure you're executing the contract in the most efficient manner? Nobody would ever do that!
Competing demands from within the Army and DOD limits the ability to fund higher FCS costs. Thus, the Army will likely continue to reduce FCS capabilities in order to stay within available funding limits.
Again...ouch...
Can we please just call the FCS program what it really is: a technology incubator program, a giant R&D effort for the ground pounders, please? I worry that the Army could begin slipping into the Air Froce trap by defining its future by a specific program.
-- Christian
US to Supply Lebanon SOF
Inside the Pentagon has an interesting story on America's assistance to Lebanese special forces. Seems like a good idea to me, though I'm sure each side would have rather kept the deal quiet. No one in the Middle East wants to appear like a US stooge, but Lebanon's army is really the glue that holds together a fractured society.
Could Lebanon's army be a model for Iraq's? They're dealing with a similar set of paradoxes in terms of religiosity and sectarianism. Anyway...
The other things that's cool about this Lebanon deal is that my boy Dave Woroner was pretty close to inking a deal to supply the Lebanese army with his popular TacRail system. The deal didn't go through, but it's kinda cool to see a DT friend playing in this big deal.
Amid U.S. concerns that Iran and Syria are destabilizing Lebanon by supporting Hezbollah, the Pentagon is poised to bolster Beirut’s military with new shipments of weapons, trucks and other gear.
The Pentagon will spend $7.2 million to equip Lebanon’s special forces with small arms, vehicles, night-vision sights for guns, Global Positioning System devices and clothing, Inside the Pentagon has learned.
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman informed Congress of the details last month, noting the gear will enable Lebanon’s elite troops to conduct counterterrorism missions in both daylight and limited-visibility conditions.
Let's just hope those NVGs and small arms don't wind up in the hands of Hezbollah militiamen. But, yeah, that's right, they get their weapons straight from Iran.
The number of deliveries by sea now exceeds those airlifted into Iraq by heavy transports, which makes a heck of a lot more sense (and costs less). I remember during my stop over at al Asad airbase seeing those contracted AN-124 Condor (Ukrainian transports) flying in and out all day delivering the IED-resistant vehicles to western Iraq.
It's interesting the see the raging back and forth over the MRAP (partly stoked by yours truly) Peter out as of late. In fact, I hear the Marine Corps is quietly trying to duck out of the "program executive office" role for MRAPs, hoping to hand over the politically radioactive and costly program to the big boys in the Army to deal with.
The Marines have always been more jazzed about the JLTV anyway, so let's give them the breathing room to execute that badly needed program.
You know, I spent some time with Army units over there, but didn't roll in MRAPs with them. Still spent a lot of time in the latest up-armored Humvees. If anyone's got some inside gouge on where these 5,200 MRAPs are operating, I'd like to post it here. Maybe they're mostly around Baghdad.
-- Christian
You're a LIAR!
Just when you thought things couldn't get any weirder, here's something I ran across today that adds to the mountain of gadgets and gizmos intended to smoke out insurgents hiding in plain sight.
FORT JACKSON, S.C. - The Pentagon will issue hand-held lie detectors this month to U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan, pushing to the battlefront a century-old debate over the accuracy of the polygraph.
The Defense Department says the portable device isn't perfect, but is accurate enough to save American lives by screening local police officers, interpreters and allied forces for access to U.S. military bases, and by helping narrow the list of suspects after a roadside bombing. The device has already been tried in Iraq and is expected to be deployed there as well. “We're not promising perfection — we've been very careful in that,” said Donald Krapohl, special assistant to the director at the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, the midwife for the new device. “What we are promising is that, if it's properly used, it will improve over what they are currently doing.”
The new device, known by the acronym PCASS, for Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System, uses a commercial TDS Ranger hand-held personal digital assistant with three wires connected to sensors attached to the hand. An interpreter will ask a series of 20 or so questions in Persian, Arabic or Pashto: "Do you intend to answer my questions truthfully?" "Are the lights on in this room" "Are you a member of the Taliban?" The operator will punch in each answer and, after a delay of a minute or so for processing, the screen will display the results: "Green," if it thinks the person has told the truth, "Red" for deception, and "Yellow" if it can't decide.
The PCASS cannot be used on U.S. personnel, according to a memo authorizing its use, signed in October by the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr.
Now, I've been polygraphed before and I gotta tell you, it sucks. I don't like the whole idea of this hand-held lie detector, but I guess I'll hold off final judgment until I see how it works. The Army's bought 94 of the systems and intends to deploy them to Iraq and Afghanistan.
My problem is the device seems to use the same rationale for detecting deception as the full-sized box -- sensing stress reactions in the hands, etc. But if you're an Afghan villager being questioned by American soldiers wearing body armor and carrying rifles -- and oh by the way, speaking to you in a language you don't comprehend -- how are you NOT going to sweat?
It seems like one of those good ideas on paper, but it uses flawed logic to get to the answer.
But still, it's an interesting report...
-- Christian
Lessons From the Accidental Nuke Flyby
A great inside look at a Pentagon after-action report on that embarrassing nuke flub where the Air Force flew a couple doomsday weapons across the US without even knowing it.
Let's hope this report doesn't just collect dust on some general's shelf and that the recommendations are actually implemented.
From our friends at Popular Mechanics:
One might think that the United States' nuclear weapons -- the cornerstone deterrent in the country's arsenal -- would be treated with the utmost precision.
This comfortable illusion was shaken on Aug. 31, 2007, when crews loaded six live nuclear warheads onto a B-52 bomber and flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, cruising over the nation's heartland. Each warhead was 10 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
During the analysis of the incident by the Defense Science Board (DSB), released this month, the ugly truth came out: America's nukes are so neglected that they are stored alongside conventional missiles, with nothing but an 8.5 x 11-in. sheet of paper to differentiate the two. The last day in August, Air Force personnel loaded the nuclear warheads on a routine repositioning of weapons stocks, believing them to be cruise missiles.
The system of checks and balances has degraded to a point that six of the planet's most powerful weapons were missing for 36 hours -- and no one noticed until they had landed in Louisiana. "The process and systemic problems that allowed such an incident have developed over more than a decade and have the potential for much more serious consequences," the report warns.
So what can be learned by this near miss, and how can something worse be avoided?
1. No one Air Force command is solely responsible for taking care of nuclear weapons.
There are plenty of weapons systems and missions out there, and each one is more exciting and has a higher priority within the command structure.
The DSB report notes that, after the demise of Strategic Air Command, three operational Air Force commands took over the nation's nuclear weapons: ICBMs went to Air Force Space Command; bombers went to Air Combat Command, and Air Mobility Command retained ownership of the refueling portion of the bomber missions. That means that there is no one central place where the nuclear mission -- upkeep, training and such -- is the primary mission. So the nukes got lost in the post-Cold War shuffle.
Recommendations in the report include the establishment of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Enterprise to focus solely on nuclear missions. This person would report directly to the Secretary of Defense. The DSB report notes that the U.S. Navy, which handles nuclear missiles in its submarine fleet, has a system that keeps those weapons under one banner, "Strategic Systems Programs." It's commanded by a rear admiral, whereas in the Air Force the highest rank with a primary, daily focus on nukes is that of colonel. "While the attack submarines no longer routinely carry nuclear missiles, the submarine forces retain their nuclear legacy and nuclear focus," the report says.
2. Human error was at the heart of the incident.
The staff at Minot Air Field had neglected to follow procedure for the sake of saving time. The verification of weapons -- what kind, what warheads they carry, their armament status -- should take about 45 minutes, and be performed before anything else happens.
"But, over time, to speed the process, breakout and convoy crews had established a process of concurrent activity," the report states. "In this case, the breakout and convoy crew [at Minot] were connecting the trailer to the tow vehicle while the initial status verification was under way." The checks had become pro forma, and a near disaster slipped through.
Indeed, the gaff that allowed six nukes out over three major American cities (Omaha, Neb., Kansas City, Mo., and Little Rock, Ark.) could have been avoided if the Air Force personnel had followed procedure.
"Let's not forget that the existing rules were pretty tight," says Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project for the Federation of American Scientists. "Much of what went wrong occurred because people didn't follow these tight rules. You can have all sorts of rules and regulations, but they still won't do any good if the people don't follow them."
In fact, some see the incident as a way to draw attention to the importance of the job of babysitting nukes. "This review gave the Air Force the opportunity to improve on an already sound nuclear enterprise," says Col. West Anderson, vice commander of the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. "We handle weapons safely and ensure the highest possible standards of individual reliability and professional competence."
Here are some highlights of the latest Selected Acquisition Report data provided by the Pentagon the other day. It's noteworthy that some key Army programs have price declines and that those that increased did so because of quantity increases rather than any fundamental price problems.
FBCB2 (Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below)– Program costs increased $685.0 million (+25.5 percent) from $2,686.1 million to $3,371.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 28,895 systems from 44,568 to 73,463 systems to support Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (+$683.0 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations* (+$99.0 million). There was an additional increase in other support for retrofit of Type I encryption for the increased quantities (+$114.1 million). These increases were partially offset by lower unit costs from beneficial contract pricing of the increased quantities
(-$131.3 million) and lower estimates for the aviation A- kits (i.e., modification kits) based on current contract data (-$45.7 million).
FCS (Future Combat System) – Program costs decreased $2,609.9 million (-1.6 percent) from $161,930.1 million to $159,320.2 million, due primarily to the application of revised escalation indices (-$1,331.0 million) and a correction of previously reported costs that were overstated due to the use of incorrect escalation indices (-$913.2 million). There were additional decreases in other support (-$190.6 million) and Congressional statutory reductions and budget decrements (-$146.5 million).
GMLRS (Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System) – Program costs decreased $764.2 million (-11.3 percent) from $6,772.5 million to $6,008.3 million, due primarily to lower estimates of hardware costs for the Unitary variant at the production decision (Milestone C) (-$496.6 million) and an acceleration in the procurement buy profile (-$68.9 million). Because of the shorter buy schedule, there were lower estimates for systems engineering/program management costs (-$84.5 million), engineering services (-$44.8 million), and Government production verification testing (-$19.4 million).
LUH (Light Utility Helicopter) – Program costs increased $208.4 million (+11.1 percent) from $1,881.8 million to $2,090.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 23 aircraft from 322 to 345 aircraft ($139.3 million). There was an additional cost increase for modifications to address issues identified during the Initial Operational Test (+$171.1 million). These modifications included ARC-231 secure radios and cabin ventilation kits for all 345 aircraft, engine inlet (air) filters for 66 aircraft, and medical evacuation kits for 84 aircraft.
STRYKER – Program costs increased by $2,560.2 million (+19.5 percent) from $13,130.9 million to $15,691.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 640 vehicles from 2,887 to 3,527 vehicles (+$1,907.2 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations* (+$621.8 million), and spares and support associated with the quantity increase (+$425.1 million), There were additional increases for survivability enhancements (+$502.6 million), revised testing and management costs (+$375.7 million), and updated MILCON estimates (+$340.9 million). These increases were partially offset by a change in the mix of models procured and new cost estimates (-$797.1 million) and removal of Stryker Product Improvement Program funding (-$816.0 million).
-- Christian
Your Credit Card Could be Funding Terrorism
It is hard to pick up a tech publication without finding a story about another security breach that has compromised credit card information. According to Identity Theft Resource Center there were 167 data breaches in the first three months of this year. At least 8.3 million records containing sensitive information were potentially compromised in the same time period.
One Recent Event: Data from 4 Million credit cards stolen. Recently, Hannaford announced what security experts call a sophisticated attack on their computer network that resulted in the theft of credit and debit card account information.
When we think of credit card data theft and fraud you don't think about terrorism - but that is indeed the case. Al Qaeda is a skilled practitioner at using the Internet for a multitude of reasons. According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, "The Internet has been used by the likes of Al Qaeda to recruit, to train, to communicate." The arrest of Al Qaeda's top cyber terrorist provided hard evidence of their use of stolen credit card data for funding. In one case, terrorist groups use the stolen credit card information to purchase $3 million of materials to carry out terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda's top cyber terrorist 23 year old Younes Tsouli (online name - Irhaby007), recently admitted conspiring to defraud banks, credit card companies and charge card companies.
For additional information about terrorist cyber attack capabilities you may want to download this CRS Report to Congress titled: Terrorist Capabilities for Cyber Attack.
Overview and Policy Issues:
The game has changed! Information security as it relates to sensitive data, like credit card information, has now risen because of the link to terrorist financing. Imagine the psychological impact if you were to find your credit card was used to finance a terrorist attack that resulted in the death of innocent civilians. Imagine the damage to a corporation's brand and possible backlash from their customers. Significant improvement in all aspects of security is needed to cut off this funding source.
This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Members of the U.S. Air Force's source selection group raised concerns about the performance of the EADS refueling boom design during the KC-X tanker competition, according to Mark McGraw, Boeing's tanker executive.
The Air Force officials were "speaking loudly" behind closed doors in meetings about their worries, and this information found during the discovery phase of Boeing's protest of the award to Northrop Grumman/EADS is "very encouraging" support for the company's protest, McGraw told reporters during an April 3 teleconference.
McGraw says, based on Northrop Grumman documents reviewed by Boeing lawyers, that it is unclear whether EADS would reuse the boom for the Australian tanker on the U.S. tanker or use a modified design. The boom program has experienced delays and a restructuring. Northrop Grumman says the boom is the same one now on the Australian Multirole Tanker Transport and is being tested for fuel passage on an Airbus A310 test platform.
Air Force worries about the risk associated with EADS' boom performance, however, weren't included in the final assessment of scoring for the team, McGraw says. This is one reflection of how McGraw says the Air Force unfairly docked Boeing's proposal for cost and risk while ignoring potential pitfalls with the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America KC-45 design.
Boeing filed its protest March 11, and the company plans to file a fourth supplemental protest document by April 4. The supplemental filings expand what Boeing sees as evidence of its claims. During this period, Boeing's lawyers are "firewalled," and able to examine Air Force and Northrop Grumman documentation. The full extent of the documents hasn't been made public, and McGraw says he doesn't have access to it.
I think this is awesome. Tell me why fuel cells aren't the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies.
Boeing announced [yesterday] that it has, for the first time in aviation history, flown a manned airplane powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
The recent milestone is the work of an engineering team at Boeing Research & Technology Europe (BR&TE) in Madrid, with assistance from industry partners in Austria, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that converts hydrogen directly into electricity and heat with none of the products of combustion such as carbon dioxide. Other than heat, water is its only exhaust.
A two-seat Dimona motor-glider with a 16.3 meter (53.5 foot) wingspan was used as the airframe. Built by Diamond Aircraft Industries of Austria, it was modified by BR&TE to include a Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell/lithium-ion battery hybrid system to power an electric motor coupled to a conventional propeller.
Three test flights took place in February and March at the airfield in Ocana, south of Madrid, operated by the Spanish company SENASA.
During the flights, the pilot of the experimental airplane climbed to an altitude of 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) above sea level using a combination of battery power and power generated by hydrogen fuel cells. Then, after reaching the cruise altitude and disconnecting the batteries, the pilot flew straight and level at a cruising speed of 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour) for approximately 20 minutes on power solely generated by the fuel cells.
According to Boeing researchers, PEM fuel cell technology potentially could power small manned and unmanned air vehicles. Over the longer term, solid oxide fuel cells could be applied to secondary power-generating systems, such as auxiliary power units for large commercial airplanes. Boeing does not envision that fuel cells will ever provide primary power for large passenger airplanes, but the company will continue to investigate their potential, as well as other sustainable alternative fuel and energy sources that improve environmental performance.
Remember when the Pentagon got all up in arms after pictures of custom nose-cone art filtered into the mainstream media during the invasion of Iraq (and some in Afghanistan)?
God forbid the troops have a little fun with the idea of putting warheads on the foreheads of the "butchers of Baghdad"...wouldn't want to offend anyone, huh?
Well, here's a similar little piece on a far more, shall we say, "lethal" nose cone...or blast door...or...oh, come on, you get the picture:
At the back of what looks like an enclosed porch of an unpretentious ranch house near Wall, South Dakota, a steel-runged ladder leads down a 30-foot concrete access shaft. At the bottom, a massive, eight-ton steel-and-concrete door is painted the red, white and blue image of a Domino’s Pizza box, with a slightly altered phrasing of the chain’s familiar promise: “World-wide Delivery in 30 Minutes or Less; Or Your Next One is Free.” But in this case the “Next One” is a Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). For almost three decades, the house was the “Delta One” Launch Control Facility (LCF) for ten Minuteman missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The massive blast door was designed to ensure that the underground launch control center survived a nuclear attack.
Welcome to the mordant, jingoistic and occasionally crude — but rarely before seen world — of “blast-door art.”
Like the garish and cheeky illustrations etched across the noses of World War II aircraft, these images in launch control centers across the United States testify to the bravado of the men (and, from the mid-1980s onward, women) of what has been called “America’s Underground Air Force.” But they also reflect the sometimes surreal pressures faced by two-person missile crews on 24-hour duty alerts, waiting for a call to turn their missile launch keys and perhaps end civilization as we know it. “You’re sitting there waiting for the message you hope never comes,” says Tony Gatlin, who painted the Domino’s homage as a young deputy flight commander at Delta One in 1989. “That’s a pretty screwed up way of looking at the world.”
Now an Air Force major and deputy director of staff with the 100th Air Refueling Wing, based at the Royal Air Force’s Mildenhall Base, in England, Gatlin was struck by the similarity of Domino’s delivery time and that of his missiles. “One went with the other kind of well,” he deadpans. Gatlin’s painting is one of only a few the public can see, following the transformation in 1999 of the Delta One control facility and the nearby Delta Nine missile silo into an historic site by the National Park Service (NPS). Under the terms of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the then-Soviet Union and the United States, many Minuteman missile sites have been deactivated or destroyed.
(Thanks to CM for the gouge)
-- Christian
More Army Armor Woes
I'm sure you all have already seen this, but here's a story we ran as our lead item at Military.com this morning:
DoD Audit Finds Body Armor Buys Flawed
The Army can't be sure some of its body armor met safety standards, partly because it didn't do proper paperwork on initial testing of the protective vests, a Defense Department audit said.
Democratic Rep. Louise M. Slaughter of New York, who requested the department inspector general's report, on April 3 demanded the firing of officials responsible. But the Army said the gear is safe and the issue is a disagreement over when and what type of testing is required - principally so-called "first article testing" typically done on a product before a contract is awarded.
The inspector general reviewed $5.2 billion worth of Army and Marine Corps contracts for body armor from 2004 through 2006.
"Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders reviewed, and contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made," the report concluded.
"As a result, DoD has no assurance that first articles produced under 13 of the 28 contracts and orders reviewed met the required standards," or that 11 of the 28 contracts were awarded based on informed decisions, it said.
I also pinged PEO Soldier for their reaction to the report. Here's what they told me:
Soldier protection is the Army's top priority. Since its initial fielding in 1999, the Army's Interceptor Body Armor has demonstrated superior combat performance in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Many Soldiers are alive today because of it. Prior to issuing body armor to Soldiers, the U.S. Army conducts rigorous and extensive testing to ensure it meets Army standards and is safe for use by Soldiers in combat.
The Army is in full and complete compliance with the FAR, DFAR, source law and current policy in every case concerning body armor procurement.
The fact that the Defense Department Inspector General was not completely able to verify testing and approval of first-article testing or aspects of contracting files does not mean the body armor did not meet specifications.
The Army requires two levels of performance verification prior to acceptance of body armor issued to Soldiers: First Article Test (FAT) and Lot Acceptance Test (LAT). These two test requirements verify that body armor meets U.S. Army standards before being issued to Soldiers and ensure production processes remain in check. The Army's response to the draft report states that first-article testing is a regular and consistent current business practice for purchasing body armor.
The current body armor is doing what it is designed to do: stop or slow bullets and fragments, and reduce the severity of wounds.
Prevention of injuries to our men and women is a top priority for the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense.
IG Report Points:
The IG reviewed Army and Marine Corps contracts and orders awarded between January 2004 and December 2006.
The scope of the review was limited to reviewing pre-solicitation and the solicitation and evaluation phases of the acquisition process, as well as contracting files related to first-article testing.
DoD IG found:
Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders.
Contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made.
DoD has no assurance first articles produced under 13 contracts met required standards or 11 contracts were awarded based on informed decisions.
First-article testing is performed before or in the initial stage of production to determine whether the proposed product conforms with contract requirements.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) allows first-article testing to be waived if the contractor is already producing the item under contract.
Now, I don't like the idea that the Army took shortcuts in testing. But I can understand that the service wouldn't pay for a series of FAT tests if they're contracting for another large buy of the same vest.
When I looked into the Marine Corps armor flaws -- where waivers were issued on specific production lots of armor that government testers believed were flawed -- the rejections did not require a FAT test to verify. In fact, the engineers looked at earlier FAT test data as a benchmark for performance of the new, flawed lots.
Technically, it seems correct that if the Army -- or any service -- is buying a new type of armor, or new components or either with new manufacturing techniques, a FAT test must be conducted. It seems to me on the surface that the Army issued a new contract to the same company -- Point Blank -- for the same vest with the same components and manufacturing technology as previous ones. That shouldn't technically require another FAT test. But, I guess you could argue that it's better to be safe than sorry.
"Yeah, it's too bad they cut through all the red tape to rush this equipment out to the troops instead of the usual procedure that keeps new gear in the prototype phase until years after the need has passed and the technology has become obsolete."
You can kind of see the guy's point.
-- Christian
Well...?
An Objective View of Tankers?
Is it un-American to want the U.S. Air Force to purchase the primarily European-built EADS Airbus A330 aircraft for its next-generation tanker aircraft? Speaker of the House Ms Nancy Pelosi and several members of Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats, believe that to procure a foreign aircraft is reprehensible.
The A330MRTT was selected in a second competition for the next-generation tanker -- to be designated KC-45 -- winning out against the Boeing KC-767. There was great irony when the Air Force announced selection of the A330MRTT in late February 2008. Boeing had been awarded a contract for its KC-767AT to serve as the next-generation tanker in a 2002 lease-buy agreement. That deal was to provide 100 tankers at a cost of more than $20 billion.
But several members of Congress as well as Department of Defense officials and analysts questioned that deal. It unraveled with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition -- who took a job with Boeing shortly after the contract award -- going to jail and several Boeing officials stepping down.
A new competition for the tanker contract was held with a rigorous and transparent process. The A330MRTT was selected on the basis of cost and, in most selection categories, superior performance. The A330MRTT has operated as a tanker and has been selected for that role by Great Britain (14 aircraft), Australia (5), the United Arab Emirates (3), and Saudi Arabia (3).
(While the KC-767AT has not yet operated as a tanker, four have been ordered by Italy and Japan has ordered four convertible freighter variants.)
Boeing has protested the tanker award and several members of Congress have declared that the foreign buy (1) would cost American jobs,(2) was possible only because of European governments subsidizing the aircraft’s development, and (3) secret American technology would be lost. These issues dominate the debate as this blog is written.
Yes, American jobs will be lost. Boeing would have to work harder to sell more aircraft to compensate for the loss of tanker aircraft. Airbus, owned by EADS, and its American partner -- Northrop Grumman -- will assemble the aircraft in Mobile, Alabama, creating new jobs in what the firm calls "a new aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States." This could strengthen the overall U.S. aerospace base.
The argument that European nations, especially France, help pay for the lower-cost A330 is great. An aircraft that costs less for the same (or superior) performance is good for American taxpayers. We have previously procured foreign-developed and even foreign-built aircraft in the past-the British AV-8 Harrier, the French HU-25 Guardian and HH-65 Dolphin, and the Italian MH-68 Stingray; the U.S. services have also bought foreign-developed missiles, fire control systems, uniforms, and even ships. At the same time, foreign nations -- often under "buy-back" agreements -- use American-built aircraft, missiles, torpedoes, communications gear, and more. Indeed, the French Air Force flies Boeing-built KC-135 tankers as does Turkey and Singapore.
It is difficult to understand what "secret" American technology would be lost if the U.S. Air Force uses foreign-built tankers. Today the U.S. Air Force refuels foreign tactical aircraft, and the U.S. military aircraft regularly refuel from foreign tankers. And, the various services have regular personnel exchanges and share technical data on their tankers.
The KC-45 tanker buy will see the procurement of up to 179 aircraft for approximately $35 billion.
The Air Force selection used a "best value" determination to select a winner on the basis of mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, cost/price, and an integrated fleet air refueling assessment. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Duncan J. McNabb, has said, "The tanker is the number one procurement priority for us right now."
The new aircraft is needed. The competition was fair and transparent. For several reasons, the A330MRTT was the right selection. Time to move on.
This article first appeared in Aviation Week and Space Technology.
Boeing is poised to attempt a brace of world record endurance flights with its A160T Hummingbird unmanned air vehicle after installing new safeguards to prevent a flight control system failure which led to the loss of a prototype last December.
The accident put a three-month hold on an already aggressive test and demonstration schedule earmarked for the A160T through the rest of 2008. Yet Boeing remains confident it can meet its schedules, as well as set records for rotary UAV payload and endurance that it claims others will find difficult to match.
The record attempt flights will include a hover out of ground effect at 15,000 ft. and an 18-20-hr. flight with a 300.-lb payload. Together they form the final milestones of the Phase 1 demonstration which began in August 2003. Supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the tests are intended to prove that a purpose-built, clean-sheet large vertical takeoff and landing unmanned air system (VUAS) can truly go the distance compared to other rotary UAVs that are generally derived from existing manned helicopters.
"We think we've got something different here," says Boeing Advanced Systems' business development director, Grady Eakin. "The range, endurance and payload are unique for a rotary-wing UAV, and we think it can provide a variety of missions all at the same time. We've proved we can get there quickly, stay a long time and fly to places that commanders think are important," he adds.
Although the A160T is aimed squarely at standard UAV roles such as reconnaissance, surveillance, communications relay, resupply and target acquisition, Boeing says the broader capabilities of the turbine-powered helicopter make it capable of much more. One of the initial test vehicles has been mocked-up with stub wings to carry up to eight AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, while another has flown with an aerodynamically-shaped pod large enough to evacuate a wounded soldier or transport a small robotic vehicle.
With Northrop Grumman's MQ-8B Fire Scout already destined for major VUAS roles with the U.S. Navy and Army, Boeing is seeking new niche opportunities for the A160T beginning with the U.S. Special Operations Command (Socom). Initial operational evaluations of the MQ-8B, a modified Schweizer 333, are planned for 2008, while first flight of the Army's MQ-8B variant is slated for the end of 2010, with initial operating capability scheduled for 2014. Demonstrations are also planned to the Navy. Operational tests of the A160T could, by contrast, begin within the next year or so, says Boeing.
Part of the challenge, says Eakin, is making potential users aware of the A160T's capabilities. "There [are] a variety of military and government users that haven't thought yet about how far this has flown and what it can do for them. We've just recently talked to a couple of potential customers and they are surprised that we can carry a couple of payloads, and fly far away from their basing scheme," he adds.
The 35 ft.-long A160T is powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW207D turboshaft driving a 36-ft.-dia., four-blade rotor. The blades, like the fuselage itself, are made from lightweight carbon fiber composites, while the streamlined fuselage shell is designed for both low drag and reduced radar cross-section.
"It's significantly larger than any other VTOL [UAV], but it is significantly lighter as well," says Eakin. "We have a fairly high fuel fraction of more than 50%, which is slightly higher than other UAVs and manned helicopters." Empty weight is 2,500 lb. and the helicopter carries 2,600 lb. of fuel in large tanks clustered around the center of gravity. The forward tank, mounted just ahead of the mostly internally housed rotor mast, occupies almost the whole depth of the fuselage, while a second large tank is sandwiched beneath the engine and transmission housing and the bay in the belly for the retractable gear. Maximum takeoff weight is 6,500 lb. while the largest payload carried to date is around 1,090 lb.
Why Do Commercial Platforms Make Such Lousy Military Aircraft?
The above is the question that the US Department of Defense is asking itself, courtesy of a new Defense Science Board Task Force chaired by Jacques Gansler. I wrote about the issue in a news analysis published this week in Flight International. I've posted an excerpt below, and you can read the full story here.
Taking an "off-the-shelf" aircraft and adapting it for a new military role was supposed to be the cheap and easy alternative to designing an all-new platform.
So, in accord with the mantra "faster, better and cheaper", US military services since 2001 have often turned to off-the-shelf derivatives of commercial and military aircraft to satisfy new and emerging requirements for a wide range of missions, including scout and utility helicopters, VIP transports, surveillance aircraft and aerial tankers, to name but a few.
The results, however, have proved disappointing. Far from removing cost and schedule risks, procurements based on off-the-shelf aircraft and similar equipment have led to some of the most expensive acquisition fiascos for the US military over the last decade.
Examples range from aborted efforts, such as the ERJ-145-based aerial common sensor (ACS) or the 767-400ER-based E-10A, to multi-billion dollar development fiascos, as endured by the EH101-based VH-71A presidential helicopter and the Bell 407-based ARH-71A armed reconnaissance helicopter.
Despite the dubious track record, off-the-shelf alternatives remain popular. A pending contract for an unmanned maritime surveillance aircraft, as well future procurements for new signals intelligence fleets, are all expected to rely on platforms originally designed to perform a different role.
Jacques Gansler, a former US undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics (ATL), has been recruited to help solve the Department of Defense's problem.
"A lot of the older systems also had the same characteristics" as today's off-the-shelf aircraft programmes, Gansler says, adding: "We've just got a collection now of bad stories."
Current ATL chief John Young has tapped Gansler to chair a task force aimed at evaluating the reasons why acquisition programmes based on off-the-shelf equipment often fail or face costly delays.
Recent events have raised the concerns about hidden backdoors and malicious code inside of counterfeit hardware -- all the way down to the integrated circuit level.
In fact, a 2005 report by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board addresses this issue. While this report assessed the problem, recent events have now raised the anxiety over cyber sabotage in bogus hardware. In fact, many consider the use of compromised counterfeit hardware as a strategic tactic in cyber warfare.
In January of 2008, a joint task force seized $78 million of counterfeit Cisco networking hardware. This international effort resulted in over 400 seizures of counterfeit networking hardware that was shipped between China, Canada and the United States. This international effort between the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and supported by other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) clearly shows the criminal efforts that are underway.
This investigation has been underway for the last two years and has shown great results.
The Numbers:
36 search warrants
115 seizures by ICE
373 seizures by RCMP
74,000 total counterfeit components confiscated
While there has been no public disclosure of counterfeit hardware sabotage/espionage on America by foreign countries or rogue groups, the threat is there. Supply-Chain threats have now moved into the spotlight and many organizations are moving to address the threat of purchasing counterfeit computer related equipment. Sources at Spy-Ops told me that in 2008 they estimate counterfeit computer hardware will exceed $1.25 billion and that current security measures such as holographic labels on integrated circuits and printed circuit boards are no longer adequate means to identify authentic equipment.
Michelle Kalnas, a supply-chain subject matter expert working with me on this issue pointed out that refurbished computer equipment poses the same threat and is more difficult to control. She went on to say that, "Close coordination between the security department and purchasing with external critical equipment vendors is necessary to resolve this issue. But at this time it is the exception not the rule."
The first Northrop Grumman/EADS North America A330 for the U.S. Air Force has been sent to Germany in preparation for a cargo modification, though work stopped on the project before it got under way.
The first developmental KC-45, called D-1, was sent to Airbus's passenger-to-cargo conversion facility in Dresden March 4. Work on the cargo modification was to begin March 12.
However, Northrop Grumman/EADS's rival, Boeing, protested the $1.5-billion developmental contract award. Per standard procedure, the Air Force issued a stop-work order to Northrop Grumman on March 14, and work on the D-1 conversion came to a halt before it began, according to a company official.
The Government Accountability Office has 100 days to review it and a motion from the Air Force to dismiss some of Boeing's protest claims.
The Air Force obligated $60 million to the winning team prior to the protest.
Northrop Grumman has been coy about what work is under way, largely because of Boeing's protest. The company only acknowledged the transfer of the aircraft late last week.
The cargo conversion is the first in a series of steps to modify the aircraft to fill the Air Force's KC-45 requirements. The aircraft will get its refueling systems at CASA's plant Madrid and later its military specific items, like defensive systems, will be added at Northrop Grumman's Melbourne, Fla., facility.
The first test flight was slated for February 2010 prior to the protest.
More photos of D-1 arriving in Dresden are posted at Aviation Week's Ares defense blog.
This article first appeared in the Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared in Aviation Week and Space Technology.
This article first appeared at Aviation Week.com.
