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.
This article first appeared in the Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
