Bionic Arm

Last week we had exoskeletons...this week it's bionic arms. And I think this is from the guy who invented the Segway.

[Source: All Things Video]

Enjoy!

-- Christian

Army Chief on the Caliber Case

At my old job, we used to always joke that it wasn't news unless the Washington Post, New York Times or AP reported it -- even if we'd done the story a month earlier.

Well, here's another case of the "it ain't news" phenomenon. We've been covering the heck out of this issue for more than a year, but when the chief says something about it and the AP hears it, well, then, Stop the Presses!

From today's Military.com headlines:

The military is reviewing Soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's highest-ranking officer said Thursday. But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch.

Current and former Soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from Soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.

"To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten," Casey said. "We'll evaluate it quickly and then we'll decide how we want to proceed."
But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.

"I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do," he said.

How much do you want to bet the answer to that question is "nothing"...? Kinda like the M-4 debate, huh?
-- Christian

Hover and Stare: FCS Testing UAVs

This article first appeared in Aviation Week's Ares Weblog.
Given Defense Secretary Robert Gates' order to the service branches to hurry up and get more unmanned aerial vehicles out to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s a scramble afoot to develop and deploy next-generation UAV’s as quickly as possible.

And the $160 billion Future Combat Systems program is right in the middle of that scramble. The Honeywell Defense and Space Electronic Systems' Class 1 block 0 UAV is currently being evaluated by the Army Evaluation Task Force at Ft. Bliss, Texas, and has been going through an accelerated testing program to try and get it out in the field as soon as possible. While not slated for FCS Spinout 1 in 2011, the UAV is being pushed though as quickly as possible. FCS spokesman Paul Mehney says that based on feedback that they've been getting from the field during testing there is a need for some of the capabilities that the Class 1 UAV block 0 will provide, such as the "hover and stare," which uses gimbaled adjustable sensors that allow soldiers to keep the vehicle in stationary hover, as well as incorporating early versions of the Joint Tactical Radio System.

But that's not the only system being tested. The Class IV UAV (Northrop Grumman's MQ-8B Fire Scout) is also on schedule, and is expected to be fielded in the 2014 time frame. The Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment (JEFX) that took place back in April proved out some sensor technology for Class IV UAV's according to FCS' Mehney.
According to specifications provided by Northrop Grumman, the Fire Scout, as currently stands, comes equipped with:
Northrop Grumman's Airborne Surveillance and Target Acquisition Minefield Detection System (ASTAMIDS) sensor. Additional sensors include a Tactical Synthetic Aperture Radar (TSAR/MTI), a communications relay package, a training sensor, Mine, Chemical and Radiological detection and a RF emissions locator. The highly reliable air vehicle is based on a COTS airframe and propulsion system.

Read the rest of this story, another good one on wearable batteries, how small can you go with nano-vehicles and a doozie on the Gripen from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Gen. Speakes: FCS Will Work And Helps Troops Now

The Army, unhappy that the House Armed Services Committee plans to cut $200 million from its top modernization program, plans a June 11 assault on the House side of the Capitol using elements of its Future Combat System. Relax! It’s a joke.

But the Army really does want to show the Hill just how effective FCS can be and how much it is beginning to produce capabilities soldiers use in Iraq now or in the near future. And it does plan a June 11 demonstration on the Hill.

Lt. Gen. Stephen M. Speakes, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for programs, spoke Thursday afternoon with reporters and one of his first points was that the Army does have a “vision” when it comes to FCS. I asked Gen. Speakes how the Army is answering the HASC, which made a fairly compelling argument. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chairman of the House Armed Service airland subcommittee, said he cut 5.5 percent of program funding “to reduce concurrency of network and manned ground vehicle development and reduce program management costs.” On top of that, the subcommittee shifted $33 million from “long-term portions of the program to near-term elements that have a chance of being fielded by 2011.” Abercrombie made it clear that technical reasons weren’t the only justification for the reduction. FCS, he said, “continues to operate in violation of many major Department of Defense acquisition policies, including the basic and long-standing policy requiring full and adequate testing of equipment before production begins.” If that sounds to you like the Democratic complaints about the Missile Defense Agency’s approach to acquisition, you win a Kewpie doll.

Gen. Speakes very respectfully offered this justification when I asked him how the Army is answering the House criticisms: “This is an integrated program. You can’t break it apart and still deliver the capabilities.” Also, Speakes said the service plans to show lawmakers just how much FCS is influencing the fight, citing the FRAG kit 5 armor used on Humvees, which he said is the “precursor” for FCS armor. The first version of the crucial FCS network, progress on which has been criticized by the Government Accountability Office in recent reports, is being tested at Fort Bliss. Most of all, Speakes said, “the pressure in on us to deliver and to make the capabilities we are talking about and make them real. We think we are answering that test.”

Speakes’ approach on all this may have been influenced by Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), ranking member of the airland subcommittee. In a recent blog about FCS, Saxton said the Army “needs to spend less time trying to save the FCS program; and more time explaining how soldiers want and need the capabilities that FCS brings to the fight.”

Speakes also addressed the challenge in Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s May 13 speech in Colorado, when he said the military must beware of planning to fight the next war and find itself unready for the current one.

He said that FCS, which he saw in action at Fort Bliss, “must continue to demonstrate its value for the types of irregular challenges we will face, as well as for full-spectrum warfare.” Speakes said FCS will be able to go anywhere and handle any fight. It is, for example, being modified to better cope with the threat from IEDs, he said.

We’ll see whether the House Democrats and Gates buy in. Reminder – the Senate Armed Services Committee fully funded the administration’s $3.6 billion request for FCS.

-- Colin Clark

Now It's ABL's Turn

After last week's tac-laser test, looks like laser missile defense is moving closer too...

From Boeing:

The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], industry teammates and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency achieved another significant milestone for the Airborne Laser (ABL) missile defense program this month by completing the first laser activation testing on the ground at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

The final plumbing and wiring installations will be completed in the coming weeks. All major components of the weapon system, including the battle management system, laser components, and beam control/fire control system, were installed earlier.

Laser activation testing is a methodical process to ensure ABL's high-energy chemical laser has been properly integrated aboard the aircraft and is ready to produce enough power to destroy a ballistic missile. The tests first flow water or other inert substances through the laser to verify its integrity. Next, the laser's chemicals flow through the laser to confirm sequencing and control.

When the activation tests are complete, ground firings of the laser will occur, followed by flight tests of the entire ABL weapon system. The test phase will culminate in an airborne intercept test against a ballistic missile in 2009.

The ABL aircraft consists of a modified Boeing 747-400F whose back half holds the high-energy laser, designed and built by Northrop Grumman. The aircraft's front half contains the beam control/fire control system, developed by Lockheed Martin, and the battle management system, provided by Boeing.

I sincerely wish Boeing luck on this one. It seems incredibly complicated and sort of a niche capability that in an era of tightening Pentagon budgets might be seen as overkill. But to the extent the program enhances US knowledge of high-end lasers, it's a good program to have around.

-- Christian

New Allies from Old Enemies

The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were unforgiving "enemies" from the mid-1950s through the end of the Cold War. True, the two communist giants did - with great caution - collaborate to arm and train the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. But politically and even ideologically they were enemies.

Indeed, after President Richard M. Nixon's visit to China in 1972 the United States and China entered a period of limited cooperation aimed against the Soviet Union. Over the past 35 years this relationship has had up and downs - in the 1980s the Reagan administration began a military relationship, which included the establishment of a U.S. "listening post" in China to intercept Soviet communications; during the Clinton administration there was considerable technology transfer to China, while U.S.-China economic ties grew precipitously.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 Russia and China entered a new relationship, which soon included massive sales of Russian military equipment to China including high-performance aircraft, destroyers, submarines, and other advanced weapons. Now Russia and China have reached a new level of cooperation - some might label it collaboration.

Russia's new president, Dmitri Medvedev, has just completed a visit to Beijing. With China's President Hu Jintao, Medvedev has signed a joint statement declaring that Russia and China are ready to push forward a new level of economic cooperation between their nations. Medvedev said that his country's relationship with China is now a driving force on the world stage and can no longer be ignored - that the international community can no longer make major decisions without the participation of the two countries. He added that Russia will continue to pursue close ties with China, even if it makes other countries uneasy. "Our activity is not directed against any other country but serves to maintain an international balance," Medvedev said of Russia's new level of cooperation with China.

Among the other declarations of the two leaders during the May visit by Medvedev, they joined in criticizing plans of the United States to build a missile defense system in central Europe. From the start of that effort the Russian government believed that its purpose was to neutralize Russia's IBCM force.

Both China and Russia are veto-wielding permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, where they have coordinated positions on controversial issues such as independence for Kosovo, which both countries oppose, as well as the Iranian nuclear issue. And, unlike most Western nations, Russia has not voiced concerns about China's human rights record or its assault on the protest movement that erupted against Chinese rule in Tibet last March.

This was Medvedev's first official foreign trip since becoming Russia's president earlier in May. That action in itself is of major international significance. During their May meeting President Hu accepted an invitation from Medvedev to visit Russia in 2009.

The two leaders also signed a $1 billion agreement for Russia to build a uranium enrichment facility in China. Not publicized, their staffs also discussed an increase in military cooperation between the two countries.

Meanwhile, Russian air and ground forces are dispatching planeloads of humanitarian aid to China to help with earthquake relief efforts.

Not yet clear are the long-term implications for the United States and other Western states of the new Russia-China relationship. Prior to the recent meeting in Beijing, alarmists in the United States called attention to Russian military sales to China. These are expected to increase. Less attention has been given to the more important implications of Chinese efforts to increase influence and to obtain critical resources in Africa and the Middle East. Russian-Chinese collaboration could certainly exacerbate this situation.

-- Norman Polmar

And Here's Some BF-1 Video

(Gouge: The Dew Line)

-- Christian

STOVL JSF Jumps Closer to Flight Test

Our boy Steve Trimble posted a piece this morning on a series of hover pit tests conducted by Lockheed Martin with it's F-35B prototype -- they're calling it the BF-1.

Hover pit tests completed two days ago moved the first short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 within days or weeks of its first flight.

A Lockheed spokesman confirms the propulsion system for the STOVL demonstrator – named BF-1 – completed a series of conversions from conventional mode to vertical landing mode.

The tests were conducted at Lockheed’s hover pit, where the aircraft is tethered to the ground on top of a steel grate. The pit allows Lockheed’s engineers to measure vertical thrust generated by the engine.

The hover pit is the last major stop before the first flight event for BF-1, which has been scheduled for late May or early June.

Despite the need to complete hover pit tests before first flight, the lift-fan that helps power the aircraft during STOVL mode will not be engaged in a flight test for several more months. BF-1 will fly in conventional mode throughout the first flight.

This is pretty exciting because to most observers, this is the most endangered model of the F-35 (though some could argue each has its own equal level of program risk based largely on available funds in each of the services).

But in terms of technical risk, the STOVL JSF clearly has a lot to prove. The lift fan concept is an intriguing one, and if it works, could prove far less risky for the kinds of expeditionary operations its "B" model customers intend for it.

Getting the aircraft airborne has wider implications for Lockheed. The US Department of Defense has linked the release of production funding for the first batch of six F-35B low rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft to completing the first flight event.

In addition, BF-1 is the first “weight-optimized” airframe produced after Lockheed re-designed all three variants in 2005 to reduce or offset weight by as much as 2,268kg (5,000lbs).

The F-35B, on order by the US Marine Corps, the UK Royal Air Force and UK Royal Navy, is the first western aircraft to combine supersonic speed with the STOVL capability.

I've had the good fortune to have observed this program from its initial stages back when it was Boeing vs Lockheed in the concept demonstrator phase. I saw the LM version in the hover pits at its Skunkworks facility out in Cali back then and have been eagerly awaiting the real thing for a long time.

The Marines are gonna be psyched when this thing gets into production since clearly the AV-8B is more than ready for retirement.

(Gouge: NC)

-- Christian

'Pixie Dust' May Regrow Fingers

Interesting medical item running over at Military.com:

(UPI) Doctors at Brook Army Medical Center are testing a regeneration powder that could help injured soldiers regrow fingers and other body parts lost in battle.

The powder, nicknamed 'Pixie Dust' after the fairy dust that enabled children to fly in Disney's Peter Pan, is made from tissue extracted from pigs. It attracts stem cells and convinces them to grow into the tissue that used to be there, CNN reported May 27. Doctors at BAMC used the powder last week on a wounded Soldier to encourage the regeneration of a finger in lost in Iraq.

"If it is next to the skin, it will start making skin. If it's next to a tendon, it will start making a tendon, and so that's the hope, at least in this particular project, that we can grow a finger," Dr. Steven Wolf told CNN.

Doctors said they are watching patients for unexpected side effects, such as cancer.

(Tinker Bell image courtesy of the Walt Disney Company.)

-- Ward

NorGrum's Secret X-Bomber

This article first appeared in Aviation Week's Ares Weblog.

DTI reports this month that Northrop Grumman has won a classified Air Force contract to develop a secret bomber prototype. Naturally, nobody's confirming this on the record, but we present strong evidence that such a project is under way.

Ares has reported on this development before. I summarized the evidence pointing to a black-project bomber in October, tracing both the evolution of requirements and the money trail from the demise of the Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System in 2006 to the USAF's bomber project.

Later in the month, I reported on Northrop Grumman CEO Ron Sugar's public enthusiasm for classified programs, including the fact that he directly tied the company's acquisition of Scaled Composites to advanced aircraft programs. In February I pointed out the lack of visible funding for the Next Generation Bomber in 2008-2010.

More specifically, too, Sugar identified restricted programs as the company's top new business opportunity for 2008. That comment alone indicated the size of the business that the company was looking at, because - in the white world - the company was competing for BAMS, itself a billion-dollar contract.

As a consequence, those of us who look at these things carefully had our ears pricked up for any indications of progress on this front, and were rewarded on April 26 when Northrop Grumman issued its first-quarter financial results. Discreetly hidden on Schedule 5: "The company was awarded approximately $2.6 billion for restricted programs during this period." The results also showed that the only Northrop Grumman sector showing an increase in backlog on that scale, from March 31 2007 to March 31 2008, was Integrated Systems, the aircraft segment. So it is there in black and white that Northrop Grumman got more than $2 billion for a secret aircraft program or programs in the first quarter.

Now, consider the late-January announcement from Boeing and Lockheed Martin that they were teaming on NGB. I pointed out on Ares at the time that (contrary to what some analysts said) this looked like a defensive move. I'd say that we now have a pretty good idea about what triggered it.

Covering black programs is a combination of reporting and intelligence, and the "mosaic" is a vital concept:  like an archaeologist rebuilding a mosaic, you put the pieces together in a pattern that makes sense. In this case, all the indicators (funds, programs, hints dropped by Pentagon officials) point to the NGB having evolved from J-UCAS, which fragmented in late 2005 because the USAF saw it as a bigger aircraft than the Navy.

If that's the case, there are many reasons (read the DTI story) to expect that the airplane's going to look something like a big X-47B.

-- Bill Sweetman with Aviation Week's Ares Weblog

Read the rest of this story, a rif on set it and forget it sensors, the Gripen flies! and French roadside bomb practice videos from our Aviation Week friends on Military.com.

The House Panel With No TIARA

One of the least understood “reforms” by the House of Representatives’ Democratic leadership was its creation last year of a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel within the House Appropriations Committee.

In these days when the intelligence budget is one of the few still growing, this new panel is especially important. On top of that, it is considering one of the few big new classified satellite programs, known as BASIC, being considered by the Pentagon and the Director of National Intelligence.

So I wanted to make sure we all knew just what this panel actually does. We asked someone who works with the panel. First – and most important to those who know about the tremendous battles over money and power between the military and IC -- the panel oversees all intelligence activities and it does not matter whether the funding comes from the Military Intelligence Program budget or the National Intelligence Program budget. This makes the House panel, led by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) (that's him in the photo), the only single body in the House and Senate responsible for overseeing all intelligence funding. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee only oversees the National Intelligence Program, which mostly covers so-called strategic systems, such as the NRO’s radar satellites.

The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee oversees both defense and intelligence spending. Traditionally, defense spending has trumped intelligence spending when it comes to the number of subcommittee staff involved and in terms of who gets what. In other words, if the Pentagon wants funding for an intelligence function and it’s a question of whether the military gets it or the CIA or DNI want it, the military is likely to get what it wants.

On top of being the only panel exclusively responsible for overseeing all intelligence spending, the panel makes annual recommendations to the House Appropriations defense subcommittee about classified defense appropriations. On top of that, the panel works with the senior leaders of the overall appropriations committee on all intelligence matters. So members and their staff can try to modify legislation at any point in the House’s lawmaking process, through to and including floor action.

Footnote – for those who grew up with the old triptych of national intelligence, the Joint Military Intelligence Program and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (known as TIARA), things have changed. Now there’s just national or military intelligence money. And that is being set in legislative stone in the pending intelligence authorization and spending bills.

-- Colin Clark

Russia's Cyber Forces

Russia is well known for its military mentality. Remember the cold war? It has taken nearly a decade for the world to realize the true threat of cyber war. Today, the world is dependent on computers and networks much more than we were eight years ago when we experienced the NATO-Serbia cyber war. Russia opened the eyes of the world to the looming threat of cyber warfare after the Estonia incident. Just last week Russia's State Sponsored cyber forces opened up a new front in cyber war.

Reports indicate that Russian Cyber Forces unleashed a large scale cyber attack on Radio Free Europe. In addition, there is some evidence of the use of BotNets in politically motivated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. With all this demonstrated ability, should we be concerned? What are Russia's true cyber warfare ambitions? Russia's Cyber Warfare Doctrine is designed to be a force multiplier along with more traditionary military actions including WMD attacks. A “force multiplier” is a military term that describes a weapon or tactic that, when added to and employed along with other combat forces, significantly increases the combat potential of that force.

Like all offensive cyber strategies it includes the capability to disruption the information infrastructure of their enemies. This doctrine includes strategies that would disrupt financial markets, military and civilian communications capabilities as well as other parts of the enemy's critical infrastructure prior to the initiation of traditional military operations. They also address weaken the economy of their adversary to further decrease their ability to respond to the combined threat. Offensive cyber weapons receive great attention in the Russian Cyber Warfare Doctrine. This coupled with advanced R&D puts them on the leader board in cyber warfare.

Cyber attacks and cyber weapons are strategic arms and in effect are real offensive weapons. Cyber-attacks can harm or even paralyze a country and therefore have equivalent implications as that of physical military attacks. Most cyber attacks leave behind forensic evidence that can be used to assess the capabilities of the attacker. With all the attacks attributed to Russia, there has to be significant intelligence out there about techniques, cyber weapons, and strategies that have been used in these cyber assaults. An interesting point is that NATO's Defensive Treaty drawn up in 1949 does not deal with cyber weapons as the Internet did not yet exist and there were very few computers at the time.

Once again, warfare capabilities have outpaced our legal and political systems. Former Russian President Vladimir Putin has blasted the US for its militaristic approach to foreign policy, saying its actions were "nourishing an arms race." Need some more evidence? In 1998, Russia's defense budget was less than $3 billion. Since that time, the Russian defense budget has been soaring, funded by substantial increases in their petroleum income, the budget jumped 23 percent in 2007 to $32.4 billion.

An interesting point to keep in mind is that Moscow does the arms business with over 70 countries, including China, Iran, and Venezuela, and in 2006 exported $6 billion worth of arms. Russian intelligence services have a history of employing hackers against the United States. In 1985 the KGB hired Markus Hess, an East German hacker, to attack U.S. defense agencies in the infamous case of the “Cuckoo's Egg”.

The following is an estimate of Russia's cyber capabilities.
Russia's 5th-Dimension Cyber Army:
Military Budget: $40 Billion USD
Global Rating in Cyber Capabilities: Tied at Number 4
Cyber Warfare Budget: $127 Million USD Offensive Cyber Capabilities: 4.1 (1 = Low, 3 = Moderate and 5 = Significant)
Cyber Weapons Arsenal in Order of Threat:

• Large, advanced BotNet for DDoS and espionage

• Electromagnetic pulse weapons (non-nuclear)

• Compromised counterfeit computer software

• Advanced dynamic exploitation capabilities

• Wireless data communications jammers

• Cyber Logic Bombs Computer viruses and worms

• Cyber data collection exploits Computer and networks reconnaissance tools

• Embedded Trojan time bombs (suspected)

Cyber Weapons Capabilities Rating: Advanced
Cyber force Size: 7,300 +
Reserves and Militia: None
Broadband Connections: 23.8 Million +

Close ties with Russian Business Network (RBN), who is thought to own and operate the second largest BotNet in the world. Intelligence suggests there are organized groups of hackers tied to the Federal Security Bureau (FSB).

The FSB is the internal counter intelligence agency of the Russian Federation and successor to the Soviet KGB. Russia is often overlooked as a significant player in the global software industry. Russia produces 200,000 scientific and technology graduates each year. This is as many as India, which has five times the population. This is hard to believe since their software industry can be traced back to the 1950s.

A study by the World Bank stated that more than one million people are involved in software research and development. Russia has the potential to become one of the largest IT markets in Europe. The Russian hacker attack on Estonia in 2007 rang the alarm bell. Nations around the world can no longer ignore the advanced threat that Russia's cyber warfare capabilities have today and the ones they aspire to have in the near future.

From this information, one can only conclude that Russia has advanced capabilities and the intent and technological capabilities necessary to carry out a cyber attack anywhere in the world at any time.

-- Kevin Coleman

Exoskeleton vs Exoskeleton

I got a nice note today from a reader who asked whether exoskeleton armor was discussed at the armor conference I attended this week. It was, but it was during a session that was restricted from media.

So, in honor of the Friday before memorial day, I found an interesting video you can kill some time with before the whistle sounds. It's an inside look at the Raytheon/Sarcos prototype.

But, the thing is, I've got a little problem. See, I have a thing for my boy Troy Hurtubise...you know, that innovative body armor designer who's built the IED-survivable Ursus suit. Well, I also ran across another demo video of his new Trojan II armor and I thought I'd post it here as well for you to compare (you might remember I posted Troy's last video on this site the Friday before Memorial Day 2007).

My vote's for Troy!

Have a great memorial day folks...

-- Christian

Stryker update, straight from Iraq

At the end of January, Christian posted some trenchant criticisms from troops in Iraq about the Stryker system, focusing on the 105 mm Mobile Gun System built by General Dynamics Corp. He cited a litany of problems, with probably the biggest being the tropical heat generated by the system.

I got an update from Col. Jon S. Lehr, commander of 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry. Lehr told reporters today that he has signed a two-page memo to the Army leadership saying the Stryker has some “warts but it is clearly a piece of equipment we need to keep.” He admitted the heat problem, noting that the temperature climbs to 130 degrees in the crew compartment. In addition, the coaxial machine gun has some “feeding problems.” But overall, the troops told him the system works, and, with improvements, should do a decent job.

Another system that Lehr’s units used was the ever-evolving Land Warrior. This one earned much higher marks from Lehr: “I think it’s a great piece of gear.” And he’s sent another memo to the Army leadership recommending that it be deployed throughout the Army. There are a “few warts, in particular the day optic system, which Lehr said actually made things worse for soldiers. They “got rid of that” and lightened the system’s weight – always a key factor in winning praise from always over-burdened troopers.
Perhaps most importantly for the system in the long run, Lehr said Land Warrior “integrates nicely to the mobile” data systems carried by things like tanks and Strykers.

As to how Kehr’s unit has fared during its deployment in Diyala Province, get a load of these stats:

220 high value targets captured
1,700 insurgents captured
500 insurgents killed
25,000 miles of roads cleared
2,100 IEDs cleared

Lehr's bottom line: “Overall, Diyala has seen a 70 percent reduction in violence over the last year.”

-- Colin Clark

Hummingbird Hovers Into Record Books

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

SEATTLE -- Boeing's A160T Hummingbird unmanned rotorcraft flew for 18.7 hours on an overnight flight May 14-15, setting what the company believes is a world endurance record for a UAV in its weight class.

The flight, which was accomplished at the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona, was one of two key performance tests set by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to mark the completion of the initial development phase. The other major test, a series of hover-out-of-ground-effect (HOGE) demonstrations at altitudes between 15,000-20,000 feet, was successfully completed on May 9, Boeing says.

The HOGE flight lasted 2.9 hours, including hovering for more than seven minutes, while the more recent endurance flight involved carrying an internally mounted 300-pound payload to altitudes up to 15,000 feet. Boeing originally planned to attempt both milestone flights late last year, but was thwarted when a test aircraft crashed on Dec. 10 near the company's Victorville, Calif., test site.

Boeing subsequently modified software and diagnostics in the flight control system after its accident investigation board (AIB) determined that sensor data in the flight computer stopped being updated in midflight. Since resuming flight-tests the A160T has reached a speed of 142 knots, marked an eight-hour flight carrying more than 1,000 pounds of payload and flown a 12-hour flight carrying more than 500 pounds. All flights were accomplished using “a fraction of its maximum fuel capacity,” the company adds.

Read the rest of this story, training French pilots on US ships, stealth in the states and BAMS caught on tape from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Is China Building Aircraft Carriers?

The recent flurry of articles and revelations about the submarine-hiding tunnels on Hainan Island in the South China Sea has again raised questions about China’s aircraft carrier program. Indeed, some articles have suggested that the tunnels may be large enough to "hide" an aircraft carrier -- a clear impossibility.

[Photo of 'concrete' carrier: Marc van der Chijs blog]

Articles regularly cite Chinese plans to rehabilitate the ex-Soviet carrier Varyag, now moored at the port of Dalian, or even the carrier Minsk, moored as a "theme park" at Shenzhen. Other articles cite alleged Chinese plans to build up to six aircraft carriers in the near term. A South Korean newspaper has stated that "A source close to Chinese military affairs said . . . that China has been promoting the construction of a 93,000-ton atomic-powered carrier under a plan titled 085 Project. The nation also has a plan to build a 48,000-ton non-nuclear-powered carrier under the so-called 089 Project."

The Chinese Navy is certainly interested in aircraft carriers. At the end of the Cold War a Chinese naval delegation visited the Black Sea shipyard at Nikolayev in the newly established Ukraine nation to examine the unfinished Soviet carrier Varyag. Subsequently, shortly before his retirement in 1997, Admiral Liu Huaqing wrote that it was "extremely necessary" for China to possess aircraft carriers. Liu was Commander-in-Chief of the Chinese Navy from 1982 to 1988, and the vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission from 1989 to 1997.

According to Liu, aircraft carriers are needed to protect China’s sovereignty and maritime resources, especially with regard to Taiwan and the South China Sea; guard China’s sea lines of communications as the country industrializes and becomes a major trading power; enable China to keep up with regional powers such as India and Japan; and give China’s Navy a decisive edge in future naval warfare.

In the early 1990s the Chinese Navy began a large-scale modernization program, acquiring advanced submarines, destroyers, anti-ship missiles, and aircraft, primarily from Russia.  Rumors surrounded those acquisitions that a carrier program was begun when China acquired the unfinished Russian Varyag and the retired carrier Minsk in the late 1990s. But both ships had been stripped of all useful aviation and electronic equipment, and their propulsion plants are inert; at best they could provide Chinese naval architects with hands-on design information.

Upon arrival in China the Minsk spent 18 months at the Guangzhou Wenchong Shipyard for repairs and rehabilitation. She was then towed to Shenzen, arriving on 9 May 2000, configured as the center piece for a military a museum-theme park.  She is certainly not capable of being returned to service as an operational carrier.

The Varyag is equally problematical. Since being towed to Dalian she has been painted but no other work has been observed, with the ship being readily visible from public locations.

Returning the Varyag -- designed in the 1960s -- to operational service would require new propulsion and auxiliary machinery, new electronics with the attendant wiring of the ship, structural repairs, and other work. Looking at the continued delays and increasing costs of a Russian shipyard rehabilitating and upgrading the Soviet-built carrier Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian Navy, objective analyses shows that the Varyag is highly unlikely to be returned to service. She has lain idle with no work on the ship having been observed since her arrival at Dalian on 3 March 2002.

Rather, it can be expected that in the next few years the Chinese Navy will initiate the construction of small carriers -- possibly modeled on the recent Japanese-built dock landing ships and aegis destroyers that have large flight decks.  Such ships would be a reasonable step toward the eventual construction of large carriers -- to be started a decade or more from now.

-- Norman Polmar

Flipping an Abrams Tank With Your Pinkie

All right folks, so you're probably going to need to help set me straight on this, but there were a couple of interesting presentations at the armor conference regarding nano-fibers -- particularly the construction of carbon fiber nano-tubes in a lab environment.

The impact on the body armor industry if this technology could be produced on a large scale is huge. One of my body armor buds told me if fully realized, "a big football player could flip a tank over" that's made out of the stuff.

Whoa!

The long and the short of it is that several researchers (particularly university labs) have been able to construct microscopic tubular structures out of carbon fiber and extrude them into long weaves of nanites. The stuff is incredibly lightweight, but stronger than steel. According to experts, if this stuff is wrapped around strands of aramid fibers like Kevlar, Dyneema or Spectra Shield, the ballistic resistance yield would be huge -- as would the weight reduction.

For example: I used two Level III plates during my last trip to Iraq that weighed about four pounds and were made of aramid materials like Dyneema [thank you to my bros at Protective Products who hooked me with the totally sweet set of 11014 plates. They saved my back and would have definately saved my butt if I'd needed them to]. There was no boron carbide (ceramic) plating in them at all. They could withstand a standard AK round, but not an armor piercing one.

With the nano-fibers, my understanding is that you could realize Level IV or even Level V ballistic protection with the same or less weight. If/when this technology is fully realized, imagine the applications for not just body armor, but armor for vehicles as well.

The researchers also mentioned the increased conductive properties of carbon nano-fibers, which could lead to armor and clothing with embedded telemetry, heating and cooling capability and even innovative Predator-like camouflaging.

But there's a down-side my armor expert warns. When the material is impacted, it results in emissions of carbon monoxide gas and microscopic particulates that could prove toxic if inhaled. One of the researchers presenting her work at the conference admitted this was a concern, but that research into the environmental effects of such a breakdown was so-far minimal. The Washington Post had a story on this phenomenon on Wednesday, citing a study that showed much higher cancer risk in mice injected with nano fibers.

Now this doesn't seem like much when applied to a body armor plate impact. But my buddy countered that if these things were part of vehicle armor, imagine the potentially toxic effluent if its struck by a massive IED or anti-armor round...

It's an amazing development that could revolutionize how we think about ballistic protection. But there's clearly still a long way to go before we can built that featherweight tank.

-- Christian

And Now, Part II of the Armor Forecast

Earlier I gave you some notes I took on the forecasted expenditures of the services for armor products. The analyst from Vector Strategy also went into the forecasted expenditures of armored materials, including steel, ceramics and aramid fiber armors. But I thought that stuff was a bit speculative, so I won't pass it along unless any of you email me for it.

What she did talk about, however, were some "issues" that could affect her assumptions on materials and expenditures -- things that could raise or lower the amounts or contribute to the creation of a whole new category of material demands and dollars spent.

Some of those issues include:

• The Army's "grow the force" initiative: will the Army's expansion from 70 to 76 Brigade Combat Teams include Stryker-equipped ones or will they be infantry combat teams with less armor-intensive equipment? The service has not yet decided.

• Similar to the grow the force issues are the services efforts to transform its current forces into BCTs -- the so-called "modularization" initiative: Again, how many and how heavy vehicles will each of the BCTs and their support and coordinated units need?

• There are two ongoing studies being hammered out by the services on the future of their tactical wheeled vehicle plan -- one at the behest of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, the other at the insistence of DepSecDef Gordon England: What will these two studies say for future armored vehicle acquisition plans? How many JLTVs vs uparmored Humvees vs Strykers vs other new manned armored ground vehicles will the Army and Marine Corps buy?

• EFP-resistant upgrades: The services are still determining how many Humvees will require the Frag Kit #6 upgrades for greater EFP protection and how many of the Army's M113 ASVs will get the new Frag Kit #3 for the same resistance. Of course, the number and mix of MRAPs plays into this fudge factor.

• Marine Corps tactical vehicles: How many JLTVs, MRAPs and Humvee ECVs (expanded capacity vehicle) will the Corps buy? This will surely affect the quantity and types of armor needed from the market.

• The big question mark is the future of the Future Combat Systems: What mix of Bradley, Abrams other upgrades or new buys will the Army include in its overall manned ground vehicle future plans for FCS? There's a lot of question surrounding the future of the FCS plan and what will survive in this seemingly unwieldy program. We know NLOS is protected (thanks to Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma where Fort Sill is located) but what of the troubled FCS ground vehicles will make it through technical and budget chops?

• Lastly, the Army's plan to replace the M113 ASV: It's in the 2010-2015 POM, but it's anyone's guess what will be the final choice.

Up next: Carbon nanotubes and their influence on the armor market.

-- Christian

Stalled Defense Bill Could Delay Predators

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

If Congress fails to pass a fiscal 2009 defense appropriations bill -- leaving military spending at 2008 levels for the near term -- it would cause numerous planning and contracting problems, the Pentagon's top civilian and uniformed officials said May 20.

For example, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the department would not have 14 Predator unmanned aerial vehicles it was counting on for fiscal 2009. Also, nearly $9 billion targeted to increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps would be lost, as well as $1 billion for search and rescue and $246 million to stand up Africa Command, Gates told the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee.

A continuing resolution (CR) to keep funding the Defense Department without an appropriations bill -- but at the previous fiscal year's levels -- could have a "devastating impact" on both ongoing operations and acquisition programs, said Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"It brings the organization almost to a halt, and then when you get to execute, you execute very inefficient, very late contracts, which is a significant waste of money," Mullen added.

Gates said any incremental increase in funding from FY '08 to FY '09 would be lost under a CR.

The issue of a delay in FY '09 funding was raised by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), senior Republican on the full Appropriations Committee. He noted that without an appropriations measure, the Army would run out of operations and maintenance money by early July and all of the services would be out of money to pay personnel by late July.

Neither the House nor Senate appropriations committees have cleared their defense spending bills yet while both bodies grapple with the war supplemental spending bill for the rest of FY '08 and part of FY '09.

Tanker

On another topic, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tried to get Gates to concede that there were questionable aspects to the KC-45 Air Force refueling tanker contract award that Boeing lost to a Northrop Grumman-EADS team.

"It seems to me that from the beginning the Air Force and DOD are part of the problem," said Murray, citing two Government Accountability Office (GAO) studies that found the Air Force did not conduct sufficient analysis in developing its tanker requirements. Boeing, which would have done much of the tanker assembly in Washington state if it had won the $35 billion contract, has protested the award selection process and the GAO is in the middle of determining the merits of the complaint.

Gates deflected Murray's criticisms of the Air Force's decision, noting that he was not an expert on the subject. Gates said he is awaiting completion of the GAO response to the protest.

Read more of this story, some sweet gouge on the increasing 'tanker rancor,' what would you pay for a JSF? and what our friends in Paris want for defense from our Aviation Week friends on Military.com.

-- Christian

Armor Forecasted Expenditures

Another presenter here at the armor conference was a woman who runs a business consulting company called Vector Strategy Inc. She gave a lightening fast briefing on trends in the armor business, including vehicle armor orders, body armor procurement, vehicle upgrades, new vehicle orders, etc. through like 2015.

It was a fascinating presentation if not delivered at too blistering a pace to really keep up with it, but here are some numbers she came up with:

Up next: Key issues facing the future of armor procurement...

-- Christian

Canada Lowers Number Of Planned Fighters

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Canada has reduced the number of new fighters it plans to purchase to 65 from 80, and stresses that it has not formally selected the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) despite having participated in its development.

The reduced requirement for new combat aircraft was revealed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he unveiled the Conservative government's new 'Canada First' defense strategy in Halifax last week.

The Department of National Defense (DND) says 65 aircraft is an initial planning figure, and that "the final figure will be based on the operational requirements of the Canadian Forces." The requirements are being drawn up by the DND's Next Generation Fighter Capability office.

Canada's participation in the F-35 program has been based on the planned procurement of 80 aircraft, the number of upgraded Boeing CF-18s the Canadian Forces will operate until they replaced by new fighters in 2017-20. Harper said fewer aircraft are required because the new fighter will have significantly greater capability than the CF-18s.

Despite the widespread and understandable assumption that Harper was referring to the F-35, Canada has not yet selected its next fighter, the DND emphasizes. Like several of the international participants in the JSF program, Ottawa plans to evaluate other candidate combat aircraft before making a decision, which is required by 2012.

Read more on this and other inside scoop from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian

Armored Chaps, Hearing Pro and Slimmer Vests

Greetings folks. Just an FYI -- I've been at a military armor protection conference today getting the latest insight on body and vehicle armor, active protection systems, advanced materials and other protective equipment.

First bit of news comes from an official with the Army's combat developments directorate at Fort Benning who described some upcoming "soldier protection demonstrations" that will take a look at various new technology solutions to common problems on the battlefield. This is the same way the Army came up with its vastly-improved body armor, or IOTV.

The first initiative is a combat vehicle crewman armor suite that recognizes the tight confines of a vehicle and its various entry ports and takes advantage of the vehicles inherent armor protection. But the official, John Yancey, recognized that Humvee gunners and other vehicle gunners might need more armor for blast mitigation in an IED scenario.

It all needs to fit into a new philosophy the Army wants vendors to adhere to in armor design that calls for modularization in armor components. In other words, Yancey wants to give commanders the leeway to add or subtract armor components based on mission and threat. A door kicker only needs a plate carrier, a vehicle gunner needs arm, shoulder, face and neck protection, he said.

Another SPD going on right now at Benning is looking into hearing protection and enhancement. Kinda like "hunters ear" already on the market.

Yancey also talked about an upcoming SPD on lower extremity protection, including six vendors who've submitted products such as ballistic shorts, pants and chaps. Yancey admitted no Soldier was going to have to wear Kevlar pants on patrol, but a vehicle gunner might really appreciate them. He also mentioned that the Army was taking another look at whether the current padding system in the advanced combat helmet is making the grade.

Stay tuned for more from the Military Armor Protection conference taking place in Alexandria, Va., today and tomorrow.

-- Christian

House Jams Alt Engine Down Pentagon's Throat

The House Armed Services Committee has forcefully reminded the Pentagon that it has been ordered several times by law to build and fund a competing engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. To make sure the Pentagon gets the message, the House has added language authorizing an additional $526 million for 2009 to the program to pay for the second engine.

Taking aim at the heart of the Pentagon’s resistance, the House committee report accompanying the defense authorization bill, mentions the August 2007 and February 2008 test failures of Pratt and Whitney’s F-135, the main engine.

"These test failure events… cause the committee to remain steadfast in its belief that the non-financial factors of a two-engine competitive program such as better engine performance, improved contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial base, increased engine reliability and improved operational readiness strongly favor continuing the competitive propulsion system program," the committee report says.

It adds a nice bit of tough love, saying that "the committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to comply with the spirit and intent of section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) by including the funds necessary for continued development and procurement of a competitive JSF propulsion system in its fiscal year 2010 budget request." For those who may not remember, the administration did not request any money for a second engine program in its 2009 request.

In addition to its forceful language, the House upped the ante over the Senate’s version of the bill. The Senate only boosted the spending by $35.0 million for long lead items for the F-136, being built by a team of General Electric and Rolls Royce. Let’s see what position the appropriators take on this one.

-- Colin Clark

Laser Blaster Gunships Closer to Flight Test

Well, it looks like Boeing has taken a step closer to making its air-to-ground laser blaster a reality with a recent test shoot from a specially-constructed C-130 sitting on the ground.

Boeing has fired a high-energy chemical laser aboard a C-130H aircraft in ground tests for the first time, achieving a key milestone for the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program.

The successful laser firing occurred May 13 at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.

"First firing of the high-energy laser aboard the ATL aircraft shows that the program continues to make good progress toward giving the warfighter an ultra-precision engagement capability that will dramatically reduce collateral damage," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems.

After conducting a series of additional laser tests on the ground and in the air, the program will fire the chemical laser in-flight at mission-representative ground targets. The test team will fire the laser through a rotating turret that extends through the aircraft's belly.

We wrote about this a while back after an interview with program officials during a conference call on the airborne laser program -- a 747 equipped with a laser designed to shoot down ballistic missiles. Well, looks like Boeing made good on their prediction and the program remains on track to create a laser gunship.

"Later this year, we will fire the laser in-flight at ground targets, demonstrating the military utility of this transformational directed energy weapon," Fancher said.

Last year, the high-energy laser concluded laboratory testing at Kirtland, demonstrating reliable operations in more than 50 firings.

ATL, which Boeing is developing for the U.S. Department of Defense, will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations.

Boeing's ATL industry team includes L-3 Communications/Brashear, which made the laser turret, and HYTEC Inc., which made various structural elements of the weapon system.

-- Christian

Legislative Sausage in the Works

[EDITOR: Good morning folks. I want to introduce to you a new guest blogger we're going to feature here occasionally. He's a defense insider and that's about all I can say here, but you'll recognize his post from last week on the HK416.

It's probably the jading effect of being so close to the biz that's made our new team mate boil over, so for now, we'll just call him "military curmudgeon" as he tells us how it really is.]

Earmarks are earmarks. I don't care what is being done with those earmarks right now.

That is not the case, from the perspective of American warfighting capability.

It is the DoD's responsibility to tell the President/Congress what they need, not for an individual politician to decide for himself what the military needs.

You assume that the people running the DoD actually have the best interests of the fighting man and woman at heart.

They don't. Not when it comes to funding unsexy things like trucks, amphibious ships and cargo planes over their favored toys.

The various services -- who write the requirements that DoD sends to Congress -- game the system to get the favored toys paid for, while ignoring the unglamorous and non-career enhancing.

The USAF's fascination with the F22 over everything has been much commented on here.

How the USAF shorts cargo plane and ground support plane production has been a US Army complaint for as long as there has been a separate air force. The A-10 would not exist at all were it not for legislative log rolling that over ruled the "Fighter pilot generals."

The Marines are in the same position versus the US Navy when it comes to amphibious transports with carriers, fighter planes and subs playing the "F22 role."

The US Army Generals from the "Treadhead," "Grunt," and "Gunbunnie" unions (aka Armor, Infantry and Artillery branches) always short the Army supply of trucks during peace time. (The USMC does not do separate unions, but they short trucks as well, since, hey! That is what the Army is for.)

All of the above play budget games shorting unsexy but mission critical trucks, cargo planes and troop transports for their favored projects.

There are no "white hats" in all of this.

This is the normal "clash of competing interests legislative sausage making that our founding fathers anticipated in the Constitution. It is not efficient or pretty, but it works.

The usual results when legislative reformers try and 'reduce the corruption' of normal legislative sausage making is that it empowers the permanent bureaucracy at the expense of both the troops and the general public.

Legislative sausage making has the ultimate accountability of elections.

The Permanent Bureaucracy is accountable only to itself.

-- Military Curmudgeon

Top Congressional Money Man Dismisses Gates Heritage Speech

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Congress and the Pentagon to keep their eyes on the ball, namely the war we are fighting now, instead of the war we might face later, maybe.

It sounded rational and, perhaps, even seemed a sound reminder that the nation can't spend everything it might want to spend on the military.

Gates' message was heard loud and clear on the Hill. Today, the top defense appropriator -- read money man -- in the House of Representatives boldly stepped in front of the nation (also known as the floor of the House) and said Gates' speech was "simply a rationalization of short-term budget decisions made in the waning months of this Administration. Now when Rep. John Murtha, (D-Penn.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, says something like this, you can bet he has a larger point to deliver. And he did. Murtha said the administration is effectively waging a war without a strategy to guide it.

"We need a National Security Strategy to identify both the near-term and long-term threats to this country. We need a vigorous debate to achieve this strategy -- this hasn't happened since the Cold War," Murtha said. Then he sent a zinger that must have sent some shock waves through intelligence community budgeters: "This country spends more money on intelligence than all the nations of the world combined, and as I've observed our intelligence is about as accurate as Punxsutawney Phil -- 50 percent. 50 percent is unacceptable." Perhaps Murtha has his eyes set on at least one major cut to an IC program.

But in the longer term, Murtha said, "It is time to look beyond Iraq and focus on future threats." To that end, he claimed the emergency supplemental spending bill being introduced on the House floor "provides our military with equipment that will prepare them to face future threats under any scenario; not only to fight a war, but to prevent a war." Then he listed some of the bigger ticket items in the supplemental, including:

$3.6 billion to procure 15 C-17 aircraft
$2.5 billion to procure 34 C-130 aircraft
$750 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment
$1.5 billion for Humvees
$3 billion for Medium and Heavy Tactical Trucks
$500 million for Army and Marine Corps Facility Maintenance and Repairs (including the barracks that need repairs)
$300 million for facility maintenance and repairs at military medical facilities
$570 million for treatment and research activities within the Defense Health Program.

-- Colin Clark

Chinook Production to Resume

This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Boeing plans to cautiously restart the CH-47 Chinook helicopter production line May 15, after shutting it down May 13 following the discovery of what the company is calling irregularities in two aircraft.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), whose district includes the Chinook plant, said he learned of severed wires on one of the CH-47s and a suspicious washer in a subsystem of the second aircraft. "After having several briefings [on the matter], I think there's a low probability this wasn't deliberate," Sestak said. "But it's not out of the question that it's the result of an accident."

Operations were suspended on the primary and final assembly segments of the line, and the investigation is focusing on subassemblies and structure modifications, according to Boeing officials (Aerospace DAILY, May 14). Second- and third-shift workers discovered the problems May 13 and helped inspect the additional helicopters on the line to determine if the irregularities were more widespread. The other six helicopters did not appear to have any problems.

Company procedure requires any issues to be reported to the Defense Contract Management Agency, which has numerous representatives placed on-site. The agency then passes its findings on to the Defense Criminal Investigation Service, which, despite its name, does not imply criminal activity, a Boeing official said. "But that has yet to be determined," the official said.
"They found it like they should have found it," Sestak told Aerospace DAILY. "The system worked. Now we have to figure out how and why it happened."

-- Aviation Week

Committee Maneuvers

Nothing is official yet but Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), may throw his hat in the ring to become ranking member of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, responsible for overseeing space, missile defense and nuclear weapons programs.
Two senior Pentagon officials have asked Franks to make the try.

After all, the Arizona conservative may be the GOP’s most outspoken missile defense advocate remaining in the House after the election. Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former presidential candidate and the departing ranking member of the whole committee, Jim Saxton (R-NJ), current ranking member of the powerful airland subcommittee, and Terry Everett (R-Ala.), current ranking member of the strategic forces subcommittee, all plan to leave the House at the end of the year.

The ranks of missile defense advocates will be further reduced by the departure of Democrat Bud Cramer of Alabama, who is one of the few Democrats on the committee who has consistently fought for missile defense funding.

Franks told me yesterday morning at a breakfast sponsored by the National Defense University that he hasn’t made up his mind about running for the subcommittee spot. He conceded that he might be interested.

-- Colin Clark

One Good Case for Earmarks: HK416

[EDITOR: From a DT frien