What Constitutes an Act of Cyber War?

Throughout history wars have been triggered by events. Being at war is a state or condition. To be legal, a war must be declared by a branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. In the Constitution of the United States, Article I provides Congress the power to declare war. War is defined as a contention by force; or the art of paralyzing the forces of an enemy. An act of war is typically defined as an aggressive act that constitutes a serious challenge or threat to national security, armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. This frames the discussions around traditional war. In the physical sense it is easy to define such infractions; enemy troops crossing another countries border, military strikes by missiles or bombs, basically you know it when you see it. What constitutes a serious challenge and a threat to our national security in cyber space? That is much more difficult to define.

In the U.S. Army's Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02 I found the following reference to the definition of Cyber Warfare & Terrorism: "the premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or to further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives." This was an excerpt from an article I wrote back in 2003 when the issue of cyber war was in its infancy. While this frames acts of cyber war, in retrospect it does not address a measure of the disruptive acts or provide guidance assess if individual acts, or a collection of acts rise to the level to be considered an act of cyber war.

If a foreign government hacks a sensitive system of another government and accesses security and defense information, is that an act of cyber war? If so, that has already occurred. If a foreign government hacks a sensitive system of another government and places software on the system that collects data and sends it back, is that an act of war? If military personal from a foreign government infiltrates another nation's networks or systems through the use of counterfeit hardware and monitors communications, is that an act of cyber war? Both are certainly acts of espionage and have already taken place. The factor that will determine if an act or acts of cyber attack rise to the level of an act of war rests in the magnitude of disruption that accompany the acts. Adding to the complexity is the fact that much of our critical infrastructure that are prime targets for cyber attacks are owned or operated by the private sector not the government. This infrastructure in some cases carries military communications, supports civilian emergency services as well business and consumer services. An attack on the infrastructure impacts multiple segments. The question of what constitutes an act of cyber war remains unanswered.

Given that we are in relatively new territory, each individual attack must be examined and the forensic evidence weighed to determine the source of attack. Little physical evidence will ever exist that you can hold up and point to or take a picture of and say "they did this." Much debate is currently taking place over the legality of cyber warfare tactics and their use. Is a cyber attack on our networks and systems an act of war? Are acts of cyber espionage a violation of international law? It is better we investigate and answer these questions now rather than reacting to cyber events in the heat of the moment when they occur.

-- Kevin Coleman

Huge Win For T-Sat Builders

One of the most important program decisions of this administration was made on Tuesday last week. After years of dithering, the Pentagon’s Deputy’s Advisory Working Group (known affectionately as the DAWG) approved Tier 2 -- the next stage of the Transformational Satellite Communications system.

For a program that had just been whacked by $4 billion over the fiscal 2009 Program Objective memorandum’s five years this is a remarkable achievement and is testament to the enduring need for enormous amounts of protected communication bandwidth. Lockheed Martin and Boeing executives, who just four months ago feared the program was headed for the trash heap of history, were elated. Lockheed partners with Northrop Grumman and Juniper Networks on the program. Boeing partners with Cisco and Hughes.

T-Sat, aside from providing the vaunted comms on the move capability, will provide something even more important – enough bandwidth for the Army’s future Combat System and other key joint systems to function. There are two separate T-Sat programs -- the ground segment and the satellite segment. The DAWG meeting approved going ahead with the satellites and the plan is to build five of them and one spare.

The June 10 decision came as quite a surprise to several industry players. One told us Thursday that their company “could not believe” that the Pentagon leaders had approved the program unanimously.

The DAWG’s action spells an end to several years of questions about whether to go with what many people have called T-Sat light, which would have been basically a fifth version of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite. Congressional staff had been leaning increasingly to such a solution to cover what they feared might be an 18-month gap in protected comms coverage as the old MILSTAR satellites began to fail.

The gap is no longer a concern, according to a senior Pentagon source, adding that launch is now set for 2018. This source says that the DAWG locked in the T-Sat requirements. Doing that basically means that this program – barring major technical or schedule screwups – is likely set for a long life.

-- Colin Clark

Back and Forth...

And this from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell...some interesting tidbits (edited for brevity):

There has been absolutely no change in this building's position on that contract. As the secretary has said time and time again, this is the number-one acquisition priority of the Air Force. It has to be. It is 10 years overdue.

The average age of this fleet is 47 years old. These plans desperately need to be replaced, not yesterday, not the year before, but 10 years ago. Any further delay would be a real problem.

And we believe that the acquisition and the contracting process that eventually produced Northrop Grumman and EADS as the winner of this deal was a fair and transparent one. It was very deliberate.

And we believe it provided the American taxpayer with -- we believe it provided our warfighters with the most capable aircraft and the taxpayer the most cost-effective solution to this very real need of replacing the tanker fleet.

Nothing really new here. Of course the Pentagon is going to back their service's decision. But what I think is interesting in Morrell's comment is the idea that the decision was the "most capable" aircraft and the "most cost effective" one. That's more than just a stock endorsement. It's a value decision.

Then it got really interesting...

I think our people felt very secure about the contracting process. Obviously, the eyes of the world were upon the Air Force, as they were pursuing this contract, and in light of what had happened with the previous attempt to award this contract.

Precisely. It's hard to argue any underhandedness here and that somehow the wool was pulled over Boeing's eyes for this very reason.

More:

You know, I know there's been a lot of concern in Congress about this and the impact that this contract may have on the loss of jobs in particular states. And the secretary has told Congress time and again that the only factors that they are allowed to consider when letting these contracts is cost and capability.

And that if they wish to change the contracting criteria to include the impact on jobs, they should be aware of the potential impact that would have on U.S. military companies, because they do an awful lot of business overseas. And you run the risk of opening the door to retaliatory trade restrictions that would ultimately have a far greater impact on domestic jobs than perhaps this one contract will.

Kudos to Colin for recognizing this aspect in yesterday's post. And clearly the Pentagon is worried about the health of the defense sector and its ability to sell systems worldwide.

-- Christian    

The Coming Clash

GAO Tanker Decision Could Come Tomorrow

A pro-Boeing source sent me the following this AM...

The best indication we have at this point is that the GAO decision on the Boeing protest of the Air Force tanker contract is likely to be announced late Wednesday. The initial announcement in these cases (e.g. the CSAR-X protest) will be somewhat limited, simply stating the GAO’s conclusion, for example, that the Air Force made serious mistakes in conducting the competition. In the CSAR-X case, the announcement said: “GAO sustained the protest on the basis that the Air Force’s actual evaluation of the MPLCC (most probable life-cycle cost) was inconsistent with the required approach as set forth in the solicitation.” GAO recommended that the solicitation should be “amended,” but later recommended that the CSAR-X competition be re-opened.

So it looks like GAO might make an initial call on the tanker deal tomorrow -- a day earlier than planned.

And here's another interesting way of phrasing the controversy from the anti-EADS folks as well:

The Air Force was pressured into altering the program requirements and the decisionmaking models, leading to its subsequent misjudgment of the factors of 1] Mission Capability, 2] Risk, 3] Past Performance and 4] Cost.

The Air Force was pressured? By whom? McCain...who spent little time on this issue once it was recompeted?

The arguments are getting weirder and weirder as this goes forward. We're all sort of holding our breath to see how this shakes out. Colin's piece yesterday was interesting too in noting the cold reception U.S. reps could get at Farnborough if the KC-45 is pulled.

-- Christian

Raytheon Missile Deployed On Predator

This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

A small air-to-surface missile developed as a private venture by Raytheon is being deployed on the Predator unmanned aircraft by an unidentified customer.

The Griffin is a 42-inch-long, tube-launched missile with a semi-active laser seeker, and is intended to give the Predator and smaller UAVs an organic, self-guided direct attack capability, Raytheon says.

The short-range missile including its launcher weigh around 45 pounds, and the Predator will be able to carry up to three rounds for each Hellfire missile now carried. Although longer than Hellfire, the Griffin has a narrower diameter at 5.5 inches and a smaller warhead, reducing collateral damage.

Raytheon says the low-cost weapon is modular, using technology from several of the company’s existing weapons including Javelin, AIM-9X and guided projectiles. Other seekers and warheads could be installed, the company says.

Read the rest of this story, a screed on the Reaper's rewards, an entry on FCS's Hill fandango and see some killer photos of the Royal Navy from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Pitfalls of the Tanker Protest

We don’t have any inside track on the Government Accountability Office’s decision this week about the Boeing protest of the airborne tanker contract award to Northrop Grumman, but here are some of the possible pitfalls no matter which way the GAO rules. (If you know something about the protest and want to tell us before it's officially released, email me at colin.clark@military-inc.com. No one will know where it came from.)

If the protest is denied, Boeing’s supporters in Congress are clearly prepared to try and make life as miserable for the Pentagon as possible. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), a senior member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and one of Boeing’s biggest boosters on the Hill, made it clear after Thursday’s meeting of the House Aerospace Caucus that he was working hand in glove with Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), dean of the defense subcommittee, to come up with creative ways to stymie Northrop. Although single members such as these can cause heartache and heartburn, I think the relative quiet of most senators (aside from the two Washington state lawmakers) on the issue indicates that – barring some pretty spectacular goof by the Air Force contracting folks – Northrop will probably get the contract through the appropriations and authorization processes

In addition to the congressional angle, there are enormous allied industrial cooperation issues at stake. The award of the contract to Northrop was seen as a bold and welcome move by the Air Force to include allied companies on truly major contracts.

Taking it away now – either through congressional action or by reopening the bid as a result of the protest decision – would be read as a slap in the face of NATO allies and raise questions about the viability of the United States as a defense industrial partner. As one defense analyst, who has been in the thick of the contract award process, told me this afternoon, any American attending the Farnborough Air Show in mid-July will need an armed guard should the Northrop-EADS team be denied the contract.

-- Colin Clark

A Big Pot of Money

Recently much attention is being given to the topic of cyber warfare and rightfully so. Our computers and networks are under continuous attack from all over the world. The level of sophistication of these attacks and the quality of the code written to perform these attacks both have raised significantly in the past year. Experts agree we have entered a new era of warfare and are transitioning from bombs and bullets to bits and bytes.

In January two classified presidential directives were signed related to defending the country against cyber attacks. At that time the price tag was estimated at $6 billion. In mid May the price tag was revised and believed to be $17 billion. Now, the price has risen again to be $30 billion. That is a big pot of money by anyone's standards. So the question is, where will this money be spent? Increasing cyber defense will require investment in Research and Development as well as in existing technology and services. The first and most critical activity will be to fortify current systems against known cyber threats.

Spending Allocation:

• Hardware 18% $5.4 Billion USD

• Software 25% $7.5 Billion USD

• Consulting 29% $8.7 Billion USD

• Services 24% $7.2 Billion USD

• R&D 4% $1.2 Billion USD

The R&D efforts will focus on near term delivery of advanced defensive capabilities (like behavioral modeling) of software processes and transaction to evaluate if they pose a threat to the system. Additionally, advanced modeling capabilities are required for evolving defenses and investigative activities. Advanced modeling will be used to certify and authenticate chips, hardware and software to be authentic and free of malicious code. One of the most promising capabilities centers on the development of a "Digital DNA" database repository. The ultimate goal of this work is the same as with current DNA forensics - to identify the perpetrators of the assault. Most cyber attacks leave behind forensic evidence that can be used to assess the capabilities of the attacker, understand the implications of the attack and to create defensive measure to guard against this type attack in the future. With all the attacks that have taken place, there is significant intelligence out there about techniques, cyber weapons, and strategies that have been used in these cyber assaults. Analysis of this evidence can create Digital DNA which could also help to identify the source of the malicious code and potentially lead to the attacker.

ASDF represents the four Digital DNA characteristic sets.
A = attributes, abilities, abstraction, architecture, assembly, adaptation
S = style, signatures, syntax, structure, source, specification, scope
D = demographics, delivery, development, discipline, data, design
F = functions, features, faults, formidability, fields, forms, factors

There are currently over a million pieces of malware. On average there are approximately 200 new computer viruses released monthly, so the raw cyber DNA materials are not in short supply. The potential use and value of the Digital DNA repository will increase with every single entry and the analysis of attacks. According to a source close to the Digital DNA project, the repository is currently in its infancy, it continues to grow and mature with the knowledge gained from each cyber attack. John Foley, CEO of Defcomm1 and former CEO of Vigilant Minds a leading managed security services provider said, "Much like the human genome project, Digital DNA will basically fingerprint the technical and human factors behind the malicious software and attacks." Security experts believe that Digital DNA type data is a critical component and required to fight cyber attacks and defend systems.

-- Kevin Coleman

Happy Birthday Joes! (Tomorrow)

They've sure earned their keep...Hooah Army!

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, the United States Army was established to defend our Nation. From the Revolutionary War to the Global War on Terror, our Soldiers remain Army Strong with a deep commitment to our core values and beliefs. This 233rd birthday commemorates America’s Army – Soldiers, Families and Civilians – who are achieving a level of excellence that is truly Army Strong both here and abroad. Their willingness to sacrifice to build a better future for others and to preserve our way of life is without a doubt, the Strength of our Nation.

And a little history...

The June 14 date is when Congress adopted "the American continental army" after reaching a consensus position in The Committee of the Whole. This procedure and the desire for secrecy account for the sparseness of the official journal entries for the day. The record indicates only that Congress undertook to raise ten companies of riflemen, approved an enlistment form for them, and appointed a committee (including Washington and Schuyler) to draft rules and regulations for the government of the army. The delegates' correspondence, diaries, and subsequent actions make it clear that they really did much more. They also accepted responsibility for the existing New England troops and forces requested for the defense of the various points in New York. The former were believed to total 10,000 men; the latter, both New Yorkers and Connecticut men, another 5,000.

At least some members of Congress assumed from the beginning that this force would be expanded. That expansion, in the form of increased troop ceilings at Boston, came very rapidly as better information arrived regarding the actual numbers of New England troops. By the third week in June delegates were referring to 15,000 at Boston. When on 19 June Congress requested the governments of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire to forward to Boston "such of the forces as are already embodied, towards their quotas of the troops agreed to be raised by the New England Colonies," it gave a clear indication of its intent to adopt the regional army. Discussions the next day indicated that Congress was prepared to support a force at Boston twice the size of the British garrison, and that it was unwilling to order any existing units to be disbanded. By the first week in July delegates were referring to a total at Boston that was edging toward 20.000. Maximum strengths for the forces both in Massachusetts and New York were finally established on 21 and 22 July, when solid information was on hand. These were set, respectively, at 22,000 and 5,000 men, a total nearly double that envisioned on 14 June.

The "expert riflemen" authorized on 14 June were the first units raised directly as Continentals. Congress intended to have the ten companies serve as a light infantry force for the Boston siege. At the same time it symbolically extended military participation beyond New England by allocating 6 of the companies to Pennsylvania, 2 to Maryland, and 2 to Virginia. Each company would have a captain, 3 lieutenants, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, a drummer (or horn player), and 68 privates. The enlistment period was set at one year, the norm for the earlier Provincials, a period that would expire on 1 July 1776.

-- Christian

Schwartz a Chief to Mend Fences

With his decision to tap Gen. Norton Schwartz to be the next Air Force chief of staff, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done two things.

First, he has smashed an Air Force culture ceiling by putting into the top job a pilot who does not come out of the fighter or bomber community.

Second, Gates has put into place someone who can help heal the rift between the Air Force and the Army, one that has grown in recent years over the Air Force's heavy-handed move to take ownership of the Joint Cargo Aircraft -- originally an Army program -- its seeming stinginess in getting to ground commanders badly-needed UAV assets and the service's lack of interest in sending Airmen to help out on Army missions.

"A couple of things about 'Norty' Schwartz that a lot of folks didn't realize [before] - he spent a lot of time in the special ops arena," said a retired four-star who, like Schwartz, once headed U.S. Transportation Command at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. "And any of our blue suit guys who have spent time in the special ops arena have a tendency to be closer to our Army brethren and others. I think that's a positive thing."

According to several former field and general Air Force officers, there does need to be some fence-mending after the last five or six years.

Terry Stevens, a retired colonel and personnel officer familiar with Air Force manpower and budget issues, said it was Moseley who fought the "in-lieu-of" program that helped the Army flesh out its ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan with Airmen. Moseley also balked at aggressively getting unmanned aerial vehicles into theater until Gates and Congress recently insisted he deploy them.

And at a time when Air Force missions around the world already were stretching its personnel thin, Moseley ordered a force restructuring that envisioned cutting 40,000 positions so that the money could be redirected to weapons programs such as the F-22 Raptor.

Taken together with the more widely known controversies -- including nuclear weapon snafus, corruption scandals and impolitic budget manipulations -- Moseley was seen as the head of a service with serious problems.

"I believe that General Moseley is an honorable man with the best interest of the Air Force in his heart, but he was not as politically aware as he should have been," Stevens said. "He also couldn't seem to see the big picture from the Department of Defense's perspective."

Another retiree, a former wing commander speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Air Force had become estranged from everyone, including its own people.

"Over the last five or six years, the Air Force has continued to lose credibility on the Hill, lose credibility with the Joint Chiefs and with the other service chiefs, and it lost credibility with the Airmen whose feet are on the ramp," he said. "I'm pleased to see that Gates is cleaning house."

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, a former director of the Air National Guard who flew and commanded fighter and mobility units, said Schwartz would be "a great leader."

Schwartz, Weaver said, was Air Force director of operations at the Pentagon for several years under Donald Rumsfeld's tenure, which Weaver said is a testament to Schwartz's "strong character and strength."

"I think he'll be able to calm the storm here [in Washington] and move things forward," Weaver added.

Weaver also believes that Gates' decision to move Gen. Duncan McNabb -- currently the deputy Air Force chief of staff -- to take over Schwartz' command is a smart move for the Air Force and one that will make McNabb personally happy.

"I think Duncan probably has a smile on his face from ear to ear going back to [Scott]," Weaver said. That's because McNabb, until assigned to the Pentagon last year, had been commander of Air Mobility Command, a job McNabb loved. McNabb has been a transport pilot throughout his career.

"He always said the greatest job in the world was commanding AMC," Weaver said. "He did a fantastic job there." McNabb also made friends on Capital Hill during his time at the Pentagon and during past testimony he has given to congressmen, Weaver said.

"The people love him on the Hill. He's extremely credible," Weaver said. "I'm thinking that of anybody, if they're going to tap Schwartz for chief of staff, they needed somebody who, as we go forward in the new tanker area … we've got to have somebody [at Transcom] who really knows mobility very well. And McNabb knows it better than anybody. He's very good and it will be a new team in the Pentagon."

Taking McNabb's place at the Pentagon will be Lt. Gen. William Fraser III, a bomber pilot who had been in line to take over Transcom if time and circumstance had not scuttled Schwartz's original plan to retire.

With his rise to chief of staff, Schwartz is the first to break the fighter/bomber pilot mafia's hold on the top uniformed job. Not only does he come to the job with mobility background, but in Air Force helicopters as well.

He has flown MC-130 Combat Talons and MH-53 Pave Lows and MH-60 Blackhawk special ops helos, and his operations background goes back to the final days of Vietnam. At the time, he was a crew member taking part in the 1975 airlift evacuation of Saigon. By 1991 he was chief of staff of the Joint Special Operations Task Force for Northern Iraq during the first Gulf War.

-- Bryant Jordan

Missile Defense on the Skids

It’s been an entire fiscal year since the Groundbased Midcourse [missile] Defense system underwent a flight test, a congressional aide told me this morning. That failure of the Missile Defense Agency to perform tests for an entire fiscal year has got both Republican and Democratic staff and lawmakers pretty warm under the collar. The congressional aide told me this morning that “we are troubled” because this appears to “be a sign of problems with management” at MDA.

The proximate cause of this unhappiness is the latest cancellation of a GMD test known as FTG-04, scheduled for July. The congressional aide says that a third tier supplier supplied a telemetry unit with an “improperly soldered motherboard.” Since MDA would not have been able to gather any data about the scheduled test – even if everything else worked as planned – the agency decided to cancel the scheduled test.

The Center for Defense Information’s Victoria Samson, who watches MDA like a hawk, sent me an analysis this morning saying that this latest goof “is alarming” because it appears to raise questions about the GMD interceptor’s reliability – not true, according to the congressional aide – and because “it has become one of many missile defense tests that have been called off…” That is absolutely true, said the congressional aide, who ticked off a list of GMD tests since 2001 – six hits; one miss; one no-test, two tests without interceptors.

Army Lt. Gen. Kevin Campbell, head of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala., said this morning that it is true that there has not been enough realistic testing of GMD in terms of countermeasures and interceptors, but he added that he feels they are now on the right track. The congressional aide did not disagree with Campbell’s statement, but said MDA has not done “enough testing of the basic system, let alone countermeasures and interceptors.”

Campbell also mentioned at the breakfast sponsored by the National Defense University that there is increasing recognition that much more “ammunition” needs to be bought for the THAAD and Aegis systems. The congressional aide said this came out of the Future Capabilities Mix study recently completed by the Joint Staff. Look for an amendment to be introduced in the Senate to restore some of the $400 million cut from MDA when the defense authorization bill is considered by the whole Senate, probably next week. The amendment will argue this money should be used to buy more missiles for these two systems.

-- Colin Clark

ALERT!

Defense Tech (and personal) friends Sharon Weinberger and Nathan Hodge are being interviewed on the NPR program Fresh Air right now. They're discussing their new book A Nuclear Family Vacation, a world tour of nuclear test sites, labs and missile silos.

Go to www.wamu.org and listen live.

Bravo Nathan and Sharon!

-- Christian

Raw Footage of the Hit Inside Pakistan

-- Christian

Boeing Rethinking Plan To Back Out Of JCA

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Boeing is rethinking its decision to back out of a deal with L-3 Communications and Alenia North America to build C-27Js for the U.S. Air Force and Army.

Last week, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems President Jim Albaugh is said to have decided to pull out of the partnership to build the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) over disagreements concerning Boeing's work share. Boeing was in talks to establish a new production facility for the aircraft in Jacksonville, Fla.

After Albaugh decided to back out of JCA, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney stepped in and reopened the matter, an industry source says.

This source suggests the relationship between Boeing and Alenia North America, as well as prime contractor L-3 Communications, was souring and they were not making headway on work share after a year of discussions. "Boeing is not used to being a follower" on contracts, the source says.

This week, however, it appears Boeing is publicly acknowledging the question is open. Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, which falls under Albaugh's purview, says "we are trying to close the business case" on the deal.

It appears to be a moot point, however, as Ben Stone, an Alenia official, says the company has "terminated" negotiations with Boeing. "We have stopped all negotiations in an effort to find work for Boeing," he says. "I am perplexed ... as to why Boeing would make that statement."

Weighing risk

At issue is the risk associated with Boeing funding the Jacksonville facility and how many of the aircraft the team would guarantee to roll off that production line. While the market appears robust for the C-27J, the Pentagon has only contracted for 78 of the aircraft. With a 2010 deadline for establishing the Jacksonville manufacturing plant looming, the team was mired in a disagreement over how many aircraft would be built in the U.S.

Read the rest of this story, a note on some crazy underwater drones, insight into Wired's idea for a terror drone and more from the AUVSI show in San Diego from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

AF Problems Deep-seated, Says Senior Senator

A senior Senate lawmaker, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), told me this morning that he believes the Air Force suffers from “systemic problems” and must examine how it buys weapons, how it manages its forces and perhaps rebuild its long-term strategy in the face of today’s changing international situation.

Sessions a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and ranking member of its strategic forces subcommittee, said he and his colleagues aren’t certain how to proceed yet to fix the service.

Sessions did praise Gates for his actions in sacking Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne and Chief of Staff Mike Moseley, noting he had helped reestablish personal responsibility among senior leaders.

A congressional source, asked about the likelihood that Congress might undertake a probing look at the Air Force to try and figure out what must be done to rebuild the service said any action was unlikely before the election. Senior lawmakers are already being drawn into daily management of the campaign message wars. And senators such as Sessions, while eager to do the right thing, will find it difficult to muster support from their colleagues for a bipartisan effort such as this would require.

Sessions’ comments came the day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ made extraordinary visits -- well intentioned and well executed –to Air Force commands to deliver the message that he believes the service matters and has his support and to give service officials the chance to ask him questions face-to-face. One of the most interesting exchanges shed some bright light on just how much far apart are the secretary and the Air Force.

Gates, flying to Colorado Springs, Colo., told reporters that he took the opportunity of a “question about the F-22s to address the speculation that, in truth, these changes were due to disagreements over the F-22. And I said that that was not true, that in fact that issue had been settled for some weeks. And that I had essentially made the decision that we would allocate enough money to keep the production line open so that the next administration could decide on the balance between buying more F-22s and buying more joint-strike fighters. And I thought that that was a significant procurement decision that ought not be made in the last six or seven months of an administration.”

You can imagine how much the Air Force officers believed that, no matter how true it is. The gap is so wide that even gates’ spokesman, Geoff Morrell, felt compelled to tell reporters that “despite rumors: the F-22 issue “had nothing to do with the secretary's decision for a change of leadership in the Air Force.”
Gates briefly mentioned the acquisition side of the Air Force’s problems, noting that he is “figuring out how to get the modernization program back on track.” He gave the example of the tanker decision. “I mean, we're 10 years past when we should have started replacing the tanker fleet.”

Gates said that no one asked him about his recommendation of Gen. Norton Schwartz, leader of Transportation Command, as Air Force Chief of Staff. A reporter asked about the choice. “He's very process-oriented. I mean, the changes that he's made in TRANSCOM have been pretty dramatic in terms of how you manage all these priorities and the logistics of supporting the war in two theaters with limited capability… But I also liked his experience and mobility and jointness. He has a lot of joint experience. His whole command has been about how do you support all of the services. So that was important. And frankly, also, the Special Operations experience.”

-- Colin Clark

The Next Time You Go to the Dentist...

...maybe he'll have one of these on his wall:

Ouch!...

(Gouge: BJ)

-- Christian

Jump Jet Lightning II Jumps Into the Air

In case you all missed it, Lockheed took its first major test flight of the STOVL JSF today.

From Lockheed Martin:

With test pilot Graham Tomlinson at the controls, the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B Lightning II streaked into blue Texas skies Wednesday, marking the first flight of an aircraft that will provide a combination of capabilities never before available: stealth, supersonic speed and STOVL basing flexibility.

Tomlinson, a former Royal Air Force Harrier pilot now employed by BAE Systems, performed a conventional takeoff at 10:17 a.m. CDT from Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility. As planned, all initial F-35B flights will be made using conventional takeoffs and landings, with transitions to short takeoffs, hovers and vertical landings beginning early next year. Tomlinson guided the jet to 15,000 feet and performed a series of handling tests, engine-power variations and subsystems checks before landing at 11:01 a.m. CDT.

“A great team effort led to a relaxed first flight, with the aircraft handling and performing just as we predicted based on STOVL simulator testing and flying the F-35A,” Tomlinson said. The F-35B, known as BF-1, becomes the second Lightning II to enter flight test, preceded by the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A, which first flew in December 2006 and has completed 43 flights. The F-35B that flew today is the second of 19 System Development and Demonstration aircraft and the first to incorporate new weight-saving design features that will apply to all future F-35 aircraft.

You know the Brits (and Marines) are psyched. Now, what I'm waiting for are the transition flight tests. I want to see just how that lift fan design works when it's pushed around a little bit.

-- Christian

Rescue Chopper Requirements Sacrificed for Rivalries

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Nearly a decade ago, U.S. Air Force officers formulated a list of requirements for a new combat, search and rescue helicopter replacement eventually called CSAR-X. Stung by failures through the end of the last century, CSAR experts knew they needed a smallish medium-lift helicopter that could be deployed quickly and survive some of the worst combat environments.

As U.S. forces continue to find themselves waging irregular warfare or facing nature’s wrath, combatant commanders could be forced to move the CSAR fleet around in a snap for quick deployment. The aircraft needs to be able to take and return fire just to penetrate, survive and return from combat or disaster zones with no clear fronts.

The current CSAR fleet of H-60 variants lacks the inherent capability to do the job, experts say. "We had all of that experience through the ’90s," one of the early requirement writers said. "The key was to get in an aircraft without a large logistics footprint."

Instead, the Air Force picked what many military aviation experts consider to be a heavy-lift helicopter – a Boeing HH-47 Chinook variant that took longest of all the competing platforms to prepare for its mission after being deployed, and which has a questionable survivability record, according to some of the very Air Force CSAR experts who set down those initial requirements.

Bigger not better

Bigger in this case is not better – and that comes straight from the Air Force’s own 2002 Analysis of Alternatives for the CSAR aircraft. CSAR experts say larger helicopters are clumsy, slow and bulky, and present a bigger target.

In its defense, Boeing says it has supplied a combat-proven, medium-lift helicopter that meets CSAR requirements, even though its own literature has listed the Chinook as a heavy-lift model and the 47 is the biggest of the three competing CSAR-X candidates, by a relatively large margin.

"Procuring the HH-47 for the CSAR mission makes as much sense as entering a Winnebago in a NASCAR race," said John Guilmartin, a retired Air Force pilot with two Southeast Asia combat tours flying "Jolly Green" HH-3E and CH-53 rescue helicopters.

Now a history professor at Ohio State University, Guilmartin logged some 130 combat missions over a span of nine years and participated in the Gulf War Air Power Survey, an Air Force-sponsored study of the impact of air power on the first Gulf War. Part of the task force’s charter was to examine CSAR in the conflict.

Boeing disagrees with Guilmartin’s assessment and his ability to make an informed one.

"He’s not a Chinook pilot," said Rick Lemaster, Boeing HH-47 program manager. "If he had flown combat missions in a 47 in the last 10 years, then he might be able to apply his insight in CSAR here."

But Guilmartin stands by his CSAR experience and his belief that the Chinook would be a disaster, a lumbering beast.

How it happened

To find out how this happened with a $15 billion program the Air Force says is one of its top priorities, Aerospace DAILY interviewed scores of experts in and out of the service, many of whom have been involved with the CSAR-X program from its inception, and several who wrote the requirements for the new helicopter fleet. As might be expected, several of the key officials are now working – or have worked – for contractors involved in the fight for the contract, which is now in the midst of its third proposal request review.

Read the rest of this story -- one of several in Mike Fabey's series -- some gouge on Dutch F-16s in Afghanistan, Lockheed's confidence in the JSF and Aussies blowing up roadside bombs from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Hot HIre for Top Defense Lobby

If you see the man in the picture grab him and talk to him -- in a nice way and about the military. Fred Downey, military legislative aide to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), will be joining the Aerospace Industries Association as vice president of national security at the end of this month.It is refreshing to see the biggest defense industry lobby has made a very smart hire.
I’ve known Downey for about 10 years (though we didn’t talk much while I was covering space for the last four years). You can expect a wily and febrile mind that is committed to joint operations, that understands the possibilities and limits of transformation (or whatever we’re calling it since Rumsfeld so tarred the term) and has had one of the highest profile bosses on defense issues on the Hill and knows where to step and where to tread lightly.

Before joining Lieberman, Downey had one job that marked him for life – assistant to the man many reporters call the Yoda of the Pentagon, Andrew Marshall, head of the Office of Net Assessment.
Downey’s hire also appears to mark a return to a more traditional approach by AIA to defense and intelligence issues. It also should mark a return to greater stability at the group, which has gone through four national security bosses in less than six years.

The organization tried combining its highest profile issues – international affairs and defense – under a single person, Mark Esper, who was named executive vice president of defense and international affairs in April 2006. Esper made the decision one year ago to join something many of us can barely remember -- the presidential campaign of former Sen. Fred Thompson.

-- Colin Clark

Transonic Lift Concept in the Works

I noticed the following contract announcement this morning when I read the DoD's daily roundup:

Boeing Co., of Huntington Beach, Calif., is being awarded a firm fixed price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for $7,521,000. The Speed Agile Concept Demonstration program seeks to achieve a technology readiness level of at least five 2010 on an integrated mobility configuration in the areas of high lift, efficient transonic flight, and flight control, in order to support future technology development and acquisition activities. At this time $800,000 has been obligated. Department of the Air Force, 84 CSW, 518CBSS/PK, Hill AFB, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA8212-08-C-0006).

Sounds interesting enough. "Speed Agile" concept demonstrator? So, I scanned around for some more info. Looks like back in August the Air Force published a solicitation for a concept demonstrator for a new generation of lifters that can operate with capabilities somewhere in between the C-130 and the C-17. Could this be the FCS Lifter?

The Speed Agile Concept Demonstrator, or SACD (I bet the Hill staffers love that acronym), will be able to take off in less than 2,000 feet [EDITOR: corrected], carry 65,000 pounds of gear or troops and fly around 1,500 nm unrefueled. This is what the Air Force is thinking about for a standard mission, and they're asking for a cruise speed of greater than .8mach at more than 30,000 feet, which means the aircraft will have to be pressurized.

The Air Force also wants the plane to be able to perform a special operations mission, carrying 20,000 lbs about 1,000 nm with a specialized flight profile that performs a 250 nm "low ingress cruise" and a similar egress cruise at "best range mach, best range altitude." The specs are intended to provide a plane that can "maximize radius and minimize mission execution time for given payload and mid-mission field length," according to an Air Force solicitation document.

The plane will have to be able to handle seven standard-sized pallets, with one on the ramp. The cargo bay dimensions would be an objective of 158" wide at the bottom of the loading bay, where the C-130 checks out at about 123" at its widest point.

This is just a "concept" and the Air Force is careful to point out:

The mission profiles and performance goals provided are only intended to provide a basis for the physical scaling of concepts and are not official USAF requirements. They are intended to represent an amalgam of various physical capabilities that are of interest, and a common point of departure for comparison/parametric sensitivities to assess the robustness of integrated mobility vehicle concepts.

Well, we'll keep an eye on this and see what comes out of it. But, clearly, Boeing's getting a pretty hefty chunk of change to put this SACD together.

-- Christian

India's Navy Expanding Rapidly

While Chinese naval modernization efforts are capturing the attention of Western naval officials and analysts as well as journalists and even bloggers, little attention is being given to the Indian Navy's massive expansion effort. Mohammed Ahmedullah, a leading defense writer, wrote in Military Technology (2/2008):

"With the second biggest Army in the world and a rapidly expanding Navy, India knows that it needs to modernize fast, leapfrog in technology and accumulate military assets rapidly over the next decade if it has to safeguard it growing economic might with military teeth. . . ."

Within a decade the naval forces of India will include two large aircraft carriers, a large force of missile-armed surface warships, and a significant submarine flotilla, probably including three nuclear-propelled attack submarines. The rationale for the expansion of the Indian fleet is to protect the flow of oil to India's rapidly growing economy.

However, the Indian subcontinent sits astride the tanker sailing routes from the Middle East to Chin and Japan. And, Indian naval forces could come into play with respect to the continuing turmoil and quest for resources in Africa.

The current Indian Navy expansion program provides for the rehabilitation of the Soviet-built, 44,570-ton carrier Admiral Gorshkov in a Russian shipyard. That project is far behind schedule and over cost; the ship should be fully operational about 2015. India has also begun construction of an "air defense ship" -- a 40,000-ton carrier to be completed about 2018. (India now operates the 28,700-ton, ex-British VSTOL carrier Hermes; she was originally launched in 1953 and completed in 1969, and has been extensively rebuilt.)

Now being procured are advanced missile-armed destroyers and frigates. Some are being fitted with the highly-touted Israel Barak-8 air-defense system.

With respect to submarines, the Navy currently operates 14 relatively modern submarines: four German Type 209/1500 (built in Germany and India) and ten Russian-built Kilo/Project 877EM. Some of the latter are being fitted to fire the Russian-developed Klub-S submerged-launch, anti-ship missile. However, there have been some problems encountered with that modification to the submarines.

Six French-built Scorpene torpedo-attack submarines are under construction in at the Mazagon Dockyard in Mumbai. These will replace the last of the Foxtrot/Project 641 submarines operated by India.

Most significant, India will again operate nuclear-propelled submarines in the near future. Three Akula/Project 971 torpedo-attack submarines are on order, being constructed in Russia. These are 33-knot, relatively quiet submarines, capable of operating to 1,970 feet feet, armed with four 21-inch and four 25.5-inch torpedo tubes and carrying 40 tube-launched missiles and torpedoes. (India previously operated a nuclear submarine from 1988 to 1991, when a Soviet Charlie I/Project 670 cruise missile submarine was leased to India. Soviet personnel operated the submarine's reactor-propulsion plant.)

For the past two decades India has also been working on the development of an indigenous nuclear-propelled submarine, officially labeled the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV). The project has encountered numerous difficulties, but there are reports that the first ATV submarine is now under construction at the Mazagon Dock Yard. The first of several such craft may be completed as early as 2010. She will have a submerged displacement of some 7,000 tons and will carry cruise missiles as well as torpedoes.

The Indian Navy is also procuring advanced aircraft to support fleet operations: These include MiG-29K multi-role aircraft and Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopters for the carriers, and land-based Il-38D maritime patrol aircraft.

Whereas in the past few decades the Indian Navy has relied upon Soviet and -- to a lesser degree -- British naval technology, Indian leaders are shopping world-wide. Israeli, French, and South African as well as Russian weapons are being sought. And, the former U.S. amphibious ship Trenton (LPD 14) was transferred to India in 2007 and it is likely that six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules aircraft will be acquired. Obviously, there are other U.S. naval platforms and systems of interest to India.

Thus, the Indian Navy is undergoing a massive expansion. By some criteria the naval expansion is greater than that of the other services. And, unlike the Chinese naval modernization, India's efforts are taking advantage of essentially all of the world's naval technologies and are being undertaken with relatively little publicity.

-- Norman Polmar

How Do You Take Your COFEE?

A powerful set of tools specifically designed to circumvent security on computers running the Microsoft Windows operating systems was released to law enforcement and military intelligence staff in the U.S and other foreign countries by Microsoft in the summer of 2007.

The USB device was dubbed COFEE which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor. COFEE is said to contain over 100 software programs that allow the holder to quickly discover passwords, decrypt files and folders, view recent Internet activity and a great deal more. On piece of functionality allows evidence to be gathered while the computer is still connected to the Internet or other network. All you have to do is plug COFEE into a USB port of a running computer and the data extraction begins with the click of a mouse. Some security professionals and privacy advocates are concerned that Microsoft has created a secret back door within Windows. This is a concern the Microsoft has denied.

Nearly 400 people from more than 80 agencies in 35 countries attended the conference where Microsoft provided training on this tool. COFEE seems to be an easy to use, automated computer forensic tool that can be used by investigators in the field. However, one has to wonder how fast one of these devices will find their way to the darks side and in the hands of criminals. I would bet within hours of the initial distribution of this device, a bounty was established payable to the first person to deliver COFEE into the hands of the bad guys.

The attendees were shown how to use the device and other technologies that can help them fight cybercrime as well as help them investigate traditional crime with an online component. They were also instructed on topics that covered how to collect evidence from PDAs running Windows CE and how to gather evidence from Microsoft's online services and products like Hotmail and Windows.

Distribution: More than 2,000 law enforcement and intelligence officers in 15 countries, including Poland, the Philippines, Germany, New Zealand and the United States have received the device.

Development: COFEE is said to have been developed by a former Hong Kong police officer who now works for Microsoft.

Professional hackers and cyber weapons designers are smarter than you think. They have their own versions of COFEE and in all likelihood they are much better than the Microsoft tool. In fact, one professional hacker said, "If it works as good as other Microsoft applications - no one has anything to worry about." I bet they get the old "Blue Screen of Death as well."

The risk of tools like this being used by criminals and our enemies is very real. So is the potential misuse of these capabilities and the threat that it poses to privacy. That being said, given the current state of cyber crime and the threat of cyber terrorism and the looming risk of cyber war, the military, intelligence organizations and law enforcement needs all the help they can get. As I have said many times before, one person's tool is another's weapon.

-- Kevin Coleman

Gates Makes His Picks

From the office of Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

"Today I provided my recommendation to the President for the nominations to the top civilian and military leadership positions in the Air Force.

"I recommended that Michael Donley be nominated to serve as Secretary of the Air Force.

"Mike Donley is presently the Director of Administration and Management for the Department of Defense, essentially charged with running the Pentagon and its many complex operations. Mike served as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management in the first Bush Administration and, for a period, as Acting Secretary of the Air Force. In order to minimize any disruption caused by this leadership transition, I have also recommended to the President that he designate Mike Donley as Acting Secretary of the Air Force effective June 21.

"I further recommended to the President that General Norton Schwartz be nominated to serve as Air Force Chief of Staff.

"General Schwartz is presently the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, which is in charge of the Department's extensive transportation network and world-wide operations. Prior to that, General Schwartz served in senior joint military positions as Director of the Joint Staff, Director for Operations for the Joint Staff and Deputy Commander of Special Operations Command.

"In addition, I have recommended two additional Air Force military leadership changes.

"First, General Duncan McNabb, the current Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, has been recommended to take General Schwartz's place at US Transportation Command. General McNabb has spent most of his three-plus decades in the Air Force in the areas of lift, refueling and logistics – making him an ideal candidate to assume the helm of this command.

"Second, I have recommended that the President nominate Lieutenant General William Fraser III, to follow General McNabb as the next Air Force Vice Chief. General Fraser is currently the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that role he is the Chairman's chief liaison and advisor on international relations and political-military matters. In addition to his numerous flying and command assignment in the bomber community, General Fraser has extensive wartime, contingency and humanitarian relief operational experience.

"I am confident that Mike Donley, General Schwartz and the new Air Force leadership team have the qualifications, skill and commitment to excellence necessary to guide the Air Force through this transition and beyond.

I don't know much about Donley, but I know Norty Schwartz and really like the dude. He's a good guy, understands unconventional fights and is an independant thinker. I can't think of a better leader to take the Air Force once and for all out of the Cold War mindset.

It's also noteworthy that Duncan McNabb will replace Schwartz at Transcom, and William Fraser will replace McNabb as Vice Chief. Why? Well, look at their resumes. McNabb is a longtime transport and rotor wing pilot (red-headed step children in the AF) and Fraser is a bomber pilot (another pariah in the fighter-dominated service). If the jet-jocks can't get their act in gear, then we'll get the slow-movers into the game so change can finally come...We'll see.

-- Christian

DoD and DNI Battle Over Billions

Very quietly and out of sight of almost everyone but the actual players, the Director of National Intelligence's office and the Pentagon's head of acquisition are battling for the soul of the next-generation of reconnaissance satellites. A decision on this is likely this week, we understand. A draft "Statement of Guidance" is circulating, but it is classified so we cannot tell you what is in it.

The outcome of this struggle may well reshape the relationships between the military and the intelligence community, since the power to determine requirements largely determines what will be bought and how much it will cost - not to mention which company will most benefit.

In addition to the high intensity-low visibility battle between the intelligence community and the military, the future of two companies may depend on the decision: DigitalGlobe and GeoEye.

GeoEye plans an August launch of its high resolution reconnaissance satellite, GeoEye 1, which will be able to provide commercial customers and the national security establishment with better than half-meter resolution in full color. DigitalGlobe plans a launch of its WorldView2 satellite in late 2009.

Both companies need customers for the imagery. If they don't lock in the federal government as a major customer they may find it difficult to convince investors that they should stick with them. And both are spending substantial amounts of money to build these new satellites. And they haven't launched or deployed yet.

Lockheed Martin wants to build what has been termed the "exquisite" solution to this requirement and is reportedly pushing this. However, we understand from a senior intelligence source that Lockheed is unlikely to get this business in the next two to three years.

Let's look at where the major government players in this drama stand. The DNI's director of acquisition, Al Munson, reportedly wants GeoEye to get a contract for providing imagery. But he is being challenged and countered by Don Kerr, principal deputy director of National Intelligence. Kerr, whose last job was running the National Reconnaissance Office, wants to buy -- not lease -- the satellites to do this kind of work...

Read the rest of this story on Military.com's Warfighter's Forum page.

-- Colin Clark

Oops! Will the US Air Force lose Joint STARS?

I believe I have seen the future replacement for the E-8C Joint STARS fleet (shown pictured), and it's not going to be a US Air Force aircraft.

The US Navy is preparing to replace the EP-3E ARIES II, an electronic intelligence aircraft, with a new-start acquisition program called EPX.

But the navy's requirements for EPX call for an aircraft that would not only spy on enemy electronic signals, like the EP-3E, but also find and track moving targets, like the E-8C.

Interestingly, the EPX program of record will acquire 19 to 26 aircraft to replace only 11 EP-3Es flying today. At the high end of that range, 26 aircraft would nicely replace all 11 EP-3Es and all 17 E-8Cs in service. (One E-8C is a testbed, and doesn't count.)

If the air force can't pay for an E-8C replacement to appear after 2015, or even to modernize the radar on the current fleet, watch for the navy to steal this mission with the EPX. It's the roles and missions equivalent of a pick-pocketing.

And it's happened before. In 1998, the air force lost the EC-135 Looking Glass mission to the navy's E-6 take-charge-and-move-out (TACAMO) aircraft. Now, it's happening again, unless the air force acts very quickly.

This all became clear to me during my weeklong tour of Boeing's defense sites based in the Pacific Northwest. Paul Summers, Boeing's capture lead for EPX, briefed reporters about the navy's requirements, explaining that the size of the future EPX fleet had grown from 14-19 aircraft to 19-26 aircraft since last year.

The obvious question later occurred to me: Why does the navy need 26 EPX aircraft to replace 11 EP-3Es. Clearly, the navy has bigger ideas for this fleet.

Paul also discussed the new radar for the EPX. This in itself is noteworthy. The EP-3E does not have a radar. The aircraft intercepts and maps enemy communications and other electronic transmissions.

We've known for about a year that Boeing and Raytheon have installed the new littoral surveillance radar systems (LSRS) on a subset of the P-3C fleet, giving the navy its own mini-Joint STARS capability.

It is now clear that the LSRS is the proverbial trojan horse, injecting the navy into the Joint STARS business for the long-term.

Paul also explained that Boeing will consider the LSRS or another radar for EPX. The only possible alternative is a new variant of Northrop Grumman's wide area surveillance sensor developed under the multi-platform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP).

This will force Northrop to make a tough choice. Northrop, you see, is the prime contractor the E-8C, so it has everything to lose if the navy takes over the mission. However, if the company decides to join Boeing's EPX bid, that could be a signal that it believes the air force will never get around to replacing the E-8C.

The navy has money in the budget beginning next year to launch EPX. The air force has no funds to replace E-8Cs for the foreseeable future, and now faces a potentially disruptive leadership transition.

I'm not a betting man, but, if I was in Northrop's position, I know where I'd place my bet.

The air force has only itself to blame. The folly of the E-10 program, which spectacularly failed to combine an E-8C, and E-3A AWACS and an airborne operations center onto the same platform, has left the air force without a discernible plan to replace its aging fleets of 707-based aircraft.

The air force's only hope to stay in the E-8C business may be to observe the adage: if you can't beat them, join them.

Establishing a true "joint" partnership to acquire and operate a new fleet of narrowbody-class aircraft to serve all of the specialized missions performed today by 707s looks like the only way back in. (This idea also has the charm of making sense.)

Indeed, it has been proposed several times in the past. The only difference now is that the air force won't be calling the shots.

The navy, meanwhile, is not in this position merely through good fortune.

In 2004, the navy picked the Boeing P-8A -- based on the 737-800ERX -- to replace the P-3C, giving itself a versatile and capable platform to expand into new missions.

That's not to say that Boeing won't have to face challengers to win the EPX contract. The navy is inviting other companies to compete for EPX, but it will be difficult for the Airbus A320 and the Embraer E190 to overcome the incumbent advantages of the P-8A.

Paul Summers told us that Boeing had to make more than 50 modifications costing $1 billion to simply adapt the basic 737 airframe to meet the navy's more demanding certification requirements. The A320 and the E190 would face similar costs, possibly killing the chances for holding a fair airframe competition on EPX.

I expect that the navy will try to level the playing field in other ways. Perhaps, the navy will select the P-8A as the baseline platform and invite bidders -- including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop -- to compete for the systems integrator role.

-- Steve Trimble

The Sunday Paper

Here's another input from DT's publisher emeritus Chris Michel. This video shows a couple of B-2s launching, the second one not so well. Fortunately, the pilots punch out in time.

What's a couple billion among friends and taxpayers?

-- Ward

Computer Hack Could Lead to JDAM Strike

It's just like blowing up a building, or is it?

Type up some nefarious code, hack into a government system and "boom" you bring down the whole network without even firing a shot, right?

Well that's not how the Air Force's cyber warriors see it. To them, dropping a "logic bomb" into a computer network is the same as launching a 2,000-pound JDAM from a B-2 bomber at 20,000 feet -- you've done the same kind of damage but with different means.

So take cover from incoming.

You can use standard combat terminology in cyber warfare as you can with traditional warfare, said Col. Tony Buntyn, vice commander of Air Force Cyber Command, during a June 3 interview with military bloggers.

"You can find, fix, target, and engage an enemy," he said. "A target could be a [computer] network ... or it could be physical, with a [geographical] location. But we need the capabilities, just like we have in kinetic warfare, to engage targets when necessary."

Cyber warfare -- the use of computers and digital code to penetrate information systems and damage or infiltrate a foreign network -- is becoming an increasingly critical capability to the U.S. military. Because of the ease of access to powerful hardware and the ubiquity of hacker software, more countries and non-state actors are getting into the game, Pentagon and government officials say.

Countries like China, Russia and North Korea have quietly entered the cyber-warfare arena, already scoring significant hits against U.S. and other government computer and communications networks.

To computer warriors like Buntyn and his fellow Airmen, sometimes your defense is only as good as your offense.

"It could be either a kinetic or non-kinetic effect you want to achieve. And we need the ability to provide either," Buntyn said.

But when and how to use either method is based on the kind of conflict you're in.

"It depends on our target; it depends on our rules of engagement -- are we conducting open warfare with an adversary?" Buntyn explained. "If that's the case, then we don't really need to be discreet about it. When we drop a JDAM and leave a big smoking hole, that's not very discreet."

"If I can [locate] it and I can take it out with a kinetic attack ... and it meets the rules of engagement, then that might be the preferred method."

That works if you're targeting terrorist nodes and communication relays during an open conflict. But what about malicious network infiltration originating from a country with whom the U.S. is not at war?

"If it's an [Internet]-based target that's accessible to us and we can take it out electronically, reliably, then that may be the preferred method," Buntyn added.

Though China has become "cyber-enemy-number-one" recently, with stories of DoD network hacking attacks and millions spent by the PLA on its computer warfare capabilities, the Air Force isn't looking too hard over its shoulder at the rising cyber power in the Pacific -- despite Pentagon warnings.

"In the past year, numerous computer networks around the world, including those owned by the U.S. Government, were subject to intrusions that appear to have originated within the PRC. These intrusions require many of the skills and capabilities that would also be required for computer network attack," according to this year's Pentagon report on Chinese military power. "Although it is unclear if these intrusions were conducted by or with the endorsement of the PLA or other elements of the PRC government, developing capabilities for cyber warfare is consistent with authoritative PLA writings on this subject."

But to Buntyn, the threat is more diffuse, accessible to all and is proliferating more than on a simple state-to-state basis.

"The entry into this warfighting domain is very cheap. A 12 year old with a laptop can spend a couple hours on the Internet and achieve a pretty good capability," he said. "It's not limited to nation states. There are plenty of criminal organizations that are out there just trying to make a buck and they're using the same offensive tools that a nation-state would use."

-- Christian

Mahdi Army Using 'Flying IEDs' in Baghdad

Our boy Bill Roggio got his hands on some intel that filled in the blanks on that truck explosion in Sadr City this week.

"...the explosions were caused by the premature detonation of a Special Groups improvised rocket launching system. The system, which has been described as a flying improvised explosive device, or airborne IED, had received little attention until yesterday’s explosions in Sha’ab.

"What I find disconcerting is there have been few corrections. This was not an engagement and these were not Special Groups transporting missiles and mortars in a bongo truck."

The bongo truck was actually the "launch vehicle," according to bomb experts who surveyed the scene. "This was a crude rocket launching system we call an IRAM [improvised rocket assisted mortars] that prematurely detonated causing the other rockets in the truck to catastrophically exploded," Stover said. Two Mahdi Army Special Groups fighters were killed in the subsequent explosions, as well as 16 civilians. Twenty-nine civilians were wounded and 15 buildings were severely damaged.

There were five blast sites, the US military reported. The initial blast occurred at the rocket launcher, while the four other rockets were thrown several hundred meters to the east and detonated. "It is believed the intended targets were US Soldiers at [Forward Operating Base] Callahan and while in the final stages of preparing for the attack, for an unknown reason one rocket prematurely detonated causing the remaining rockets to launch and explode erratically."

I dunno, what's the difference between an improvised MLRS and an IED? Roggio tries to explain:

While the US military related the IRAM explosions in Sha'ab to the April 28 IRAM attacks on Joint Security Station Thawra I in Sadr City and Forward Operating Base Loyalty, there may be two improvised weapons systems at play. Both the JSS Thawra I and the FOB Loyalty attacks were conducted by pulling trucks right outside of the bases' blast walls and firing the improvised rockets into bases. The attack on FOB Loyalty resulted in two soldiers killed and 16 wounded.

The US military said the weapons used in the April 28 attacks had a limited range of between 50 and 150 yards, according to a source familiar with the attack who wishes to remain anonymous. The US military said the range and size of the warhead on the IRAMs is classified.

Based on the images of the launchers used in the April 28 attacks [see slideshow], the IRAM looks to be a large canister, perhaps a propane or fuel tank, filled with explosives and propelled by 107mm rocket booster. These types of improvised weapons -- essentially flying IEDs -- would have a short range and would be highly inaccurate.

So, in a sense, what we're looking at is a remote controlled, improvised multiple-mortar system. Kinda like an insurgent version of the Non-line of sight Launch System, or NLOS-LS...

What is clear is that the devices are using 107mm rocket charges. The US military said these charges are "of Iranian-manufacture." The lot numbers and dates of manufacture show the rocket casings have been manufactured within the past three years.

The rocket casings shown in the images provided by Multinational Forces Iraq are the same type used in the Chinese-made Type 63 towed 107mm Multiple Launch Rocket. The Iranians manufacture this weapons system and the rockets, according to a former US military intelligence analyst familiar with Iranian munitions and weapons systems.

The type of improvised launch system and rocket is not new to warfare. The Irish Republican Army used a similar system to conduct a February 1991 attack on 10 Downing Street, the London office and home of the British prime minister.

(Gouge: BR)

-- Christian

Wynne/Moseley Update...

From Pentagon guru Colin Clark's additions to the lead story on Military.com.

A source with close ties to the senior Air Force leadership told Military.com that the likely replacement for Moseley is Gen. John D.W. Corley, commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command. The source said that Corley had been tagged to replace Moseley in the fall, when Moseley was due to retire. This source, and an industry source, said that Wynne's successor was unlikely to make it through the Senate's nomination process before the end of the Bush administration and would serve as acting secretary.

MORE...

Initial congressional reaction was positive. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, praised Gates for appointing Schlesinger to lead the nuclear weapons study and made it clear he accepted Gates' decision to oust the senior leaders during a time of war.

"The incidents at Minot and Barksdale Air Force Bases and the misshipment of missile nose cones to Taiwan should never have happened," Skelton said in a statement released Thursday evening. "I look forward to reviewing Admiral Kirkland Donald's report on what went wrong with the Air Force's management of nuclear weapons security and safety."

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a new member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also praised Gates for his actions. "What is so encouraging is that Secretary Gates is walking the walk on accountability," she said in a statement.

Rock on DoD Buzz-master!

-- Christian

You Knew it was Coming...

Top USAF Officials Booted!

We're working on getting the details, folks, but we hear that Gen. Mike Moseley got the boot today and Wynne is on the way out too.

Can you say "loose nukes" compounded by a sharp case of "next-war-itis?"

More to follow soon.

MORE FROM Military.com:

Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step down.

A public announcement was expected later in the day. There was no immediate word on who would be nominated to replace Moseley and Wynne.

The Air Force has endured a number of embarrassing setbacks over the past year. In August, for instance, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country. The pilot and crew were unaware they had nuclear arms aboard.

The error was considered so grave that President Bush was quickly informed.

-- Christian

Japan Wants Electronic Attack in Next Fighter

This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

TOKYO -- Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor still appeals to Japan’s leadership, but there’s an implacable demand for Japan’s industrial participation in any aircraft it operates, which appears to be diminishing demand for the Raptor.

"We must have the capabilities within Japan for technical support, maintenance and upgrading to meet changing circumstances during the F-X’s lifetime," says Maj. Gen. Hidetoshi Hirata, director of the Defense Planning and Policy Department in Japan’s Defense Ministry air staff. As far as F-X capabilities, "Stealth would be a great advantage for air-defense and air-to-air engagements. Stealth would also be necessary if we had to [penetrate enemy air defenses to] attack a ballistic missile launch facility before it activated." However, Japan is thinking about more than bombs.

"I think the technology to create malfunctions or damage [in enemy systems through electronic attack] is very important," he said.

Meanwhile, Japan’s Air Defense Command (ADC) has begun building a new headquarters at Yokota Air Base that will include a joint, Japanese-U.S.-manned subterranean command-and-control center. It also will feature an underground tunnel that connects the ADC HQ with the U.S. Air Force’s air operations center.

Read the rest of this story, a look at how confident LMCo is on JSF orders, the Dutch putting warheads on foreheads in Afghanistan and Aussies blowing crap up in the Stan from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Young's Quandary

Not Enough People to Man the Sinking Ship

The Pentagon's acquisition czar, John Young, is regarded pretty highly on Capitol Hill but he's got a tough sell when he tells lawmakers and reporters that the military is getting a handle on how well it buys the nation's weapons. See my story on military.com for the details.

After his testimony yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I asked Young if the acquisition system is broken, as might seem self-evident to those who look at the enormous increase of $295 billion in the acquisition costs of the 95 major defense acquisition programs over the last few years.

Young said he did not think the system was broken. He pointed to comments at the hearing by the Government Accountability Office's acquisition expert, Katherine Schinasi, who said the structure of the system was sound.

Then Young launched into a lament about the paucity of acquisition officials available to manage the growing number of large programs. He pointed to the enormously difficult process he faces in trying to hire mid-career people from industry to bolster the ranks of weapons buyers. Part of the difficulty the Pentagon faces, he made clear, is that there just aren't enough new ideas and improved processes moving back and forth between government and industry because of this lack of mid-career people.

To someone who has covered acquisition since 1996, much of what Young said had the ring of truth. At the same time he didn't answer the unasked question: if you don't have enough buyers, then why don't you ask Congress for permission and money to hire a whole bunch more.

Perhaps that will come next.

-- Colin Clark

A Signature Naval Battle

Today marks the 66 anniversary of the battle of Midway Island, a key engagement that, if it had gone the other way, would have potentially crippled the U.S. naval capability for good. I know you guys are more into looking at the future of defense, but sometimes I think it's good to step back and remember how we got where we are.

From the Navy history center:

The Battle of Midway, fought over and near the tiny U.S. mid-Pacific base at Midway atoll, represents the strategic high water mark of Japan's Pacific Ocean war. Prior to this action, Japan possessed general naval superiority over the United States and could usually choose where and when to attack. After Midway, the two opposing fleets were essentially equals, and the United States soon took the offensive.

Japanese Combined Fleet commander Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto moved on Midway in an effort to draw out and destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet's aircraft carrier striking forces, which had embarrassed the Japanese Navy in the mid-April Doolittle Raid on Japan's home islands and at the Battle of Coral Sea in early May. He planned to quickly knock down Midway's defenses, follow up with an invasion of the atoll's two small islands and establish a Japanese air base there. He expected the U.S. carriers to come out and fight, but to arrive too late to save Midway and in insufficient strength to avoid defeat by his own well-tested carrier air power.

Yamamoto's intended surprise was thwarted by superior American communications intelligence, which deduced his scheme well before battle was joined. This allowed Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, to establish an ambush by having his carriers ready and waiting for the Japanese. On 4 June 1942, in the second of the Pacific War's great carrier battles, the trap was sprung. The perseverance, sacrifice and skill of U.S. Navy aviators, plus a great deal of good luck on the American side, cost Japan four irreplaceable fleet carriers, while only one of the three U.S. carriers present was lost. The base at Midway, though damaged by Japanese air attack, remained operational and later became a vital component in the American trans-Pacific offensive.

This brings up an excellent point, though. My good friend Bob Dudney, the editor of Air Force magazine, recently wrote an editorial cautioning against Gates' rhetorical punch at the services' obsession with future technological developments -- or "next war-itis" as he put it.

Are Pentagon leaders really serious about this? Is Gates himself serious about it? He has embraced a stylized image of a future world landscape dominated by shadowy, lightly armed enemies sallying forth from remote redoubts and engaging in nonstop urban warfare. In case Mr. Gates has forgotten, it was not that long ago that the US had to use main conventional forces—principally air forces—to win the 1991 Gulf War. More recently, high-end forces were needed to fight in Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. None of these operations would have been possible without advanced, front-line weapons.

Gates wants to cure the services of "next-war-itis," but he would only weaken the patients.

Neither Gates nor anyone else can safely predict the likelihood of major conventional war. Surely the Pentagon leader is aware of the huge buildup of fighters, warships, and other modern arms in China and Russia, as well as regional threats posed by the likes of North Korea and Iran. If it is true that the eruption of a major clash of conventional arms is not likely, it is because US air, sea, and land forces are strong enough to deter any aggressive moves. That is hardly a reason for turning away to deal with lesser problems.

While I see Gates' point, I also think it's important to hedge against future "full spectrum" threats. You can easily modify training to accommodate new battlefield problems, but developing and fielding equipment -- something as big as a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier -- for such an unseen eventuality could prove fatal.

So take some time today to consider how things could have been if the battle of Midway had gone the other way, and how differently that desperate time might have unfolded had the U.S. truly prepared itself for resurgent powers with full-spectrum threats in the interwar years.

(Thanks to NC for the Dudney gouge)

-- Christian

Growler Day

In a drizzly ceremony today, we will witness Secretary of the Navy Don Winter accept the delivery of the first EA-18G Growler to the USN's fleet readiness squadron.

This would be a fairly routine affair except for a couple of very distinguishing facts: first, the event is occurring exactly according to the original schedule and, second, Boeing's five-year-old development program is not over-budget.

It'd be nice to think those two facts weren't so extraordinary, but, in the world of military acquisition, it is.

To be sure, there remain a few caveats. The operational test phase begins in September, which will expose any unresolved design or technology glitches. The Government Accountability Office reported in March that a few software issues need to be fixed before operational tests can be performed. We'll see how that pans out, but none of the issues sound like show-stoppers.

Some of the more cynical observers (blush) might also say that Boeing and the Navy cheated with the EA-18G.

This is not the same as starting a new weapon project from scratch. The airframe for the EA-18G is based on the design of the already proven F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the electronic warfare package is based largely on the ICAP III suite already flying on the EA-6B Prowler. The ALQ-99 jammer is merely a decade-old, upgraded version of a pod that first flew in 1971 (and needs to be retired as threats evolve over the next decade).

But it's also not fair to Boeing to dismiss the complexity of this project. Repackaging the ICAP III to fit inside the Growler involved no small risk. The "football" ALQ-218 receiver mounted on the EA-6B's tail was split into two pieces and installed in the more aerodynamically harsh environment of the EA-18G's wingtips. I'm still curious how they managed to pull off the ALQ-218's radome, which must be sturdy enough to survive on the wingtip, yet not too sturdy to interfere with the operations of the embedded antenna.

Integrating the all-new Raytheon-made Communications Countermeasures Set (CCS) also added some complexity to the project, as did the introduction of the highly useful interference cancellation system (INCANS), which allows the EA-18G to continue jamming an enemy radar even while the pilot continues to communicate with other friendly aircraft.

It's reasonable to question whether the navy should have been still more ambitious. Why not introduce an all-new, digital-era jamming pod with the first delivery of the EA-18G? Why not design a next-generation jammer aircraft around a more stealthy platform, like the navy's forthcoming F-35C due to be delivered in 2015? Why not challenge your contractor -- to which you're paying billions of dollars -- to invent something completely new, versus "repackaging" two familiar systems?

At the end of the day, the navy is getting exactly what it paid for, on-time. In this day and age, maybe that's all you can really ask for.

-- Steve Trimble

...Is this the New Counter-Insurgency Aircraft?

And to follow up from yesterday's story on Military.com, it turns out the U.S. has also expressed some interest in odering some Tucanos.

Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer is participating in preliminary negotiations to sell the U.S. government eight 314-B1 Super Tucano light attack and training planes for use in Iraq, the company said June 2.

The plane maker is offering Washington the Super Tucano in a tender process opened by the U.S. government, according to an Embraer spokesman who declined to be named in keeping with company policy.

More...

Brazilian law prohibits a private company from selling arms for use in existing conflicts, but the spokesman said the plane was not shipped with any armaments and was intended for training purposes in the U.S.

If the U.S. government decides to buy the Tucano from Embraer and requests that they be outfitted with weapons, at that point the Brazilian government would have to step in and negotiate the sale, the Embraer spokesman said.

And I posed the question to our boy Steve Trimble who's an oft contributor to DT and he had this to say:

This appears to be the long-awaited purchase of Super Tucanos by the USAF on behalf of the Iraqi Air Force. I’m not sure what “preliminary negotiations” means. There were three or four other candidates for the order, and they may still be in the running. It’s possible that the USAF remains in “preliminary negotiations” with all of the possible bidders, which include the Hawker Beechcraft T-6, the Pilatus PC-9 and perhaps the Korea Aerospace KT-1 Wong Bee. (The T-6 and PC-9, by the way, are essentially the same aircraft.) As far as I know, the USAF’s senior leadership remain adamantly opposed to buying such an aircraft for its own purposes, preferring to employ the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper and the A-10 for the same basic mission.

I'll try to ping my sources in the FMS office in Iraq to see what the deal is...More to follow.

[Photo: totally Photoshopped]

-- Christian

LMCO Not So Good DCMA Says

Our freind Nick Schwellenbach over at the Project on Government Oversight dredged up a pretty damning report from the Pentagon's Defense Contract Management Agency that calls Lockheed Martin's aircraft division to the carpet for not keeping close track of costs.

Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, does "not provide the requisite definition and discipline to properly plan and control complex, multibillion dollar weapon systems acquisition programs," states the executive summary of a November 2007 Pentagon report obtained by the Project On Government Oversight. Questions about this report are likely to be raised this morning at a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing on weapons acquisition.

The report by the Defense Contract Management Agency found that Lockheed Martin’s military aircraft division based in Fort Worth, Texas, is not compliant with contractually-required industry guidelines for tracking and managing costs called the "Earned Value Management System." EVMS helps contractors and the government spot potential cost problems before they balloon out of control. This April the GAO reported $295 billion in cost growth for the 95 major weapons systems it reviewed bringing their estimated total price tag to $1.6 trillion.

The report will be highlighted today at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee which will ask questions about "acquisition of major defense weapons systems" of John Young -- who needs no introduction -- and Katherine Schinasi, the GAO's Managing Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management (whatever the heck that means)...Our boy Colin Clark will be there to hear what's what and he'll have some follow-up gouge for you on what goes on.

The decline of Pentagon and contractor emphasis on EVMS was “an unintended consequence of 1990s acquisition reform,” Dr. James I. Finley, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, told POGO. “EVM is getting more attention throughout industry now that the DoD is stressing compliance.”

Ouch...
-- Christian

Shakeup at OSD Acquisition Coming

Alert for those who sell and build the nation’s military and intelligence satellites. You know that space programs have been wallowing in hip-deep trouble for most of the last four years. Well, John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics (in the picture), is trying to do something lasting about it by signing a memo by the end of the week creating a new director-level position – one of only seven in the department reporting directly to him – for space and intelligence capabilities.

My source says the position is being created because there just isn’t enough focus on space and intelligence programs (a lot of the big intel programs are space programs) at the OSD level. It will oversee not only satellites but the enormous and often underfunded ground systems they depend on.

Some of the responsibilities being placed in this new slot are coming from John Grimes’ office. He is assistant secretary of Defense for networks and information integration and his main job is to serve as principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense for non-intelligence space and information superiority. But the position also ensures that intelligence data is as fused as possible and can be distributed. And he oversees DISA, which provides commercial and military satellite communications services.

A congressional aide who follows space and intelligence issues said the new position is “a good first step to try and reintegrate black and white space and strengthen the idea of an executive for space.” For those who don’t follow space acquisition closely, the executive agent for space is Mike Wynne, who also serves as Air Force Secretary. The executive agent is supposed to make sure that unclassified and classified space programs are run well and meets the nation’s needs. He is supposed to be the one-stop shop for most space acquisition and budget issues and is supported by the National Security Space Office. But the black and white sides of space have drifted pretty far apart over the last four years, with the NRO withdrawing its personnel and budgetary support about two years ago from the space office.

But the congressional aide does not think the black and white sides of space are going to be well integrated “during Bush because of issues” in the office of the Director of national Intelligence. But the new position “should help keep the need for a strong executive agent for space front and center.”

-- Colin Clark

Helo Needs Still Unmet For Space Command

This article first appeared in Aviation Week's Aerospace Daily and Defense Report.
U.S. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is again pushing for a program to replace its aging UH-1N helicopters, saying that its current aircraft are too slow to handle the modern nuclear weapons support mission.

AFSPC vice chief Maj. Gen. Thomas Deppe says that the command has included a funding request in its fiscal 2010 draft budget to begin a program to replace the aging Hueys. "Any helicopter in the inventory is faster than that UH-1," he said during a breakfast speech May 28 hosted by the National Defense University Foundation. A new helicopter would need to have greater range, improved speed and armor protection, Deppe added.

The helicopters are used to escort nuclear weapons teams servicing the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile fleet. They also are used to quickly transport security teams in the event of an alert at the missile fields. Today’s Huey lacks the range to traverse the largest of the missile fields in one mission.

"An 80-85 percent solution may be good enough," Deppe said, acknowledging that attempts to buy a Huey replacement in the past have failed to produce a viable program. "We could buy something off the shelf that could easily" handle the mission, he said.

Most recently, the Air Force discussed the concept of a Common Vertical Lift Support Program, which would provide a common helicopter to replace those used by AFSPC as well as the aging executive transports operating out of Andrews Air Force Base, Md.

However, helicopter procurements for USAF appear to be paced by the Combat Search and Rescue-X (CSAR-X) quagmire. The Air Force is examining responses from CSAR-X bidders with an award possible this fall.
Read the rest of this story, how some Dutch want to scuttle the JSF and pics of a pooch with a nose for TNT from our Aviation Week friends on Military.com.

-- Christian

Hezbollah's Cyber Warfare Program

Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warned that the Hezbollah resistance movement is the greatest threat to US national security. Hezbollah is known or suspected to have been involved in numerous terror attacks against the U.S., Israel or other Western targets, and includes the 1983 suicide truck bombings in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines at their barracks and 58 at the French military barracks. Intelligence officials in the U.S. and Britain believe Hezbollah cells may use their computer expertise and capabilities to launch cyber attacks.

A 2002 CIA report warned a number of terrorist groups are beginning to plan attacks on western computer networks. The report went on to say that al-Qaeda and Hezbollah were becoming more adept at using the internet and computer technologies. In more recent reports they name Sunni extremists Hezbollah and Aleph as groups believed to be developing cyber terrorism plans. For terrorist groups, cyber weapons are cheap, easy to acquire and difficult to detect or track and are quickly becoming a common weapon in their arsenal.

While Hezbollah's capabilities to launch such an attack are questionable, the intelligence community in U.S., Britain and Israeli are taking the threat seriously. Why, because Hezbollah showed its increasing technological sophistication and capabilities during its war with Israel back in 2006. Once Israel began bombing Hezbollah targets, the intelligence sources say cyber space began. While intelligence analysts are convinced conventional terror remains Hezbollah's main strategy and weapon, some believe that it could activate sleeper cells in order to open a second front in cyber space. Intelligence sources know that terrorist groups including Hezbollah, the Abu Nidal Organization, and UBL's Al-Qeida Organization are using computerized files, email, and encryption to support their operations.

Hezbollah Profile (AKA Hizbollah, Hizbu'llah)
Established In the 1980s
Home Base: Lebanon, but it also has cells in North/South America, Asia, Europe and Africa.
Support: Iran and Syria provide substantial organizational, training and financing.
Orientation: Hezbollah is a radical Iranian-backed Lebanese Islamic Shiite group
Funding: estimated at $60 million annually
Size: Hezbollah's core consists of several thousand militants and activists
Equipment: Hezbollah possesses up-to-date information technologies - broadband wireless networks and computers.
Cyber Capabilities: Global Rating in Cyber Capabilities -- Tied at Number 37

Hezbollah has been able to engage in fiber optic cable tapping, enabling data interception and the hijacking of Internet and communication connections.
Cyber Warfare Budget: $935,000 USD
Offensive Cyber Capabilities: 3.1 (1 = Low, 3 = Moderate and 5 = Significant)
Cyber Weapons Rating: Basic -- but developing intermediate capabilities
Web Site: http://www.hizbollah.org or www.hizballah.org
Ties: Hezbollah has close ties with Iran. Many believe that Hezbollah is a surrogate for the Iranian army
Fact: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared May 8, 2008 that the Shiite militant group's communications network is its most important weapon, and that the government's decision to target the network was tantamount to a declaration of war. In Hezbollah's view, its communications technology is just as essential for the group's survival as its missiles.

Hezbollah is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. The FBI says it now considers Hezbollah operatives more capable and robust than even Al Qaeda terrorists. With Hezbollah's interest in developing advanced cyber weapons, their capabilities will continue to increase. As we have seen, the proliferation of cyber weapons is rapidly expanding and no longer limited to nation states and organized criminal groups. The cyber arms club now includes terrorist groups. Using new hacking techniques, taking advantage of security vulnerabilities and using simple proven cyber attack methods, terrorists have the capability to attack us in way not seen before. Key infrastructure systems that include utilities, banking, media/TV systems, telecommunications and air traffic control systems have already been compromised. No one knows if cyber terrorists created trap doors and left logic bombs allowing them to easily bypass security systems and disrupt our critical infrastructure in coordination with traditional style attacks.

-- Kevin Coleman

Mercenary Air

This morning Military.com has a story on America's most famous (or infamous) private security contractor, Blackwater USA, purchasing a light attack aircraft.

Report Says Blackwater Bought Fighter (AP)

A subsidiary of U.S. military security contractor Blackwater Worldwide has purchased a fighter plane from the Brazilian aviation company Embraer, a Brazilian newspaper reported June 1.

The 314-B1 Super Tucano propeller-driven fighter - the same used by the Brazilian military - was bought for $4.5 million and delivered to EP Aviation at the end of February, according to the Estado de S. Paulo newspaper.

First of all the headline is misleading. The Tucano isn't a "fighter" unless you're a seriously third world air force. But it has been bandied around as a good answer for a "counter-insurgency" aircraft. So Blackwater has clearly done some research (and been reading DT, I have to assume) on the best plane to fight a dirty war. It's interesting, too, that the company is buying new. Seems to me there'd be a lot more surplus gear on the market for them to snap up -- and keep it low profile as well.

It was not clear if it was Embraer's first sale of a military-style aircraft to a private company. EP Aviation has 33 planes and helicopters registered with the FAA, according to the agency's Web site, only one of which is from Embraer.

Officials with Brazil's government and Embraer declined to comment on the Estado report. Phone calls to Blackwater were not returned.

The sale was apparently approved, the Estado report noted, by Brazil's president in a deal negotiated with the U.S. government.

Brazilian law prohibits the sale of arms to companies or for use in existing conflicts.

It does worry be a bit each time a company like Blackwater continues this arms build up. Sources tell me they've got a "Spectre'-like" gunship already, and they've been buzzing around Baghdad in spec-ops-style armed Little Birds. So what happens when a contract with the US Gov goes bad -- say Congress pulls funding from a contract midway through the agreement. Will Blackwater use this kind of equipment to come collect what it's owed? Seems far fetched, I know, but Blackwater officials are downplaying the Tucano buy to curb fears.

The newspaper reported that Blackwater president Gary Jackson said the plane would be used for training.

The plane sold to EP Aviation did not include the two .50-caliber machine guns normally attached to the wings.

Oh, I'm sleeping better already...

-- Christian

The Sunday Paper

Here's some amazing footage forward to us by the man who brought DT to the masses, Chris Michel. You can imagine the order these guys were issued: "You see that mushroom cloud, boys? Go get it!" And dig those equine gas masks . . .

Nuclear war is not only survivable . . . it can be fun!

-- Ward