NATO AWACS to Afghanistan?

This article first appeared on Aviation Week's Ares weblog.

The German government is apparently starting discussions on whether to politically back a one-year deployment of NATO E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

But there's concern the issue could cause political waves. According to the German weekly news magazine, Der Spiegel, the government is trying to defer such a fight past the summer recess by not taking up the issue until September.

German government officials confirm that senior NATO military leaders have expressed interest in the AWACS deployment. But, they add, the request hasn't formally been blessed by the alliance's military committee.

The AWACS would be used largely to manage the large amount of NATO air traffic in Afghanistan, ranging from combat aircraft providing fire support to ground troops, to logistics flights, to helicopter operations.

Read the rest of this story, check out some killer Reaper pics, a sneaky read about a VTOL UAV and take a look at White Knight 2 from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Stand By for More Counterinsurgencies

New National Defense Strategy posted by the Pentagon.

The BTDTs on the SCAR

Well, the snake eaters have come out from their hides and begun to comment on yesterday's article about a test shoot I participated in with some SF Soldiers who demoed the SCAR.

Aside from the inevitable implication that somehow I was endorsing the weapon myself, the gist of the upcoming debate seems to be leaning toward the idea that the operators I interviewed haven't spent enough time with the weapon and don't know what they're talking about.

In all candor, I would agree. No one is going to make a definitive judgment on a weapon's capability from one day of firing. But first impressions are important -- especially if they're the impressions of Soldiers who will actually use the equipment -- and that's why I included them in an article for DT readers.

Here's an interesting response from "CDRODA396" on the Professional Soldiers web forum:

The SCAR was originally a SEAL requirement, specifically they wanted a weapon that would fire immediately upon breaking the surface of water, as stated above it can do.

The main impetus behind the SCAR has not been USASOC, which they have not helped, but the main push has been SOCOM all along. Specifically an Infantry COL who is the PM down at Tampa. More recently, the Dpty G8, USASOC (18A) has been pushing it, going so far as to making the statement, "We are ready to accept the SCAR right now, and turn in our M-4's to get it," at the last SOCOM Weapons Integrated Product Team (IPT) meeting.

This is NOT the position held at USASFC, which is more fix its problems, prove it works and then we'll move forward. MG Csrnko, CG, USASFC was briefed on the SCAR about two weeks ago. The VTC included all the Groups, USASFC, USASOC and USSOCOM, mainly represented by the O-6 PM.

At that meeting the recurring problems, like the butt-stock breaking, identified over three years ago as an issue, and again found most recently in April (I think it was April, maybe May) at the last User Assessment, were highlighted.

MG Csrnko asked some good questions, including, and probably most importantly, has the thing really been tested in anything other than a "sterile range" environment, which the answer was no.

So, it has been requested by USASFC that the current "issues" get addressed, for good, and it get tested in a FTX, CTC type environment, being used, "like we are going to use it." Until then, we are keeping the M-4A1.

And that's what I know about that.

Let's keep track of what these guys are saying. I'm interested to take a look at how others who've spent more time with the weapon feel about it. One commenter said: "start posting on this thread your issues with the wonderful SCAR that's about to be force fed to you in large doses...It's time to take the SCAR to task."

-- Christian

Iran's Natanz Tough Nut to Crack

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is in town this week to discuss with White House and Pentagon officials what to do about Iran’s nuclear program. Accompanying Barak is Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz; he’s the former IDF chief who set off a firestorm recently when he said an Israeli military strike against Iran is “unavoidable.” Current IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi was here last week and met with his Pentagon counterpart, Admiral Michael Mullen. Ashkenazi reportedly said he favors a diplomatic solution, but also issued the standard declaration that “all options must be prepared” for stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

There has been considerable debate about whether Israel could even carry out an effective air strike against Iran’s nuclear program. Analysts say there are too many factories, labs and reactor sites dispersed too widely across the country. According to a 2006 paper published by two MIT doctoral candidates (one of the most thorough pieces of analysis available), it would be impossible for Israel to knock out the entire Iranian nuclear program but the target set could be narrowed to the most critical facilities. They identify the critical nodes as: the Esfahan uranium conversion facility, the gas centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and the heavy water plant and future plutonium production reactors at Arak.

The MIT analysts identify Natanz as the most difficult target because much of the facility is buried deep and covered with layers of concrete. Israeli bombs would have to penetrate the earth covering, bore through the concrete layers and then dump enough bombs into the hole to generate blast pressures that could damage or destroy the equipment inside. They figure the strike package would have to drop a combination of roughly 24 BLU-109 2,000 lb. and BLU-113 5,000 lb. bunker busters on Natanz. The facilities at Esfahan are not buried and those at Arak are not hardened, so those targets sets would be relatively simple to destroy with no more than 24 2,000 pound GPS guided bombs.

What does Israel have as far as deep strike weapons? The MIT folks count at least 25 F-15I (the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle) and 20-50 F-16I, both airframes configured specifically for deep strike missions. Israel also has a large number of F-16s that could be fitted as strike aircraft, Wild Weasel jamming aircraft and over 40 F-15A and C versions to escort the bombers. Developments in precision targeting, specifically GPS guided bombs, means all Israeli aircraft carry bombs considerably more accurate than those used in the Osirak raid. They envision a 50 plane strike package evenly split between F-15I and F-16I aircraft.

Then the question becomes how well can Iran defend its airspace. Iranian aircraft are a mix of the old and the very old. Iran’s most modern fighter is the Mig-29, of which they have maybe 40. They also have a large number of 1970s era F-4, F-14, F-5 and some newer Chinese built F-7M and F-6. Iranian fighters would be operating over friendly territory, advantageous when they need to refuel or rearm. They could also draw on ground control radar to guide them into favorable attack positions against IDF aircraft roaming Iranian air space. If the Iranian aircraft could get into firing position against Israeli bombers, which is admittedly a big if, they have sufficiently modern air-to-air missiles that they could probably down a few.

It’s not Iran’s fighter jets that could pose the real challenge, as the Iranian air force is more of an “antique show,” says David Ochmanek, an analyst with RAND who directs an ongoing study for the U.S. Air Force that examines future threats from Iran. The real threat to an attacker, he says, are Iranian surface-to-air missiles. There are reports that the Iranians field some of the newer Russian-built double digit SAMs, such as the SA-10, though not the newer and more potent SA-20 (the newer Russian designation is S-300 and S-400). The S-300 is considered by some accounts to be comparable to the U.S.-built Patriot air defense missile.

Ochmanek says the double digit SAMs are far more capable than the earlier SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6. The newer systems have high powered radars that are difficult to jam and more powerful, faster missiles. Barry Watts, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington thinktank, and a Vietnam-era fighter pilot, says if pilots could spot the smoke trails of the earlier generation of SAMs they could outmaneuver them because of the G-force limitations of those older missiles. With the latest generation SAMs outmaneuvering doesn’t work. “Those missiles went from ten G missiles, to about thirty or forty G’s,” which means the missile’s turn rates are vastly improved, he said. Coupled with the new powerful radars, “if the missile is locked up on you and it’s guiding, the only thing you can do is pull the ejection handles and get out of the airplane.”

Iran has also reportedly bought the fairly sophisticated Tor-M1 SA-15 Gauntlet, a short-range mobile SAM system. The Tor M-1’s greatest strength is its mobility, which, because of Iran’s sizeable and mountainous terrain, could make for a very difficult target because it can pop-up almost anywhere. Iran lacks the resources to protect all of its air space, so it relies on “point defense,” deploying its anti-aircraft guns and missiles around strategically important sites, Ochmanek says.

The MIT folks figured that to carry out an effective strike, twelve F-15Is would have to arrive over Natanz, six F-16I over Esfahan and five F-16I over Arak. Their analysis said that a 50 plane strike package would provide the Israelis significant attrition cushion. The paper’s authors note that to cause the operation to fail, Iranian air defenses would have to down close to 40% of the attacking Israeli jets, an attrition rate that would exceed even the disastrous U.S. raid on Ploesti in Word War II. The MIT analysts conclude that largely because of advances in precision weaponry, “Israeli leaders have access to the technical capability to carry out the attack,” and that it would be no more risky than that of the 1981 raid on Osirak.

If a couple of students from MIT came up with that conclusion, the Israeli intelligence and military communities probably have a fairly high degree of confidence in the success of air strikes. The Israelis likely believe they can set back any progress the Iranians have made in nuclear enrichment by at least five years. What that would buy Israel and the rest of the world in terms of changing Tehran’s policies is anybody’s guess.

-- Greg Grant

SCAR Demo Video

Operators Test New Commando Rifle

It's a rifle designed specifically for the special operations community. Modular barrels, ambidextrous controls, a gas-piston operating system, a host of adjustment options -- but you already know that.

So with all the slick marketing language and eye-popping specifications of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, it's a given that operators will embrace the thing wholeheartedly, right?

Well, let's ask them.

"This rifle is awesome," said one Special Forces operator who, like the rest of the Green Berets in this interview, declined to be named for security reasons. "It's spot on."

Now you get an idea of how the men who'll use the weapon in combat felt about it, not just some six-figure marketing guru spewing crafty catch-phrases. But what's most interesting is why they liked the rifle so much.

In an exclusive, Military.com joined a group of about a dozen special operations Soldiers from around the country who traveled to Northern Virginia this summer to test fire the SCAR before their upcoming deployment to the Middle East. Ground rules agreed to between the special operators, the rifle manufacturer and Military.com precluded naming the unit, its members or its deployment destination.

See the Military.com SCAR Demo Slideshow

The SCAR, which comes in a 5.56mm version and a 7.62mm one, is nearing the end of its field user assessment phase -- the final stage before full-rate production and fielding to units under U.S. Special Operations Command, including SEALs, Green Berets and Air Force Special Tactics units.

The entry of the SCAR into the spec ops community comes as the services, Congress and the Pentagon scuffle over whether or not to replace the current M4 rifle and address persistent complaints over the standard-issued carbine's reported lack of "stopping power" and its need for constant maintenance and cleaning to avoid jams.

But ask the special operations troops firing both the Mk-16 (the 5.56mm version of the SCAR) and the Mk-17, its 7.62mm brethren, and you'll get a completely different response on the rifles' advantages over the venerable M4.

To these hardened commandos, the issue wasn't the new carbine's gas-piston system that many experts agree causes fewer stoppages than the all-gas operated M4 -- they keep their weapons in tip top shape. Instead, some operators appreciated how well the SCAR felt with lead pouring from its muzzle.

"I like it a lot better than the M4," one special operator said after firing a magazine full of 5.56mm through the Mk-16. "There's a lot less recoil."

One Special Forces Soldier applauded the weapon's controls, with safety latches located on both sides of the receiver and situated much closer to the weapon's handle.

"This works better with my stumpy hands," the stocky operator joked.

But by far the feature that most impressed these operators was the SCAR's ability to change from something as small as a submachine gun to a weapon with the reach of a sniper rifle.

Like many competitors to the M4, both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 can be outfitted with barrels ranging from 10 inches for close-quarters battle operations to 18-inch designated marksman barrels.

"That's the best part of this weapon," explained one Special Forces Soldier. "When we deploy, we usually go with just our M4s. But if we're on an operation where we need an overwatch or we're observing at a distance, the M4 doesn't do us much good until it's too late."

With the SCAR, the NCO said, the team could have both the reach and protection of a long gun and the maneuverability and portability of an assault rifle -- all in one.

Both the Mk-17 and Mk-16 have a fully adjustable stock that can be folded to the side to shrink the carbine into the length of a submachine gun. Some of the operators at the test shoot gave the stumpy rifle a try in this configuration, but marksmanship was mixed.

"I'm not sure I'd ever want to fire it like this," one operator said after shooting the Mk-17 with its stock folded. "But it'd sure be nice to fold it up like this for transporting in a vehicle or something."

Officials with FN-USA say that U.S. Special Operations Command has ordered about 18,000 SCAR variants for commandos and a limited run of about 1,200 rifles has already begun.

It's unclear still whether these Special Forces Soldiers will be slinging lead down range with a SCAR pinned to their shoulder on their next deployment, but judging by the pile of spent casings littering the ground during their demo shoot, some of them wouldn't complain if the new rifle wound up in their armory.

-- Christian

Has the Chinook met its FATE?

The first Boeing CH-47, a 33,000lb machine powered by two 1,640shp Lycoming (now Honeywell) T55 engines, achieved first flight on Sept. 21, 1961.

Nearly 47 years and seven major upgrades later, the CH-47F and MH-47G has doubled in weight to 50,000lb, while the engine shaft horsepower rating has tripled with introduction of the 4,868shp T55-GA-714 powerplant.

With only 10% of the CH-47F delivered, however, Boeing is again proposing to radically increase the size of the airframe. The "growth Chinook" would be stretched and widened to accommodate and up-armored HMMWV (Humvee) inside the cabin. This would increase maximum takeoff weight to around 70,000lbs and demand a much larger engine. Honeywell has already proposed a roughly 6,000shp T55-GA-715.

It's still unclear what the army thinks about all this. After all, the army is planning to buy another 400 CH-47Fs. It's also still debating how much it needs a Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft that would be more than twice the size of the CH-47F.

On top of all this, the army has also started a program to replace the venerable T55 with an all new engine in the 6,000shp to 7,000shp range after 2018. Last week, I confirmed that Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are each participating in the earliest stages of the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE) program.

All this really means is that no one can predict the future of the army's heavylift rotorcraft needs after 2015, when the Future Combat System will allegedly be fielded. When the future of FCS is finally settled, the army will have a range of good options for a Chinook replacement.

-- Steve Trimble

New PLA Armor and Mech. Infantry Brigade Structures

The Soviet Operational Manoeuvre Group in 1986 was looking at creating a 'Shock Division' of three regiments, with each regiment containing two tank and two mechanised infantry battalions. Armoured divisions are too unwieldy in complex terrain and an armoured battle group (battalion sized) is easier to control and execute its mission.

The People’s Liberation Army, following on from their experience with the Operational Manoeuvre Group, can now deploy the new mechanised infantry division and using modular forces have created a composite cavalry brigade for use in complex terrain.

Utilising the deep operation theory, they can employ am air mechanised and/or fast wheeled force as a 'lance' followed up by the mobile force (tank heavy) to exploit the breach in an enemy’s defences followed by a holding force (heavy mechanised), that is the dozer blade.

An article in the 1/2008 issue of Tanke Zhuangjia Cheliang (Tank and Armoured Vehicle) is titled 'News From Overseas- Chinese Built Many Light Type Mechanised Units.' The article was written to correct the mistakes that appear in non-Chinese media about the structure and equipment of these new light mechanised units.

The mechanised infantry brigade has four mechanised infantry battalions, one armoured battalion, one fire support battalion, one engineer battalion and one communication battalion. Each mechanised infantry battalion has three mechanised infantry companies, each of three platoons with each company having 13 infantry fighting vehicles; four in each platoon and one headquarters vehicle.

Each armoured brigade has four armoured battalions for a total of 132 main battle tanks, one mechanised infantry battalion, one artillery battalion with 18 self-propelled guns and one air defence battalion of 18 AAA guns. Each armoured battalion has three armoured companies, each of three platoons with each company having 11 main battle tanks; three in each platoon and two headquarters vehicles. A complete brigade contains 4,000 soldiers.

The 112th Mechanised Infantry Division, part of the 38th Army Group, uses the Model 99 main battle tank and the Model 86 infantry fighting vehicle. The 3rd and 116th Armoured Divisions, part of the 39th Army Group are to be equipped with 198 Model 99 main battle tanks each, meaning at present they will stay with the three tank platoon structure and two regiments.

The 54th Regiment, part of the 127th Mechanised Infantry Division uses the Model 96 main battle tank as do the independent 20th Tank Regiment and 58th Tank Brigade.

The 113th Mechanised Infantry Division of the 38th Army Group is equipped with both Type 92 and 92A wheeled infantry fighting vehicles. Other vehicles based on the chassis include command, anti-tank with the Hong Jia- 8 ATGW, the Yi-Tian self propelled SAM system and the wheeled 122mm self-propelled gun is close to approval.

-- Martin Andrew

Polmar on Sinking the Zumwalt

While no "final" decision has been revealed, the indications "inside the Beltway" are that the Navy's long-gestating DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program will end with only two ships.  Indeed, there are also rumors that even those two ships will not be constructed.

Contracts have already been awarded for the first two destroyers -- authorized in the fiscal year 2007 budget -- to General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (Maine) and to Northrop Grumman (Pascagoula, Mississippi). Originally the Navy planned a class of 32 of these DDGs, but, as previously reported here, last year the Navy cut the program to seven ships, although the 32-ship requirement was still "on the books." 

The Navy's leadership, both uniformed and civilian, has been lackluster in its support of the DDG 1000 class. Indeed, the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, when recently asked by Congress what he believed the new ships' most important feature would be, he told of the reduced manning for the ships.

The new "destroyers" are to have a full-load displacement of almost 15,000 tons and an overall length of 600 feet -- the dimensions of a cruiser by most standards. Armed with two 155-mm rapid-fire guns (with a range of more than 75 miles firing guided projectiles) and 80 Standard and Tomahawk missiles or their equivalent, and fitted with a large manned- and unmanned helicopter facility, the ships would be highly capable, multipurpose units.

The price has become a "deal breaker" for some involved in the shipbuilding process. The Navy estimates that the first two ships will cost $3.3 billion each, with follow-on ships to cost $2.5 billion.  This compares to the last of the 62 Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) destroyers having a cost some $1.2 billion each.

The most likely, near-term alternative to the DDG 1000 is to resume construction of the Burkes. The Navy now has 62 in the fleet and under construction. The former CNO, and now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has declared repeatedly that the Navy does not need additional Burke-class ships.  And, restarting that line and updating the ships would give them a pricetag of about $2 billion each. (The Burke original design dates from 1979.)

Further, according to Navy data, even building two Burkes per year, and dividing the buy between the two shipyards, would probably not enable keeping the Bath Iron Works yard in business.

The lack of Navy support for the DDG 1000 is seen by some observers as a rationale for accelerating the Navy's next surface combatant, the CG(X) missile cruiser, which would be optimized for the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) role. This seems ironic because there was no Navy requirement for the DDG 1000 to have that role, although her new-design radars could certainly have been developed with that capability. Of course, even after the ships are completed their radars/fire control systems could be upgraded for the BMD role. That is exactly what is being done now for the Aegis cruisers of the improved Ticonderoga (CG 47) class and for the Burke-class destroyers.

Further, the CG(X) is getting significant support in Congress, especially from Representatives Gene Taylor (D-MISS) and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who want that ship to be nuclear propelled. They have even proposed a new generation of Burke-class ships with nuclear propulsion!  Both proposals are ludicrous when one looks at the percentage of U.S. oil consumption by the Department of Defense (less than 2 percent) and the percentage of that which is used to drive U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships (about 8 percent). Considering the additional cost to design and construct nuclear-propelled ships; adding the cost of recruiting, training, and retaining nuclear-qualified personnel; and including disposal costs of those ships, and the idea does not hold water.

Further, the basic DDG 1000 design could become the CG(X) -- obviously not CG(X)N -- with only modifications to the ships' radar/fire control systems. The ships have a significant growth margin and deleting the two 155-mm guns could provide space for additional missiles or other advanced features.

The DDG 1000 is not, in this writer's opinion, the best surface combatant that could have been produced at this time. But considering the time and dollars that have been invested in developing the DDG 1000 design and the ship systems, and the Navy's need for additional surface combatants, the DDG 1000 is far, most superior to the alternatives available. 

-- Norman Polmar

What do you Think...?

Over the past several months, this blog has carried a number of posts on the efforts of the United States to prepare for and defend against a cyber attack or war. In addition, we have posted profiles of other nations and groups who are adversaries of the U.S. and are building cyber attack capabilities. In May, U.S. Strategic Command referenced one of our posts in its testimony before Congress. The hearing was about the security and economic situation as it relates to China.

All this is based on open source intelligence coupled with input from contacts throughout the global security and intelligence communities. Given the vast readership this blog has seen, we thought it prudent to assess your feelings on the state of readiness of the United States for a cyber conflict. You will be able to view the results as you vote.

-- Kevin Coleman

Cyber War Capabilities

A PhantomSkunk in the Works

I'm sure you guys have seen this already, but in case you haven't yet, our friends at Aviation Week ran an interesting piece the other day on the development of a hypersonic demonstrator.

My question is whether this is the first time (at least in a high-ish profile) that Boeing has teamed with Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works (I assume Boeing's Phantom Works crew is involved) for a project that could be a large-scale deal?

I think it's kind of cool to think that all those 10-pound brains could be getting together to come up with a new plane like this.

This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Boeing and ATK have joined the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works team bidding to build the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Blackswift hypersonic technology demonstrator.

Northrop Grumman is understood not to have bid, making it likely a contract will be awarded to Lockheed by September. The unmanned, reusable turbojet/scramjet-powered Blackswift is planned to fly in 2012.

Under DARPA's Falcon program, Lockheed has completed conceptual design of a demonstrator, the HTV-3X, that forms the basis for the Blackswift. The goal of the demonstration is to take-off conventionally, accelerate to beyond Mach 6, maneuver and return to a runway landing.

Skunk Works also is performing subscale tests of the combined-cycle propulsion system, which comprises a high-Mach turbojet and dual-mode ram/scramjet. The turbine is used for take-off and landing, and to accelerate the vehicle to Mach 4, where the ramjet takes over.

Lockheed has ground-tested inlets and nozzles that are shared by the two engines, says Stephen Walker, deputy director of DARPA's Tactical Technology Office. The challenge is in combining both flowpaths over the Mach range during which both the turbine and ramjet are operating, he says.

Be sure to read the rest of this story, a piece on more "war bots" for Joes and a bulkhead-by-bulkhead look at the death of a frigate from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

One Heck of a Ride

Now I've seen footage of SOF dudes catching a ride in the ammo bay of a Cobra in Afghanistan. And I've heard of other operators flying the "wings" of Apaches during an evac near Ramadi, but this is a tough one to believe...

Photoshopped or not?

-- Christian

A Grab Bag of New Chinese Weapons

[Editor's Note: Our good friend Martin Andrew, who publishes an investigative blaster chronicling Chinese military development called the Gi Zhou Newsletter, has some interesting tidbits for us this week. And please note, the picture at left is an earlier Type 89 self-propelled gun.]

New 122mm Self-Propelled Gun

In 1966, Luo Ruiqing, the PLA's then chief-of-staff criticised the defence industry because it was concentrating on R&D rather than on production. He was accused in the official Report of Luo's Mistakes that, 'he still frantically attacked our national defence scientific research work as going from data to data, from design to design, without completing anything'. Luo believed China was in imminent war with the United States, and advocated Soviet assistance. His criticism of the Chinese defence industry could well have applied into the 1990s as well as today with too many designs that achieve little.

A new 122mm self-propelled gun has been shown in the online version of PLA Daily. Titled 'Artillery troops enhance combat effectiveness with new equipment', it shows a battery of these guns. The vehicle uses the chassis from the new ZBD97 infantry fighting vehicle with a turret, most probably a modified version of the one used on the Model 89 122mm self-propelled gun.

WZ731 Tracked Scout Vehicle

Identified as a xinxihua zhanchang (Informationalised battlefield) system, the WZ731 tracked scout developed from the ZSD89 hull with a low profile turret mounting two armoured sights, one with a laser rangefinder and CCD daylight sight and the other a thermal imager. The WZ731 had a crew of up to six including a three man scout team. It was 6.62m long, 2.626m wide and 1.88m high at the hull and 2.556m at the top of the armoured sights. The combat weight was only 8.1t which gave it a maximum road speed of 80.5 km/hr.

The armament comprised eight 76mm smoke grenade dischargers, four mounted in a row on each side of the turret and a pintle mounted Model 59 12.7 x 108mm heavy machine gun on the left side if the commander's cupola which is directly behind the driver on the left hand side. This single machine gun on its open pintle mount was deemed insufficient in the event of the vehicle coming under attack. The lack of an automatic cannon was one reason the vehicle was not introduced into service. The British Scimitar tracked reconnaissance vehicle is similar in weight, is better armoured, smaller in size, more mobile and m mounts a 30mm cannon.

The basic design was sound and a new scout version of the ZSD89, using the enlarged rear hull of the ambulance version, with a modified low profile turret from the WZ731. This incorporates flat transmitter panels on the turret roof, and on top of this is a compressed gas catapult for a small UAV.

New Unmanned Air Vehicle

The Wenchuan Earthquake has seen the use of at least one Chinese developed and manufactured unmanned air vehicle (UAV). It was to survey the extent of the damage.

It is only 2.1 m long and has a wingspan of 2.6m. It weighs 20kg and is of pusher configuration with twin booms connecting a 'V' shaped rear fin. It can travel at 110km/hr, reach an altitude of 3,500m and has GPS assisted guidance. Its photographic images are excellent.

-- Martin Andrew

NASA Naut Claims Alien Coverup

According the the Daily Telegraph of Australia:

FORMER NASA astronaut and moonwalker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens do exist.

And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades.

Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'

He said supposedly real-life ET's were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head.

Chillingly, he claimed our technology is "not nearly as sophisticated" as theirs and "had they been hostile", he warned "we would be been gone by now".

Dr Mitchell, along with with Apollo 14 commander Alan Shepard, holds the record for the longest ever moon walk, at nine hours and 17 minutes following their 1971 mission.

Was Mitchell a technical advisor to the new X-Files movie? Heck of a promo...

"I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real," Dr Mitchell said.

"It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.

"I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes - we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit."

So, I guess we are not alone.

Officials from NASA, however, were quick to play the comments down.

In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.

Typical coverup from the spooks at NASA.

-- Christian

NGA: Intel Teams Key To GWOT Improvements

While the increase in troop numbers known as the surge has gotten much credit for the decline in combat and civilian deaths in Iraq one key component of the effort has been underplayed — the changed role of intelligence teams operating in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.

In an exclusive interview with DoDBuzz, the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Robert Murrett, said his people are working in teams with DIA, NRO, FBI and other intelligence agencies in theater and those teams are providing improved actionable intelligence to troops.

For example, every brigade combat team has NGA and other intelligence community personnel embedded to provide analysis and information on a 24-hour basis.

“It’s those intelligence community interagency teams that are working hand in glove with the forces that we have deployed forward that are making a difference,” Murrett told me. While he was very cautious in discussing examples of just how those teams have operated, he offered two details: they are embedded with troops, often on the front lines; and the intelligence community teams have been a major factor in helping find IED caches.

One key component of this intelligence comes from commercial imagery. Since it is not classified NGA can supply that data much more quickly to front-line troops than it can provide classified imagery, Murrett said. “However, I would want to emphasize that, particularly when our military forces are involved, we derive the very best data we can from whatever source we can get it from,” he added. Often that means overlaying data from classified sources on to the commercial imagery, which requires that the whole package be classified.

Read the rest of this story and some more gouge on acquisition politics at DoD Buzz.

-- Colin Clark

Code name alert: Is Liberty Ship a new Big Safari?

The US Army has Constant Hawk. The US Marine Corps has Angel Fire. Somebody has something called Highlighter.

What the heck are they?

Constant Hawk, Angel Fire and Highlighter are the names of manned, light aircraft that have been invented since the Iraqi occupation began to fight against the scourge of improvised explosive devices.

Public details vary greatly for each of these semi-classified aircraft programs. Thanks to funding and turf wars, we know quite a bit about Constant Hawk (a modified Shorts C-23B Sherpa) and Angel Fire. [USA Today article is here. Great analysis by StrategyPage.com is here.]

The US Army Material Command was even generous enough to post a photo of Constant Hawk on their Flickr page.

All I know about Highlighter is that it was invented by the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), and it is an aircraft. (Dear Maj Gen Montgomery Meigs, Thank you for disclosing Highlighter's existence in a commentary you wrote to "correct" a critical Marine Corps Times editorial on April 16, 2007.)

We may -- finally -- have a clue about how all of these ideas were invented.

It could be a project office embedded in the Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD] called "Liberty Ship".

Perhaps modelled on the US Air Force's famed Big Safari project office in Dayton, Ohio, OSD may be using Liberty Ship to skirt around the traps and tripwires of the military's acquisition system.

The code word Liberty Ship was first mentioned in a public forum earlier this week by General Norton Schwartz, OSD's nominee to become the next USAF chief of staff.

Before his nomination hearing, the Senate armed services committee posed written questions to Schwartz, including one query about how he would address the shortfall of spy aircraft in Iraq.

Schwartz replied in writing:

"By increasing the number of MQ-9 vehicles, pursuing the "Liberty Ship" construct for acquisition of more "light" manned ISR aircraft, and accelerating the development of the Wide Area Airborne Surveillance sensor system, the Air Force is working very hard to get more ISR capability to the combatant commanders in support of on-going operations. If confirmed, this will have my personal attention from day one."

For background, here's an excerpt from the Senate armed services report published in May on the fiscal 2009 defense budget request.

"The Army Constant Hawk and Marine Corps Angel Fire systems are current examples of wide-area collection systems. The DOD leadership requested funds for the Air Force to acquire a combined, enhanced system, currently called Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance (WAAS), to image a larger area than Constant Hawk or Angel Fire, enable night operations, real-time support to ground forces, provide a forensic capability, and support many simultaneous targeting and surveillance missions. It could cue and hand off targets to [full motion video] platforms for prosecution."

Liberty is not a common prefix for a code name. According to William Arkin's Code Names reference book, there are only two other known Liberty prefix's in the Pentagon's classified lexicon:

1. Liberty Shield, a Department of Homeland Security operation to increase security at the nation's critical infrastructure

2. Libertycap, a National Security Agency program to standardize all signals intelligence software

Clearly, these code names -- Angel Fire, Highlighter, Constant Hawk, Liberty Ship -- are the barest glimpse into the massive, multi-billion dollar and ambiguous effort to thwart the threat of IED attacks. I can't wait to read the book someday.

[[PS: Don't forget Hunter Green Dart!]]

-- Steve Trimble

Key Lawmakers Clap While DD 1000 Sinks

I wrote earlier this week about the apparent demise of the DDG 1000 in the Navy's future budget planning. Well, in an unusual step, two very key lawmakers have come out in favor of curtailing the program.

“I am pleased with the Navy’s decision to focus its resources on the DDG 51 destroyer, with its known costs and capabilities, rather than the increasingly expensive DDG 1000,” said Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO). “Our committee recommended this action in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, and I am pleased to see the Navy heed our advice. It is a responsible decision that will benefit both the Navy and the taxpayer for years to come.”

“I believe this is the right thing for the men and women of our Navy and the citizens who pay for these ships,” Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) commented. “The DDG 51 class destroyer is the premier destroyer in the world today. The ship has tremendous flexibility in a variety of warfighting missions, including the ability to serve as a ballistic missile defense platform. Just as important, the costs of these ships are well known. The Navy has built 62 of these superb vessels and our shipyards know how to build them on budget and on schedule.

Taylor continued, “The two DDG 1000s that our nation will build will be extremely capable ships. However, virtually every independent organization with expertise in ship cost analysis has predicted the first two ships will cost up to $5 billion each, or more than $1.5 billion more than the Navy has budgeted. Such cost overruns would cripple the Navy’s plan to reach a 313-ship fleet.

Now, as DT reader George Skinner noted in his comments from Monday's post, the DDG 1000 has been a great incubator for new naval technologies. I'm in favor of using programs such as this to develop new gear for the next generation of hardware -- I see the same thing happening with the FCS program and I'm all for it. And it's refreshing when services make a tactical retreat on some programs and admit that they'll be used essentially as R&D labs.

Continues Taylor:

"I believe that our Navy and our nation are better served by building a large number of DDG 51s and then proceeding with a timely and orderly plan to begin construction of the next generation of nuclear powered cruisers. I look forward to working with Admiral Roughead and Secretary Winter during the return to DDG 51 production."

Well said...

-- Christian

Gates Questions Contractor Training

I'm not sure how I feel about this...

From this afternoon's Military.com headlines:

Use of Contractors for Training Faces Review

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a top-level review of the Pentagon's use of private security contractors, including the controversial Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater Worldwide, to train American troops.

"Why have we come to rely on contractors to provide combat or combat-related security training ... Are we comfortable with this practice?" Gates asked in a July 10 memo to Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The defense boss also requested more detail on how much each of the military branches is spending on contractor-supplied training and whether the services have established "appropriate red lines" governing "what types of security training are permitted to be contracted out."

He expects initial answers sometime this week, Gates said in a letter Friday to Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. A Mullen spokesman confirmed that a response is in the works.

I've run into a lot of contractor trainers in my travels and I've got to tell you, they're by in large pretty darn good at what they do and provide a necessary service to American troops preparing for battle. Most of the training Soldiers and Marines receive at the camps in northern Kuwait, including Camp Buehring, before they go into Iraq comes from contractors. Everything from urban warfare training to tactical shooting drills are taught by retired master sergeants and gunnies.

The ones I've talked to are dedicated pros who don't complain about the abysmal conditions and isolation of some of these camps. I've also looked into the training that goes on at civilian organizations for special operations forces. Again, some of the most sophisticated and highly technical fighting and weapons training goes on at these places and it would be a shame to have to shut these relationships down.

I'm not sure where Webb is going with this inquiry. I've got to admit, I am a bit squeemish when I hear that sailors with the riverine force are being trained by Blackwater staff. Not because of the company involved, but more because that seems like pretty basic training that should be conducted by sailors themselves.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see what the problem is with retired grunts finding a new career training the same Joes they once served alongside. It's the same thing that happens in the civilian world with retired whomevers "consulting" in their prior business. If the troops are more effective for it, why not do it?

-- Christian

Obama MV-22 Flight Update

OK, so according to Marine Public Affairs, I was wrong...or should I say the veteran crew chief who told me during one of my flights in the Osprey was wrong.

Turns out, Obama was picked up at LZ Washington in the Green Zone in the MV-22. He was flown to Ramadi, where he met with tribal sheiks there who were part of the Anbar Awakening movement. Then he reboarded the Osprey and flew to Amman.

This is logical on several levels. First, if he's going to a Marine AO for meetings with Anbar officials, it stands to reason the Corps would pick him up in an Osprey rather than a 46. The trip is faster and at a higher altitude, so at least tactically, it's safer. Also, the Osprey is the most capable aircraft for the long trip from Ramadi to Amman. A 46 would suck for that distance and the 53 wouldn't be a whole lot better. And you can't land a C-130 at Ramadi.

Hence the Osprey flight. Marine officials, though at first skeptical themselves, didn't see a publicity stunt on this one.

But I am curious about the landing at LZ Washington. That LZ is pretty tight (thought I admittedly have really only seen it at night since all of my flights out of there have been at o-dark-thirty). But I vividly remember talking to a veteran Osprey crew chief who was involved in the testing phase of the MV-22 and is now in VMM-263 that the bird couldn't land at Washington because it was too tight.

I stand corrected...

-- Christian

The New Air Force 2?

I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but I think it's pretty significant in one way or another.

So, if you take a look at the pictures and video footage of Barack Obama's trip to Amman, Jordan, those of you who are sensitive to this sort of thing might notice something strange about the aircraft he was walking out of. For me, the tip off was the sound the plane was making.

Having spent some time with the squadron, something in my brain told me it wasn't a C-130 and it wasn't a 53 or a 47. "But surely," my consciousness told me, "they wouldn't risk the safety of a presidential candidate on something most 'experts' say is so dangerous..."

Then I pulled out my trusty TiVo remote and confirmed my suspicions.

Obama flew from Iraq to Amman on an MV-22 Osprey from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Transport squadron 162 -- the newest Osprey squadron to deploy to Iraq.

I'm kicking over some rocks as we speak to see if this was by happenstance or by design. Was the Corps strategically placing a potential president in the Osprey to wow him into continued support for the pricey assault support plane?

I'd also be interested to know a bit about the flight plan, since Obama spent his entire day-long trip to Iraq in the Green Zone, which the Osprey can't land in (LZ Washington being too tight for the wide-winged tiltrotor). So he must have flown out of BIAP...by why not in a C-130?

Curiouser and curiouser...But still, kind of a cool trip for the Osprey anyway. And having logged many hours in one myself, I am sure Obama and his entourage were duly impressed with its performance.

[Both photos from the Associated Press via Yahoo News]

-- Christian

QinetiQ, Boeing Partner on Long-Endurance UAV

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

FARNBOROUGH -- Boeing has selected QinetiQ, the U.K.-based defense technology company, as its key technology partner on Vulture -- the ultra-long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) concept proposed by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The $3.8-million first phase of the program will see QinetiQ participating in system definition and analysis as well as a review of system requirements. The challenge? To create a large, load-carrying UAV able to remain aloft for weeks on end.

As part of the Boeing team, QinetiQ is expected to apply expertise gained in the development of Zephyr, a high-altitude long-endurance UAV. Launched by hand, Zephyr, is built mainly from lightweight carbon fiber. It flies on solar power by day and draws power from rechargeable lithium sulfur batteries by night.

In October of last year, Zephyr exceeded the official world record duration for unmanned flight, with a 54-hour mission flown over the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

DARPA's goal for Vulture is the ability to carry a 1,000-pound, 5-kw payload for an extended period, while remaining on station despite strong high-altitude winds and other factors. Considered a "pseudo satellite," Vulture may one day serve as a persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform, or as an aerial node in a global communications network.

In addition to its UAV work, QinetiQ comes to Farnborough this year riding a wave of significant contract wins. The company is a key player on the F-35 Lightning II program. As a member of TeamUK F-35, QinetiQ is helping with development in key areas, including flight simulation, training, weapons systems and through-life platform management.

Be sure to read the rest of this story, take a look at Japan's altered acquisition rules, how the US Army is recruiting in the virtual world and more gouge from the Farnborough Air Show by our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian

Gliding Across the Atlantic

An unmanned submersible operated by Rutgers University's Coastal Ocean Observation Laboratory (COOL) is "flying" -- underwater -- from New Jersey to Spain. The remote-controlled undersea glider will travel more than 3,800 miles, and will collect key scientific information on the temperature and salinity of the Atlantic Ocean.

"The big advantage is, it's totally unmanned," according to Conrad Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which sponsors the submersible. "It's very efficient and can be used to obtain the same kind of data we gather from ships."

In general, sea gliders are Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) that use small changes in buoyancy in conjunction with wings to convert vertical motion to horizontal, and thereby propel themselves forward with very low power consumption. While not as fast as conventional AUVs with propulsion systems, gliders using buoyancy-based propulsion represent a significant increase in range and endurance compared to vehicles propelled by electric motor-driven propellers. The sea glider has a battery-powered data collection and satellite communication system. The U.S. Navy as well as NOAA have been developing such sea gliders for several years.

During its trans-Atlantic cruise the glider will periodically rise to the surface of the ocean to transmit data up to a satellite. But most of the time the COOL glider will travel at depths between 15 feet to 300 feet below the surface. The COOL researchers will share all collected oceanographic data with the Navy and other interested agencies. The lack of a propulsion system will aid in data collection, alleviating self-noise interference.

The Navy is also looking into glider-type AUVs -- which it calls UUVs for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles -- for several missions, primarily to undertake environmental measurements in areas where surface ships or aircraft (dropping sensors) cannot easily operate. And, of course, flotillas of such unmanned gliders would be much cheaper than manned research ships and craft.

The COOL-developed submersible is yellow, less than 8 feet long, and weighs about 130 pounds. Developed by Rutgers University, the craft will also provide the university with other important information, such as how long the craft’s batteries will last and systems reliability. Larger and more capable AUV/UUVs are being developed by the Navy under the auspices of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command’s systems center in San Diego and the Office of Naval Research.

According to the 2000 Program Guide to the U.S. Navy, the highest priority missions for Navy UUVs, presumably including gliders, are intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; mine countermeasures (i.e., locating and mapping mines); and anti-submarine warfare. Sea gliders could be very useful in collecting environmental information for ASW operations.

-- Norman Polmar

DDG 1000 Could Take Fatal Hit

It's like the Navy's version of the F-22 -- a lingering vestige of the "blue water" fighting force the service once was. But like the F-22, and despite the Navy's best efforts to shift its emphasis to surface fire support (a concept that still clings to life despite air-to-ground and surface to surface missile and artillery advancements) talk is that the DDG 1000 is slipping away.

From today's Military.com headlines:

The DDG 1000 series of ships would run on quiet and compact electric motors, not today's gas turbine engines. The ships would be unusually large but built with a radar-evading profile to make them appear small, and they would carry a new gun able to hit precisely targets 50 miles or more inland.

Most important for sailors, the destroyers would carry highly trained, computer-savvy crews half as large as the force on current destroyers.

As recently as early June, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer reaffirmed the Bush administration's support for the new ships. But as Congress refines spending plans for 2009 this summer, Navy leaders appear ready to abandon the DDG 1000 program, building only two destroyers for what once was seen as a force of two dozen or more.

The House of Representatives already has voted for at least a pause in DDG 1000 purchases, citing the cost - as much as $5 billion each - of the first two ships in the series and their dependence on still-unproven technologies.

In a statement released last week , the Navy seemed resigned to an early end for the program. "Even if we do not receive funding ... beyond the first two ships, the technology embedded in DDG 1000 will advance the Navy's future," the statement asserted.

And the sad thing is that the littoral combat ship was to precede the DDG 1000 and even that's on the skids (and is perhaps the most relevant ship the Navy's looking into right now). Rummy started it with the death of Cold War vestige programs in the Army (remember the Crusader and Comanche?) and Gates pounded a few more nails into the coffin with is "next-war-itis" crusade. The services are beginning to see the writing on the wall and refocus their efforts -- leaving a big job for the next defense secretary to get the procurement plans back on track.

-- Christian

Your Papers Please!

My boy Dave Woroner sent this little item along to me and I forward it with enthusiasm.

Aside from the interesting blog site for BTDTs from which this issue came, the imagery of Chinese SWAT operators chasing down Olympic terrorists with little scooters tickles my funny bone.
From Breach, Bang, Clear:

That's right. The rolling thunder that is China's eeee-light counter-terrorist unit is locked, loaded and good to go...
No word yet on whether the gadget-loving higher-ups of the US military will invest the eleventy zillion dollars necessary to develop their own electric powered individual soldier short-range expedient deployment vehicle (or EPISSED to use the convenient acronym). Even if no one else wants one, we're confident the Air Force will buy at least a couple so the zipper-suited sun gods don't get footsore on the way to their planes.

Now, all jokes aside, the Air Force really could use some Segways on their flightlines for maintainers, loaders and crews. The huge fields employed stateside and in Iraq are littered with bicycles, so why not Segways? And I remember talking to the former head of the Marine Corps' "Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force" a few years ago and he mentioned they were looking into buying Segways to help shuttle their chem-bio suit-laden troops back and forth to infected areas.

But I do always laugh at the beat cops who hum around on these contraptions (a lot of DC, and Capitol Police included) -- which any jail-fearing perp could easily outrun..."Wait! Wait! Come back here!"...

-- Christian

Where's That SECRET Laptop?

Has anyone seen our 747 laptops? That is the question the Ministry of Defense (MoD) is asking. On Friday July 18th, 2008 the British Defense Ministry acknowledged that since 2004 they have had 658 computers stolen. If that is not bad enough, MoD revealed that 89 laptops were lost since 2004.

What is bad is that previously there were 347 laptops thought to be gone since then. If you expand the timeframe to five years, the number grows to more than 830 laptops lost or stolen. Of which nine contained information classified as top secret or secret. To date of the 747 lost or stolen laptops in the past four years only 32 had been recovered.

Has anyone seen my desktop? This is not a joke. Where is building security when people are walking out the door with desktop computers? It is not like they fit in your pocket! In the past ten years, 23 desktops had been stolen. It even gets better.

Has anyone seen my 121 USB memory sticks? That's right 121 portable USB memory sticks (thumb drives) were lost or stolen in that same period of time. Looking at the memory sticks, 26 of those lost occurred in 2008. But the picture gets a bit worse - three of the lost USB drives contained information said to be "secret" with 19 additional ones containing information said to be "restricted."

Has anyone seen my file folders? Did you know that top secret intelligence documents were recently left on a London train by a staff member of the Cabinet Office? In one instance a 46 page file that was "restricted" was taken from a car parked in a supermarket parking lot. This file outlined the army's procedures for responding to a terror attack. One report stated that it contained a list of the military's most important figures and their phone numbers as well as details of how SAS troops would be deployed.

Authorities are concerned that Britain's security may have been compromised. May have???? Duuuh - of course security was compromised. Security experts have stated that 90 per cent of stolen laptops are probably accessible within 10 minutes and many of those with more sophisticated levels of encryption can still are accessed within three hours.

While encryption of all sensitive data was ordered back in January 2007, at least one computer was lost/stolen that contained personal information about 600,000 individuals that was not encrypted. Couple that to the loss of physical documents and one would have to ask who is responsible and take immediate action against those individuals. I wonder how big this problem is in the United States?

-- Kevin Coleman

Another Food Fight Between Boeing and the Air Force

DT buddy Steve Trimble scored a great scoop at the Farnborough air show this week. He reports:

Boeing's global marketing campaign for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has drawn the public wrath of the senior U.S. military official leading the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

U.S. Air Force Lt Gen Charles Davis, speaking exclusively to Flight International, has accused Boeing of "spreading lies and half-truths" about the F-35 to bolster its case for selling the F/A-18E/F.

"That's just pissing us off," Davis says. "If Boeing has to say something negative about JSF to sell their aircraft, that tells me there is something wrong with their aircraft."

Davis specifically faults Boeing executives for predicting further cost overruns and delays for the F-35 program. By comparison, Davis says, he has heard BAE Systems make no such predictions in their efforts to sell the Eurofighter Typhoon.

However, it was pointed out to Davis that Boeing had delivered hundreds of F/A-18E/Fs on time and on budget, while the JSF program has reported a 50 percent cost increase and an at least 18-month delay during the first seven years of development.

Davis acknowledges the F-35's record, but refuses to back down in his criticism of Boeing.

He says the F-35's development challenges cannot be compared with the F/A-18E/F. The Super Hornet is based on an existing airframe, he says, and reuses the avionics suite from the original aircraft.

"That's the baseline they're measured against. How hard is that?" Davis asks.

The F-35 and F/A-18E/F are in competition in several countries, and not least in the USA, where Navy officials continue to debate the need for extending Super Hornet purchases if the JSF is further delayed.

Boeing executives were not immediately aware of the news articles that provoked the Davis outburst.

"We don't know much about JSF other than what we read in the paper," says Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

Tom Bell, a Boeing business development official, says he is unaware of the specific comments that triggered Davis' outburst, and so could not give a direct response.

Bell points out that two JSF development partners - Australia and Denmark - have already acquired or are considering acquiring F/A-18E/Fs instead.

"People with greater insight [into the F-35 program] than I are looking at the offerings available," Bell says. "Let people draw their own conclusions about why."

So is it worse when the Air Force is pissed at Boeing or the other way around like it has been during the tanker protest furor? Or is this just the kind of "healthy tension" we need between these two legs of the Iron Triangle? Stay tuned.

(Photo: General Davis demonstrates what he'd like to do to those at Boeing who are badmouthing the JSF.)

(Gouge: NC)

-- Ward

Cleaning Up After the MRAP Frenzy

You might remember a few months back -- as many lawmakers got themselves into a lather, treating the MRAP as the solution to every problem with the Iraq War -- we raised some questions about the pace at which they were being fielded and how they were going to be employed effectively during a counter-insurgency campaign.

Well, the dust is starting to clear from the stampede of those who were out to prove they love the troops more than the next congressman, and lo and behold, their zeal caused a few unintended consequences.

Here's an excerpt from the story running at Military.com:

The accelerated pace the military has used to buy and deploy thousands of heavily armored mine resistant vehicles for Iraq and Afghanistan could lead to problems with maintenance and cost overruns on the top priority project, according to congressional investigators.

Congress has appropriated $22 billion to acquire more than 15,000 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, also known as MRAPs, to protect troops from roadside bombs and other insurgent ambushes, according to the Government Accountability Office report. Defense Secretary Robert Gates designated the program as the department's highest priority acquisition last year.

That meant testing of safety and performance occurred while the vehicles were being bought, raising the possibility costly errors would be uncovered after the fact. More than 100 vehicles the military paid for were not fielded because of problems discovered after their purchase, according to the GAO report made public Wednesday.

"While the department's concurrent approach to producing, testing, and fielding the vehicles has provided an urgently needed operational capability, it has also increased performance, sustainability and cost risks," the GAO concluded.

Read the entire story here.

-- Ward

China Threatens Olympic Cyber Attacks

Multiple sources have confirmed that China has openly threatened anyone who reuses or rebroadcasts the Beijing Olympics. Chinese officials publicly stated they will “punish” Internet Web sites, Re-broadcasters and other “new media” that replay the 2008 Olympic Games and related events without the authorization of state-run China Central Television.

Xu Chao, deputy director of the Copyright Management Division in the State Copyright Bureau said “during the Olympic Games, many unauthorized broadcasts will flood into the market. We should initiate an “attack” against broadcast piracy.” Xu went on to discuss some of their anti-piracy measures including a public hotline for reporting illegal broadcasting through the State Copyright Bureau website or by dialing the "12390" anti-piracy hotline to collaborate with the government. People involved will be rewarded for the reports once the report is found to be true.

The International Olympic Committee granted CCTV the new media broadcast rights for the summer games exclusively. We were unable to obtain their exact definition of “new media broadcast.” However, in a statement by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, the National Copyright Administration and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, they said Web sites and mobile platforms using Olympic broadcast signals without getting permission from the CCTV will be punished.

They went on to say that “Web sites may be shut down if they carry the events illegally.” Olympics coverage is big business. The 2008 Summer Games in Beijing will mark the arrival of streaming content as a viable alternative to the Olympics’ television broadcast. Online video streaming is attracting an increasing share of ad spending and many believe is the future of advertising. NBCOlympics.com will offer 4,400 hours of on-demand streaming content plus 2,200 hours of live programming, making the Beijing Olympics the largest streaming media project to date. There is little doubt that carbon copies of the streamed media will be available from numerous sources on the web and in the physical world. So it appears China has a big challenge ahead.

Are they really threatening cyber attacks on public companies, private industry and individuals? That is the way one Cyber Security Expert we spoke to interpreted it. Only time will tell. What if a company in the United States, or any other country, is attacked? How will the government respond? One thing for sure, this is a sign of things to come.

Facts:

The Olympics have become a very, very big business. Worldwide media rights to the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing sold for $1.7 billion, with NBC Universal paying $894 million for the U.S. media rights alone.

China Central Television (CCTV) said that “Web sites may be “shut down” if they carry the events illegally.” In addition, a Chinese Government spokesperson said “Any individual without authorization who uploads recorded Olympic events or pirated Olympics video broadcasting websites will face up to 100,000 RMB in penalties.”
The statement in its entirety can be found here.

-- Kevin Coleman

A Chocolate (well composite, anyway) Mess

DT contributer emeritus Chris Michel gave us a heads up about a series of photos over at Gizmodo that show details of the aftermath of the B-2 crash in Guam a few months back.

Here's one of them:

Composites have afforded amazing performance capabilities in modern aircraft but they are nasty when they burn. The fibers get airborne in a fire and can get into the lungs of those who might inadvertantly breath the smoke -- which is why crash crews are careful to wear respirators even after that flames die off.

Messy, ain't it?

(Gouge: CM)

-- Ward

MV-22 Engine Problems in Anbar

The Bell Helicopter-Boeing team that builds the V-22 Osprey will hold a press conference Tuesday at the Farnborough Air Show with a number of senior Marine corps officers playing the starring roles, presumably to extol the virtues of the V-22 and its performance in Iraq.

They might not want to volunteer the following recent incident so we'll do it for them. It just so happens that on June 21 a Marine V-22 crew had a serious engine problem forced the crew to quickly find a place to land.

 An internal Marine memorandum sent to us by a source describes
the problem delicately.

WHILE IN FLIGHT, PILOTS NOTICED THAT THE R/H ENGINE TORQUE WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 66 PERCENT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNABLE TO HOLD ALTITUDE, AND HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN THE FIELD. AFTER REPLACEMENT OF THE ENGINE, A BOROSCOPE INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED TO INSPECT THE ENGINE INTERNALLY. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT COMPRESSOR BLADES WERE DAMAGED FROM POSSIBLE FOD INGESTION. A BOROSCOPE INSPECTION OF THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER SHOWED THAT THE LINER HAD BROKEN
INTO PIECES. THESE PIECES ENTERED INTO THE GAS GENERATOR, CAUSING SIGNIFICANT
DAMAGE.

INTERNAL FAILURE OF THE ENGINE CAUSED FOR A
LOSS OF ALTITUDE CONTROL. THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNABLE TO STABILIZE OR HOLD AN ALTITUDE, AND WAS FORCED TO LAND. THIS COULD BE FATAL TO PERSONNEL ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT, AND CAUSE DETRIMENTAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT. THE MISSION WAS ABORTED DUE TO THE FAILURE.

In other words, the engine was breaking up. Not a good thing. But what’s more interesting is the indication that the troubled engine was still putting out considerable thrust, but the aircraft couldn’t maintain altitude. The V-22 is supposed to be able to fly at least some distance and land on just one engine, but in this case it was unable to hold altitude while still getting significant power from the damaged engine.

 We asked the Marines for comment on this incident and this
is what they said:

An MV-22 Osprey executed a precautionary landing June 21 in al Anbar province due to mechanical problems. Shortly after departing a forward operating base, engine problems prompted the crew to land the aircraft.

No personal injury or damage to the aircraft was sustained.  The aircraft was repaired onsite and flew back to Al Asad Air Base without incident. Hostile fire was not involved.

The cause of the mechanical problem is currently being investigated.

Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162 is currently in their third month of deployment here at Al Asad Air Base.  This is the first incident of its kind involving the MV-22 Osprey in Iraq.

The aircraft continues to complete its mission as designed and prove its value as an essential asset to the Marine Corps' mission in Iraq.

"This environment is challenging for every aircraft
here in Iraq,"
said Lt. Col. Karsten Heckl, commanding officer, VMM-162.  "The
maintenance Marines of VMM-162 have done an outstanding job keeping the Osprey in the fight through
preventative and routine maintenance."

We should point out a couple of things. One, it may have been the first precautionary (can you say emergency) landing due to an engine failure, there have been a number of incidents of rapid, unscheduled stops due to failed gearbox oil cooling systems, as reported in March by the Star-Telegram.

Second, the Marines have acknowledged publicly that they're wearing out V-22 engines far faster than anyone expected, both in the desert sands of Iraq and the far milder climes of the US.

-- Bob Cox

DT/Buzz at Farnborough Next Week

DoD Buzz Editor Colin Clark will be representing us at the Farnborough International Air Show this year and I wanted to get a couple folks together to give readers an idea of what's going to be happening over there...what's hot, what's not and what you might not know to look for in that Granddaddy of all airshows.

So I interviewed DT contributors Steve Trimble of Flight International, Bob Cox from the Fort Worth Star Telegram and Colin to pick their brains on what to look for as we cover next week's events.

This is a first for me in presenting this podcast, so forgive any technical difficulties or audio snafus. We'll get better at it as we keep posting them.

Listen to the Farnborough Preview podcast

-- Christian

Here's a Look at one of the MURG Options

Here's an interesting video we've got posted at Military.com's "Shock and Awe" section that relates pretty closely to my MURG story below.

Be interested to see what you all think or know about the various 6.8 SPC options...

-- Christian

Hill Aides to Test M4 Alternatives

In a move that could ruffle the feathers of an Army command that views the Colt Defense-built M4 as the best carbine in the world, a select group of top senate staffers is gathering today to look at what could be the future of the military's standard assault rifle.

About 30 legislative aides have signed up to attend a July 11 demonstration at Marine Corps Base Quantico, just outside Washington, D.C., that will feature weapons from various manufacturers vying to end the reign of the M16 and M4 as the U.S. military's most fielded personal weapon.

The range day is intended to help familiarize key lawmakers with possible alternatives to the M16 and M4 once the exclusive contract with Colt Defense of West Hartford, Conn., ends in the summer of 2009, a senior senate aide told Defense Tech.

"When you re-compete the M4 it shouldn't just be for the same thing we've been building for the last 20 to 30 years," said the senior senate staffer who requested anonymity because the issue is so sensitive with the Army.

Over the past year the Army has taken fire from M4 critics who say there are better options available to troops, weapons that require less intensive maintenance and fire more lethal rounds. While the Army -- which is responsible for procuring small arms for all the services -- continues to stand by the M4 and M16, a small group of tenacious senators, including Oklahoma Republican James Coburn, have pressed the issue, forcing the service to subject the M4 to rigorous environmental tests and pushing for side-by-side competitions with several M4 alternatives.

"There's no urgent need to improve the M4, it's clearly working better than the M16," the senior senate aide said. "Our concern is that, urgent or not, we really ought to be improving it on par with technological improvements [and] not be wedded to an older weapon just because that's the way we've always been doing it."

While the aide declined to list all the companies participating in the demo, congressional and industry sources say the shoot will feature the standard 5.56mm M4 carbine, the FNH USA-build Mk-17 -- which fires a 7.62mm round -- and a modified "M4-style" rifle that fires a new 6.8mm special purpose cartridge round, among others.

The 6.8mm SPC round was born of a 6-month program launched by the interagency Technical Support Working Group which looked into how an M4 or M16 could be easily modified to fire a round that had better ballistic characteristics than the current arsenal when fired from a short barrel.

According to the TSWG, the so-called "modified upper receiver group" that accommodates the 6.8mm round "can be installed on [government-issued] M4 carbine lower receivers by operators in the field quickly and without tools for an immediate, considerable increase in projectile weight, surface area, and on-target terminal performance."

"The 6.8mm MURG offers improved combat capability and user survivability over comparable 5.56mm platforms," a TSWG statement said.

A consistent criticism of the M4 has been the 5.56 round's perceived lack of stopping power. A 2006 Center for Naval Analyses report conducted for the Army showed 30 percent of Soldiers surveyed wanted a rifle with a more deadly round.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

And one special operations Soldier who spoke to Defense Tech couldn't agree more.

"I know that when I'm shooting at someone I want to be confident that when I hit him, he's going to go down," the Special Forces operator said during a recent interview. "That's why I like the AK and its 7.62 round. It'll drop whatever you're aiming at."

The Army brushes off such criticism, saying lethality is closely tied to marksmanship. If you hit a target in the right place, you'll stop him, Army leaders argue.

The point of the July 11 test shoot is to allow manufacturers to showcase their M4 alternatives before an audience that's becoming more influential on small arms procurement decisions. The senate group tried to hold a similar demo last year, but the Army abruptly pulled out when news reports of the event leaked out, senate sources said.

Participants will have the opportunity to observe the effects of different caliber rounds in ballistic jelly, be shown how to fire each weapon and, of course, there will be some hands-on time as well.

Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar is heavily involved in the M4 alternative push and wants a competitive process that rewards the kind of innovation that leads to a host of choices when the M4 is re-bid in June of next year.

"Senator Salazar's concern is that the process itself could stifle industry innovation, it can result in lower weapons reliability and it can increase costs," said Salazar spokesman, Matt Lee-Ashley.

"He's going to work through the Army and the Armed Services Committee to make sure that when [the M4] is re-competed next June the process is open, that it's based on performance-based requirements and that it encourages industry innovation."

-- Christian

Iran's (Spoofed) Missile Threat

In the "bark is worse than its bite" category, the New York Times has an awesome web piece today on the apparent manipulation of yesterday's Iran missile shoot.

Of course the event got everybody up in a lather about Iran's capability and came darn close to a signing ceremony with SecState Rice and the Czech foreign minister on missile defense cooperation. But to me they sort of looked like '50s-era model rockets. Whoooo...scaaaaary....

[Photo from New York Times online.]

Anyway, sharp-eyed photogs have noticed that the smoke billowing from the launch can be attributed to three rockets, not four. And a photo later distributed by the AP shows three rockets with a fourth launcher that looks like it might have been a dud (or another Photoshopped image).

As news spread across the world of Iran’s provocative missile tests, so did an image of four missiles heading skyward in unison. Unfortunately, it appeared to contain one too many missiles, a point that had not emerged before the photo appeared on the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com and many other major news Web sites.

Agence France-Presse said that it obtained the image from the Web site of Sepah News, the media arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, on Wednesday. But there was no sign of it there later in the day. Today, The Associated Press distributed what appeared to be a nearly identical photo from the same source, but without the fourth missile...

For its part, Agence France-Presse retracted its four-missile version this morning, saying that the image was “apparently digitally altered” by Iranian state media. The fourth missile “has apparently been added in digital retouch to cover a grounded missile that may have failed during the test,” the agency said.

So, looks as if the Iranians are trying to get a rise out of America and the Europeans with a little artistic license, I guess. And one has to wonder whether that country's threats are really credible.

-- Christian

Dude, What's With the Moping?

Colin still on the case...

That rasping sound you hear is the cumulative grinding of teeth from Boeing and its supporters in the wake of yesterday’s announcement of a rebid on the tanker contract.

They are worried — and we all know we grind our teeth when we’re worried — because the Pentagon’s basic criteria for the plane apparently will not change when the new request for proposal is issued. The clearest expression of Boeing’s unhappiness came late yesterday from that bellwether of Boeing sentiment, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who has and will fight relentlessly for the company to get at least some part of the KC-X tanker money.

The press release Dicks put out yesterday said he "has serious doubts about the ability of the Defense Department to conduct a renewed competition that is fair and open and that meets the 'real world' requirements of refueling U.S. military aircraft."

Dicks spoke yesterday morning with John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and was told “that the criteria for the new tanker will favor a larger tanker from the outset, assigning additional credit to a bigger plane.” That is a no-no for Boeing supporters, who say that the requirement for a larger plane unfairly skews the competition in Northrop Grumman’s favor.

"Last month the GAO issued a report that was unusually critical of the tanker selection process conducted by the Air Force for unfairly favoring a tanker that was larger than needed, most costly to maintain and that would require substantial amounts of construction money for new facilities," Dicks said in the press release. "In its harshly-worded report, the GAO said that the Air Force failed to evaluate proposals based on its stated requirements and it demonstrated favorable treatment toward the EADS/Northrop Grumman A-330 tanker over Boeing’s KC-767."

[Read more of Colin's analysis at DoD Buzz.]

-- Christian

Advanced STOVL Now Flying

One of the most important aircraft of the 21st Century made its first flight last month -- the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the 5th generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Named Lighting II, the F-35B will provide a first-line fighter/strike aircraft for use from U.S. STOVL/helicopter carriers and from a half-dozen foreign aircraft carriers.

The Lockheed Martin F-35B made its first flight on 11 June, piloted by BAE test pilot Graham Tomlinson. A former Royal Air Force pilot, Tomlinson flew the aircraft in conventional takeoff and landing modes from the Lockheed Martin facility at Fort Worth, Texas. Transition to short/vertical takeoffs and landings and hover flight will begin early next year.

The F-35B was the second Lightning II to begin flight tests, following the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, which first flew on 15 December 2006. That aircraft has made more than 40 flights to date. The F-35B is the second of 19 development and demonstration aircraft. The next variant to fly will be the F-35C, configured for aircraft carrier operations.

F-35 deliveries are to begin in 2010 and continue well beyond 2030. The F-35/JSF program is one of the few Defense efforts that has the full endorsement of the Department of Defense, the military services, and the Congress.  

The F-35B STOVL variant will replace the AV-8B Harrier in U.S. Marine Corps squadrons, and GR (ground attack/reconnaissance) series Harriers aboard British aircraft carriers. Several other nations have "signed on" to the F-35B program, both for land-based operation as well as from existing and planned VSTOL carriers.

While the Harrier was inferior to most contemporary land-based fighter/attack aircraft, the F-35B will have the speed, electronics, and stealth characteristics of its land-based contemporaries. However, the F-35B will have a range of some 450 nautical miles on internal fuel compared to more than 600 nautical miles for the F-35A/C variants. 

In the United States the F-35B will be able to operate from the Navy's large amphibious ships of the LHA/LHD classes, which now operate detachments of Harrier STOVL aircraft. The later ships of these types are being specifically configured for F-35B operations.

To date the most negative aspect evident in the F-35/JSF program is the aircraft's designation. Then-Secretary of the Air Force James Roche designated the aircraft as the F-35 because the JSF technology demonstration aircraft was the X-35. That research aircraft was not even a prototype JSF, but a scale technology demonstrator. The situation would be like having designated the tilt-rotor MV-22 as the MV-15 because its technology demonstrator was the XV-15. 

According to the Department of Defense aircraft designation system, the next U.S. fighter aircraft should have been designated F-24. (The F-23 was the McDonnell Douglas competitive design to the Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighter.) The use of sequential numbers of each aircraft within a given category is spelled out in the official DoD instructions on aircraft designations. The instruction specifically states that the system "is mandatory for use by all DoD components."

-- Norman Polmar

Groundhog Day

FYI:

Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. will submit new offers for a disputed $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, and the Pentagon will pick a winner by the end of the year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that his office - not the Air Force - will oversee the competition between Boeing and the team of Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

The plan, which hands control to the Pentagon acquisition chief John Young and sets up a dedicated source-selection committee, shows that senior civilians at the Defense Department have lost confidence in the Air Force's ability to manage the contract.

"I think it's better," said Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat. "No one has any faith in the Air Force."

We're going to have more analysis from Colin over at DoD Buzz in a few. He's truckin' it back from the Pentagon even as we speak.

Stay tuned...

-- Christian

Tanker Decision (Again) Due Today

Several sources say the Pentagon will announce its way forward on the KC-X tanker contract [today].

The last I heard from sources close to the issue was that John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, wanted to go with a fly off. Boeing and Northrop Grumman would have to build and fly one or more test models. Whoever best met the requirements and demonstrated capability would win the contract. Given that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made it pretty clear that he is uncomfortable relying on Young’s office about the tanker deal — after all, Young signed off on and then defended the Air Force choice — there seems to be a good chance that the fly off idea will be stillborn.

With [Wednesday's] announcement Gates may be trying to get ahead of any congressional steamroller on this one, since the House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee has its tanker hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon.

Several lawmakers close to Boeing have clearly signaled they expect the Pentagon to rebid the contract. One argument they offer is that Boeing is likely to sue the Pentagon unless the bidding is reopened and Boeing would use information in the GAO report as evidence. That would be perhaps the worst outcome, delaying any decision for years as things ground through the legal system and positions hardened.

Read the rest of this story, and more exclusive coverage of the Tanker Tango, at DoD Buzz.

-- Colin Clark

Not Quite T2...

...but close.

From Military.com headlines:

Killer robots which can change their shape to squeeze under doors and through cracks in walls to track their prey are moving from the realms of science fiction to the front line in the fight against terrorism.

The US military has signed a GBP 1.6m deal with a technology firm to design robots which are intelligent enough to work out how to wiggle through small spaces to reach their target.

The action film, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, featured a seemingly unstoppable killer robot played by Robert Patrick. The machine was made from liquid metal and could change its form to slide under doors and walk through iron bars.

America's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) and the Army Research Office has awarded the contract to iRobot, which has developed other robots for the military.

They want scientists to come up with a design for a tiny robot able to move under its own power and change shape so it can get through gaps less than half an inch wide.

The US administration has not said what it wants the robot to do but its specification says: "Often the only available points of entry are small openings in buildings, walls, under doors, etc. In these cases, a robot must be soft enough to squeeze or traverse through small openings, yet large enough to carry an operationally meaningful payload."

In an effort to inspire creative ideas, the US military has pointed to examples in nature of creatures which are able to squeeze through narrow gaps and change their form.

Helen Greiner, co-founder and chairwoman of iRobot, said: "Through this programme, robots that reconstitute size, shape and functionality after traversal through complex environments will transcend the pages of science fiction to become real tools for soldiers in theatre."

But Scottish-based experts believe the challenge may be too much even for the US military's budgets and technology.

Mike Cates, professor of physics at Edinburgh University, said: "There are materials which can change their shapes and then regain them. There are alloys, known as memory metals, which are used in glasses and which can regain their shape. The difficulty in this case is all the other elements which need to be added to a device such as this, such as the circuitry and some form of system to propel it."

Brian Baglow, of technology firm Indoctrimat, said: "As well as designing the materials for this, the sensor systems will be a problem. It's not easy for them to work out where the gaps are which they can get through."

-- Christian

IC Sees Major Hole in Cyber Security

In the 2008 Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Armed Services Committee for the first time the threat of cyber attacks were addressed. (This is the first time the report available to the public).

The intelligence community listed "the vulnerabilities of the US information infrastructure to increasing cyber attacks by foreign governments, nonstate actors and criminal elements" as the fourth major bullet of the fourth page of the opening in the forty-five page report. The report goes on to state that due to the significance of computer and telecommunications to our country's security defense and economy, threats to our IT infrastructure are an important focus of the Intelligence Community. Also stated were the trends seen over the past year, which included cyber exploitation activity that grew more sophisticated, more targeted, and more serious. Finally, DNI stated that the Intelligence Community expects these trends to continue in the coming year.

Most concerning was the following statement excerpted from the report.

"We assess that nations, including Russia and China, have the technical capabilities to target and disrupt elements of the US information infrastructure and for intelligence collection." Nation states and criminals target our government and private sector information networks to gain competitive advantage in the commercial sector. The report went on to state that terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and Hezbollah have expressed the desire to use cyber means to target the United States.

The information contained in the report represents the cumulative views of highly skilled professionals working on this critical issue. All the warning signs are there.

You may not have caught this but, the Intelligence Operations Center of Spy-Ops reported on June 18th the Palestinian Islamist movement, Islamic Jihad, said it has a new division of its armed Al-Quds Brigades: a cyber war unit that claims it has hacked into the websites of several Israeli media outlets. I am not sure how I missed it but when did terrorist organizations start making press releases?

It seems like everyone is beginning to get into the cyber war capabilities. This now included cyber arms dealers and organizations that lease attack capacity on their BotNets. Not to be left out, criminal elements continue to show growing sophistication in technical capability and targeting, and today operate a pervasive, mature, online service economy in illicit cyber capabilities and services available to anyone willing to pay. Cyber weapons can be purchased for as little as $300 and some have been reported to sell for $50,000.

-- Kevin Coleman

Point Blank Wins Again

Its top company officials are arrested, it made shoddy vests that had to be recalled and there's the constant fog of controversy hovering around them, but when the business sector is so small for body armor, it's tough to take your solicitation elsewhere.

That's why the Pentagon announced July 3rd that once again Point Blank Body Armor has been awarded an $86 million contract for Army "improved outer tactical vests." This comes about a year after the Army awarded the first series of contracts to Point Blank and Specialty Defense Systems at the initial launch of its IOTV.

Let's hope there's no more recalls or crass profiteering from that infamous (to some) company.

-- Christian

Bell Bearish on 609

Defense Tech friend and contributor Bob Cox of the Fort Worth Star Telegram has been a Bell-Boeing/Osprey/tiltrotor watchdog for years. His latest story is quite a scoop and looks like a crushing blow to the civilian tiltrotor industry in which Bell had invested a lot of effort and hope.

Bell Helicopter spent a half-century developing tilt-rotor technology and the V-22 Osprey, but the company’s once-enthusiastic commitment to build a similar aircraft for the civilian market seems to have diminished considerably.

The company doesn’t see a promising market in the U.S. for the BA609 tilt-rotor aircraft and has shifted a larger share of the continuing development work to its Italian joint-venture partner, AgustaWestland.

Bell will continue to provide personnel and some funding for continued development and testing of the BA609, but Mike Blake, executive vice president of programs for the company, said AgustaWestland will provide more capital and take the lead in completing flight testing and production of the aircraft.

"I think Bell will always be involved in the 609 program in some way," he said in an interview with the Star-Telegram. "How is to be determined."

Officials of the two companies met recently and agreed on the latest revision to the development plan and timetable, Blake said. Test aircraft three and four have been delivered to AgustaWestland, which will now operate three of the four test planes. Bell will continue test flights of the first aircraft from its Xworkx facility in Arlington.

A six- to nine-passenger aircraft, the BA609 was designed to take advantage of tilt-rotor technology to provide an aircraft for government and private-sector users that combines airplane speed with the vertical takeoff and landing capability of a helicopter.

When the Bell-Agusta alliance was formed in 1998, company officials advertised the BA609 as a $10 million aircraft and said they had 68 orders. Now they have about 80 orders, many of them on the books for a decade. No firm price is quoted publicly, but numbers in the range of $15 million to $20 million each are tossed about within the industry.

Publicly, Bell officials continued to voice support for the program. But privately it’s another matter.

Again, as you all know I'm a proponent of tiltrotor technology and think that opposition to it has become almost like a religion. And with the bleak history of the V-22, who can blame them.

But to me if the civilian version of the V-22 can't get any traction then it seems that tiltrotors still have a long way to go before they can be considered viable alternatives to rotorcraft. And I guess cost and convenience would have to play a large role as well.

Good on Bob for keeping Bell honest.

-- Christian

10K MRAPS Lumber into Battle

The Pentagon announced late last week that it had received the delivery of the 10,000th Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle to its facility in South Carolina where the various electronics and other components are installed before being shipped to Iraq or (strangely) Afghanistan.

The rapid response by the Department of Defense to protect the warfighters reached a major milestone today when the 10,000th Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle rolled off the assembly line and into government hands.

In February 2008 the MRAP program office, headed by Marine Corps Systems Command, recorded its 5,000th MRAP vehicle acceptance. That milestone was reached less than a year after the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made MRAPs the DoD's top acquisition priority. Since then, the program has advanced at near-unprecedented speed, doubling production of the life-saving vehicle in just over four months.

Gates said, "This is a significant achievement. This program has gone from zero to ten thousand in just about a year and a half. These vehicles have proven themselves on the battlefield and are saving lives."

You know I've been critical of the MRAP rush, but this is a truly significant achievement in many ways for the Pentagon and they deserve some credit for pushing aside the usual barriers to get this capability to the battlefield quickly. One aspect of that streamlining that cannot be ignored is that Congress got out of the way as well -- in fact providing much of the motivation for the Pentagon's "crash" program.

It looks like the Pentagon's going to stop forcing the MRAPs on the services at 15,000. That's a long way from the one-for-one replacement of Up-armored Humvees to MRAPs some in Congress were agitating for, and it still gives the services some of that "boutique" capability Brogan originally considered the MRAP.

"The many successes of the joint MRAP vehicle program are the result of an overwhelming team effort by the many players in this program," said Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, MCSC commander.

"From production to integration, from transportation to fielding, many commands and organizations have played major roles in this program."

One of my boys calls the MRAP a bank vault on wheels (which I sort of agree with), but give credit where credit is due. They saw a need, they got the money, the fielded the trucks. And, yes, they saved many lives.

-- Christian

Live Interview with Colin Clark

Don't Miss Today's Interview with Colin Clark

Yeah, I know...it's the day before the July 4th holiday. A three-day weekend is just one whistle blow away.

But when you're killing time waiting for the 5 o'clock release, be sure to join us for a Defense Tech first: a live online interview with DoD Buzz Editor Colin Clark.

Snake Eaters Get New Toy Plane

Just got a note that the innovative UAV design company Aerovironment has won a contract to provide a hand-held UAV for the special operations forces. The AE Puma is an upgrade from the RQ-11 Raven and sports IR and electro-optical cameras (spec sheet). It's got a range of 10 miles and an eight-foot wingspan.

According to a release on the contract:

The hand-launched Puma AE lands near-vertically on both land and water and is equipped with a day- and night-capable, waterproof sensor package that provides image tracking, image stabilization and high-image quality. Puma AE systems incorporate the same hand-held Ground Control Unit used by U.S. Department of Defense and allied military customers to control Raven and Wasp systems. Ship-based use of Puma AE requires no modification to naval vessels, enabling easy integration into maritime operations. The AECV program represents the fourth U.S. Department of Defense full and open competition for a small UAS program of record, and the fourth such competition won by AV.

I'm a fan of hand-held UAVs in priniciple but I'm worried that requirements folks can load too much stuff on the things, making them less efficient to operate and thus less attractive to troops who just want something that works and gives them the images they need to get the bad guys (see a video of the Puma in action).

U.S. armed forces including the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and USSOCOM, as well as international forces such as those of Italy, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands, use AV's hand-launched UAS for missions that include base security, route reconnaissance, mission planning, battle damage assessment and force protection. The U.S. Army has reported that Army Raven UAS were flown for approximately 150,000 combat hours in 2007. AV has delivered more than 10,000 small unmanned aircraft to date, including Raven, Wasp and Puma.

The contract is worth $6 million with an option for up to $200 million. It's a huge win for one of the pioneers in hand-held UAVs and it'll be interesting to see how well this thing operates in a wartime situation with the special operations forces' unique requirements.

"AV responded to a USSOCOM requirement for a hand-launched UAS. We are pleased to be chosen to deliver these capabilities into the hands of warfighters with a new, more capable third generation version of our Puma," said John Grabowsky, AV executive vice president and general manager of unmanned aircraft systems. "Puma AE joins Raven and Wasp in AV's product portfolio, delivering a powerful new solution for land and ship-based, over-the-horizon intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance," Grabowsky added.

(Gouge: NC)

-- Christian

Tune in for a Defense Tech First

Okay folks, I have an idea...

In a first for Defense Tech, I'd like to set up an online, virtual interview with the new editor of our recently-launched sister site: DoD Buzz.

For 30 minutes, beginning at 1500 EDT July 3 we'll have a moderated chat session with Colin. He'll be able to answer your questions in real time and give you some deeper insight into his recent scoops, including the botched tanker deal, the flap over Wynne/Moseley/Gates and Schwartz, satellite launches and intelligence community intrigue.

Now, I know all you DT readers will be on your best behavior, but in case you're not, I'll be able to nix any inappropriate questions or comments. Seriously, I thought this would be a cool opportunity for you all to meet Colin and ping him on what's "Buzz"ing around DC in the defense and acquisition biz...And if this works well, I'll set up some more like it with defense officials, industry types and analysts.

So be sure to tune in here at 1500 (that's 3:00pm for you civilian types) tomorrow to chat with Colin catch the DoD Buzz live!

-- Christian

US Army Extends JHL Concept Studies

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Work to refine concepts for a large cargo rotorcraft is moving ahead under the U.S. Army-led Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) technology effort.

JHL is the vertical take-off and landing candidate for the U.S. Air Force/Army Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) requirement.The first of three contracts to extend previous concept definition and analysis (CDA) work for another two years has been awarded, with the others to follow over the next week or two, says the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD).

Contracts are being awarded to Bell-Boeing for the Quad Tilt Rotor, Karem Aircraft/Lockheed Martin for the Optimum Speed Tilt Rotor and Sikorsky for the coaxial-rotor X2 High Speed Lifter. The teams will update their designs to meet the new JHL model performance specification (MPS), which includes several new mission profiles that drive different aspects of the design.

The contractors ''have a requirement to provide an immediate assessment of the impact of the new MPS within 30 days of contract award," says Bruce Tenney, AATD associate director for technology. ''The government is going to do a gut check on the MPS changes and decide if a near-term update is needed for completion of the CDA."

Previous CDA studies assumed a payload of 20 tons and a C-130-size cargo box, but growth in the weight of Army Future Combat Systems vehicles has pushed the requirement closer to 30 tons and an A400M-size cargo box. The merger of JHL with the Air Force's Advanced Joint Air Combat System requirement under JFTL has also placed a greater emphasis on speed.

Work under the CDA extensions will help decide whether JHL needs two or four engines and whether folding will be required for seabasing operations. AATD also plans to demonstrate flight control laws that could reduce airframe loads and lower empty weight. These will be tested in the Army/NASA Rascal flying laboratory, a modified UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

Read the rest of this story, an interesting piece on cloud seeding, an after action report on FCS so far and a take a look at the new USS America from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian

Gates Opposed AF Plans to Deploy F-22 to Iraq

The Air Force wanted to send the F-22 to the Middle East and Defense Secretary Robert Gates nixed the plans, citing the strategic danger from the deployment if it were misread by Iran, among other factors. This comes from a single usually reliable source with knowledge of Air Force policy and operations.

Then-Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne sent a memo to Gates last December in which he made the recommendation, as well as laying out several major arguments for Air Force budget requests for the F-22 and bomber research and development, according to our source.

Central Command had approved the deployment request and we understand several Arab governments were also supportive of the Air Force effort. The main opposition to the request, we hear, came from Ryan Henry, principal deputy to the undersecretary of Defense for policy, who worried that Iran would interpret the deployment of the country’s most capable fighter as a regional escalation at a time when rumors were sweeping the region that the US was planning strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The argument for deployment of the sophisticated fighter was that the US needed to take the lead in the air war in the region. Right now, the United Arab Emirates deploys the most sophisticated fighter in the region, using the F-16 Block 60 50. Sending the F-22 would have allowed the US to field the world’s top fighter and provide ISR and targeting capabilities that no US or allied plane in the region currently posseses.

Read the rest of this story and other killer acquisition content at our new site, DoD Buzz.

-- Colin Clark

Brit S-92s Falling Short on Range

An alert DT reader forwarded this article to me from a British news service.

New search-and-rescue helicopters serving remote parts of the Highlands have yet to carry out a long-range rescue - eight months after being brought into service.

There have been problems with the multimillion-pound aircraft over the use of long-distance fuel-tanks.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has insisted the problems have all been resolved, saying the tanks are now fully operational.
But crews are understood to be unhappy about the loss of seating for casualties on the aircraft in order to accommodate the tanks.

Problems surrounding the fitting of the tanks have meant the four Sikorsky S92s based at Stornoway on Lewis and Sumburgh on Shetland have been unable to carry out non-stop rescues to the range which was originally heralded.

They are, in fact, covering half the distance.

The two helicopters at Sumburgh do not have the tanks - which double their range to 400 nautical miles - fitted, while those at Stornoway, where the extra distance is most needed, are yet to carry out a rescue using them.

The MCA confirmed there had been issues over fitting the tanks.
Crewmen and spokesmen at both Stornoway and Shetland Coastguard have confirmed the tanks are "not operational" yet, despite the MCA's insistence that they are.

An interesting development for sure, but hardly an indictment on the aircraft itself. Problem is, when Sikorsky is fighting tooth and nail to get back in the running on the CSAR-X contract, news like this can't help.

More...

The first S92s were introduced in Stornoway in October, and then in Shetland in November.

Some crew are also understood to be unhappy with the tanks because they halve the seating on the craft and have questioned whether they should be used.

One source said it was a "Catch 22 situation", adding: "Do you swap the extra miles for less room for casualties, so you rescue fewer people?

The tanks have cut the seats from seven to just three."
The problems first surfaced in March when a Stornoway-based helicopter was unable to rescue an injured crewman because it was out of range.

Instead, an RAF helicopter from Lossiemouth had to fly an extra round trip of 250 miles to rescue the Russian seaman, 185 miles off Benbecula -- ironically landing him at Stornoway where the new Sikorsky S92 is based.

(Thanks to the anonymous tipster for the gouge)

-- Christian

Pinnacle Claims Forgery in Fight

There's a behind the scenes battle going on between Pinnacle Armor, the Air Force, the National Institutes for Justice and the Army.

You'll remember that a year ago the Air Force debarred Pinnacle after it found that the company had pumped up the ballistic capabilities of its SOV 2000 armor claiming it was Level III compliant when it wasn't. This ban of Pinnacle products came on the heels of the Army's very public outing of Dragon Skin test results conducted by Army ballistics experts and witnessed by Pinnacle president Murray Neal himself.

But after the dust cleared, the tenacious Neal waged his own battle against the debarment, filing suit and compiling evidence that he claims shows Army testers forging test result documents and intentionally painting Dragon Skin in a bad light to the Air Force.

I spoke with Neal about this at length, and while I'm skeptical that the Army is resorting to lying and forging documents, there are some things that definitely look fishy about this case.

Neal provided me with an example of a document that purportedly shows forged test results and failures of the armor that didn't happen during tests conducted for the Air Force by H.P. White Labs. A lot of Pinnacle proponents point to a recent article by the hysterical bloggers at Soldiers for the Truth as explanation for the suspected forgeries and other skull duggery and I'll let DT readers make their own judgment on that.

But Neal claims that when the actual shooters at HP White were cross examined during depositions, they claimed that over two days of testing they did NOT see the failures tabulated on the result summary table. I asked Neal to forward me some copies of the deposition transcripts to prove that. What he sent me didn't seem to correlate with what he was claiming (they are too large to upload so email me if you want to see them)...prompting still more questions about what is actually going on here.

Seems to me Neal at least has some cause here for fighting the debarment. Rumor has it the Air Force/NIJ is willing to settle and reverse the ban. I've had difficulty with Pinnacle's claims and chafed it the company's absolutist claims and hyperbolic publicity stunts, but there's a limited number of armor makers in the world and there's no sense in keeping anyone out of the fold unless their product is totally bogus -- which Dragon Skin is not.

-- Christian

Development For B-52 Jammer Continues

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Boeing and several system suppliers have been awarded U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory contracts to mature technology for an airborne electronic attack (AEA) pod that could be flight tested on the B-52 in fiscal 2012, giving the venerable bomber another shot at one day providing stand-off jamming for early-warning radars.
The five-year AEA Tech Mat effort is a prelude to the planned Core Component Jammer (CCJ) program, a lower-cost replacement for the B-52 Stand-Off Jammer System (SOJS) that was cancelled in 2006 when estimated costs soared above $7 billion.

Boeing has been awarded a three-year, $15 million contract to study the integration of the jammer system on the B-52 and provide support to subsystem suppliers such as EDO and ITT, which have contracts to mature technology for the receiver, exciter and phased-array jammers.

Under a planned two-year extension to the program, not yet funded but expected to cost $300-350 million, two jammer pods would be built and flight-tested on a B-52H in 2012, says Boeing program manager Jeff Weis. This would set the stage for system development and demonstration of the CCJ for service entry around 2018.

To reduce cost, Weis says, the pods are planned to have the same size, weight and center of gravity as underwing fuel tanks carried by the earlier B-52D. The pods would house high-power phased arrays providing jamming in two low bands and one mid band, principally to counter early-warning radars.

To power the pods, Boeing plans to add generators to the B-52, which presently has them on only four of its eight engines. There would be an electronic-attack processor and a dedicated display at the existing electronic-warfare officer's station.

Boeing is teamed with Northrop Grumman, its partner on the U.S. Navy's electronic-attack EA-18G Growler. "We will leverage off the EA-18's controls and displays and Northrop Grumman's electronic attack expertise to keep it affordable," Weis says.

Read the rest of this story, see how spec ops are using sand, check out a new periscope design and watch the fur fly around Frenchie fighters from our Aviation Week friends on Military.com.

-- Christian