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