I'm always reluctant to post these stories and I always get a lot of flak from them, but I think it's important for folks who might not have access to them that are involved in some way with aviation to see what happened and get some "lessons learned" data that can maybe help them down the road.
A Harrier crash on Feb. 13 near Cherry Point (the second in a series of four so far this fiscal year) was initially thought to have been caused by engine failure. But according to the Judge Advocate General Manual investigation I got my hand on through FOIA the cause was a far simpler -- and more correctable one.
According to an official investigation report released after a Freedom of Information Act Request from Military.com, the pilot, Capt. Ian Stevens, failed to move the jet nozzles of his Harrier to the position required for conventional flight during a Feb. 13 mission to practice aerial refueling and ground attack runs near Cherry Point Marine Air Station, causing the plane to drop from the sky.
That's from a story we're posting today on Military.com (there've been some technical snags so publishing is delayed). Here's a bit more:
"This mishap was caused by the mishap pilot not positioning the nozzles back to the aft position after positioning them ... to the hoverstop position in order to ... stabilize in a proper formation position with is lead," the investigating officer stated in the report. "The thrust remained vectored below the aircraft until the aircraft impacted the ground." ...
Stevens executed several successful aerial refueling runs on a KC-10 Extender tanker, the report said, before peeling away with the other two Harriers to practice using his targeting pod during mock ground attacks. As he was trying to slow down and join up with the lead pilot of the flight, whose name is redacted from the report, things started to go wrong.
"The engine sounded like it was spooling up ... but the lead [pilot] continued to pull away from me," Stevens -- whose name was removed from the report but released to local media at the time of the crash -- told investigators in a statement. "I ... increased power to 'mil' but did not feel a corresponding acceleration. I decided that I had a problem."
After several successful mid-air engine restarts but with no resulting forward thrust, Stevens was out of options and decided to eject as his plane plummeted toward Earth.
"I had tried all the emergency procedures I could think of and could not figure out what the problem was," Stevens told investigators. "After the second airstart, I still wasn't getting acceleration from the engine and I was out of ideas, so I decided to eject."
Investigators who examined the wreckage of the plane and downloaded flight data from an onboard diagnostics recorder found that Stevens had redirected the thrust nozzles -- which can be shifted about 90 degrees to allow the Harrier to hover or fly conventionally -- downward to slow down enough to meet up with his wingman. But as he approached the other Harrier, Stevens forgot to move the nozzles aft, resulting in a functioning engine but no forward thrust.
"I'm pretty sure I put the nozzles back to the aft before I powered up, but looking back now I'm not absolutely positive," Stevens told investigators.
It's a rookie mistake from a rookie pilot who did everything right when he was presented with and diagnosed the problem. Thing is, the idea to check the nozzle angle wasn't in his decision tree. I'm sure it is now, though.
I talked to a long time Marine buddy of mine who's a Harrier pilot and currently an instructor and he said the Harriers -- after a pretty shaky track record -- are performing very well lately given their high optempo. That jet is notoriously difficult to fly and just qualifying to get in the cockpit is a huge feat.
My thoughts go out to this young pilot and I hope the mishap didn't scuttle a budding career. But it is important that aviators worldwide who operate this complex aircraft keep this kind of mistake in mind. Sometimes its the simplest explanation that solves a life-threatening problem.
-- Christian
Signal Changes
The U.S. Navy's leadership has shown unprecedented ineptitude in the handling of surface ship programs. The previous (and ongoing) mass of problems with the amphibious ships of the LPD 17 class and the littoral combat ships (LCS) seem to pale in comparison to the handling of the DDG 1000 "destroyer" program.
For eight years the Congress and public have heard the Navy's leadership -- civilian and uniformed -- declare that they wanted no more ships of the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class. Sixty-two of these destroyers are in service or under construction.
Chiefs of Naval Operations Vern Clark (July 2000 -- July 2005), Michael Mullen (July 2005 -- September 2007), and Gary Roughead (since September 2007) had been adamant that the DDG 1000 was the surface combatant of the future. All three admirals are surface warfare specialists, giving credibility to their statements.
Furthermore, the 30-year shipbuilding plan, which the Navy Department presented to Congress in February 2008 (covering the period fiscal years 2009-2038) still indicated a total of 32 DDG 1000s.
The DDG 1000 program -- assigned the class name Zumwalt -- dates to the early 1990s and a Mission Needs Statement that evolved from the Navy's post-Cold War strategy paper …from the Sea (1992). The strategy postulated that future Navy emphasis should be oriented toward supporting joint/coalition operations against the shore. The "land-attack destroyer" and DD-21 concepts followed, evolving into the DDG 1000.
But this spring the Navy's leadership essentially stopped supporting the DDG 1000 within weeks of contracts being awarded to construct the first two ships. At the same time, the Navy's leaders began advocating for eight or nine additional Burke-class destroyers. Now, at congressional instigation, the third DDG 1000, which is in the president's fiscal year 2009 budget, is also being supported by the Navy leadership.
Another turn-around? Not really, as the Burkes are still being asked for in addition to the three DDG 1000s. As indicated in an earlier blog, the DDG 1000 offers improved capabilities in most warfare areas compared to the earlier destroyer as well as greatly enhanced survivability features. Indeed, the Burke-class destroyer design, which dates back to 1979, will be extensively modified compared to the earlier ships, in part because of basic upgrades to that design, and in part because newer features must be provided to make the ships viable for the next three decades. These changes and other factors will increase the cost of the new Burkes to at least $2 billion per ship compared to just over $1 billion for those units now being completed. (By comparison, in production the DDG 1000s are estimated to cost about $2.5 billion after the first two ships, which are estimated at $3 billion each.)
The situation is confusing, in large part because of the actions of the Navy's leadership. This state of affairs will lead to the new Congress and the new Secretary of Defense undoubtedly taking more control of the Navy's shipbuilding program next January.
Sikorsky's futuristic X2 high-speed helicopter technology demonstrator made its first flight today in Horseheads, N.Y., in the hands of chief test pilot Kevin L. Bredenbeck.
The single-engined fly-by-wire aircraft features coaxial rotors and a pusher propeller that Sikorsky believes will revolutionize the helicopter world with cruise speeds of up to 250 kts, some 100 kts faster than current production helicopters.
"This isn't an airplane we are training to hover. It's a helicopter that will go very, very fast," said Sikorsky CEO Jeff Pino. "I think it will get to 260 kts." (The helicopter world speed record is held by a Westland Lynx at 216.45 kts).
Today's flight lasted 30 minutes, during which Bredenbeck demonstrated hover, forward flight, and a hover turn.
Current helicopter speeds are limited by rotor aerodynamics. In contrast the X2's coaxial rotor system is optimized for all regimes of flight by a fly-by-wire control system that will slow the rotors at high forward speeds to prevent their tips going supersonic, while maximizing lift and minimizing drag by adjusting the pitch of the rigid, carbon-fiber blades. The counter-rotating rotors provide equal lift on each side of the aircraft and, unlike a traditional helicopter, are relieved of having to provide all the forward propulsion by a large pusher propeller at the rear of the fuselage.
The rigidity of the blades allows the rotors to be closely spaced only two feet apart, further reducing drag. Sikorsky believes the gap can be reduced even more in the future.
The X2 technology demonstrator is powered by a 1,452 shp, FADEC-equipped T800 turboshaft engine that was previously installed in one of the Comanche helicopter prototypes. It drives both the rotor and the pusher propeller through two gearboxes.
So far the aerospace industry's solution to high speed, vertical flight has been the hugely complex tiltrotor, a hybrid airplane with rotors. The X2 differs markedly in that it is still a helicopter that can go fast, autorotate, hover, and fly nap of the earth.
The X2 can match the speed of the Bell/Agusta BA609 tiltrotor with far less complexity, according to Steve Estill, Sikorsky's vice president for worldwide sales. X2 technology is especially well suited to missions such as flying fast to oil rigs, which would call for development of a light to intermediate X2 twin of the same size as the 12-passenger S-76 or 19-passenger S-92.
It looks like the Air Force got a new arrow in its quiver recently with the first employment in combat of the new Guided Bomb Unit 54 -- a hybrid Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Guided Bomb.
Seems that the Air Force issued an urgent need statement for a 500 lb. munition that could take out moving targets. Maybe the fighter jocks were getting jealous of their missile-wielding robot friends who seem to be the go-to platforms for such moving target engagements.
Officials in Iraq announced that on Aug. 12 (why could they not talk about this any sooner? Typical Air Force) F-16s had engaged a moving vehicle with the so-called LJDAM:
The GBU-54 is the U.S. Air Force’s newest 500-pound precision weapon, equipped with a special targeting system that uses a combination of GPS and laser guidance to accurately engage and destroy moving targets.
On, Aug. 12, 2008, F-16s from the 77th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron deployed to Joint Base Balad, Iraq, successfully executed this “combat first” when the weapon was employed against a moving enemy vehicle in Diyala province, Iraq...
Identified as an urgent operational need in early 2007, the Air Force completed the GBU-54’s development and testing cycle in less than 17 months, fielding it aboard 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing aircraft in May.
“We have consistently used precision-guided weapons to engage stationary threats with superb combat effects,” said Brig. Gen. Brian Bishop, 332nd AEW commander. “This weapon allows our combat pilots to engage a broad range of moving targets with dramatically increased capabilities and it increases our ability to strike the enemy throughout a much, much broader engagement envelope...”
"At end game, on Aug. 12, the team of the joint terminal attack controller, alongside his ground unit commander in this event, ensured all criteria were met for the first combat delivery of the LJDAM. And finally, our F-16 pilot accurately and precisely delivered and guided the weapon to desired weapons effects, the disabling and destruction of an enemy vehicle and personnel,” Gen.North said.
All right, so ignore the retarded "cop speak" of the last paragraph (I mean, who says "ensured all criteria were met for combat delivery" -- just say "we lazed the target and said 'cleared hot!' ") -- this seems like a pretty interesting development and one that could improve the Air Force's ability to play in an urban fight. But my question is how expensive is it and what's the ROI compared to a hellfire shot by a Reaper? Again, it looks once more like the Air Force saw an "urgent need" to give its fighter jocks a job other than CAS orbits and "tron banging" for IEDs.
-- Christian
Afghanistan Sold Short -- Allied Troops Die
The situation in Afghanistan has gotten me pretty pissed off these days. I got off the phone a little while ago with the commander of a battalion of Marines -- 2nd battalion, 7th Marine Regiment -- who's trying to hold back the waters of "Taliban" violence manning the ramparts of a 28,000 square kilometer area of operations ... a swath the size of Vermont, he said.
Because of this lack of forces, Lt. Col. Richard Hall, the battalion CO, has lost by my count 13 Marines in the short time he's been in Afghanistan. That's getting close to the total number of Marines killed in Iraq this year. Hall's been extended once already -- and he's praying for relief by November if Gates will free up some Marines from Anbar (Iraq) as the commandant reiterated his desire to do today at the Pentagon.
My fundamental question is how could we have let it get this bad? Hall said he's got no coalition forces buffering his provinces (Helmand and Farah) to the north, so the enemy slips back and forth with impunity. He says the "Taliban" that are killing his men aren't religious fanatics -- they're criminals who are pissed about the disruption of their smuggling routes.
"Well, we've seen, fighting season after fighting season, the Taliban have become more organized. And their fighting, in terms of being in units, has become more organized, and in some cases stronger."
How can that have been allowed to happen after more than six years in-country?
There's no excuse. Other than the obvious, I guess. the USG put Afghanistan on the back burner to get Iraq squared away and now it's turning back to the fight. Hall said his Marines are getting attacked in the "spaces in between the districts" -- the no man's land of rock and sand roads that connect the arid villages of his AO to one another. Hall said he doesn't have enough men to "hold" the villages and that his original mandate was to train and mentor the Afghan army and police there.
"There are not enough forces here to completely control those districts, so there is going to be risks. And consequently, the casualties do come. ... The way I'm task-organized right now, I as a infantry battalion don't have the numbers of Marines that can effectively operate within all these different districts as well as influence the area in between those districts. And that is where we normally get hit by the enemy, is in between those districts that we don't control."
Ummm, didn't we figure out that more troops were needed to "hold" Iraqi towns after the insurgents and AQ guys were kicked out? And somehow we didn't know we need to do that in Afghanistan...?
And most of Hall's casualties are from IEDs. Why? Because he can't patrol enough to keep bad guys from building and emplacing them. The commandant said there's about 40 MRAPs with Marines in Afghanistan. MRAPs aren't going to defeat IEDs; counterinsurgency tactics will. And the risk of rollover and getting stuck on some dirt road in one of those "bank safes on wheels" makes it a heck of a juicy ambush target.
It's not about tech, it's about tactics and manpower. Let's hope now that Petraeus is taking over Centcom he can have some influence over pushing more troops to Afghanistan to get this thing back in the bottle.
-- Christian
USAF not Ready to Retire the U-2
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The U.S. Air Force is considering -- once again -- delaying the retirement date for its workhorse intelligence collector, the U-2 Dragon Lady, as developers work out issues with integrating a signals intelligence payload onto the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), according to service officials.
The current plan calls for the completion of U-2 retirement in the third quarter of fiscal 2012. But the Pentagon is considering delaying the retirement to fiscal 2014 or possibly later, depending on the maturity of the Global Hawk. And retiring a mainstay intelligence collector like the U-2 during wars that require massive amounts of sensor data is also unlikely, according to one USAF official.
The USAF has wrangled for years with various dates for U-2 retirement. Earlier plans called for the retirement to start as soon as FY '07. But the date has continually slipped. Regional commanders such as in the Pacific realm rely heavily on the U-2. Key advantages of the aircraft over the Global Hawk include higher altitude (above 70,000 feet) and more available onboard power to run a larger selection of intelligence-gathering sensors.
The U-2 can collect data from all seven of its available bands (versus the Global Hawk's five) simultaneously. They include green, red, near infrared (visible), two shortwave infrared bands and a midwave infrared (which can be tuned to day or night collection). The seventh band is a redundant, midwave thermal infrared channel. The shortwave bands collect images in the invisible reflected solar wavelengths and are most useful in detecting objects in adverse conditions such as haze, fog or smoke.
The latest variants of the decade-old U-2S (part of the U.S. fleet of 33 remaining Dragon Ladies) also carry the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS) 2A designed by Raytheon (originally for mapping) that's so sensitive it can detect disturbed earth in areas where explosive devices and mines have been planted.
Its signals intelligence package gathers information about electronic emissions and communications and associates them with moving targets. The Air Force also procured a dual-data link that allows the aircraft to simultaneously feed information to the Distributed Common Ground Station network and also to a ground station within line-of-sight.
The Pentagon has said it will not retire the U-2 at least until the Global Hawk Block 30, which will carry the Advanced Signals Intelligence Payload, is flying. A USAF official said that flight could take place imminently. Another major milestone will be integration of the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program sensor onto the Global Hawk Block 40 next summer.
For decades its name could not be spoken outside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or mentioned to someone without at least TS/SCI clearance.
It built wondrous satellites that did things like detecting missile launches from space that no one had believed possible until the National Reconnaissance Office did them.
But a string of failures, goofs and budget busters, combined with the increasing importance of intelligence gathered by air breathing assets such as Predator and Global Hawk drones, has led a prestigious commission of space experts to recommend that the NRO be merged with Space and Missile Systems Command to create something called the National Security Space Organization.
The recommendation is made by something called the Allard Commission, which was created by Congress last year. It is led by the national security space guru Tom Young, a former Lockheed Martine executive and the man who always seems to get the call to figure out how to fix space when things go wrong. Young has kept his panel’s recommendations under wraps but word began leaking out last week.
The plan would also lead to stripping the Air Force of its executive agent for space – the person who serves the Office of Secretary of Defense as the lead on unclassified space acquisitions – and transferring it to the new authority. This office will also have budget authority for all space programs.
This would include a combination of the NRO and SMC and “other elements of Air Force Space Command” to create a single National Security Space Command.
A veteran space intelligence expert, Bob Butterworth, rejected the Allard Commission’s proposals, especially its efforts to integrate so-called black (NRO) and white (military) space. “The effort to integrate is just misconceived,” he said. “People who even started out doing black-white integration mostly gave up after going through the first space based radar experience.” Space Radar was an idea generated from the top of the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon. It was supposed to provide the US with both moving target indication – the ability to track trucks and tanks – and highly refined strategic radar imagery of use to the intelligence community. The idea has foundered on the rocks of wildly differing requirements and enormous cost.
Integration exponents also argue that the space industrial base is largely shared between the two communities. Thus, integrating programs could save money and lessen the strain on the limited pool of engineers and other specialists needed to build satellites and their sensors.
“That has not been documented. It is just hand waving as far as I can tell,” Butterworth said.
For those watch these things closely, the Allard Commission’s use of the NSSO name has caused considerable confusion in the rumor mill. Was the commission recommending dissolution of the NSSO, an office without budgetary authority that advises the Pentagon’s executive agent for space? No. It was suggesting creation of an entirely new organization.
Part of the NRO’s problem is that under current law no one really knows – including congressional aides who help write the laws deciding this – who is in charge of classified acquisition programs. “This raises the question, who is in charge, and that is unanswerable,” said a congressional aide. For background on some of this, see last week’s story on the BASIC program.
Does this mean the NRO will vanish? The name may change, the organization may be rebuilt but the functions won’t disappear. More on this tomorrow.
When I got out I worked personal security for individuals. I had to take 3 levels of firearms qualification classes. Even with my experience several of my instructors asked me to try the revolver (yes I am going there)
I was skeptical. But in their opinions (all were similar), if I got the **** scared out of me I would be more accurate with a revolver. I went to a gun shop after doing some research and picked up a S&W Model 66. Stainless steel, .357 Magnum, and adjustable sights. Night sights too.
I started practicing with it every night for about an hour during my courses and would shoot both types of firearms. No question I could get two in the chest and a head shot (had to unlearn that per my instructors, though...) even when worked up (we did push ups, sit ups and ran in place and then went into shooting scenarios and drills at the sound of a whistle).
In my very few engagements I felt 100% better with the revolver. Stainless steel doesn't rust and conceals nicely when not in use. Speed loaders are exceptionally fast to load when taught the right technique. And a .357+P hollow point round will mess the BG up.
Besides aren't almost all of these engagements where you switched to a pistol for whatever reason CQB. You are going to end up stabbing the BG in the head or chest anyway when the gun is empty, so reloading is unlikely.
I know the instructors who taught me had rarely seen statistics that involved a successful engagement between two combatants where the winner (good or bad) had fired many more than 3-6 rounds. Anything with more shots than that fired usually involved one or more of the combatants retreating and looking for cover with someone or both wounded. All instructors (to my best recollection) had fired their handguns successfully as I remember. That is what made me pay such good attention.
Jason’s comment got me to thinking.
“Why not?”
Fine, revolvers, as battlefield weapons went out of style in the American army a century ago (surviving until recently as aircrew holdout weapons) and they don’t carry as many bullets as modern automatics go (6 v. 15) but is the revolver really that bad as a defensive firearm when compared with an automatic?
I would think, from a purely layman perspective, that revolvers would have a number of things going for them, as a mass-produced, mass-issued defensive firearm.
Firstly, they are reliable. Yes, I know that most properly maintained military-grade weapons are reliable, but I would think that a revolver would have an advantage over an automatic in that it has fewer moving parts and it’s operation isn’t dependent upon the effective transfer of energy (be the slide gas or recoil operated.) There’s no energy to be lost, no slide to bind, no failures to extract, eject, or feed. In short, if you can get the hammer to fall, the weapon should function as advertised. Hell, even if you get a misfire, there’s no SPORTS to perform, you just pull the trigger again.
Secondly, they are durable. Again, I’m not saying that automatics are not durable, but I would think, especially when compared with a polymer-slided auto, the all-metal revolver has a longer working life. Now, to clarify further, when I mean durable, I mean 30-50 years durable. My issue .45 was 40 years old for Pete’s sake. Yes, I think modern firearms are, for the most part, well built and will provide years of service, but I do believe there’s a difference between a sportsman who uses the same handgun for target practice for 10 years and a weapon that gets issued to soldiers for field duty over a 30 year period; in general the Army pistol will see more abuse and have a poorer maintenance program, so “soldier-proof” weapons are a big plus (now before all you out there bag on me about dissing “your” weapon maintenance habits, you’ll notice I didn’t mention you by name, so I wasn’t talking about you.) How many police officers us hand me down weapons that old, or stick with the dame duty weapon for that period of time? Durability would also translate to maintenance costs as well. With fewer moving parts, there would be fewer parts to replace over the life of the weapon, though this might be negated by the cost of having to replace a barrel (I’ve never replaced a revolver barrel, mind you, but it’s got to be harder to do than swapping out one in an automatic) but then, on the flip side, there are no magazines or magazine springs to replace either.
Finally, there are the politics and training considerations. Revolvers are double action only weapons (okay, sure, if we brought back the Colt SAA, we’d have a cool single-action handgun in .45 Colt, but I don’t see that happening) which means that they are politically more palatable than are SA weapons (which also dovetails well with the fact that a revolver only has 6 bullets rather than 15.) Mind you, I’m not saying that this is a good thing, or that it is even appropriate to entertain such considerations when selecting a piece of life saving equipment, but nonetheless, the fact remains that it does happen, and so it would be a consideration. In addition, in the one-size-fits-all category, a revolver would have the advantage over all the double stacked autos out there, and with the case of the .38 special/.357 magnum combination, you’d even have the added bonus of issuing different rounds if you wanted to (yes the same could be said of automatics, but to get an automatic to function reliably with either a different cartridge or lower powered cartridge you’d need to swap out some parts to account for the change in slide operating recoil.) Also in the ammunition realm is the discussion of anything other than ball type ammunition. Since we are never going to use anything other than ball ammunition (at least until personal linear accelerators come out) in the rank-and-file military, comparing .357 JHP to .45 WC to .460 Nitro Express is pointless and non-productive. Again, I’m not saying this is a good thing, but it is something that those in power seem to focus on, so it’s worth mentioning.
All this having been said, however, there are a number of huge, real world, realities that a revolver would have to overcome in order to get selected.
First, there is the dearth of revolver ammunition in the military supply system, which is to say there’s none at all. Before we all started shooting our new wheel guns, we’d need some bullets to shoot first (no, I don’t see the Army adopting a 9x19mm revolver, though given how things have been going of late in procurement, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.) I also realize that there’d be the issue of overall effectiveness.
Second, all those revolvers would have to be purchased, and those purchases mean money. This issue is further compounded by the fact that revolvers, at least on the free market, appear to be more expensive than automatics (I came to this conclusion by looking at the MSRP for a variety of “stock” handguns, so it is more an anecdotal conclusion than a scientific one) and that there wouldn’t be any commonality offsets associated with the new purchase, meaning a S&W Model 60 and a Beretta 92 FS are not going to have anything in common. This means that all those Berettas still on the books would need to find a home in someone else’s army.
Thirdly, there is the fact that revolvers are, well… old. While this has absolutely no bearing on the actual merits of the item in question (you’ll notice farriers still use an anvil and hammer for shaping horseshoes, devices introduced in the early Bronze Age (3300 BC)) in today’s, “it’s gotta be digital, carbon fiber, and Land Warrior compatible” world, revolvers are looked down upon as being less advanced than automatics, and therefore less effective and ultimately less desirable. Also, as mentioned, while there are very few things that can go wrong with or wear out on a revolver, the things that do wear out, like the barrel, are big-ticket maintenance items. Given the Army’s tolerances for equipment wear, and the relative ease of replacing worn parts on an automatic, the revolver, over the long haul, might be the less effective of the two options. There is also the issue of weight. Hands down, revolvers, especially when compared with polymer automatics, are significantly heavier than automatics. Is that weight difference a deal breaker though?
That all having been said, where are we now? Personally I would want a weapon that was firstly reliable (if it doesn’t work, what good is it) secondly effective (the purpose of the weapon is to kill or disable the target, not piss it off) and thirdly is everything else; size (smaller is better) capacity (6 v. 15.) and ergonomics (how well does it fit in my hand (allowing for custom grips would be a nice touch) with political considerations last of all. Would I personally select a revolver over an automatic? I don’t know, but I certainly not opposed to the idea and wouldn’t frown upon a good .357 S&W if that were what the Army issued me.
Blackwater 2.0: 'Operator Disneyland'
MOYOCK, N.C. -- It's a name that's become synonymous with the murky world of counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan - where the subtle tones of the enemy's colors blend in with innocents.
In a war like this, no one is secure and the military has its hands full, so the American government has turned increasingly to civilian contractors who pick up the slack where military and federal security personnel left off.
One of the most recognizable players in the private security industry is Blackwater Worldwide, the company founded by former SEAL Erik Prince in the mid-1990s. Though the company is best known for its burley, highly-trained security guards who are often pictured flanking State Department officials and ambassadors in Iraq or Afghanistan, there's more to this sprawling, 7,000 acre compound here in the swampy coastal plains of North Carolina's northeast than meets the eye.
"It's a Disneyland for operators," said Blackwater founding member and current president Gary Jackson during an August 22 tour of the company's grounds. "They come here and they just can't believe it."
With an array of firing ranges, shoot houses, an aviation support fleet and a roster of trainers capable of delivering instruction on any kind of martial skill known to man, Blackwater has become a juggernaut in the world of private military companies.
Originally founded as a training and target manufacturing company, Blackwater has launched a media offensive to shake off its reputation among critics as a "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" band of bearded mercenaries. Two high-profile incidents in Iraq propelled the normally secretive company onto America's front pages, and the news wasn't good.
In March 2004, four Blackwater contractors were ambushed and mutilated in Fallujah, Iraq, sparking a brutal invasion of the city that was soon halted after the fragile Baghdad government balked at the public outcry. The incident sparked a furious debate over how prepared security contractors were to deal with the insurgency and added fuel to simmering resentment from traditional military forces angry that they had to come to Blackwater's rescue only to be pulled back before the job was done.
Then in September of last year, Blackwater guards securing a State Department motorcade were accused of killing as many as 20 Iraqis when they claimed their convoy came under fire in Nisoor Square in busy downtown Baghdad.
Though Blackwater claims a perfect record in securing its clients, some say it comes at the cost of highly aggressive tactics and civilian bullying.
In the wake of those scandals and the nagging pursuit of anti-Blackwater lawmakers, the company is working to burnish its image by going back to its roots: training and logistics services -- call it "Blackwater 2.0."
"Our biggest growth units are international training and aviation," Jackson said, explaining that his company now has only two personal security detail contracts. "I literally can't put enough airplanes out there."
With dozens of ranges that cater to everything from long distance shooters, to demolitions technicians to super-secret "tier one" special operations forces, Blackwater is hard to beat when it comes to the sheer breadth of military tactics training a force could do here - particularly at a time when communities increasingly shun the environmental impact of military operations in their backyards.
In fact, the Virginian Beach police department has a 40 year lease with Blackwater -- 30 miles from the coastal city -- to train its officers, since range space is so limited where they work, Jackson said.
And the company's entrepreneurialism doesn't stop there. In a corrugated steel airplane hanger, a row of three Blackwater-designed mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles sit in various stages of assembly. The company missed the initial order for standard MRAPs after the services reduced their buy, but the company's new MRAP II -- dubbed the "Grizzly" -- boasts greater protection against armor-penetrating explosively formed penetrator bombs and could be a player for future orders that meet that growing threat, Blackwater officials say.
They're even working on cooking-grease-fueled vehicles, power-generating windmills and airship surveillance drones.
But, ironically, it's Blackwater's re-emphasis on training that's caught the ire of lawmakers in Washington who question why the Pentagon hires out instruction critics say should be taught in the services' own school houses.
Blackwater got its first contract from the Navy after the bombing of the Cole exposed a shortfall in tactical training capacity for its sailors. After 9/11, that need increased as Sailors were called upon to board suspicious ships, defend their fleet from attackers and man defensive positions in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.
Today, Blackwater continues that training at its facility here, bussing in Sailors from Norfolk every day to practice takedowns on the company's "ship in a box" -- stacked, floating containers assembled to mimic a ship's bridge. So far the company has trained about 130,000 sailors and says that in any one day over 5,000 students could be firing, jumping, fighting and blowing things up on a Blackwater range.
Virginia Democratic Senator James Webb, a vocal critic of Blackwater and other private military companies, has asked Pentagon chief Robert Gates to study how much training civilian companies provide the DoD and to analyze whether it would be more efficient for the services to do it on their own. Gates passed the question on to Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, who's looking into the matter.
To Jackson, all this talk gets his blood boiling. In his view, Blackwater responds to the needs of its customers when all else has failed, and he sees no problem with filling in on training that the services can't do themselves without significant investment.
"The Navy can't build that [training] infrastructure in 20 years. The only way they're ever going to get there is to start the draft," an exasperated Jackson said. "The thing that really upsets me the most is that [training] is run by contractors."
"No matter who wins the election, it doesn't matter. It's not going to stop."
-- Christian
Gi Zhou Examines the New PLA Corps
It appears that the structure of the PLA's New Heavy Corps will be similar to the British 1 Corps in Northern Germany during the Cold War. The PLA Corps will be structured around brigades and I believe the Corps itself will contain a heavy artillery group, a ground manoeuvre group, an aviation group and a battlefield support group which would include bridging, electronic warfare and logistics.
An early version of the corps envisioned a total of 500 Model 96 or Model 99 main battle tanks in two armoured and two mechanised brigades; 586 ZDB-97 tracked infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), 126 155mm PLZ-45 self-propelled guns; 96 120mm turreted self-propelled mortars; 36 Type 89 30 tube 122mm and 27 300mm 12 tube A-100 multiple rocket launchers; 12 DF-15D tactical missiles and 48 attack, 18 multipurpose and 60 transport helicopters and around 2,000 other types of vehicles.
This was clearly outside what the PLA is currently able to afford with armored brigades now have three armoured battalions for a total of 99 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 will have three armoured companies, each of three platoons with each company having 11 main battle tanks; three in each platoon and two headquarters vehicles. There are no tanks at the battalion or brigade headquarters. This is a total of 33 main battle tanks.
The new mechanized infantry brigade is to have four mechanised infantry battalions, one armoured battalion, one fire support battalion, one engineer battalion and one communication battalion. Each mechanized infantry battalion has three mechanized infantry companies, each of three platoons with each company having 13 infantry fighting vehicles; four in each platoon and one headquarters vehicle. A complete brigade contains approximately 4,000 soldiers.
By comparison the British Army's armored regiment (battalion) had tank squadrons (companies), each with four platoons of three Challenger 1 main battle tanks for a total of 58 tanks including headquarters vehicles. The mechanised infantry battalion had four companies of FV432 armoured personnel carriers, each of four platoons with four vehicles per platoon and one or two and the company and battalion headquarters. These vehicles were the direct equivalent of the PLA's current ZSD89 APC and its family of vehicles, and the recent Type 96 and Type 99 main battle tanks. Similarly the battalion battle groups envisaged by the PLA are similar to the British Army battle groups of 1981. Each British army battle group was built around a battalion headquarters, a close reconnaissance troop (platoon) with eight Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles, an anti-tank troop with four to six armoured long range anti-tank guided missile vehicles, six self-propelled guns and one or two armoured vehicles with man portable surface to air missile systems.
This comparison quickly shows two glaring deficiencies in the PLA's current structure and move towards modular combined arms battle groups. The first is the lack of a dedicated scout/close reconnaissance vehicle and the second, which in many ways is far more important, is the shortage of in-house infantry in the armored brigade and the mechanized infantry battalion.
The mechanised infantry lacks a fourth company in the infantry battalion meaning the armored brigades cannot create balanced battalion battle groups. Besides being unsuited to operations on complex terrain (urban and high altitude), armored forces that have neglected proper infantry support and have suffered large casualties include the Russian Army's 131st Maykop Brigade on New Year's Day 1995 in Grozny, and the Israeli tank forces during their initial counterattacks along the Bar Lev in the first morning of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Reconnaissance in the New Corps
Unlike the German and British Armies, the PLA like the United States Army does not have a dedicated mechanised brigade reconnaissance element. Under the new corps/brigade structure there will be a reconnaissance element as part of the corps. In the tracked units, the medium reconnaissance vehicle will be the Model 03 amphibious reconnaissance vehicle, which is replacing the Model 62 light tank and the Model 63 amphibious tank in PLA service. It will operate ahead of the main forces; and provide a flanking screen up to four km on the flanks. It is too bulky and large for scouting and close-in reconnaissance which could be performed by the ZBD05 airborne vehicle which besides having a 30mm automatic gun can carry a scout section. This role may have been trialled with aviation and other armoured vehicles by the composite reconnaissance/cavalry brigade in the Peace Mission 2007 joint exercise. The Model 02 100mm assault gun would have provided medium reconnaissance and explain the large amount of assault guns compared to the number of armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
Back in April 17, 2002, DoD executives established U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) as part of the changes brought about by the Unified Command Plan. NORTHCOM is responsible for homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a U.S.-Canada command. Last week I heard NORTHCOM's Commander -- General Victor Renaut's address at the Atlantic Council meeting. In his remarks and in the questions that followed he addressed the threat of cyber attacks.
The most important point of his remarks came when he stated the United States must move in "anticipation of the threat" rather than reacting to cyber attacks as we are today. Secondly, he acknowledged how difficult it is to determine whether an attack on a nation's cyber infrastructure is an act of war. He went on to say: "We have not yet defined what that (referring an act of cyber war) is and he noted "That's a policy decision that has to be made."
This clearly articulated the need to develop a "Cyber Warfare Doctrine" that is used beyond the United States and agreed upon by the United Nations and NATO. Earlier this year I authored such a doctrine and was able to publish a redacted summary version in issue #56 of International Intelligence Magazine. An extended summary with sensitive security information can be viewed here.
As efforts continue to pull together all the pieces of President Bush's classified cyber security program, (now estimated at $30 billion) the greatest challenges may be the multi-nation approach and the fact that the U.S. government and the high tech industry have to work together to address this growing threat. The tenets for cyber warfare must be developed and integrated into a flexible framework for decision making about this new method of warfare that military leaders have called the most significant threat of the 21st century.
The Marine Corps has issued thousands of new body armor vests that are lighter, more comfortable and allow more freedom of movement than the current vest, but offer less ballistic protection than the Corps' standard-issued armor.
The so-called "scalable plate carrier" uses the same enhanced small arms protective plates and Kevlar ballistic inserts as the Corps' Interceptor body armor and modular tactical vest, but in a more streamlined, less bulky package than vests issued to most Marines.
So far the Corps has fielded about 5,500 of the plate carriers, made by Eagle Industries of Fenton, Mo., throughout the three Marine Expeditionary Forces, but the vest is primarily intended for Leathernecks deployed to the western Pacific region and parts of Afghanistan, officials with Marine Corps Systems Command said.
In February, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway fired a shot across SysCom's bow in an interview with Fox News during his trip to Iraq and other Middle East war zones. Then, he wondered why the office responsible for equipping Marines chose the current MTV -- which Leathernecks have nicknamed the "Hesco" after the sand-filled wire-and-burlap barriers that protect remote bases from enemy fire.
He then ordered SysCom to come up with a new design, even though the Corps had already shipped 84,000 MTVs to the war zone.
"We put the last 25,000 [MTVs] on hold, and I asked, 'How is it that we got to this point? What was our pre-selection survey like and wear test like to the extent that we've got this thing now in large volume,' " Conway said during an Aug. 18 interview. "Frankly, we're hard pressed to understand."
Despite the plate carrier order, nearly six months after the commandant's request SysCom still hasn't followed through with a replacement for the MTV.
"We are currently gathering data and information from Marines returning from OIF and OEF," said SysCom spokeswoman, Capt. Geraldine Carey, in an Aug. 7 email statement to Military.com. "Once all the data is collected and analyzed, we will approach industry for possible new designs and or changes to the current body armor."
The new plate carriers are essentially a slimmed-down version of the MTV, with larger arm holes, thinner shoulder straps and a shorter chest profile. The reduction in weight and lower silhouette of the plate carriers "would allow greater mobility with reduced thermal stress in high elevations, thick vegetation and tropical environments," SysCom said.
In 2004, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit purchased plate carriers for its Marines during a deployment to the scorching deserts of southern Afghanistan. Since then, many troops have favored the uncomplicated plate carriers over their more weighty counterparts, which incorporate ballistic yokes, chin guards, groin protectors and various ballistic add-ons, depending on the mission.
"Now the Marines who are wearing [the MTV] repetitively don't like it so much," Conway explained. "It is heavier. It gives a little more protection -- that is one of the net positives with it. We still need a lighter vest that gives us the same amount of protection."
In March 2007, the Corps received an "urgent needs statement" from field commanders requesting the plate carriers for forces in Afghanistan and units deployed to Asia -- where hot, jungle environments make wearing the 30-pound MTV impractical. Since then, the Corps made plans to buy nearly 10,000 plate carriers and has made them available to vehicle crewmen as well.
"For the most part, we think the vest has particular application in Afghanistan because, once again, if you're climbing up and down mountains you want to be protected, but you don't want to be weighed down so much that you're just going to be sapped," Conway said of the SPC vest.
The issue of body armor and the balance between ballistic protection and mobility has been a controversial one, particularly since casualties mounted in Iraq from powerful roadside bombs and armor-piercing sniper rounds. As the blast injuries increased, the services added on new ballistic protection to their vests.
But the boost in protection came at the cost of comfort and weight; some vests topped 35 pounds with various accessories and stronger plates. That prompted some commanders to ask for leeway in how they outfit their troops, given the security environment and the type of terrain units operated in.
"I like the idea of modularization as long as you had some pieces that you could add or subtract" from the carrier, said David Woroner, a body armor expert and president of Survival Consultants International. "Personal protection should be just that, it's a personal choice at some point."
In January, the deputy commander for Marines in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Allen, told Military.com he was on the verge of allowing his troops in Anbar province -- which had seen a steep reduction in violence and roadside bomb casualties -- to strip down their armor, leaving their chin guards, groin protectors and side plates at the base while on patrol.
That prompted a sharp rebuke from superiors in Baghdad who still believed the risk from IEDs was enough to keep Marines buttoned up behind the MTV's full ensemble.
But now it seems the restrictions have softened.
"A lot has to be left to the commander. Threats will vary in different locations," explained Conway, who wore the SPC during a recent trip to the Middle East. "You may have a sniper threat in one place and a shrapnel threat in another. You may have a commander whose force mainly rides to the fight and another one that has to climb up the side of mountains."
"That we've got these various [types of armor vest] is marvelous," Conway said.
-- Christian (with help from contributor Kimberly Johnson)
Armor News Preview
I just wanted to give everyone a head's up that I'll have a story running tomorrow AM about a new kind of body armor the Marine Corps is fielding to some of its troops in Afghanistan, the Western Pacific and to some vehicle crewmen.
The so-called "scalable plate carrier" was purchased after a March 2007 urgent needs statement from the field requested armor with less weight and coverage for troops in hot, high altitude or jungle environments.
I'm sure this will spark some debate about the pros and cons of ballistic protection vs. mobility. The SPC looks pretty cool (it's not exactly the one pictured above -- I'll reveal the actual one tomorrow) but I'm not sure I would wear it where IEDs are in play.
And, no, Systems Command still hasn't come up with a new design for an MTV replacement after the CMC requested they do so back in February.
Stay tuned to tomorrow morning's headlines on Military.com.
Blast from the past: Van HalenHagar's Blue Angels vid
Get Your F-15 Eagle Hybrid Now!
You know, with all the scandal surrounding the Air Force recently, it's refreshing to see that the service is breaking ground in areas that might be a little below the radar now, but will pay big dividends in the future for both the service itself and the general public.
F-15 Hits Mach 2 on Synthetic Fuel
History was made at Robins Air Force Base this week as an F-15 Eagle flew at more than twice the speed of sound using a blend of synthetic fuel.
The Aug. 19 flight was the world's first test of a high performance fighter aircraft powered by a 50-50 mix of traditional JP-8 jet fuel and a synthetic using natural gas as a source.
The Air Force already had tested the new blend on a C-17 cargo aircraft and B-52 and B-1 bombers. But Jeff Braun, director of the Air Force's Alternative Fuels Certification Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, conceded that fighter aircraft offered a much different challenge.
"They are much higher performance and a much more demanding environment," he said during a late afternoon interview.
Braun said the daylong process included a 50-minute ground test Tuesday morning that pushed the aircraft's engines from military power to full afterburner.
"That was just another risk reduction step to prove the aircraft was not leaking fuel and the engines were behaving nominally," he said.
The actual test flight came in the afternoon. "It was a full functional check flight of about 55 minutes," the engineer said, "reaching speeds of Mach 2.2." Mach 2.2 is approximately 1,450 mph.
Immediate feedback came from the pilots.
"We asked them point-blank if they noticed any difference in performance and they said it was a 'non-event,' " Braun reported. "In other words, they couldn't tell the difference. The aircraft behaved the same."
For a service that's so fossil fuel intensive, it's amazing to see that something as high performance as USAF fighter jets can be powered by blended fuels seamlessly.
Wonder if the airlines will be reluctant to adopt the program since they seem to like nickel and diming the public with extra charges to cover their (waaa waaa) higher fuel costs...?
-- Christian
USAF Confident About CSAR-X Progress
This article first appeared in Aviation Week.com.
The U.S. Air Force is still confident a design will be selected as planned this fall for the armed service's controversial rescue helicopter replacement program, even though forthcoming draft findings of a Defense Department inspector general (IG) investigation could slow the process of announcing a winner.
Maj. Gen. Scott Gray, USAF director of acquisition for global reach programs, said he doesn't expect the IG's findings to impact the schedule of the contract award announcement. "We've heard nothing from the DOD IG that causes us concern," he told Pentagon reporters.
Service officials are folding lessons from Government Accountability Office's findings in the beleaguered aerial refueling tanker contest into future acquisition programs. In the case of CSAR-X, "we feel pretty confident that there was nothing...that needed to be fixed," Gray said.
The new aircraft are needed to replace aging HH-60G Pave Hawks now in service. Gray says that as of 2006, 7 percent of the Pave Hawk fleet of 101 helicopters was past its service life of 7,000 hr. He projects that in 2015, 58 percent will exceed their service life.
[Editor's Note: I wrote this story for posting this AM at Military.com. I know it's not a tech piece, but I thought for those of you in the service or with strong service affinity, it might stir some of that "rivalry" in ya...]
When the incoming Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway looked around the Corps, he didn't like what he saw.
No, it wasn't the Corps' aggressiveness, tactical savvy or combat acumen that worried him. Instead, it was the bulging gut, extra skin under the chin and the runaway waistlines that Leathernecks were squeezing into their cammies that got his dander up.
"Inspector General of the Marine Corps review of body composition programs indicates we still have Marines that fail to meet body composition standards," Conway wrote in an Aug. 11 Marine Corps-wide message. "This impacts combat efficiency and effectiveness and, unfortunately, is a clear indicator of some commanders' failure to enforce standards."
Marines have been at war for seven years -- rotating in a near-constant seven-month cycle of workups and deployment that leaves little time for physical training and all-around fitness. Come home, work out, pass the PFT, deploy.
Now, that's all changed.
Early this month, the Corps introduced a new fitness test that goes way beyond the current PFT that measures pull ups, crunches and a timed, three-mile run. The new "combat fitness test" -- which will be administered in addition to the standard PFT -- is more representative of what Marines are doing on deployment.
Divided into three events, the new test includes a timed ammo can lift, an 880-yard "movement-to-contact" run and a so-called "maneuver under fire" event that covers 300 yards.
"It's not often that we have to do a hump across the desert, but we sure have to sprint like this in urban combat," said Sgt. Maj. Ronald Green, top enlisted advisor to the commander of Marines assigned to the Pentagon.
"This challenges that 'two block war,' " Green said, sweat pouring off his brow after running through the CFT himself.
Marines will be required to start taking the combat fitness test in October. For the first year, the CFT will be graded on a pass/fail basis, with those who fail entering a remedial fitness program to get them up to snuff. Officials with Training and Education Command, which developed the new test, said the PFT and CFT will not be administered on the same day.
Marines who watched a demonstration of the grueling test on Aug. 18 were excited about the new demands if not a little nervous.
"It wasn't impossible, but it was pretty challenging," said 21 year-old Cpl. Hudson Bull, an infantryman assigned to the ceremonial marching team in Washington. Bull has taken the test before.
"I like anything that breaks people off," said Staff Sgt. Richard DeBoy, a platoon leader with three Iraq tours under his belt, describing the crushing effect the CFT's various "short burst" movements can have on a Marine.
Leathernecks will have to take the CFT wearing combat boots and cammies. After the 880-yard run, Marines get a five minute break, then must lift a 30-pound ammo can from chin height straight above their head as many times as they can in two minutes.
Then the hard part begins.
The "maneuver under fire" portion of the test is a 300-yard muscle-burning combination of crawling, casualty dragging, fireman carry, grenade throw simulation ending with a slalom run to the finish line with two 30-pound ammo cans.
In order to pass the test, a male Marine aged 17 to 26, for example, will have to complete the movement to contact run in three minutes, forty-eight seconds or less, execute at least 45 ammo can lifts in two minutes and run the maneuver-under-fire portion in three minutes, 29 seconds or less.
While the first year of this test will be conducted as pass/fail, beginning Oct. 1, 2009, the Corps will count scored results of CFT toward promotions and cutting scores, officials said.
The test was developed in close collaboration with the Corps' internal fitness professionals, sports medicine experts and Leathernecks from the Marine Corps Martial Arts program. It "fills in some gaps left out by the PFT," Marine fitness experts say, and it'll force Marines to re-engineer their workouts.
No more body building, Marine, it's time to put together a "functional fitness program" that incorporates short bursts of high-intensity activity using lots of muscles.
"How often do you actually do the motion in a leg curl?" asked Lauren Baker, head athletic trainer for Marines based at the Pentagon. "Unless you're a soccer player, not much."
Preparing for the CFT will "change their workout routine," she added. "Now they can have a little more fun with it."
-- Christian
Invisibility and the 'Super Lens'
Last week we had the laser gunship, this week it's the invisibility cloak.
Sounds a lot like science fiction but you'd be surprised how close Army researchers are to actually attaining the Holy Grail of invisibility.
According to Dr. Richard Hammond, a theoretical physicist with the Optical Physics and Imaging Science department of the Army Research Office, engineers are closer than they've ever been to developing a material that can bend light around an object rendering it invisible to certain wavelengths -- light being one of them.
So far scientists have successfully tested so-called "meta-materials" -- ones that are man made and built at the molecular level -- that can render an object invisible to microwaves, which has a larger wavelength than light, Hammond said.
"This is a new paradigm for the science of light," he said during a DoD bloggers' roundtable today. "It can be bent [using these materials] in an almost arbitrary way."
There are some significant obstacles to making a usable "invisibility cloak," however. The main one is the material itself. Since it has to be build at the molecular level, making enough material to cover, say, a truck is still out of reach, Hammond said. Also, so far the science is there to block one kind of wavelength, but not another. So you could render an object invisible on the UV spectrum but not the visible light one at the same time. And if you made something invisible to the human eye, it would be impossible without some kind of other sensor for whoever's behind the object to see anything since you're robbing him of light.
"But in early applications we could shield an object from radar," Hammond added.
Closer to fielding is a similar technology using meta-materials that can enhance optics to see things at the cellular or even molecular level -- "smaller than the wavelength of light," Hammond said, or less than .5 microns.
These "Super Lenses" could be used to detect chemical or biological agents, focus visible light to a single point to "uncloak" cloaked objects or help recharge solar-celled batteries, and could be applied to microscope lenses to increase magnification ten times, Hammond said.
Hammond has been working with UC Berkley, University of Colorado at Boulder, Perdue and Princeton on these efforts under a three-year, $1 million grant.
-- Christian
War and Peace -- Russian Style
The massive Russian air, ground, and naval assault against the country of Georgia is certainly reminiscent of the earlier Soviet assaults against East Germany and Hungry, and, to some degree, the Russian campaign in Chechnya. But there are major differences in the cause of the current conflict and in the world political-military situation from those earlier military operations.
At this writing there were strong indications that the odd situation in the Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia could have only led to conflict. The border provinces appear to have had Russian “peacekeepers” in them to “protect” the interests of the local populations that include many Russian citizens and sympathizers. According to Russian sources, Georgian troops attacked those Russian troops, although the exact circumstances of the initial exchange are unknown.
In response, after a brief delay, Russian forces invaded the two provinces, taking control after inflicting heavy civilian casualties -- some press reports cited approximately 2,000 deaths. But the Russian troops, carried in armored personnel carriers and supported by aircraft and helicopters, continued into Georgia, reportedly coming within 12 miles of the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.
In addition to civilian (and military casualties), Georgia has suffered perhaps 100,000 people being uprooted, and severe damage to towns and cities.
Georgian troops -- trained and partially equipped by the United States -- were unable to withstand the Russian onslaught. As this blog was written it appears that the Russian government has accepted the truce, brokered in part by the French government.
Why did the Kremlin order the land-air-sea assault on its weaker neighbor? Obviously, the Russian regime is concerned about South Ossetia and Abkhazia and their large Russian populations. There were certainly other factors. American influence in Georgia has been increasing over the past few years; when the Russian assault began there were 35 U.S. civilian contractors and almost 100 military personnel in Georgia to help train the army. More than 1,000 U.S. troops -- including reservists and national guardsmen -- were recently in Georgia for a joint exercise.
Further, Georgia has been seeking full membership in NATO. The continued expansion of NATO since the end of the Cold War, especially including Eastern European states, has particularly been a concern of the Russian government. This situation has been exacerbated by recent U.S. proposals to build advanced X-band ballistic missile detection radar in the Czech Republic and base ten interceptor missiles in Poland. The stated rationale for these installations is to protect Western European countries from long-range missiles launched by rogue states, including Iran. The perspective from the Kremlin, however, is that these defenses -- and other U.S.-sponsored military activities -- as well as the missile defenses are part of an American campaign to encircle the Russian state.
Thus, some Western officials and analysts see the Russian action in Georgia, beyond the obvious intent of protecting Russian citizens and sympathizers in the border provinces, as a clear message to the United States that further expansion American political-military influence in Eastern Europe will not be tolerated.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government is attempting to gain support for political actions by Western European countries and the United Nations, hopefully to censor Russia. There is no possibility that the United States will take military action against Russia, or immediately rush to the support of the shattered Georgian army.
The Office of Naval Research held its annual partnership with industry conference last week here in Washington, DC. The envelop-pushing Navy lab is particularly keen on developing “game changing” laser beam and hypervelocity rail gun weapons. Much of the available funding is for early phase modeling and simulation. Some of ONR’s high-priority research areas include:
Solid-State Fiber Laser. Defined by ONR as: “A laser in which the active gain medium is an optical fiber doped with rare-earth elements such as erbium, ytterbium, neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium and thulium.” Okay. ONR says a fiber laser is the way to go for a 100 kW laser weapon that could fit into aircraft pods.
Free Electron Laser. A shipboard point defense weapon, the laser will fight off swarms of both high end anti-ship cruise missiles and low-tech, explosive laden small boats. The trick will be developing controllable laser beam strength for “graduated lethality and speed of light engagement.” An Innovative Naval Prototype program is scheduled to begin in 2010.
High-Power Microwave Directed Energy Weapons. A focused microwave beam transmits high levels of energy via concentrated radio waves that will knock out computers, sensors, most anything electronic. So far, ranges have been limited by weak projectors and a cluttered environment, but newer, compact high-power microwaves under development may eventually produce a “destructive” capability.
The Revolutionary Approach to Time-Critical Long Range Strike (RATTLRS) Program. An ONR, DARPA, Air Force and NASA collaboration, started in 2004, to build a faster than Mach 3 air-breathing cruise missile. ONR says building the high Mach turbine engine remains a challenge.
Next Generation Integrated Power Systems. With a multitude of power hungry electrical and automated systems, including propulsion, launchers, sensors, countermeasures and ultimately high-powered weapons, running simultaneously, shipboard power management and supply will require smaller, lighter, quieter, cooler running and stealthy batteries and generators. As with the rest of the world, the Navy seeks solutions to the battery limitation challenge.
Electromagnetic Railgun. A rail gun uses magnetic rails instead of an explosive charge to accelerate a solid projectile to super high velocities, around Mach 7, promising accurate strikes on targets out to 230 miles with damage inflicted by the projectile’s kinetic impact. ONR set a world record this year with its laboratory gun for the highest electromagnetic muzzle energy launch of a projectile – 10 megajoules (I’m told a hand grenade is equivalent to somewhere around 1 megajoule). Drawing enough power - around 3 million amps per shot - to fire the guns remains a distinct challenge, particularly onboard smaller destroyer sized vessels. Finding strong enough material to build barrels that can stand up to repeated firings at such high muzzle energies pose another challenge.
ONR is funding research into enabling technologies for next generation air-launched missiles, including: new rocket motors using solid propulsion technologies, low erosion nozzles, pulse motors and advanced radomes designed for ultra-high speeds.
Laser-based Landing Aids. A new start (for 2009) Enabling Capability, the program will develop laser terrain video imaging that can spot obstacles or uneven terrain for helicopter pilots trying to land in brown-out conditions. The hoped for system will be compact, lightweight and rugged.
The physical world battle-space is well known and the parameters defined. Similarly an act of aggression or act of war in the physical sense is just as well defined and accepted. That is not the case when it comes to the cyber battlespace. Federal officials, military leaders, policy scholars and security experts are all looking at this issue and struggling to answer the question -- what constitutes an act of cyber war?
Cyber Warfare & Terrorism is defined as -the premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.
With that in mind we used real world events from the recent Georgian conflict to frame this issue and get your opinion.
Scenario:
The Georgian government relocated their President's website to a sever on U.S soil (in Atlanta Georgia) and connected to the U.S. Internet backbone. Would an attack on the Georgian President's web site (hosted within the U.S.) be considered an act of aggression against the United States and ultimately an act of cyber war?
Yes - is one point of view supported by the fact that the attack is against components of the internet infrastructure owned by a U.S. company and located on U.S. soil.
No - is one point of view supported by the fact that the attack is against the web site that represents an individual/leader of a foreign government.
This is a great opportunity for you the reader to voice your opinion and possibly even influence policy makers in Washington. I would encourage the full review of openly available information that may help you formulate your answer.
Who Cares? Iran says warplanes capable of reaching Israel
It's cookie cutter Iranian bluster, of course. Though some Iranian fighters do have the legs for such an operation, they'd have to drop most of their armament and load up on fuel to make the trip.
And that's assuming that Iranian warplanes had a straight shot into Israel. The minute the Mullahs sortie a strike package large enough to field against the razor sharp Israeli Air Force, the even sharper USAF and US Navy would make short work of it. That type of chest-thumping from Iran is the stuff that makes fighter jocks like Ward and Pinch drool.
"Target rich environment?" Yeah, you betcha.
--John Noonan
Georgia fighting could isolate International Space Station
Lawmakers warned this week that escalating tensions with Russia may leave the U.S. without ready transport to the ISS after NASA retires the space shuttle fleet in 2010.
The space agency does not expect the shuttle's replacement, the Orion—an Apollo-like craft being developed as part of the Constellation program—to be ready to fly until 2015. NASA's plan was for the interim was to use Russian Soyuz craft to send up crew and cargo to the $100 billion station.
How awkward would it be if the Russian relief showed up in 2010 and left the American on board? Kind of hard to ask Russia for a hitch to space while you're actively running logistics to their Georgian enemies.
It's an interesting scenario to wargame out: If Ivan refuses to send up American astronauts and sticks to a Russia-only crew, does that mean that they'd be guilty of the first documented case of space hijacking?
That said, Russia will probably honor the agreement. They'll want to avoid the natural influx of funding Congress would send to NASA to fast track Orion or keep the shuttles running for 5 more years.
From the Military Times: 4th ID launches an RQ-7B Shadow
Coast Guard Joins the SEALs
The Coast Guard wants to get a bit more "hooyah" by jumping on the special operations forces bandwagon with a new program that could put as many as 28 of its personnel into elite Navy SEAL teams by 2016.
Coast Guard officials say this limited number of Coasties-turned-SEALs re-entering their ranks after a tour in the special warfare community -- which could last as many as seven years -- will be a boon for morale, training and job skills in a service that bridges the worlds of counter-terrorism operations and law enforcement.
"What this does is it provides us better capability, increased competencies, more experience and greater knowledge to do the things that we are already doing today," said Rear Adm. Thomas Atkin, commander of the Coast Guard's Deployable Operations Group which deals with specialized counter-terrorism and military missions.
"They're going to be able to bring back an esprit de corps that you learn within the SEAL community. We don't always have that," Atkin added during an Aug. 15 interview with military bloggers. "We have a great service, I'm very proud to wear the blue, but the esprit de corps that comes out of the folks that go to BUDS [and] members of SEAL teams ... those experiences, that knowledge, that mindset are all things that are going to benefit the Coast Guard in the long term."
Though Atkin said "anecdotally" there's a lot of enthusiasm for the program, so far no Coastguardsmen have applied in the two weeks since it was announced. The deadline for applications is in mid-September.
The SEALs, along with other special operations forces in the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, have been adding to their ranks since the Sept. 11 attacks and the injection of even a few more personnel from the Coast Guard is a welcome addition, a Navy Special Warfare officer said.
"What that means to us is approximately two SEAL platoons," said Lt. Cmdr. Christian Dunbar, director of training at the Navy Special Warfare Center in Coronado, Calif. "This just adds a greater base of qualified candidates that don't come from recruits in the Navy or from the fleet. ... It's a win-win for everyone."
The new relationship between the SEALs and Coast Guard was forged in an Aug. 1 memorandum of understanding signed by Commandant Thad Allen and representatives of the Navy and Special Operations Command after nearly a year of negotiations among the services. Allen wrote in an "Alcoast" message announcing the plan that Coastguardsmen will gain "valuable skills and knowledge to support [the] DoD and increase the Coast Guard's capabilities in our ports, waterways and coastal security mission, specifically counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism operations."
But the new program is not without its critics, particularly within the highest ranks of the Coast Guard community, sources say. The culture of the more than two century-old service bridges both civilian and military operations with a traditional emphasis in rescue, maritime safety and law enforcement.
Since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard's new counter-terrorism role, that culture and operational mentality has changed, experienced Coast Guard sources say. That's made the shift toward a more SEAL-like ethos -- particularly in the newly established Deployable Operations Group, where the SEAL vets will return for duty after their team tour -- more acceptable to old-school Coastguardsmen.
"I think it's going to be very compatible," said Coast Guard Master Chief Petty Officer Darrick DeWitt, the DOG's senior enlisted advisor. "When you look at the way the Coast Guard's evolving ... bringing in that type of mentality and culture and understanding of the operations is going to be great for our organization."
Officials with the DOG will handle the initial SEAL applicants, putting them through a set of physical tests to demonstrate whether they have what it takes to be a commando -- a process Dunbar said would "set them up for success." Those who make it through will enter pre-BUDS training in December, and the first group will join a BUDS class in February 2009.
So far the plan is to have two officers and two enlisted personnel assigned to the SEALs each year, but Atkin said he's not going to stick to that formula if the qualifications don't match.
To Atkin, a former SEAL steeped in both the traditions of special warfare and law enforcement would be a key addition to his command -- and one long in coming.
"This is historic, it's different, but I think it's very consistent with the long partnership we've had with the United States Navy stretching all the way back to our birth 218 years ago," Atkin said.
-- Christian
Inside the Cyber Command Turf Battle
Reports by the Associated Press who obtained a memo on the subject said this week the Pentagon delayed and may even kill the Air Force's planned Cyberspace Command. Why exactly is up for speculation, but according to one insider who absolutely did not want to be identified - "It's a dollar Grab".
The insider went on to say that "with an estimated $30 billion being spent on cyber capabilities, who can blame them?"
As I tally it, the Army, Air Force, CIA, NSA, DIA, DHS, StratCom and two unidentified black-ops units have already begun developing cyber warfare capabilities. Anyone with an ounce of sense would not want to get in the middle of that group! The Pentagon has to be thinking it would be better to have one unified cyber command rather than all these dispirit efforts.
Cyber warfare is a highly desirable command area -- it is new, it's exciting, it's a real threat and arguably the hottest topic in military circles. Multiple security experts, including myself, have warned that significant and very special resources and expertise are required to execute the core elements of the Bush administration's cyber security plan.
Earlier this year I wrote an article titled "The Department of Cyber Defense" that was published by International Intelligence Magazine. It looked at this exact issue. The article was based on rumors back then that the Executive Branch was considering establishing a new department and cabinet level appointment responsible for our country's cyber offensive and defensive capabilities. By establishing a new department and cabinet level position, one entity can focus on developing cyber warfare technologies needed to support both defense and civilian agencies.
Remember we even created a new patch for the organization.
Richard Clarke has warned how significant a threat cyber attacks pose to the United States and our allies. Turf battles and infighting are slowing the United States' efforts to mitigate this threat and develop the necessary offensive cyber warfare capabilities. We cannot and should not tolerate the inaction and lack of progress this squabbling is causing.
From Ares: Su-25 wreckage smolders in Georgia. Both sides are claiming the kill.
The Mag Mag
In the "gadgets and gizmos" category today, I ran across this interesting item as I was perusing the sight from our friends at BreachBangClear.
Think of it as a magazine for M-16 mags.
The STRAC Technologies FAST (Fast And Smooth Transition) system is a hardened pouch designed to hold three spring-loaded rifle magazines that feed out as the operator reloads his carbine. The folks over at MilSpecMonkey did an intensive review of the product, the full version of which you can read HERE.
But, while it seems like an interesting idea, I agree with the folks at MilSpecMonkey that there are limited applications of the product. I can see uses for it in law enforcement, where tactical teams really don't have a need for any more than 100 rounds for a particular situation. And I can see where vehicle operators might like it for its more flush-to-the-body configuration.
From MilSpecMonkey:
As with most things, the FAST System has pluses and minuses. The good part is that the system functions totally as advertised. You can become a consistent reloading super star in about 20 minutes of practice and only get better from there. One of the first downsides however is the bulk. The space required by FAST is the equivalent of over 6 30 round magazines, but it only holds 3 magazines. Also some may feel the required grips for mag extraction are awkward. Personally after using it I feel the grip is "good enough". On this particular prototype, I wish the body was connected to the carrier in a more solid fashion. The only thing holding it in there is a piece of velcro on the back of the body and friction inside the carrier. With the dust cover down I can wiggle the body out of the carrier with one hand while still on my body. It doesn't feel outright unsafe, but could be better. That said, it should be noted this preview is of a prototype and the final version will solve this issue with webbing loop slots to lash the body down to one's vest. This is to get the extraction area closer to the body, but would secure the system further as well. Unfortunately the simple design only allows standard NATO magazines to be used in the FAST system. Magazines with any additional height such as PMAGs, Lancer, and HK mags will not fit. Although I wish they could fit, as a designer I can see where the system would become overly complicated if altered to do so. As the final con, the FAST System could easily be called expensive, but that is usually the price of cutting edge technology.
Here's a pretty good video of the FAST system in action at the range:
And another one with some SWAT bubbas giving their impressions of the system:
-- Christian
Laser Gunship Zaps Target
It's interesting that this should come out now because I was just talking to Ward after his glorious showing on Fox News Channel where he discussed the airborne laser program that I thought the real leap in this arena was with the tactical laser being incorporated onto a C-130.
Well, it turns out, the program office just had another successful test of the system, this time running through all the components of the laser generating device, through its targeting system and onto a target.
Sure, the test was on the ground, but come on, it's a laser gun for crying out loud. Looks like the Boeing team that's running this show put the whole kit and kaboodle on the airplane and basically ran through an entire firing procedure without being actually in the air.
From Boeing:
During the test Aug. 7 at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., the ATL aircraft, a C-130H, fired its high-energy chemical laser through its beam control system. The beam control system acquired a ground target and guided the laser beam to the target, as directed by ATL's battle management system. The laser passes through a rotating turret on the aircraft's belly.
"By firing the laser through the beam control system for the first time, the ATL team has begun to demonstrate the functionality of the entire weapon system integrated aboard the aircraft," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. "This is a major step toward providing the ultra-precision engagement capability that the warfighter needs to dramatically reduce collateral damage."
After conducting additional tests on the ground and in the air, the program will demonstrate ATL's military utility by firing the laser in-flight at mission-representative ground targets later this year.
Again, while the ABL program is interesting based on its scale, the ATL seems to me has many more real-world applications than the ABM one. I'll be interested to see the real capabilities of the ATL system later this year -- how does it deal with enemy personnel and equipment? Are we Star Wars here or Buck Rogers?
-- Christian
EXCLUSIVE: Schwartz's Top 5 Priorities
Between the tanker wars, the battles over intelligence and space systems and the recent firefight between the service and OSD it’s hard to remember that the Air Force actually fights real wars. But the new Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, knows and, in the first major brief laying out his priorities, Schwartz puts nukes top of the list, then he cites improving joint cooperation.
As part of this, he wants to “aggressively adapt AF ways and means across the spectrum” (read better balance between special operations and conventional forces). And he defines the spectrum as including command and control, ISR and “non-traditional roles.”
Next on the list comes that old time religion — taking care of airmen. But this includes two warfighting goals that are pretty revealing. Schwartz says airmen must be “trained & ready for 21st Century challenges” (can you say next war-itis) and he admits the service needs to “Reinforce our Warfighting Ethos, expeditionary combat mindset.”
Fourth comes reset, or “Modernize our aging air & space inventories.” And, for better or for worse, acquisition comes dead last.
The second real cyber was has broken out. On August 8th, Russian troops crossed into South Ossetia vowing to defend what they called "Russian compatriots". As this was taking place, a multi-faceted cyber attack began against the Georgian infrastructure and key government web sites. The attack modalities included: Defacing of Web Sites (Hacktivism), Web-based Psychological Operations (Psyc-Ops), a fierce propaganda campaign (PC) and of course a Distributed Denial of Service Attacks (DDoS).
Shortly after noon east coast time in the United States, CNN's Wolf Blitzer attempted to interview Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili by phone on his live news program. The first attempt was unsuccessful and the second attempt took place about ten minutes later was able to successfully connect to President Saakashvili. President Saakashvili immediately apologized for the missed connection earlier blaming the problem on a "cyber attack" against the Georgian VoIP phone system. Another causality of the cyber attack was the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website. At one point in time the MFA's web site had an image of Adolf Hitler beside the image of President Saakashvili.
At one point(used in the sentence above), multiple government websites were down or inaccessible for hours. This led them to make perhaps the most strategic move to date in cyber warfare. This impressive move came when the Georgian Government decided to relocate President Mikhail Saakashvili's web site to a web site hosting service in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States. The strategic thinking surrounding this move was twofold. First, the Russian cyber attackers would surely think twice about attacking a web site hosted on servers located in the United States. Secondly, if the Russian cyber attackers were to go after the President's web site hosted on U.S. soil, that action might bring the United States into the conflict.
I was told by a Georgian insider that "We were not prepared for the use of computer weapons against our communications infrastructure." Other sources in the Estonian military also told me that they had offered their assistance to the Georgian Government early on in the cyber attack. She said that they (Estonia) had gained valuable knowledge from the forensic analysis of the cyber artifacts left behind after they were attacked in April/May of 2007.
I used SBIA and TIE techniques to analyze the cyber attack against Georgia. Based on all open source intelligence, the cyber attack on Georgia analysis resulted in the following information [on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being high].
Scale of the attack = 3.3
Complexity of the attack = 3.1
Impact of the attack = 3.5
No longer can we ignore cyber weapons. This is the second minor cyber war that has broken out in the last two years. "Security experts and military leaders have been warning of the potential use of cyber weapons against government and civilian targets both as a stand-alone threat and coordinated military tactical modality," said Brian from Spy-Ops. Cyber attacks and warfare have entered into the arsenal of modern warfare. Where and when the next attack will be launched is anyone's question. The only thing for sure is there will be more.
No, not the Ohio State variety, but the primary navy jet trainer for much of the last 50 years - the T-2C Buckeye.
The T-2 Buckeye, last seen training future naval aviators and naval flight officers in Pensacola and other environs, slipped the surly bonds of earth for the ultimate time this past Friday, 9 August. As the Pensacola News Journal said:
Lt. j.g. Dave Chun, 33, and 1st Lt. Brian Miller, 29, were the last student aviators to fly the iconic jet.
Chun reflected on the historic moment after receiving his pilot’s wings, following the successful completion of his final exercise.
“This is the third best day of my life,” he said, holding a freshly opened bottle of champagne to celebrate the occasion. “My wife and my baby, those are the only things that beat this.”
The Navy’s Buckeyes have flown a combined 3.4 million hours, making it one of the Navy’s most used jets. Since its introduction to the fleet in 1959, nearly every Naval aviator trained in Pensacola flew the Buckeye in preparation for aircraft carrier landings.
The venerable light "attack thunder guppy", first entering service in 1959, flew its last naval aviator training hop last week. Most every navy pilot or naval flight officer you saw strutting around in a flight suit since the end of the Eisenhower administration has some time in this baby.
A very forgiving aircraft, in addition to being the first jet that naval aviators climbed into, it was also used as a spin-procedures trainer for tactical aviators due to its easy recovery capabilities. That was always a fun hop - head out into the restricted area over Phelps Lake in North Carolina, do your clearing turn to ensure other aircraft weren't in the area, get to 250 knots at about 20k, pull the nose up to start bleeding off speed, then kick full left rudder while yanking the stick to full aft right. BOOM...inverted spin...watch the AOA go to 2 or 3 units, watch the airspeed go from 250 down to below 100, start to count the turns, and ye-haw! Recover...neutral stick, feet on the deck (off the rudder pedals), after a few turns the nose steadies out, the turns stop and you recover. So THAT is what an inverted spin is like!
The jet didn't have much in the way of thrust. The early models were a single Westinghouse J-34 with about 3,400 lbs of thrust - that was the thrust of the phoenix missile the Tomcats carried, for cripes sake! Later models, introduced in the early 60's, eventually had 2 GE J-85 engines installed, nearly doubling the thrust at 3,000 lbs each. Compare that to the F-35 PW F-135 engine that puts out over 40,000 of thrust. Now THAT would make a worthwhile trainer!
The T-2 was sold to 2 other countries, Greece and Venezuela, so if we ever do get into a scrap with Hugo at least we know what those boys trained in.
A fine junior-varsity steed to learn in. Sleep well, Guppy!
If the land war in Georgia so far seems to be going decidedly in favor of the Russian army and navy, the Georgians seem to be racking up a lopsided score with their air defenses.
Over the weekend, the Russians made a successful advance on land through South Ossetia to the outskirts of the Georgian east-west transportation hub of Gori. There also was a one-sided naval battle - that resulted in the sinking of a Georgian gunboat - in the Black Sea off the coast of the second breakaway enclave of Abkhazia.
However, Georgian air defenses appear to be taking a steady toll on Russian aircraft. Russia has admitted to losing a total of four aircraft (the Georgians claim 10) in the conflict. So far they've admitted to the destruction of three Su-25 Frogfoot strike aircraft and a Tu-22M3 Backfire bomber that was flying a reconnaissance mission.
Photos from the combat area show the wreck of the Tu-22 and a Frogfoot as well as a picture of the Backfire pilot in a Georgian hospital. The pilot was Col. Igor Zinov, a 50 year-old Tu-22M3 instructor pilot stationed at the Russian Flight Test Center at Akhtubinsk. (See Aviation Week's defense photo gallery for photos.)
"Ergo, the Russians are using their A-Team, as expected," a U.S. analyst says.
Other analysts say the Georgians are probably operating the SA-11 Buk-M1 (low-to-high altitude) and the (low-to-medium altitude) Tor-1M mobile air defense missile systems.
"The Russians have gone to great lengths to try and implicate the Ukraine in the Russian Air Force losses, even going as far as to suggest that an SA-5 sold to the Georgians by the Ukraine was responsible for the Backfire loss," a second U.S. analyst says. "That's clearly not the case, but shows the Russian attempt to bring the Ukraine into the periphery of this event by implication, and to attempt to explain how one of their premier long-range attack assets could have been shot down so easily.
"The Russian press has been making lots of noise about the BUK and TOR systems, and I would say that the BUK is the most likely culprit for all of these aircraft losses," the analyst says. "If so, it points out a major flaw in the Russian plan - not gaining [and] maintaining pure air superiority [and] dominance over the battlespace by taking out the Georgian air defenses and air defense network before they went into the conflict."
Russian-built and designed air defenses are apparently exploitable, as was shown in the Israeli Air Force's total shut down of Syrian air defenses prior to bombing a suspected nuclear site. But Russia apparently has yet to apply the digital keys to unlock the Georgians' network.
During the months before the conflict, the Russians claimed to have shot down several Hermes 450 UAVs (made by Israeli-based Elbit) with fighter aircraft stationed at least temporarily in South Ossetia.
The Russians say they shot down a Georgian Frogfoot outside the town of Eredvi in South Ossetia today. The Russians - in a stunning piece of irony - have twice bombed the Su-25 Frogfoot manufacturing plant on the outskirts of the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.
I've been trolling around trying to find some inside dope and analysis on the comparison of how Georgia's troops have handled the Russian invasion and how Russian troops have stacked up against Georgia's U.S.-trained forces.
[PHOTO: "Associated Press]
So far, the best one I can find is a blog entry from the New York Times authored by an experienced Russian expert who speaks a lot more Russian than me and delved into two separate Russian blogs that have some unique analysis.
In an interview posted on the Kreml.org Web site yesterday, Anatoly Tsyganok, a retired officer who heads the center for military forecasting at the Moscow Institute of Political and Military Analysis, argued that Russian forces had performed impressively quickly and extraordinarily well.
But in an article carried on the anti-Kremlin Web site Forum.msk.ru, Maksim Kalashnikov, who writes frequently on military affairs, suggests that the Russian military’s performance in this first war between former Soviet republics and in the first Russian conflict with a regular army since 1969 was not impressive.
For his part, Tsyganok points to three things to justify his conclusion that the Russian military prepared well. First, he says, the Georgians had a good plan, one based on Pentagon plans for operations in Serbia in the 1990s, and thus presented a challenge to Russian forces out of proportion to their numbers.
Second, he notes, the Russian military responded quickly. “No one expected that Russia would so quickly become involved in an armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and thereby undercut Georgian plans for a lightning-fast war.” But political Moscow made the decision and the Russian military responded incredibly fast...
...And third, again despite expectations in Tbilisi and elsewhere, Russian forces in the Northern Caucasus were ready to move. They left their bases less than five hours after the order was given, and they did not suffer the kind of losses many in Georgia had thought they would. They achieved their objectives promptly.
One reason for this success, Tsyganok says, is that the 58th Army had just completed a few days earlier the Caucasus 2008 exercises and thus was ready to take the field especially against an opponent so much smaller and more poorly equipped than itself.
There are more than 100,000 Russian troops in the North Caucasus military district, with some 620 tanks, 200 armored personal carriers, and 875 pieces of artillery. While not all of the men or materiel were available for the operation in Georgia, he notes, enough were to overwhelm the 35,000-man Georgian army with its 160 tanks.
It's a typical Russian/Soviet version of "shock and awe," but I read some quotes from another article with Russian troops wondering aloud if what they were doing was "right." Aside from the morale issues in the Russian army, it seems there's been some weakness in its tactical acumen. While they pulled out the big guns by streaming reactive armor-laden tanks through Georgian streets, their air forces couldn't seem to pinpoint certain strategic targets. Remember they tried to bomb the pipeline at a Georgian Black Sea port and missed.
Kalashnikov [the anti-Kremlin blogger] does not so much challenge the points Tsyganok makes as advances other considerations that he believes suggest that the Russian military’s performance in Georgia, while victorious so far, is far from the level that Moscow propagandists and many observers have been claiming.
According to Kalashnikov, Moscow has had six years to prepare for a response to or an intervention against Georgia but did “practically nothing” to get ready for either eventuality. Nowhere is that failure more obvious, he says, than in the failure of Russian forces to use air power to knock out key Georgian institutions and especially Georgian artillery.
The Russian forces did not fly a sufficient number of sorties to do either, he continues, and they lacked the pilotless drones that could have allowed Russian artillery to attack Georgian targets more effectively. And that meant that Russian forces suffered more delay and losses from Georgian artillery than was necessary.
Instead of relying on airport to deal a knockout blow to the enemy, Kalashnikov says, Russian commanders relied on the notion that if Moscow introduces tanks in sufficient number, the opposition will simply “raise its hands” in surrender — even though that “did not work in Afghanistan in the 1980s or in Chechnya in 1995.”
We'll see if the current "cease fire" is for real. Seems like the West is in a bind on this one and it might turn out to be a political setback for former Soviet states who want to join NATO. What would NATO do? Nothing, I bet.
-- Christian
Update on USS New York, LPD 21
Just over a year away from the commissioning of the latest LPD-class ship scheduled for Sept 11, 2009, the USS New York continues her post-christening outfitting and shipyard work.
The pride this ship evokes is palpable. Most everyone knows there is 24 tons of scrap steel that was melted down and included in her bow section, but the effect that had on the shipyard workers was electric:
'those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence,' recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. 'It was a spiritual moment for everybody there.'
Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the 'hair on my neck stood up.' 'It had a big meaning to it for all of us,' he said.
The fifth ship in the new San Antonio class of amphibious transport dock ship (LPD), the fleet already has the first three of this class on the waterfront, namely the first in the class, USS San Antonio (LPD 17) based in Norfolk, the USS New Orleans (LPD 18) based in San Diego and the third, USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), also homeported in Norfolk.
The fourth ship, USS Green Bay (LPD 20), has been launched and christened and has a scheduled commissioning, joining the west coast fleet in San Diego, in late 2008.
Farther down the construction list are the remaining ships in this class, namely the San Diego (LPD 22), Anchorage (LPD 23) and the other two ships to bear the names of 9/11 attacks, Arlington (LPD 24) and Somerset (LPD 25).
If you have the time and interest, attending one of these commissioning ceremonies is a great honor and part of a centuries-long history of naval tradition. Because USS Green Bay is too large to make it through the St Lawrence Seaway, she won't be able to visit her name-sake city on Lake Michigan. Her commissioning ceremony is scheduled for Long Beach, CA while USS New York will, of course, be in New York City.
The Georgian embassy in the U.K. has accused forces within Russia of launching a coordinated cyberattack against Georgian Web sites, to coincide with military operations in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
Speaking to ZDNet UK on Monday, a Georgian embassy spokesperson said that Web sites had been unavailable over the weekend, claiming this was due to Russian denial-of-service attacks.
"All Georgian Web sites have been blocked," said the spokesperson. "Georgia is working on redirecting Web traffic."
Georgia's military isn't exactly net-centric, so it's looking like these attacks are more public-relations related than military. Both Georgia and Russia have been furiously conducting PR ops, spinning the conflict to make it seem like the other guy's fault. World opinion tends to gravitate towards the underdog, so neutralizing Georgia's most convenient and easily accessible communications medium might be Ivan's way of evening the playing field.
Then again, it might be a couple of Russian teenagers trying to do their part...
This one is described as "Raw Footage Following Georgian Troops." Notice the Su-25 "Frogfoot" being used in the air-to-ground attack. That's the Sov version of the A-10 and was used extensively in Afghanistan back in the day.
Here's another one that I'm not sure of the context. Since the upload date says Aug. 7 I wonder if it's Georgian troops and Ossetian rebels.
If Russia goes through with the sale of its most advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran, Israel will use an electronic warfare device now under development to neutralize it and as a result present Russia as vulnerable to air infiltrations, a top defense official has told The Jerusalem Post.
The Russian system, called the S-300, is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft-missile systems in the world today and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes of 27,000 meters.
While Russia has denied that it sold the system to Iran, Teheran claimed last year that Moscow was preparing to equip the Islamic Republic with S-300 systems. Iran already has TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia...
...A top IAF officer also said this week that Israel needed to do "everything possible" to prevent the S-300 from reaching the region.
"Russia will have to think real hard before delivering this system to Iran, which is possibly on the brink of conflict with either Israel or the US, since if the system is delivered, an EW [electronic warfare] system will likely be developed to neutralize it, and if that happens it would be catastrophic not only for Iran but also for Russia," the defense official said.
Neutralization of one of the main components of Russian air defense would be a blow to Russian national security as well as to defense exports. "No country will want to buy the system if it is proven to be ineffective," the official said. "For these reasons, Russia may not deliver it in the end to Iran."
One of our top Defense Tech readers and someone who's in the know on these matters commented to me:
The information warfare that is going on between Russia and Israel is the end result of the report back in Sept. 2007 that Israel bombed a site in Syria where the purpose was not known and results of it showed up in the news back in March: "Syrian Nuclear site bombed."
When in fact one of the purposes for this raid was to probe the defense of Syria which happen to contain this S300 and M1 TOR systems. It was speculated that Israel was using this as a counter-marketing stunt, more specifically to leverage Russia. By this I mean to have a lever which financially encouraged Russia to back away from Iran in order to isolate that country completely by selling the counter-measure system to whomever needed to defeat the anti-aircraft system.
If this was even remotely true, this already affected the future sales of this system. Technically speaking, even without Israel doing this publicly, those who care about the ECM/EW stuff already knew all they needed to know. Bluff or real, the affects are obvious. The next thing to look for is to see if Russia continues to sell these systems to Iran. Well played Israel!
I mean, Israel is known for its psywar prowess -- though of late they haven't been terribly sophisticated about it. The Syria thing still seems a mystery wrapped in an enigma to me, with rumor and innuendo woven into the brittle fabric of truth. I like our informed reader's narrative here...It's definitely to tasty morsels for thought.
-- Christian
Pentagon Issues Gag Order on Tanker Talk
For those who wonder just how worried the Pentagon is about stumbling into or somehow sparking a second protest in the tanker wars, here’s a baseline.
John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, issued a July 31 memo requiring that all communications outside of the Defense Department be approved by the Pentagon’s general counsel’s office and by Shad Assay, director of defense procurement, acquisition policy and strategic sourcing.
This means that anyone who wants to talk to the press or to industry must first get Air Force clearance and then get OSD clearance, including the department’s top lawyers. The source who provided the memo described it as a “gag order.” That may be a little strong but is conveys pretty clearly just how concerned the Pentagon’s senior leadership is with shaping and controlling the messages it sends as it conducts the tanker rebid. In effect, this is pretty close to a gag order given that no lawyer is likely to approve any statement to anyone unless it’s either utterly innocuous or there is very good reason for the department to say something. After all, $35 billion is a fair amount of change and the department’s handling of the tanker deal has been remarkably inept over the years.
[Editor: Loren Thompson must be sobbing right now...]
Fusion Centers have been fairly successful since their inception back in the 1980s. The FC is a critical node in the collection and processing of intelligence from various sources. The actual operations of these centers are somewhat cloaked in secrecy. For that reason, fusion centers are somewhat controversial and mysterious. A fusion center is a physical location for interagency collaboration and intelligence synthesis based on disparate pieces of information obtained by one of the numerous agencies participating in the center.
Naturally, technology is a critical component but the human assets from the various agencies, departments, industries and businesses are the critical lynch-pin. The cyber threat fusion center will require all 15 members of the U.S. intelligence community plus many others. In total, about 25 entities from the government and representative from 6 industries as well as part-time contributions from up to 100 specifically identified businesses would make up the participants in the cyber threat fusion center.
Feeding the center with the latest cyber threat analysis is a critical aspect of pulling together a big picture of the threat environment. All Source Intelligence (ASI) is defined as a collection of intelligence products and/or organizations and/or activities that incorporate all sources of information, including, most frequently human resources intelligence, imagery intelligence, measurement and signature intelligence, signals intelligence, and open source data, in the production of finished intelligence. This is the organized collection and linking of intel from multiple sources in multiple forms about a specific subject matter under analysis. This is not an easy task. "Too much information can be just as big a problem as too little," says Spy-Ops. "We use scenario-based intelligence analysis (SBIA) coupled with trans-disciplinary intelligence engineering (TIE) to fuse the all source intelligence. By combining these two techniques we are able to capture the context with which the intelligence was collected and that directly impacts the resulting knowledge we extrapolate."
Over the past few years the experience and results gained from using these techniques warrant creating one to specifically address cyber threats. The Cyber Threat Fusion Center (CTFC) would bring together the various entities within the defense department, groups within Homeland Security, industry expertise as well as facilitate bi-directions threat intelligence information sharing with the business community.
While I have only participated twice in FC operations, both were an eye opening experience and the results were significant. Could the same results have been achieved without the use of a fusion center -- yes. However, the question is how much more time would be required to have come to the same conclusion. The difficulty will be getting all the parties to openly share the information they have. All too often the parties needed to participate in the fusion center see themselves in competition with each other. Given the severity of the threat against our nation's information infrastructure, establishing this center is time critical. When the massive intelligence community from the government is tightly coupled to and collaborates with the front line defense intelligence from the business community and both are supported by the high tech industry the output of this center will surely provide valuable insight into defending against the crowing threat of cyber attacks.
Georgian tanks w/reactive armor roll into South Ossetia
Georgia has roughly 30k troops serving in the Georgian Armed Forces, with 2,000 of their best troops serving in Iraq. Though small, the Georgian Army is respected by their Coalition partners in Iraq as a highly competent fighting force. They're equipped with relatively modern Russian weapons, to include some 200 tanks, 450 armored fighting vehicles, Su-25 and MiG-25 fighter jets, and a whole mess of artillery, mortars, surface to air missiles, etc etc.
The Russian bear is still, well... a juggernaut. Ivan's armed forces weigh in at just over 1 million troops. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation suffered during the harsh post-Soviet breakup defense cuts, but have since flourished under Vladimir Putin. They are technologically advanced, disciplined, and effectively trained. The Russians are familiar and comfortable operating in the Caucasus Mountain region, both from their unification with Georgia under the Soviet Empire and from their fighting in nearby Chechnya.
So yeah, on the surface, it looks like we've got a classic David v. Goliath matchup. Not so fast. As mentioned, the Georgians can be mean little bastards. They've got a home field advantage, are furiously calling up reserves, and are fighting a Russian enemy that has one (one!!) supply line over the Caucasus into South Ossetia. That logistics line, ironically enough, will be closed in a few short months by Russia's old tried and true ally -- Old Man Winter.
If Georgia can plug that hole, get creative with their air defense assets, kill a whole mess of Russians, and force this thing into a winter overtime -- I wouldn't be surprised if the international community forces a peace favorable to the Georgians.
Of course if they don't plug that line, I can see Russia's tanks bringing Georgia back into the family -- the old school way.
--John Noonan
LCS No. 1 Underway at Last
The Navy's first littoral combat ship, the Freedom (LCS 1), got underway for the first time on 28 July. The first ship of a program that seeks some 55 advanced-technology ships for operations in coastal/littoral waters, the Freedom is being constructed on Lake Michigan by a team led by the Lockheed Martin Corp.
The Freedom and the competitive design, led by the Independence (LCS 2) built by a General Dynamics-led team, are noteworthy in being more than a year behind schedule and costing more than twice as much as originally estimated. The contract cost of these ships was to be on the order of $220 million -- plus the innovative "mission packages" that would be installed when they were ready for operations. The LCS 1 cost is now estimated at $550 million. And, it may be more before the ship is ready for delivery to the Navy later this year.
The delays and cost increases of the LCS program led to Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter cancelling the construction of LCS 3 and 4, to have been built by the Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics teams, respectively. The "mess" of the LCS program also led to the firing, reassignment, or resignation of several naval officers, including the Program Executive Officer for Ships, and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition).
Subsequently the LCS 5 and LCS 6 were also cancelled in 2007 as the Navy sought to restructure the overall program. Under current plans, the Navy will procure:
The Navy's program goal still calls for some 55 of these ships. Each ship will have a set of container-like modules and an MH-60 series helicopter plus unmanned vehicles (air, surface, and underwater), as well as associated surface craft in some configurations, that will comprise a mission package. In theory, these packages could be swapped between LCS hulls. Each LCS will have a core crew and a team of specialists will embark in each ship with the mission package.
At this time the Navy plans to procure 24 mine warfare packages (approximately $68 million each), 16 anti-submarine warfare packages ($42.3 million), and 24 surface warfare packages ($16.7 million). Thus, if all are procured, the Navy would have flexibility in swapping modules at U.S. ports or, if the packages are flown overseas, at forward ports.
After the Freedom and Independence complete their builder and sea trials, the Navy will decide wither to procure one or the other design, or a force mix of both designs.
The Freedom is now running builder trials, to be followed by Navy acceptance trails. The ship will displace 2,862 tons full load and is 378-feet long -- the size of a corvette or small frigate. The Navy, of course, could not accept such mundane designations for an innovative ship concept, and invented the LCS designation. Since the early 1940s "L" ships were landing ships (LSD, LSM, LST, etc.). Subsequently, from 1968-1969 all of the Navy's larger amphibious ships -- command ships, transports, cargo ships, and helicopter carriersc were also given "L" designations (LCC, LPA, LKA, LPH, LHA, etc.).
Thus, the LCS marks still another break with Navy designation procedures as well as with naval tradition. But then again, on several counts -- both good and bad -- the LCS concept itself is a break with tradition.
Those air conditioned trailers, the long nights of work in a comfortable chair, sleeping in my own bed after duty, being so close to Las Vegas!...Whatever...
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more pathetic, something like this pops up:
Predator Pilots Suffering War Stress
MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE, Calif. - The Air National Guardsmen who operate Predator drones over Iraq via remote control, launching deadly missile attacks from the safety of Southern California 7,000 miles away, are suffering some of the same psychological stresses as their comrades on the battlefield.
Working in air-conditioned trailers, Predator pilots observe the field of battle through a bank of video screens and kill enemy fighters with a few computer keystrokes. Then, after their shifts are over, they get to drive home and sleep in their own beds.
But that whiplash transition is taking a toll on some of them mentally, and so is the way the unmanned aircraft's cameras enable them to see people getting killed in high-resolution detail, some officers say.
In a fighter jet, "when you come in at 500-600 mph, drop a 500-pound bomb and then fly away, you don't see what happens," said Col. Albert K. Aimar, who is commander of the 163rd Reconnaissance Wing here and has a bachelor's degree in psychology. But when a Predator fires a missile, "you watch it all the way to impact, and I mean it's very vivid, it's right there and personal. So it does stay in people's minds for a long time."
Now, far be it for me to pass judgement on some of these pilots who feel the stresses of their unique job, but let's hope this isn't just another shot at "relevance" by an Air Force that feels sidelined by two major ground wars in the Middle East.
In interviews with five of the dozens of pilots and sensor operators at the various bases, none said they had been particularly troubled by their mission, but they acknowledged it comes with unique challenges, and sometimes makes for a strange existence.
"It's bizarre, I guess," said Lt. Col. Michael Lenahan, a Predator pilot and operations director for the 196th Reconnaissance Squadron here. "It is quite different, going from potentially shooting a missile, then going to your kid's soccer game."
Among the stresses cited by the operators and their commanders: the exhaustion that comes with the shift work of this 24-7 assignment; the classified nature of the job that demands silence at the breakfast table; and the images transmitted via video.
A Predator's cameras are powerful enough to allow an operator to distinguish between a man and a woman, and between different weapons on the ground. While the resolution is generally not high enough to make out faces, it is sharp, commanders say.
Often, the military also directs Predators to linger over a target after an attack so that the damage can be assessed.
"You do stick around and see the aftermath of what you did, and that does personalize the fight," said Col. Chris Chambliss, commander of the active-duty 432nd Wing at Creech Air Force Base, Nev. "You have a pretty good optical picture of the individuals on the ground. The images can be pretty graphic, pretty vivid, and those are the things we try to offset. We know that some folks have, in some cases, problems."
I wonder how embarrassed these pilots are gonna be when they see their quotes used for this kind of story because I guarantee the reporter didn't have this lede in mind when he went into it.
And here's what those "stressed out" Reaper pilots see:
Sorry, but that doesn't stress me out that much...
-- Christian
Fighting Knives 101
Gerber knives are very sturdy and well-made. That having been said, they have also always been too gimmicky for my taste and most, if not all, have typically been considered wannabe knives by real professionals who use knives. There are only two killing knives I'd consider:
1. The old Army fighting knife with a blade that's just like the issue Colt M-16 bayonet without the rifle hook-up. This knife has a sturdy, curved, dagger point, and it's very smooth with a sure-grip handle in both the old leather rings and the newer rubber rings from Ontario Knife. It doesn't jam between the ribs and is a perfect ear-canal knife. If you are a pro, you'll know what I mean.
2. Is the Tanto; although the Tanto is more geared for outright fighting, it's also a great rib-stabbing and cutting knife, and also an excellent ear-canal knife. I probably shouldn't say this, but these knives also cut through bullet-proof vests like they were butter, as long as they don't hit the ceramic plate. Even then, if they slide off of it while you are still pushing on it, they can still do some terrible damage.
The Ka-Bar of Marine fame requires too much brute force to make it work in too many circumstances, but it might be something I'd consider if I was forced to do so. That's it for killing knives.
For working knives, there is nothing like the bulky and heavy Victorinox Swiss Army Champ. Not Wenger, but specifically Victorinox. It's worth many times its weight in gold, if you have ever needed a really great working knife while out in the bush. One of my sons once cut a piece of tool steel with the hacksaw in one of my old Swiss Champs and didn't damage the knife!
Gerber knives, with all those candy-ass serrations and gimmicks are more geared for the fire-rescue unit than the fighting man. I'd like to see anyone stick one into someone else's ribs without getting the serrations stuck in between them. Yes, you can do it, if you turn it horizontally going in and coming out, but in a fight for life and limb, who the hell knows how they are sticking a knife into someone else? Sideways, upside down, it's all the same when the chips are down. A real professional, chock-full of adrenalin, with a knife stuck three inches deep between ribs will still easily kill you without a second thought while you determine how you'll get your knife back. (To free it, you have to violently pull it up or down to break a rib. By the time you decide to do this, you might be dead. Having tremendously injured the other guy is immaterial to your being dead.)
The guy who said that the aluminum handle would be bad for both cold weather and not to be left in the sun was absolutely correct. In very cold weather it will freeze to your hand and having been in the tropical sun for any length of time, you wouldn't be able to hold it in your bare hand. The guy who talked about wrapping a handle with 550 cord (parachute cord) was absolutely correct too, except that before you wrap the handle, you take out the guts, so the cord lays flatter and ties better over the handle. If you want to make it better, twist the empty cord as you tie it and create a greater gripping surface. It's not about making it stick to your hand, but about creating friction so that under any and all circumstances, including blood, gore and slime, you will be able to maintain a secure grip on your weapon. I gave my wife a Cold Steel Tanto with a 550 cord-wrapped handle some years ago and she loves it. She says it's a 'pretty' knife, as opposed to my old U.S. Army fighting knife, which she says is a 'nothing killer and a pirate knife.' I love it. My children all say they'd rather meet me at night in a dark alley than to do the same with their mother. I'm very proud of the way I trained her, especially having taught her how to overcome female deficiencies in fighting men, something a majority of women have not been taught, consequently, when the chips are down they lose. It's a shame. Me
ED – The only reference to an old, “bayonet-style” fighting knife offered by the Ontario Knife Company was the SP3-M7 knife (I’ve included the picture above) which features a 6 ¾” blade (11 1/8” overall.) I hope this is what you were referring to. If not, let me know and I’ll update this posting.
Regarding your comments about the utility of the “skull crusher” point you see on many knives (the Gerber Yari II or the SP3, for example) I agree with you that a pointed “crusher” will be much more effective in a fighting situation, than would a flat basher like the Ka-bar. For me though, as the poster child for the “non-knife fighter” community, if push ever came to shove, I’d probably reach for a cinder block as a means of self-defense rather than a “professional” fighting knife (I’ll never hit the ear canal, but I’ll probably get the guy’s head with my brick.)
Regarding the use of the 550 cord, I agree, you need to strip the handle down to create a smooth wrapping surface. With my kukri I sanded down the handle, with the Yari II I wrapped the forged aluminum handle with athletic tape to “fill in” the holes, and then wrapped it. For me, I like to leave the core threads in the OD sheath, to give the material better absorbency. One thing I found that worked real well was leather bootlaces. They wrap well and they grip well. Unfortunately, they are also porous and I was concerned about how to clean the knife up after getting it “contaminated.” So I went with the 550 cord.
I'm surprised no one else caught this...or maybe they did and I'm dim...
On a cloudless summer day at Camp Mackall Airfield, the U.S. Army reached a new milestone in its airborne operations capabilities with the MV-22 Osprey aircraft July 22.
The operation marked the first official use of the Osprey by the Army for training purposes, said Marine Lt. Col. Baron A. Harrison, Marine liaison at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Until now, the Osprey had seen use by the U.S. Navy, Marines and Air Force, but not the Army. Because it is still a relatively new aircraft – the Osprey’s first flight was in spring of 1989 – the Army had not shown a great deal of interest.
However, this appears to be changing, said Maj. Steven B. Weliver, airborne commander for the operation.
I know that AFSOC folks are tinkering with the Osprey out at Edwards, but I think it's fairly significant that Army SOF got to take a ride in it ... and jump out of it.
It's interesting too because even the staunchest critics of the Osprey grudgingly accept the bird as tailor made for the SOF. It was, actually, designed in response to the failure at Desert One, so that makes perfect sense from an historical standpoint. But I guess I hadn't thought about whether snake eaters had taken many rides in the things. Maybe this one will have been more influential than McCain's or Obama's Iraq joyrides...
The highlight of the Osprey, and the key to what makes it particularly interesting to USASOC, is its tilt-rotor engine. This dynamic engine enables the Osprey to transition mid-flight from operating very much like a helicopter to propelling through the sky as though it were a plane.
In addition to its ability to take off like a helicopter, the Osprey’s top speed nearly doubles that of traditional rotary wing aircraft, such as the CH-47 Chinook.
“It can get us farther, faster, so basically less exposure to any threats,” Weliver said.
The clear benefit is in extracting troops from a limited and confined space, said Staff Sgt. Eduardo F. Collado, secretary of the general staff at USASOC.
But the Osprey was not always a proven method of travel. It was only recently that the evolution of the Osprey has earned the kind of credibility that catches the Army’s interest, said Weliver.
“The Osprey program has matured to a point where now we can start seeing what its capabilities are and how it will lend itself to the Special Operations community,” he said.
Even so, until a proper number of Soldiers are familiar with safety protocol while aboard the Osprey, it will remain only a potentially useful tool. This jump was among the first substantive steps in incorporating the Osprey into future Army operations.
This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
New Delhi -- Prospective vendors submitted their offsets package Aug. 4 for India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program.
The proposal was submitted in response to the MMRCA request for proposals (RFPs), which asked all competitors to provide an "industrial participation" (IP) plan as part of their offering.
The RFP for the 126-aircraft MMRCA program went out to Boeing, Eurofighter, Gripen, Lockheed Martin, MiG and Rafale, and the companies submitted their bids in April.
Lockheed said its offer included a wide range of projects including investment, manufacturing, export creation and joint development.
"Lockheed Martin is committed to working with our industrial partners and Indian defense industry to develop long-term, high-value projects that bring technology and sustainable business to India," said Orville Prins, a Lockheed vice president for business development.
The giant contractor, based outside Washington, D.C., is touting its history of having established four F-16 production lines outside of the United States as one of its selling points. It says it has achieved over $37 billion in offset program credits in 40 countries - "all without default or penalty. A proven cornerstone of these programs is the ability to provide transfer of technology to program partners."
Boeing claims it has a formidable industrial lineup that includes a supplier team of 16 leading aerospace and defense companies with combined revenues of over $454 billion, as well as 37 public- and private-sector Indian companies.
Earlier this year, Boeing reached agreement to form a joint venture with Tata Industries Ltd. Last year, it reached another deal with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which is adopting Boeing's "Lean" and best-management practices. Boeing has also signed an agreement with international engineering firm Larsen & Toubro for joint exploration of business opportunities in the Indian defense market.
A few items of interest, for perspective. former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne and I spoke recently about the options the Pentagon has. They are very few if John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, stuck with what he said he would stick with. First, the requirements would not change. So the Northrop Grumman team would seem to come out ahead on this score since all the OSD and Air Force personnel who have talked about this agree that Northrop does the best job overall of meeting or exceeding the requirements..
Second, Wynne agreed that since Young made clear a dual buy would just be too expensive that also tips things in Northrop’s favor. Young said several times after the GAO ruling that buying tankers from both companies would add substantial costs, costs the Pentagon was not willing to shoulder.
Still, Wynne professed to like the idea of a dual buy. But I think that’s because he believes Boeing couldn’t get enough planes in the air and certified quickly enough and believes it would, in the long run, just strengthen Northrop’s position.
Finally, while it may not be “factual,” the swagger of senior EADS personnel before and during the Farnborough Air Show was palpable. They have little doubt they will not lose to Boeing, amended RFP or not. Boeing personnel, on the other hand, were clearly on the defensive during Farnborough. More after the briefing.
We did just receive a note from the office of Rep. Norm Dicks who's already crying foul about the new RFP...
Note that there is an obvious change inserted into the System Requirements Document in the revised tanker RFP that clearly favors the larger aircraft even though it is not necessarily connected to any real-world use of tanker. The original RFP said no extra credit beyond “threshold” requirement, which both planes had met and exceeded in the first competition. New RFP says there is value in exceeding. Is this a competition for a KC-10 replacement or a KC-135 replacement?
So, the Air Force shouldn't get what it wants, right Mr. Dicks? Seems to me if they're asking for more fuel capability then they should be able to buy the tanker that gives it to them. Boeing asked for this rebid, they've gotten it, and now its backers are already complaining that it's unfair?
Is there anyone out there that believes this will be a "fair" process anymore?
Stay tuned here, to DoD Buzz and to Military.com for further updates.
-- Christian
So you Wanna be Batman, Huh?
There are a lot of difficult training courses out there in the military. There's Ranger School and jump school, SERE, HALO, dive school, the "Green Footprint" I-school, Scout-Sniper School.
Most famously of course are things like the SF Q-Course and BUDS. Anyone that watches TV or goes to the movies can seemingly discuss their relative difficulty and merits (it's hard to read sarcasm, but try).
Slightly less well known over here on this side of the pond is the Brecon Beacons part of SAS Selection, Canada's SOBQ, the Golani Training School and the BBE's "Black Tulip" shindig. All of these pale in comparison to one unnamed training cycle of such incredible difficulty it's only been successfully completed one time. That's right. It's the training regimen known colloquially as "Becoming Batman."
Interested? Well, Scientific American interviewed the author recently, asking such questions as How many of us do you think could become a Batman?
The response: "If you found the percentage of billionaires and multiply that by the percentage of people who become Olympic decathletes, you could probably get a close estimate. The really important thing is just how much a human being really can do. There's such a huge range of performance and ability you can tap into..."
Battling bad guys. High-tech hideouts. The gratitude of the masses. Who at some point in their life hasn't dreamed of being a superhero?
Impossible, right? Or is it?
Possessing no supernatural powers, Batman is the most realistic of all the superheroes. His feats are achieved through rigorous training and mental discipline, and with the aid of fantastic gadgets. Drawing on his training as a neuroscientist, kinesiologist, and martial artist, E. Paul Zehr explores the question: could a mortal ever become Batman?
Zehr discusses the physical and skill training necessary to maintain bad-guy-fighting readiness while relating the science underlying this process -- from strength conditioning to the cognitive changes a person would endure in undertaking such a regimen. In probing what a real-life Batman could achieve, Zehr considers the level of punishment a consummately fit and trained person could handle, how hard and fast such a person could punch and kick and the number of adversaries that individual could dispatch, what it would be like to fight while wearing a batsuit, and the amount of food one would have to consume each day to maintain vigilance as Gotham City's guardian.
A fun foray of escapism grounded in sound science, Becoming Batman provides the background for attaining the realizable—though extreme—level of human performance that would allow you to be a superhero.
[Editor's Note: Welcome to our new contributors "Slim" and "Swingin' Richard" from the BreachBangClear blog. They'll give us the inside scoop on what operators like (and dislike) in terms of weapons, gear, training and tactics, so stay tuned for more.]
3rd Failure in Row, SpaceX Pushes On
Elon Musk is one of the gutsiest entrepreneurs in the world. After making a pile from his share of PayPal — which he co-founded — Elon decided he wanted to do something no new company has done, build a new launch vehicle from scratch and then sell it.
A dogged and gifted salesman, he sold the Air Force on the idea. They were being pushed hard by Congress to come up with a cheaper and simpler rocket to lift small- and medium-sized satellites into orbit, and Elon had a workable solution — risky, but workable.
But the third try — which analysis of past launch programs indicate was crucial since programs that don’t have a successful launch in the first three rarely succeed — was pretty much an unmitigated failure, no matter how adeptly Elon tries to spin it. The launch from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific went well but the second stage did not separate correctly.
Even Jim Armor, former head of the National Security Space Office and a devout supporter of Operationally Responsive Space, now says he would not approve launch of any national security payload atop a Falcon launch system unless Elon gets two successful and successive launches under his belt.
Armor, now an independent consultant, confessed to being disheartened by the latest SpaceX failure.
“What a heartbreaker,” he said when I reached him on the phone. He said Elon must accept that his company’s systems engineering skills are just not up to the task of putting together several rocket stages and getting them to work. “As far as bringing it together in a stack Elon has been humbled by rocket science,” Armor said. “If I were him I would stop trying to do it by myself and would seek some outside expertise."
After posting the story this morning about the Iraqi M1 tanks (and, by the way, how ironic is it that the tanks used to topple the Baghdad government in 2003 will be the same one they buy for the new army?) I went over to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency web site and took a look at some of their FMS deal announcements.
One -- actually, two -- jumped out at me.
It seems that both Italy and Germany have asked to buy a few MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicles. These, of course, are the killer drones that fire missiles and drop bombs covertly and are credited with quite a few high-value target kills in Pakistan's NWFP.
I thought there were several of these sorts of planes in development domestically for these EU countries, but I guess it's a question of the shortest distance between two points or they're being asked to fill in for shortfalls on missions in Afghanistan.
The Government of Italy has requested a possible sale of 4 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), 3 Mobile Ground Control Stations, five years of maintenance support, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $330 million.
The Government of Germany has requested a possible sale of 5 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), 4 Mobile Ground Control Stations, one year of maintenance support, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $205 million.
Germany requests these capabilities to provide for the defense of deployed troops, regional security, and interoperability with the United States. This program will increase Germany’s ability to contribute to future NATO, coalition, and anti-terrorism operations that the U.S. may undertake. Germany is a staunch supporter of the Global War on Terror and has over 3,000 military participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan with the U.S. By acquiring this capability, Germany will be able to provide the same level of protection for its own forces as those of the United States.
Though I doubt the Germans will be willing to take the heat after schwaking a bad guy in Pakistan, maybe it's going to free up some assets for more U.S. hits in the NWFP.
-- Christian
Iraq Getting World's Best Tank
Saw this little tidbit from Defense Industry Daily today. Looks like Iraq is in line to get the best tank in the world...
On July 31/08, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced Iraq’s formal request to buy M1 Abrams tanks, well as the associated vehicles, equipment and services required to keep these tanks in the field. It is likely that the tanks themselves will be transferred from US stocks, but this has not been verified. With this purchase, Iraq will become the 4th M1 Abrams operator in the region, joining Egypt (M1A1s), Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (M1A2-SEP variant).
I'm having a great time watching as the Iraqi army builds up its capability. We reported several months ago that it had received electronic counter-IED systems for some of their VIP vehicles, I'm seeing a lot more up-armored Humvees over there and quite a few MRAP vehicles on Iraqi patrols as well.
But the request for M1 tanks takes the build-up to a new level. It's like ordering F-15s for their air force. The DSCA says Iraq wants to buy 140 M1A2M tanks and eight M88A2 recovery vehicles.
But the $2.16 billion wish list doesn't end there, the Iraqi government also wants:
64 M1151A1B1 Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV)
92 M1152 Shelter Carriers
12 M577A2 Command Post Carriers
16 M548A1 Tracked Logistics Vehicles
8 M113A2 Armored Ambulances
420 AN/VRC-92 Vehicular Receiver Transmitters
And the list doesn't stop there...
35 M1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET) Truck Tractors, 40 M978A2 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) Tankers, 36 M985A2 HEMTT Cargo Trucks, 4 M984A2 HEMTT Wrecker Trucks, 140 M1085A1 5-ton Cargo Trucks, 8 HMMWV Ambulances w/ Shelter, 8 Contact Maintenance Trucks, 32 500 gal Water Tank Trailers, 16 2500 gal Water Tank Trucks, 16 Motorcycles, 80 8 ton Heavy/Medium Trailers, 16 Sedans, 92 M1102 Light Tactical trailers, 92 635NL Semi-Trailers, 4 5,500 lb Rough Terrain Forklifts, 20 M1A1 engines, 20 M1A1 Full Up Power Packs, 3 spare M88A2 engines, 10 M1070 engines, 20 HEMTT engines, 4 M577A2 spare engines, 2 5-ton truck engines, 20 spare HMMWV engines, ammunition, spare and repair parts, maintenance, support equipment, publications and documentation, personnel training and equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
I want to know who gets the motorcycles.
-- Christian
Congress: Consider Tanker Industrial Base
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
House defense appropriators have directed the U.S. Air Force to consider "industrial base concerns" in its next evaluation of a replacement air refueling tanker.
The directive was contained in the $487.7 billion fiscal 2009 defense appropriations bill approved July 30 by the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee.
Fully funds tanker program
The measure, which is not expected to make it to the House floor before the summer recess that begins Aug. 4, is $4 billion below President Bush's budget request and $28.4 billion above the fiscal 2008 defense spending measure enacted.
The bill, which must clear the full Appropriations Committee before consideration by the full House, fully funds the tanker program at $893 million. Lawmakers also directed USAF to comply with findings by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which sustained Boeing's protest of the decision to award a $35 billion contract to a team headed by Northrop Grumman and Airbus parent EADS.
Boeing supporters and Buy America advocates in Congress complained that the Air Force failed to take U.S. industrial base issues into consideration when it picked the Northrop Grumman-EADS offering. Air Force officials insisted the law did not require them to do so.
Redistributes F-35 funds
The fiscal 2009 spending bill also fully funded the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter but redistributed funds within the program. Airframe production funding was cut $786 million and $430 million was directed to continue development of an alternative engine. The measure also includes $320 million for risk mitigation in the test program, including the restoration of two test aircraft eliminated by the Defense Department last year.
So with littoral combat being all the rage these days, what's being done to posture the fleet against the rising threat of enemy ballistic missiles? Rear Admiral Thomas Marfiak says "not enough."
With all the talk about the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the next guided-missile destroyer, DDG-1000, no one has seen fit to discuss the future of the next generation of cruisers-the CG(X), the follow-on to the present class of Aegis cruisers. Because those remarkable ships will reach their 30th anniversaries-and beyond-in the middle of the next decade, we need to confront the issue of their successors now.
The Analysis of Alternatives for the CG(X) has been in the works for several months, but the outcome is far from certain. And with the target initial operational capability of the new cruiser class set for 2019, the present study of required capabilities and how to develop and fund them has reached the point of urgency.
A knotty problem. Back during 2006's Lebanon War, Hezzy baddies killed four Israeli sailors with a UAV packed with explosives. Granted, textbook definition doesn't exactly qualify that as a ballistic missile. But it does raise the larger point of potential enemies like Iran, Syria, and North Korea -- and what tech they'd employ as a means of knocking back our air and sea power. Seeing that every dictator and his sweet mother have -at minimum- a few medium range ballistic missiles and a whole mess of lighter ship/aircraft killers, I'm thinking that the good Admiral has a point here.
Furthermore, most of our enemies (and potentials) are eager customers of a booming Russian defense industry. Taking into consideration the fact that Aegis was originally designed to protect our carriers from Russian missile attack, logic would dictate that as the Russians upgrade their ship-killing kit, we upgrade our seaborne defense systems as well.
--John Noonan
The Stop Secret Sieve
Classified Information is defined as data, regardless of form that includes sensitive information that its disclosure is restricted by law or regulation to particular group of people. Information is classified at one of three levels based on the amount of danger that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause to national security.
The highest basic level of classified information is Top Secret. Top Secret information is defined as information that if disclosed would reasonably be expected to cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security. The next to highest level of classified information is Secret. Secret information is defined as information that if disclosed would cause "serious damage" to national security. The third level of classified information is Confidential. Confidential is defined as information that if disclosed could cause "damage" to national security.
There are other restrictions on information such as NTK - need to know and SSI - sensitive security information. In these dangerous times, a slip or accidental disclosure of classified information can easily result in loss of life and billions of dollars of damage.
The extraordinary sensitivity of our intelligence and defense organizations' mission requires the extraordinary protection against possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any information coming to your attention concerning the loss or unauthorized disclosure of classified information should be reported immediately to proper government officials. Due to a number of recent security incidents involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information training programs like "Handling Classified Information" has seen a significant increase in demand according to Spy-Ops. Organizations are taking additional steps to inform employees and contract workers of their responsibilities when handling sensitive information.
The most widely known case of leaking classified information came when the identity of a secret agent was disclosed. CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, had her identity publically disclosed in multiple newspapers back in July of 2003. Since then, disclosures of classified information seem be become know monthly.
Examples (By far not an exhaustive list): Jul 15, 2008 The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is exploring into how confidential and extremely sensitive information on airline security and the state of airporst was leaked to the press. April 2008 A Defense Department official who worked as a weapons policy analyst pleaded guilty to disclosing classified military information that was later passed on to China. August 2007 A Congressman revealed a budget cut in the classified portion of the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill dealing with the human-intelligence programs. July 2007 Millions of documents containing sensitive and sometimes classified information have been floating about freely on file sharing networks after being inadvertently exposed by individuals downloading P2P software on systems that held the data. Among these documents were the Pentagon's classified (secret) network infrastructure diagrams, complete with IP addresses as well as information on five separate Department of Defense information security system audits. October 2006 A report published on the front page of the New York Times included a classified one-page slide "Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict" from an Oct. 18 military briefing. August 2006 A Navy lawyer could be put behind bars for 30 years after Navy officials charged him with passing along secret information while he was stationed at Guantanamo Bay.
April 2006 The CIA fired an officer who acknowledged, after failing a polygraph examination, giving classified information to a reporter.
April 2005 The Justice Department launched an investigation into leaks to the media about the National Security Agency's classified domestic surveillance program.
These incidents and many others have triggered multiple ongoing investigations by the FBI and many other federal entities. One would think that the people who have been authorized to handle classified information would take divulging this information more seriously. We should all be outraged when our country's secrets are disclosed for whatever reason. After all, it puts all of us at risk.
A military transport vehicle carrying an unarmed Minuteman III booster tipped over Thursday morning on its way to a 91st Missile Wing launch facility at Minot Air Force Base, N.D.
Early reports show the vehicle tipped over on the gravel access road after the road gave out under the truck, according to an Air Force official. The accident occurred between the sparsely populated towns of Makoti and Parshall, N.D., about 70 miles southwest of Minot, right off County Road 24.
“They are still investigating now but we know there is no danger to the public and no nuclear materials were onboard the vehicle at the time of the accident,” said Maj. Laurie Arellano, an Air Force Space Command spokeswoman.
The standard firings usually ensue after public kerfuffles with nukes. But at this point, I'm not sure there's anyone left at Minot to fire...
--John Noonan
Saudi Jet Crash...or is it?
Another "real or fake" contest. Got this from the good folks over at Militaryphotos.net.
Looks like a model plane to me.
-- Christian
Senate Tough Hump for Boeing Tanker Language
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) and the panoply of Boeing supporters must have been whooping it up as they read the upbeat news stories about language inserted into the 2009 defense spending bill to give Boeing a better chance of winning the tanker contract.
[Photo: Boeing/Defense Tech]
I checked with some staff and a few other sources on the Hill and the early gouge is this: the Senate is unlikely to support language redrawing the rules of the competition or doing anything — like a split buy — that would probably lead to a substantial cost increase.
One knowledgeable source pointed out that the tanker’s “back-stop” supporters in the Senate were to be Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Ala.). Stevens has dropped his position as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee until his seven charges are settled one way or another, in compliance with Senate Republican Conference rules. And I understand Inouye, chairman of the defense subcommittee, has indicated he would prefer to stay out of this fight. Also, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a member of the defense subcommittee, would fight tooth and claw to keep any such language out of the Senate bill. Should such language get in somehow, Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are likely to oppose it as the bill moves to the Senate floor.
Of course, the average taxpayer would never know about the tanker language in the bill. Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, issued a press release yesterday simply stating that the bill:
“Provides full funding ($893 million) for the aerial refueling tanker program. The Committee directs the DoD to comply with the GAO findings concerning the tanker award protest, and directs that industrial base concerns be included in the evaluation of the tanker contract award.”
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
How awkward would it be if the Russian relief showed up in 2010 and left the American on board? Kind of hard to ask Russia for a hitch to space while you're actively running logistics to their Georgian enemies.
The Navy’s Buckeyes have flown a combined 3.4 million hours, making it one of the Navy’s most used jets. Since its introduction to the fleet in 1959, nearly every Naval aviator trained in Pensacola flew the Buckeye in preparation for aircraft carrier landings.
If the land war in Georgia so far seems to be going decidedly in favor of the Russian army and navy, the Georgians seem to be racking up a lopsided score with their air defenses.
on the waterfront, namely the first in the class, USS San Antonio (LPD 17) based in Norfolk, the USS New Orleans (LPD 18) based in San Diego and the third, USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), also homeported in Norfolk.
This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
