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 simi
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
