The Pentagon just released the latest Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq report. Here are some pull-outs from the Executive Summary. You can read the entire document HERE.
My question is how will the MSM portray this report and what negatives will they focus on? It will also be interesting to see if the major papers and networks ignore the update. We'll see...
...The overall security situation in Iraq has greatly improved this reporting period. Security incidents have remained at levels last seen in early 2004 for nearly three consecutive months, while civilian deaths across Iraq have declined to a level 77% lower than the same period in 2007. The surge in Coalition forces, the growth of more capable Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the contributions of the Sons of Iraq (SoI), the ability of forces to secure the population, operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and other extremist elements, and the increased willingness of the people and the Government of Iraq (GoI) to confront extremists are important factors that have contributed to the improved security environment. Periodic high-profile car and suicide vest bombings have occurred, but the number of these attacks and the resulting casualties have decreased dramatically. Moreover, these attacks have not rekindled the self-perpetuating cycle of ethno-sectarian violence that plagued Iraq in late 2006 and the first half of 2007.
...The emergence of the SoI remains one of the major developments of the past 18 months; however, the integration and employment of SoI remain a significant challenge. The SoI provide significant security benefits to their local communities by protecting September 26, 2008 neighborhoods, securing key infrastructure and roads, and identifying malign activity.
...The slow pace of transition is a concern. Continued GoI commitment is required to ensure SoI are fully transitioned to permanent employment. Recent allegations of GoI targeting SoI leaders in Diyala Province are of concern if they are indicators of GoI reluctance to integrate SoI into the ISF or, more broadly, to reconcile a diverse province. Prime Minister Maliki has recently signed an order reflecting his commitment that stipulates the GoI will assume responsibility for SoI in Baghdad and its environs (over 50,000) beginning in October 2008, but Coalition forces continue to pay the salaries of SoI personnel. Prime Minister Maliki’s order would move more than half of the SoIs to the GoI payroll.
...Malign Iranian influence continues to pose the most significant threat to long-term stability in Iraq. Despite continued Iranian promises to the contrary, it appears clear that Iran continues to fund, train, arm, and direct SG intent on destabilizing the situation in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly engaged Iranian leaders on this issue. The majority of SG leaders remain in Iran where they sought sanctuary following ISF operations in Basrah, Baghdad and Maysan Province.
...In summary, political, security, economic, and diplomatic trends in Iraq this past quarter continued to be positive; however, they remain fragile, reversible, and uneven. Progress towards durable security has been made even as Coalition forces have drawn down. Normalcy is increasingly returning to formerly violent parts of Iraq. The ISF continues to improve and is in the lead in maintaining security for the Iraqi people. Improved security has allowed for dialogue among Iraq’s many groups and political entities. The reduced violence has provided time and space in which institutional development can occur. While security has improved dramatically, the fundamental character of the conflict in Iraq remains unchanged—a communal struggle for power and resources. Concerns remain in the areas of political reconciliation, rule of law, and ministerial capacity. In order to achieve enduring stability and realize its full potential, the GoI must continue to build its legitimacy by clearly serving the Iraqi people while paying continued attention to the remaining challenges discussed above to help solidify and build on the progress achieved.
-- Christian
Find the Cyberweapons Complex
Many countries have now assessed their vulnerability and overall risk of being the target of a cyber attack. Inside sources have leaked information to the media stating the heightened state of concern they now have after being briefed on the results of the vulnerability and risk assessments. These results have put pressure on the military and intelligence leaders to address the growing threat. Military and intelligence leaders around the world are struggling with the new reality of cyber warfare. While there are a few hot spots where conventional conflict might erupt, there is growing concern among this group about the new reality of cyber war.
One foreign Intelligence analyst told me that "we face only a remote chance of major conventional military threat involving his country through 2025." She went on to say "Asymmetric capabilities like cyber warfare might threaten the security we have gained over the past two decades."
The cyber intelligence challenge for Intel agencies manifests themselves in the fundamental characteristics of cyber weapons. A cruise missile costs between $1 and $2 million and requires a large manufacturing facility and a substantial amount of infrastructure. A cyber weapon on the other hand costs between a few hundred dollars up to $50,000 and next to no infrastructure. The only infrastructure is a computer and an Internet connection. A cyber weapons manufacturing facility can be located in a single family home.
The challenge for the intelligence community is significant. Perhaps even the greatest challenge in history. While cyber intelligence is rather new, there is some information sources in this area that are actively being used to collect information about attacks that have or are taking place as well as those that are planned. Intel agencies often times are unable to share information they have about planned or current cyber attacks against companies. This is primarily due to the very real possibility that the disclosure would or could jeopardize the source of the intelligence. Many argue what good is the intelligence if we do not use it. This is a very sticky situation that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Cyber weapons proliferation requires all countries to rethink intelligence collection from the ground up. New sources of intelligence and data are required along with augmentation of our human intelligence sources if we are to reduce the risk of cyber attacks as well as a cyber war.
Even as a Russian naval task force enters the Caribbean for joint exercises with Venezuelan forces, and a pair of Russian Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers fly from a base in the Kola Peninsula to Venezuela, the Russian government is discussing the possibility of a satellite launch facility in Cuba.
Revelation of the interest in Cuba came from Anatoly Perminov, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, in a September statement. This may be the latest move by Russian prime minister (and former president) Vladimir Putin to reestablish Russia as a key "player" on the world political-military scene.
The Russian interest in the Caribbean-South America region is reflected in the high-level Russian delegation visiting the area, led by Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. Perminov is part of the Sechin delegation.
(Sechin had visited Cuba on 30-31 July of this year for talks with Raul Castro and, possibly, the ailing Fidel Castro.Putin followed up Sechin's visit with a 5 August announcement that Russia should "restore [its] position in Cuba and other countries.")
The Soviet Union-Russia was the principal political and economic supporter of Cuba from the early 1960s through the demise of the USSR in December 1991. Indeed, Soviet attempts to establish Cuba as a strategic missile and military base led to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 when the United States and Soviet union came closer to a nuclear exchange than at any other time during the 45-year Cold War. After the demise of the USSR support for Cuba ended, causing considerable economic hardship in Cuba.
A major satellite launch facility in Cuba would permit placing satellites in certain orbits that cannot be done from Russian launch sites: Easterly launches close to the equator are the most efficient because of the earth's rotation, maximizing the payload that a launch vehicle can boost into orbit. Such a launch facility and its support infrastructure would be a major source of employment and foreign investment for the Cuban economy.
From the Russian perspective, beyond the political impact of having a major technical facility less than 100 miles from the U.S. coast, it easily enables the reestablishment of a major intelligence collection capability in Cuba. (From the mid-1960s until 2002 the Soviet military intelligence agency -- the GRU -- operated a massive collection facility at Lourdes, Cuba. At its peak operation it was manned by more than 2,000 technicians, both military and civilian.)
Russia's interest in the Western Hemisphere far exceeds Cuba and Venezuela, as the Moscow regime seeks to sell arms to other South American countries, gain access to South American resources (which is now subject to major Chinese efforts), and to develop improved commercial ties to an area that many feel has long been ignored by the United States.
While some Americans will see a satellite launch facility in Cuba as a "cover" for the possible use of such launch stands for military missiles, that concern is a non-starter. U.S. satellite surveillance and the presence of numerous American technicians and businessmen in Cuba, as well as visiting educational groups, would make such a clandestine effort impossible.
Further, because of the non-military nature of such a facility -- which would take several years to establish -- the U.S. government would be hard pressed to claim that it violated the 1962 agreements between Moscow and Washington that prohibited strategic weapons -- missiles and bombers -- from being installed in Cuba.
As the Russian government reacts to American anger over Russian intervention in Georgia, the continuing expansion of NATO, and U.S. plans to install ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, a non-military satellite launch installation in Cuba could be considered a valid action by the Moscow regime. Of more concern to American leaders should be the arms sales to Venezuela, especially the expected sale of up to five advanced diesel-electric submarines of the Project 877EKM or Varshavyanka series, known in the West as the improved Kilo class.
These submarines and other arms sales -- and joint Russian-indigenous weapon programs -- will enhance Russia's influence and access to resources in South America. And that situation could greatly harm U.S. interests.
Developing: Hydraulic Failure Caused Nov. Osprey Fire
I've gotten my hands on an investigation report into the fire that nearly destroyed an MV-22 back in November during an NVG training flight near New River, N.C.
[NOTE: Picture is a scan from one provided in the investigation report]
Turns out, the fire sparked after the #3 hydraulic system ruptured due to pressure spikes from the engine air particle separator which filters inlet air before it is ingested by the engine. The hydraulic fluid spilled all over the IR suppression system, igniting the left nacelle into a ball of flame. The pilots and crew landed safely but the nacelle was a melted, twisted hulk. It caused $16 million in damages.
The crazy part is that this is a known problem. Our friend Bob Cox of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram has reported this same rupture before and his sources in the maintenance community indicate to him the problem is much worse than the Corps admits. In fact, the report shows a Airframe Change notice (#88) that calls for the installation of thicker hydraulic tubing in the EAPS system because of known pressure spikes that can cause a "catastrophic failure." That notice came out in August, three months before the November incident.
The Corps (an Navy) told us not to worry, this was a problem on the Block A aircraft and the retrofits would go on those. Problem is, the November fire happened on a Block B Osprey [CORRECTION: Corps PA says the mishap aircraft was indeed a Block A bird].
I'm working more sources on this and giving the Corps a chance to respond, so you won't see the final version of the story for another 36 hours. But I'll scan some of the docs and try to post them when I push this one live so you can determine for yourselves what's going on...
-- Christian
The Next Generation of Drone Pilots
I just couldn't resist...
-- Christian
Bring in the CPP
Multiple countries are now discussing the need to establish a comprehensive cyber protection program given the continued increase in the threat of cyber attacks and cyber warfare. The attack on Estonia and the more recent attack on Georgia are being viewed as the harbinger of what is to come. I was recently asked what might a comprehensive Cyber Protection Program (CPP) look like. So I thought I would put down my top ten areas that I think would be critical to include in a CPP.
1. Mandatory requirement to have up-to-date protection software on any device connecting to the Internet that includes:
a. Anti-Virus
b. Anti-Spyware
c. Anti-Malwared.
d. Anti-Adware
This software will automatically upload attack data to a central reporting center.
2. Mandatory isolating capability on every system with high processing capabilities and a firewall on every device connecting to the Internet with the following functionality.
a. Cannot be disabled other than for a few seconds
b. Has pre-configuration for mandatory protection
c. Automatically uploads attack data to a central reporting center
d. Automatic disconnection when massive outbound DDoS traffic from compromised computer systems is detected
3. Legislation mandating software vendors comply with the following:
a. Report to authorities within 24 hours of discovery malware software vulnerabilities
b. Minimum security testing requirements that must be met prior to release of any software program.
4. Criminal laws specifically addressing the unique characteristics of cyber attacks, malicious code and system compromise including language that addresses the threat of DDos attacks.
5. Criminal laws specifically addressing the development and sale of cyber weapons.
6. Criminal and civil laws that address organizations who fail to immediately report cyber attacks or data breaches that include those who destroy evidence of cyber attacks, systems compromise and data theft.
7. Establishment of a quasi government/business entity that coordinates defensive and protective capabilities of the information infrastructure. This would also include a cyber attack and threat alerting system.
8. Establishing an Intelligence Center that is charged with cyber intelligence collection, analysis, trend reporting as well as collaboration across the other intelligence agencies.
9. A federal cyber attack investigation unit that is the center of excellence and develops tools and techniques as well as works with all other agencies and law enforcement to dissect cyber attacks and malicious code and assist with investigations.
10. Implement within the federal cyber attack investigation unit a division that provides sufficient audit and control measures to ensure the laws are being followed. The private sector has already proven self governance is unreliable to ensure adherence to the protection necessary for cyber defense.
Now I know there will be many comments about "big brother" and "big government," but given what has taken place thus far, I am not sure we have any other choice. It is deeply concerning that 85 percent of organizations have admitted they have had systems and data breaches. A significantly smaller number have actually reported them in accordance with the 40 data breach notification laws that are currently in place.
An improperly protected computer or other device connected to the Internet is a cyber weapon waiting to be loaded and used.
For once it seems the Army is actually turning fiction into science.
After nearly a decade in the shadows -- with billions spent on earlier versions long since abandoned -- the Army is moving quickly to field a revolutionary new weapon to Joes a lot sooner than anyone had ever imagined.
It's a weapon that can take out a bad guy behind a wall, beyond a hill or below a trench, and do it more accurately and with less collateral damage than anything on the battlefield today, officials say. It's called the XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapon, and by next month the service will have three prototypes of the precision-guided 25mm rifle ready for testing.
"We've done a lot of testing with this, and what we're seeing is the estimated increase in effectiveness is six times what we'd be getting with a 5.56mm carbine or a grenade launcher," said Rich Audette, Army Deputy Project Manager for Soldier weapons.
"What we're talking about is a true 'leap ahead' in lethality, here. This is a huge step," Audette added during a phone interview with Military.com from his office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
Born of the much-maligned and highly-controversial Objective Individual Combat Weapon -- a 1990s program that sought a "leap ahead" battle rifle that combined a counter-defilade weapon with a carbine -- the XM25 only recently gained new momentum after the Army formalized a requirement and released a contract in June for a series of test weapons.
Current infantry weapons can shoot at or through an obstacle concealing enemy threats, but the Army has been trying for years to come up with a weapon for engaging targets behind barriers without resorting to mortars, rockets or grenades -- all of which risk greater collateral damage. After fits and starts using a 20mm rifle housed in a bulky, overweight, complicated shell, technology finally caught up to shave the XM25 from 21 pounds to a little more than 12 pounds.
If the XM25 does what its developers hope, it will be able to fire an air-bursting round at a target from 16 meters away out to 600 meters with a highly accurate, 360-degree explosive radius.
The XM25 is about as long as a collapsed M4, weighs about as much as an M16 with an M203 grenade launcher attached and has about as much kick as a 12-gauge shotgun, said Barb Muldowney, Army deputy program manager for infantry combat weapons.
The semi-auto XM25 comes with a four-round magazine, though testers are looking at whether to increase the capacity to as much as 10 rounds.
Brains are what really makes this Buck Rogers gun work -- it has them. The weapon combines a thermal optic, day-sight, laser range finder, compass and IR illuminator with a fire-control system that wirelessly transmits the exact range of the target into the 25mm round's fuse before firing.
A Soldier can aim the XM25 at a wall concealing a sniper, for example, but "dial in" or adjust the distance by an additional meter above the target. When fired, the Alliant Teksystems-built round will explode above the enemy's position, essentially going around the obstruction, Muldowney said.
"It's so accurate, that when I laze to that target I'm going to be able to explode that round close enough that I'm going to get it," Audette added.
The service hopes to field several types of 25mm rounds for the XM25 -- for breaching doors, piercing armor, even non-lethal air burst and impact rounds, and an anti-personnel round.
Testers at Picatinny plan to put the XM25 through its paces over the next several months, certifying it as safe for a Soldier to operate and tinkering with the weapon's effectiveness and durability.
The weapon costs about $25,000 each, but experts were quick to point out that a fully-loaded M4 for optics and pointers costs pretty close to $30,000. Each ATK-made 25mm round costs about $25.
As Heckler and Koch, makers of the weapon itself, and L3 Communications -- which makes the fire control system -- crank out more weapons, the Army plans to push them out to the field for testing beginning in March 2009. That could include the first use of such a weapon in combat, Cline said.
If all goes according to plan, Soldiers might have their first XM25s in hand by 2014, far sooner than the Army's small arms community had predicted even last year.
The program "came very close to ending," Audette explained. "But the Army took a look at all the work that was done -- and the testing that projected the kind of lethality increase that we could get -- and they said 'we've got to do this.' "
-- Christian
Read Ahead: Duck! It Won't Do You Any Good...
I know you guys are probably noticing that we've had a good amount of weapons content on DT for the last few months.
Part of the reason is because after reporting one gun story, you tend to get tidbits of information on another, then another from that, then another from that.
When I spoke with Rich Audette on the Army's search for a new carbine a couple weeks ago, he mentioned to me that the Army was ready to test shoot a new weapon that could revolutionize infantry combat as we know it (my words not his...but his were close).
I just wrapped up the story and put it to bed, and we're going to post it tomorrow morning at Military.com, but I wanted to give you all a head's up here.
Army to Test Air Burst Weapon for Joes
For once it seems the Army is actually turning fiction into science.
After nearly a decade in the shadows - with billions spent on earlier versions long since abandoned - the Army is hurtling along to field a revolutionary new weapon to Joes a lot sooner than anyone had ever imagined.
It's a weapon that can take out a bad guy behind a wall, beyond a hill or below a trench, more accurately and with less collateral damage than anything on the battlefield today, officials say. It's called the XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapon, and by next month the service will have three prototypes of the precision-guided 25mm rifle ready for testing.
"We've done a lot of testing with this and what we're seeing is the estimated increase in effectiveness is six times what we'd be getting with a 5.56mm carbine or a grenade launcher," said Rich Audette, Army Deputy Project Manager for Soldier weapons.
"What we're talking about is a true 'leap ahead' in lethality, here. This is a huge step," Audette added during a phone interview with Military.com from his office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
Born of the much-maligned and highly-controversial Objective Individual Combat Weapon - a 1990s program that sought a "leap ahead" battle rifle that combined a counter-defilade weapon with a carbine -- the XM25 has only recently gained new momentum after the Army formalized a requirement and released a contract in June for a series of test weapons.
-- Christian
Breaking: Names are Being Named
Lt. Gen. Michael A. Hamel, the former commander of the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is one of the generals who has been punished in connection with the service’s nuclear lapses. Hamel was reprimanded, according to a source who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. He is retiring effective Oct. 1, according to the official Air Force web site. Hamel was responsible for managing the research, design, development, acquisition and sustainment of space and missile systems, launch, command and control, and operational satellite systems. The formal announcement of the punishments will be made at 3 p.m. today by Acting Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.
[NOTE: Follow this minute-by-minute breaking scandal at DoD Buzz. We'll be taking calls from sources and asking the hard questions at the Pentagon briefing in an hour.]
[Editor's Note: Colin broke this story last week and has a follow up that we posted last evening on the continuing fallout from the Air Force (and DLA) nuke scandals.
A source tells me he's upset by the double standard of this punishment versus the one handed out from the Minot incident. He wonders whether there's more to the after action report on the mis-shipped fuses than meets the eye.
Obviously, our sources would not give us any names -- but we did confirm this is going to be announced today at 4pm. The AP came out with a story on this issue about the same time we posted...but Colin got it first with his own sourcing...Great work...]
In further fallout from the nuclear scandals that have plagued a beleaguered Air Force, the Pentagon is set to announce Thursday afternoon that at least seven general officers -- including at least one three-star general -- and five to seven colonels have been disciplined in connection with nuclear lapses, according to two sources familiar with the issue.
The generals are expected to be named; the colonels will remain anonymous.
A congressional aide confirmed the timing of the announcement but did not know how many officers were to be disciplined or what their punishments might be.
"They are holding this extraordinarily close," the aide said of Air Force and Pentagon officials.
Earlier sources - who sought anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter -- had indicated the number of general officers to be reprimanded stood at five, but that number has climbed since last week.
The Pentagon is expected to announce the names of the general officers and their punishments at 4 p.m. on Thursday, following a long meeting on Monday during which several of the punishments were reconsidered.
Sources declined to specify whether punishments were changed, nor would they name those to be disciplined. But there is clearly concern that the Air Force has rushed to judgment in an effort to put the nuclear mess behind it.
One source said he is not "convinced the Air Force did its own thorough investigation," adding the service accepted the Schlesinger and Donald reports about the nuclear lapses at face value "so they could make the 'sacrificial offering' and move on quickly."
A second source voiced similar concerns.
A report by Navy Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, into the nuclear enterprise detailed a loss of oversight from senior Air Force leaders and lowered performance related to the nuclear mission.
Quick and dirty, here are the basic defense spending decisions made by the House Appropriations Committee as Congress races to adjourn for the November elections. Highlights of the continuing resolution (since a stand-alone appropriations bill won’t be passed) include funding for one DDG-1000, $750 million for ISR needs, the JSF second engine program and advance funding for 20 more F-22s.
Shipbuilding: $14.1 billion (same as administration’s request). Congress wants to build eight ships — one more than the request. Here’s the list: one LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock; one DDG-1000 Guided Missile Destroyer; one Virginia Class Submarine; two Littoral Combat Ships; two T-AKE cargo ships; and one Intra-Theater Troop Transport Ship.
Planes: Joint Strike Fighter: $6.3 billion, same as the administration’s request but Congress slices the money differently, including $2.9 billion for 14 aircraft (two fewer than the request) and $430 million for the second engine program that was not included in the president’s request, for a total of $3.4 billion in RDTandE.
F-22: The House will almost certainly approve $2.9 billion for 20 F-22s, but another $523 million (not requested) is included for advance procurement of anotherl 20 F-22s.
Ground systems: Future Combat Systems: The House approved $3.6 billion, $26 million more than the budget request to speed up the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Unmanned Ground Vehicle programs.
The continuing resolution includes $150 million in advance procurement money for a fourth Advanced Extremely High Frequency communications satellite that the administration did not want.
Finally, the House appropriators included $750 million that the administration did not request for “urgent intelligence needs,” items identified by the Pentagon’s ISR Task Force.
AgustaWestland has begun flying the pilot production version of its VH-71A variant of the AW101 for the U.S. presidential helicopter program. The helicopter, PP-1, was flown from the company's Yeovil site in England on September 22. It is the first of five production aircraft that will be built under Increment 1 of the program, with 23 improved helicopters to be produced under the follow-on Increment 2.
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the VH-71 program, is installing the first mission systems in two Increment 1 test vehicles, TV-3 and TV-4, at its presidential helicopter integration facility in Owego, New York. Another two helicopters, TV-1 and TV-5, are continuing air-vehicle flight testing at the U.S Navy's Patuxent River test center in Maryland.
Well, it looks as if the Army has again officially opened the can of worms that is the debate revolving around a replacement for the M16/M4. With this go around however, the Army says all limitations are off. They say they’re willing to consider any caliber, any operation system, and any configuration.
Given the Army’s track record with sticking with the M16/M4 through thick and thin, as well as the Army’s previous position that it would stick with the M4 until there was a “revolutionary” breakthrough in small arms technology (hand held death rays?) I’m taking this most recent statement with a salt lick, but in as much as they are soliciting ideas, I might as well offer up mine.
On its face, it would seem that there are only three real issues to consider; how big (in caliber) how many (bullets in the magazine) and how to crank it (what operating system do you go with.) Once you settle on those, putting them together is packaging. While there are any number of cartridges and operating systems that offer obvious advantages over the M16’s feeble 5.56mm bullet and wretched gas carrier key operating system, if you wanted a truly revolutionary replacement for the M4, I would put my money on the H&K G11.
For those of you not in the know (not that I am, but I remember when it was developed) the H&K G11 rifle was developed as a replacement for the 7.62mm G3 battle rifle in the 1970s. What the Germans wanted to develop was a weapon with a large ammunition capacity (50 rounds) low weight (< 10 pounds loaded) flat trajectory (no sight corrections at <300m) and a high degree of accuracy in 3-round burst mode.
To meet the burst accuracy requirement there were two ways to go, either fire projectiles simultaneously (shotgun shells or duplex rounds) or fire bullets very fast. The shotgun shell method was dropped because the bullets which would do the job not only generated too much recoil to be effective, but their size put them outside the round capacity requirement, so H&K went with the “shoot really, really fast” approach. This is where the G11 comes into its own as a revolutionary weapon.
H&K realized that the bigger the bullet, the more propellant it would require to drive it, and that propellant would be translated into not only recoil to be absorbed by the shooter but a loss of overall ammunition capacity in the magazine. One solution was to use a smaller bullet. The 4.73x33mm bullet developed for the G11 is smaller that the 5.56mm bullet currently used in the M16 but the high degree of accuracy with the G11 in burst mode makes the G11 as accurate firing 3 shots as the M16 firing one, so the combined effect on the target, with the G11, is greater.
The second issue was dealing with the recoil. As has been documented since the invention of the first shoulder-fired automatic weapons, felt recoil will bring the weapon off target, thus rendering accurate, aimed automatic fire impossible at desirable ranges. H&K’s solution was to eliminate the issue by having the weapon fire a 3-round burst so fast that the bullets were out of the barrel and going down range before the recoil reached the shooter. Again, how H&K did this was pretty slick. To speed up the firing process H&K eliminated several steps in the firing sequence, specifically locking, unlocking, extracting and ejecting, by going with a caseless ammunition, where the propellant, rather than held in a metal casing behind the bullet, is actually molded around it. This eliminated the need for extracting and ejecting spent casings, as there were no cartridges to extract, since, when fired, the propellant body was consumed and the bullet launched out the barrel. Using a caseless cartridge also enabled H&K to not only make lighter bullets (there was no weight wasted in metal casings) but also allowed them to pack more of the bullets into a given space (since the bullets are square, there’s no wasted space in the magazine.) The net result was a cyclic ROF of 2,000 RPM in 3-round burst mode (in single shot and full auto, the ROF is only 460 RPM.) An additional benefit with going with caseless ammunition was the elimination of additional openings for contamination. Lacking an ejection port, the G11’s chamber remains relatively sterile.
To eliminate the recoil issue H&K “floated” the barrel and action on a secondary recoil mechanism. The effect here was that when the burst was fired, the body of the rifle would remain stationary against the firer’s shoulder, while the action and barrel recoiled down the secondary rail; by the time the action came completely out of battery, where the recoil would be felt by the shooter, the burst cycle would be complete (a recoil spring pushes the action back into battery for the next burst.)
The end result was a weapon that was light, with a high ammunition capacity, and which was capable of firing accurate 3-rounds bursts.
So what happened to the G11? Well, as luck would have it, as the G11 was nearing production capability, peace broke out all over the world and with all the lions-and-lambs group hugging going on, the West German government decided it had more important things to do than buy a bunch of new wunder rifles, (like look for jobs for all it’s new citizens from the East “zone”) so the program was shelved.
Well, if the Army is looking for revolutionary, I don’t think you can get any more revolutionary than this. I just don’t expect the Army to explore it.
If Lt. Gen. Donald Wurster, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, could put his hands on one more dollar to spend he would buy a heavily armed version of the new Joint Cargo Aircraft. In fact, he wants them so badly that after spending that dollar, he’d “go down the table, stab the others in the back and take their dollars” for the program. Or at least that’s what he said during a roundtable of four-star generals at the annual Air Force Association conference.
The command, based at Hurlburt Field, Fla., needs a successor to the aging AC-130 gunship, and so it’s asking to redirect about $32 million from its current fiscal year budget to buy a prototype from JCA maker Alenia Aeronautica and its U.S. partner, L3 Communications.
The command hasn’t settled on what size cannon to go in the plane, but it wants something that can take out a truck or tank — probably something between a 25mm and 40 mm weapon, said Jason Decker, a spokesman for L3.
The AFSOC version would be called the AC-27J Stinger II, Decker said this week at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in Washington, D.C., where he stood before an oversized illustration of the proposed plane. Though it’s being called a gunship — gunship lite, in some quarters — Decker said that reference tends to draw the ire of Lockheed Martin, maker of the AC-130 family of gunships since the 1960s and the -130A and H model Spectre and the AC-130U Spooky.
But the AC-130s are showing their age and need replacing, AFSOC officials have said. Wurster, commander of AFSOC, said during a presentation at the conference that he wants 16 combat JCAs ready by 2015.
In March, in an interview with CBS Evening News, AC-130 pilot Lt. Col. Mark Clawson said the planes are seeing so much action in Iraq and Afghanistan that “it’s hard to keep them flying.”
Another pilot noted that for every hour of flying,the gunship requires 14 hours of maintenance. And cracks in the wings are prompting their replacement five years ahead of schedule, Capt. James May said, according to a transcript of the interview.
The original version of the Stinger was a C-119 manufactured by Fairchild and initially were deployed to Vietnam in 1969 and used by the 18th Special Operations Squadron, 14th Special Operations Group, at Phan Rang Air Base, but also were operated by detachments out of air bases at Da Nang and Phu Cat, according to the National Museum of the Air Force.
The Iranian military consists of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and a Revolutionary Guard force. Iran's total active duty armed forces numbers 513,000, while reserves add another 350,000. The army is divided into 3 army headquarters with 4 armored divisions and 7 infantry divisions, 1 airborne brigade, 1 Special Forces division and now 1 cyber division. Their budget equates to between $95 and $100 per capita. This figure is lower than other Persian Gulf nations, and lower as a percentage of gross national product than all other Gulf States except the United Arab Emirates.
Education is considered a top priority in the development plans of the country, the authorities have endeavored to increase the primary education enrolment rate. In 2008 Iran had over 3.5 million students enrolled in universities. In the past two decades the education system and curricula have been reformed multiple times. Application of modern educational equipment and technologies such as information and communication technologies is developing considerably. The increased attention to higher education is producing the computer scientists and technology engineers necessary to have an advanced cyber weapons program.
Iran's Software Capability
Iran has the capacity to meet the large domestic demand for software and at the same time to become internationally competitive. The software sector itself, although strong in some areas, is not internationally competitive. The Iranian High Council of Informatics has categorized 543 informatics companies, and the software sector output is around $50 million although, once again, statistics are educated guesses rather than based on hard statistical evidence.
Iran's Asymmetric Capabilities
Iran has significant asymmetric warfare capabilities and poses an additional threat of proliferation. Iran's economic growth last year surpassed 7%. The expansion of their economy is funding research, development and acquisition of strategic military capabilities. They are intensely focused on developing their other means of military and asymmetrical weapons and tactics. Iran's military buildup poses direct threats to U.S. interests. It is believed that Iran has fairly advanced cyber-warfare weapons and offensive plans that include cyber attacks against a specific government web sites and infrastructure. Iran's cyber ambitions are ambitious and troubling. The following section represents and estimation of Iran's cyber warfare capabilities.
Cyber Weapons Capabilities Rating Moderate to Advanced
Cyber Force Size 2,400
Reserves and Militia: Reserve with an estimated at 1,200
Broadband Connections: Less than 100,000
Hacker Community: Hackers have demonstrated their capabilities by successfully attacking numerous Israeli Web site and others. Cyber activists are common in Iran and very active.
Many world leaders as well as U.S. President Bush has publicly vowed that he would never "tolerate" a nuclear Iran. The question now is what about a cyber Iran?
"No more amphib excuses" reads the headline of a recent editorial in Navy Times newspaper. The editorial went on to enumerate some of the problems being encountered by the Navy's new amphibious ships of the San Antonio (LPD 17) class.
After a construction period that lasted twice as long as planned, and cost twice as much as originally budgeted, the San Antonio was belatedly placed in commission on 14 January 2006.
But the ship was not ready for service and, after two and a half years of being "fixed," the San Antonio was to deploy with an amphibious group. But on the eve of her August sailing it was discovered that there were problems with the stern gate to her docking well, where LCU landing craft and AAV amphibian assault vehicles are carried and discharged.
After additional work was performed the ship was able to deploy two days later.
Still, the San Antonio probably goes down in Navy history as having taken the longest time on record from being placed in commission to first deployment. This is amazing when one considers that the LPDs are basically "transport ships" with docking wells and helicopter decks. The Navy has been building docking well ships since the early 1940s, with the first, the USS Ashland (LSD 1), completed in 1943.
The new LPDs have relatively simple and basic systems -- no high-tech radars, no sonar, no advanced missiles, no nuclear propulsion, no advanced electronic warfare systems. Okay. As the Navy Times editorial of 8 September pointed out, the Navy and industry spokesmen "repeatedly have given the same excuse: You will always have issues with the first ship of a class."
That is not a true statement -- look at the intervals between being placed in commission and the first deployment of the first U.S. nuclear-propelled submarine, the Nautilus (SSN 571); the first Polaris submarine, the George Washington (SSBN 598); the first nuclear surface warship, the Long Beach (CGN 9); the first Aegis warship, the Ticonderoga (CG 47); and many other high-tech lead ships.
Now the second ship of the San Antonio class, the USS New Orleans (LPD 18), has been found to suffer from a long list of problems. That ship, also behind schedule and far over cost, was commissioned on 5 March 2007 -- a year and a half ago. The recent report of a Navy inspection team concludes that the ship "cannot support embarked troops, cargo or landing craft," and was deemed "degraded in her ability to conduct sustained combat operations."
These ships were built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems at Avondale, Louisiana. An additional ship, the Mesa Verde (LPD 19), was commissioned on 15 December 2007, and several more are under construction at the yard.
By accepting these ships the Navy has taken responsibility away from the shipbuilder to pay for fixing these massive problems. Beyond these issues, the basic design of the LPD 17 must also be questioned. Compared to the Navy's previous LPD class of 12 ships completed from 1965 to 1971, the San Antonio class is one-third larger (24,900 tons compared to 16,585 tons), but has minimal improvements in troop, vehicle, and landing craft capacities, with a slight increase in speed.
Coupled with the delays and major cost increases in the Navy's littoral combat ship (LCS) program, and the Navy's continued confusion and changes in the DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program, the credibility of the Navy's shipbuilding efforts must be questioned. When addressed in the broad context of the shrinking size of the fleet and the expected reductions in shipbuilding budgets, the situation should be considered critical
It could just be that the Air Force is entering an era that, in part, will be defined by what will not be a hot-button issue: uniforms.
"First things first," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz responded Sept. 17 when asked by Military.com whether uniforms -- new ones or modifications to current dress -- will be relegated to the back burner during his tenure.
Schwartz, who had just listened as his major command chiefs offered up a list of things the Air Force needs today-right-now-thank-you-very much -- including new tankers, more manpower, new tankers, upgrades and maintenance to mobility and fighter planes and, oh yeah, new tankers -- said the Air Force has any number of critical programs it must tackle.
Maybe, at some point down the road, when these other things have been taken care of, he said, uniforms may again be on the agenda.
For now, Schwartz does have to deal with proposed uniform changes that he inherited, including the adoption of a new service dress uniform modeled after one worn by legendary airman Hap Arnold.
The Air Force has a long record of changing or tweaking its uniforms. Acting Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley made a humorous reference to this fact on Monday, the opening day of the Air Force Association's Air and Space Symposium in Washington, D.C. The Air Force dress uniform only recently underwent a change, with the addition of a belt to the jacket, and Donley noted that the last time he worked for the Air Force, as an assistant secretary and then acting secretary in 1993, the uniform went through major changes under then Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak.
He said he would answer questions today about uniforms the same way he answered them back then: "Ask the chief."
Schwartz last month decided to defer until sometime next year a decision on a Hap Arnold-esque service coat. The proposed jacket came out of a 2006 uniform board under Schwartz's predecessor, Gen. T. Michael Moseley.
Some uniform changes have been greeted critically by airmen -- including a proposed blue cammie BDU several years ago -- who argue that the Air Force has more important issues facing it than whether it should have a belt on a service dress jacket or whether BDUs should come with a permanent crease.
The proposed new dress jacket will cost about $125 million to manufacture if it's approved, the Air Force estimated.
-- Bryant Jordan
Robot Arms: Not Just for the Jedi Anymore
It's not a topic to be taken lightly, despite the flippant nature of my title. You have got to read this, though. We've seen a lot of critically wounded service personnel return to fight the enemies that made them amputees in the first place. Some of the stories are remarkable. Grunts that lose and arm, so they study math to go back into the artillery, snipers that lose one eye so they teach themselves to shoot from the other. It's humbling, though if I had my druthers such incredible achievements would never be necessary.
Now this guy has designed something that takes prosthetic replacement to a whole new level. It's cool as hell, gang, and you have to wonder if it's not the often-theorized bridge to what you might as well think an "augmented grunt". Call it the Steve Austin theory (the really cool action hero from when I was growing up, not the big sweaty dude that jumps around a wrestling ring with other big sweaty dudes). You know. We can rebuild him. Better. Stronger. Faster.
Just for the record, for those of you who don't remember the Cold War, astronaut Steve Austin was way more bad ass and far cooler than the Terminator, Jake 2.0 or any of the other modern versions. Nothing against 'em, I'm just saying.
Anyway, inventor Dean Kamen, the guy that named it after Luke Skywalker (instead of Lee Majors' character, unfortunately, but we'll let that slide) says that while fatalities are down on the battlefield (better armor, better CASEVAC procedures, faster movement to a higher level of care facility, etc.), a lot of our guys and gals are coming back from the AOR missing limbs. The number of amputees has gone down some as quality of armor on the vehicles we're using goes up, but the while there are fewer troops losing limbs, the proportion of double amputatees has gone way up (as the insurgents use more and more powerful devices like the EFP to compensate for the better armor. In 2006, 25% of all servicemen and -women that became amputees lost two or more limbs; double the rate of 2003. Amputees comprise approximately 2.2% of WIA personnel, but 5% of personnel who are unable to return to duty. These are grim statistic sindeed, maybe one that really doesn't make your yes and heart hurt until you see them recovering and getting on with their lives. I'm honestly not sure how the staff there can go in day after day and not spend their evenings weeping.
So Dean Kamen set out to out to develop a prosthetic arm that would be sensitive enough to pick up a grape and allow a resident of Walter Reed's Ward 57 to pick up a razor, but be "self-contained" in terms of power. The original goal for development was a two year deadline. Apparently about a year later they'd developed a 9lb motorized arm using titanium and custom built motors, an arm with 18 degrees of movement. Not as good as never losing your arm to a muj device in the first place, but better than having to wipe your ass with a hook the rest of your life.
According to Gizmodo, "... control techniques are revolutionary. He's playing a video of a guy who didn't have both his arms for 18 years, and learned how to use the arms effectively in less than two dozen hours of training. He's showing a video that shows a guy who knows how to punch, pass a Ping Pong ball to his friend and pour a drink for another man who is holding a cup with the same type of arm. Then the video shows Chuck, the man with no arms, for the first time in 13 years, feeding himself cereal..."
Here's the most amazing thing about it - they're developing it so the limb can be controlled by the amputee's mind. Perhaps more of a conscious thing that what you're used to, but think about the ramifications of that for a minute. It's like something from the sci-fi channel (think Eureka) being used right now to improve the remainder of the lives of young men and women that have scarcely begun their lives. We're talking at times about personnel who aren't yet old enough to walk in and buy themselves a beer, but they've given up limbs in the service of their country.
Gizmodo also says that, "Attaching the arm directly to nerves required a lot of surgery...but there are limited arm functions, even if it's very complicated. Learning how to control a back hoe, with four controls, takes years. And the arm has 18 degrees of freedom. But people don't learn how by using each degree. In fact, it's more efficient, Dean says. There are three degrees of freedom, so they did macros. With this, a man learned how to pick up bottles, nails and other items.
Attaching the arm was a challenge, day to day. Nine pounds on an arm is heavy over a few minutes, let alone a day. So they knew that no one would wear them because of that. So Dean designed air bladders that shift the weight on the body when passive (like fidgeting in a chair) and inflate to be hard when the servos in the arm detect a load..."
Research is continuing for the use of infrared light to read signals going through the skull as a possible control mechanism.
I think the thing that impresses me the most about this guy is his attitude. He says it the responsibility of intellectually gifted and or wealthy people to help make the world a better place. He obviously walks the damn walk.
If you can stand to read more without your heart breaking (and I'm being serious here, not a wise ass) you might check out Military inStep, http://www.amputee-coalition.org/military-instep/.
The U.S. Air Force is deploying its first CV-22 Osprey aircraft to Africa next month, according to Air Force Special Operations Command officials.
The aircraft will participate in Flintlock 09, an exercise in the trans-Saharan region of the continent intended to help African nations patrol their own territory, according to a command statement. With poor road systems and vast distances to travel on the continent, the Bell-Boeing CV-22 is seen as well suited to provide the speed and reach needed for such missions.
These missions will employ the CV-22's unique defenses and terrain-following radar, and will differ starkly from those of the Marine Corps, which is operating the MV-22 in western Iraq.
Air Force Special Operations Command currently has nine CV-22s in its young fleet, including five here at Hurlburt (with a sixth expected soon) and four at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. for training, says Brig. Gen. Bradley Heithold, the command's director of plans, programs, requirements and assessments.
The CV-22 recently completed the initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) period, and a final report is being written. However, command officials wanted to press the aircraft into service as soon as possible to support activities abroad. Meanwhile, the last MH-53 Pave Low helicopter, the CV-22's predecessor, is retiring this month. CV-22 initial operational capability is expected next year.
The aircraft will also deploy with the Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures (SIRFC) defensive system.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates will announce a range of punishments for at least five general officers and possibly several colonels for lapses connected with the nation’s nuclear weapons.
Several senior Air Force generals declined to comment about the disciplinary actions this afternoon at the Air Force Association’s annual conference. But a congressional aide confirmed the Defense Department sent a letter to lawmakers yesterday confirming the impending disciplinary actions.
A report by Navy Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, into the nuclear enterprise detailed a loss of oversight from senior Air Force leaders and lowered performance related to the nuclear mission.
Gates had to intervene personally and ordered Donald’s review after sensitive nuclear parts were sent mistakenly to Taiwan and a B-52 bomber flew across the country carrying six armed nuclear cruise missiles.
Last week, a panel of august experts led by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger said they had been surprised by the erosion of controls over nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War and recommended that Air Force Space Command be folded into a new Air Force Strategic Command and urged a range of other measures to ensure airmen dealing with nukes “feel they are part of an important mission.”
Read the rest of this exclusive story on DoD Buzz.
-- Colin
Whatchyou Talking About Willis?
It seems like you all are talking alot about the Magpul/Bushmaster ACR, so I dug up this YouTube video from Future Weapons (I want that guy's job) and decided to post it here.
As more of you make convincing pitches for M4 replacements, I'll dig up whatever video I can find and feature it here...
Army (might) Abandon "Leap" for M4 Replacement
In a move that could reverse years of Army small arms policy, the service is asking industry to send in ideas for a new combat rifle that could replace the M4 carbine.
In late August, the Army issued a solicitation to the arms industry asking companies to submit proposals that would demonstrate "improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion ... reliability and durability in all environments, modularity and terminal performance."
And in a dramatic gesture that could throw the door wide open to a totally new carbine, the service did not constrain ideas to the current 5.56mm round used in the M4.
"We're at the point now where we're going to go out and compete," said Richard Audette, project manager for Soldier weapons at the Army's Picatinny Arsenal.
"We're looking for anyone that has a world-class carbine," Audette told Military.com in a Sept 15 interview. "We're interested in any new technologies out there."
Audette couldn't remember an Army weapons program that opened up the competition to ideas so diverse; he cited the M240 request in the 1990s and M9 solicitation in the 1980s as examples of broad requests, but they stuck with specific caliber ammunition.
The Army's abrupt change in direction -- after long stating it would stick with the M4 until there was a "leap" in technology that would far surpass current carbine performance -- comes after nearly two years of pressure on the service to re-examine the M4 and entertain a nearer-term replacement.
Some in Congress have called for the Army to hold a "shoot-off" with several other carbine designs alongside the Colt-built M4 to demonstrate the state of the art in today's military arms market. Sen. Tom Coburn (R - Okla.) briefly held up the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren in mid-2007 to force the service into side-by-side comparisons of M4 competitors in extreme dust conditions.
Many argue the M4 is more susceptible to fouling due to its gas-operated design, and say other systems are less maintenance intensive.
The move to broaden the competition is also calendar-driven: the so-called "technical data package" of the M4 -- essentially the blueprints for the design -- are up for release in June of next year. That means the Army can rebid the M4 to any company that can make it, potentially driving down costs and boosting production capacity.
And as if that wasn't enough, the Army is also in the midst of re-writing its carbine requirements document, which will spell out specifically what the service needs for its primary weapon. Audette said the ideas sent in as a result of his solicitation will help inform officials at Training and Doctrine Command as they update the Army's carbine plan.
"If there's some new technology out there, they want to be able to write a requirement that will not limit the Army to something they could possibly have," Audette said.
The Army is leaving itself open to carbine ideas that could stray from the nearly 40-year policy of using 5.56mm ammunition for its rifles. Recent developments in ammunition calibers have bolstered critics who contend the 5.56 round has too little "stopping power" and passes through its target without incapacitating him.
Army officials have repeatedly stated that knockdown has as much to do with marksmanship as ballistics, arguing that if you shoot more accurately, you'll drop your target on the first shot.
But several "boutique" rounds have been making inroads with weapons developers both in and outside the government. The 6.8mm and 6.5mm round are increasingly popular, as is the old-school 7.62mm round -- which Special Operations Command plans to incorporate into its new carbine program.
"We want to know about everything that's out there, regardless of caliber," Audette said. "If you've got a 6.8, we're interested in that and seeing what that brings to the table."
"We don't want to spend 20 years producing 1,000 carbines per month," Audette said. "If we choose a new carbine we want to have a production capacity in place so that we can ramp up and get a lot of these out the door."
Industry sources say the Army solicitation isn't just smoke and mirrors to satisfy critics of the M4. They say a competition will likely occur next summer between different weapons and the best gun will win.
If that does happen, Soldiers -- and potentially their counterparts in the other services -- won't likely see their new carbines until 2012, after all the testing and evaluation is done. The Army currently has a requirement for 450,000 M4s, though that number could climb if the service decides to replace all M-16s with the smaller M4, Audette said.
-- Christian
Boeing pulls back the curtain on the NGB
The most excellent Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week posted a few pictures of Boeing's Next Generation Bomber display at the Air Force Association Convention earlier today. Pretty slick looking, though after all these tanker/raptor/csar-x fiascoes you've gotta wonder what the price tag will read.
I've heard rumors that this joint Lockheed-Boeing project would produce a medium range, medium payload bomber, but Sweetman's pics kinda/sorta resemble a long range, heavy payload B-2 Spirit.
More photos and commentary here . Be sure to check out the Northrop Grumman computer model as well. We won't know a thing about capabilities for years now, but I think NG has already inched ahead in the sexiness department.
[EDITOR'S NOTE:We're covering the Air Force Association convention this week in DC and we'll keep bringing you updates of cool tech from the show. I thought you'd be interested in the V-22 story, but I can see from the lack of comments it was ho-hum.
Here's another story from Bryant on a cool as heck drone the makers hope can be used to medivac or insert troops under fire. Sooo Alien 2...I love it. But I doubt we're at a point where a special operator would be willing to hitch a ride with a robot plane...]
A Virginia-based company is hoping to test-fly a vertical take-off and landing drone before the end of this year that, ultimately, could do triple duty as strike vehicle, medevac or special ops insertion/extraction plane.
The Excalibur is currently being developed as an armed, tactical unmanned aerial vehicle by Aurora Flight Sciences of Manassas, Va., capable of carrying Hellfire anti-tank missiles and Viper Strike missiles. The Hellfire is currently mounted on Predator UAVs, while Viper Strike missiles are used for strikes on the Army's RQ-5B Hunter UAV, both fixed wing aircraft requiring traditional runway take-offs and landings.
Excalibur anticipates giving the Army -- if it chooses to follow through in developing the weapons system -- a way of delivering strikes with a VTOL-capable UAV, according to Tim Dawson-Townsend, Excalibur program manager.
The plane uses a turbine-electric hybrid propulsion system for VTOL capability and a turbine engine for horizontal flight, according to Excalibur's specs. Because the plane's flight control system would operate with a high level of autonomy, it would not be remotely controlled. The focus of the operators would be on mission planning, locating and engaging targets, the company says.
But with modifications, said Dawson-Townsend, the aircraft could carry a man. Ground forces could such a UAV to move an injured or wounded Soldier, while special operators could be dropped into our extracted from a location without the need of a pilot or even flying the vehicle themselves, he said.
According to the specs, the plane is also capable of traditional short take-offs and landings.
Patricia Woodside, public relations director for Aurora, said the Excalibur is under contract to the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate. Current funding calls for a one-hour "proof of principal" flight before the end of 2008.
The Excalibur would be heavier than the Predator -- 2,900 lbs empty versus 1,130 -- but would be smaller. The final version, expected in 2012 if funding is appropriated, would have a wingspan of 21 feet, be 23 feet long and seven feet high. The Predator has a wingspan of 27 feet, is 27 feet long and just under seven feet high.
The version to be tested by the end of the year -- pictured above -- is smaller, weighing in empty at just 620 lbs, with a 10-foot wingspan, a length of 13 feet and just five feet high, according to the specs.
EXCLUSIVE: Osprey Takes First Rescue Flight in Ike
The CV-22 Osprey got its first encounter with a massive storm on Sept. 11 when it joined several other Air Force planes in an effort to rescue crewmen from a freighter ship in the path of the Hurricane Ike in the Gulf of Mexico.
In the end, all the aircraft had to turn back and the ship's crew rode out the storm, said Lt. Col. Stephanie A. Holcombe, director of public affairs for Air Force Special Operations Command.
Two Ospreys, along with an MH-53 Pave Low, an MC-130W and an MC-130 P were ordered to the mission around 11 a.m. on Sept. 11 after getting the report earlier about the stranded oil freighter named Antalina. The mission was launched after the Coast Guard requested Air Force help with the rescue, Holcombe said.
The ship was reported to be floating without power about 12 miles southeast of Galveston, Texas. However, the ship in fact did have power, according to Holcombe. The Air Force planes carried four rescue crews made up of three pararescuemen and a combat controller.
But as the Ospreys encountered winds in excess of 100 miles an hour they had to turn back. Those same winds prevented the Coast Guard from extending its rescue hoists from their own HH-60 helicopters, according to reports, prompting them to ask the Air Force for help.
The AP story is short on details, but a version run in the Jerusalem Post describes the order as one for about 1,000 GBU-39s. That's the small diameter bomb, which as you know was not developed to bust bunkers, but to give planes more munitions with the same lethality that they had before with 500 lb. or 2K lb. GBUs.
Now the J Post story says the GBU-39 can penetrate 90cm of "steel-reinforced concrete." According to our friends at Globalsecurity.org, the SDB "has been demonstrated" to penetrate six feet of "reinforced concrete."
Seems to me the real "bunker buster" can do a heck of a lot more than that. And the idea that Iran's nuke program is sitting only six feet under (pun intended) the Earth doesn't seem logical to me.
The real bunker buster -- the GBU-28 -- (or at least the one I associate with "bunker bustin') can drill through 20 feet of concrete and 100 feet of Earth. So why is it that the story we ran leads the reader to believe that the GBU-39 is a bunker buster? As someone who's been reporting this kind of stuff for 10 years I'll tell you there's two reasons. One is that the editor doesn't know the difference and two is because they want to convey the idea that the U.S. is arming the Israelis for a strike against Iran.
Now, we may very well be arming Israel for a strike against Iran. But this SDB contract sure ain't for taking out the Mullahs' nukes.
-- Christian
Where will you be when the lights go out?
Nearly eight months ago the Defense Tech contributors from Technolytics and Spy Ops covered a CIA presentation that disclosed to 300 U.S. and foreign government officials, engineers and security managers from the critical infrastructure sectors (gas, oil and electricity asset owners) that they had intelligence from multiple regions outside the United States of cyber intrusions into utilities followed by extortion demands.
On the heels of this announcement, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a final set of security standards designed to protect the United States electric grid against a cyber attack.
The eight security standards include:
1. Critical cyber asset identification
2. Security management controls
3. Personnel and training
4. Electronic security perimeters
5. Physical security of critical cyber assets
6. System security management
7. Incident reporting and response planning
8. Recovery plans for critical cyber assets
Back in May the Government Accountability Office's assessment and report found that the Tennessee Valley Authority is vulnerable to cyber attacks that could sabotage critical systems. TVA is the nation's largest public power company that provides electricity to 159 local distributors that serve 8.8 million people and 650,000 businesses and industries in a seven-state area. The 62 page report cited one reason for the concern is that TVA had not consistently implemented significant elements of its information security program. The report was requested by a House Homeland Security panel on cyber security.
The potential for cyber security attacks on our nation's electric power grid has spurred politicians to consider legislation to broaden federal authority over electric companies. The steadily increasing risks have caused Congress to consult with federal agencies and industry associations on how to craft such legislation. Just recently, legislators sought further input at a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce's subcommittee on energy and air quality.
It has been eight months since this risk was openly disclosed to the public along with evidence that cyber attacks caused power outages in at least three countries. One would think that something as critical as the power grid's security and integrity demands would receive much more expedient attention. It is only a matter of time until a successful cyber attack on our infrastructure occurs and time is running out. With every tick of the clock we get that much closer to a significant cyber attack incident.
The Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management recommended the Air Force put all its nuclear missions under Air Force Space Command and call the whole thing Air Force Strategic Command.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates organized the task force — which was headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger — after axing the Air Force’s top two leaders last June due to its nuclear problems.
The recommendations Schlesinger announced Friday at the Pentagon also would mean that Air Combat Command would lose its nuclear bomber mission.
The task force recommended assigning a group of bombers to a numbered Air Force that would fall under AFSTRAT and have a sole nuclear mission.
Solid. And just in time to meet the challenges of a newly aggressive Russia!
The big changes, as I see them, call for (1) Air Force Space Command to morph into Air Force Strategic Command (2) New billets and career opportunities for the long-neglected nuclear officer (3) Shifting the entire bomber force into Strategic Command.
That's the largest organizational shake up since the much-lamented days of Merrill McPeak. The times, they are a-changing. Or -depending on how far Putin plans to take Russia's nuclear revitalization- could be returning to the old status quo.
Army Starts Down Path of M4 Replacement
The Army recently issued a solicitation to industry asking for a view of what's out there to replace or refine the M4 carbine and M16 rifle.
The solicitation, issued Aug. 22 by Program Manager Soldier Weapons through PEO Soldier, asks industry for their ideas on "the enhanced carbine and subcompact small arms technology." The solicitation asks for industry to look specifically at performance and production capacity at this point -- ignoring the main gripe about the M4's susceptibility to jam due to its gas operated system.
Performance Improvement. Request information on potential improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion out to 600m, reliability and durability in all environments, modularity, and terminal performance on a variety of target mediums. Modularity includes, but is not limited to, compatibility with accessory items such as optical sights, image intensification sights, thermal sights, laser targeting systems, bipods, tactical lights, MILES, bayonets, and accessory type grenade launchers. There is specific interest in improvements to zero retention and zero repeatability...
Production capacity estimates. Request information on minimum and maximum monthly production rates for a military carbine and/or subcompact individual weapon, and the lead times to achieve these production rates. This estimate should consider a US based production facility by the third year of deliveries. This capacity should be above and beyond any current production orders or current sales. If new facilities are planned or required, so state.
The solicitation did leave open the possibility of weapons with calibers other than the standard 5.56mm NATO round...
Note: Although this request for information is not limited to 5.56mm NATO systems, it is limited to ammunition that will meet International Convention standards
This addresses another gripe of the M4: stopping power. So at least the Army seems open to a 7.62 or a 6.8 round or some other boutique caliber. [Note: A source in the industry tells me that SOF is getting good results by tweaking the 5.56 round for more stopping power...and not from making it a hollow point.]
That same industry source reminded me that the "technical data package" -- essentially the patent -- of the M4 is released in June 2009, so anyone can have access to the plans and make copies of the M4. I'm working on a longer, more comprehensive story on this for Military.com, but it seems that the Army is starting to open itself up to a new weapon as an M4 replacement -- though restricting the ideas simply to accuracy seems weird.
Also, what's this about a "subcompact?" I'll try to find out more...
-- Christian
747-Based Chemical Laser Tests Begin
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
[Editor's note: You all know I've been a grudging supporter of the ABL, even if there's no money for it. All I'll say is it'll be exciting to see this thing actually work. Thanks from our friends at Aviation Week.]
Longer duration firings of the high-energy laser on board the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's Boeing 747 airborne laser (ABL) are getting underway following the completion of the "first light" initial firing milestone onboard the aircraft in a ground test on Sept. 7.
The test, conducted at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., lasted only a "fraction of a second" says a spokesman for Northrop Grumman, the makers of the Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL). But this was long enough to prove "the laser is ready to demonstrate power output sufficient to destroy a ballistic missile in flight," he adds.
The COIL test marked "Knowledge Point 6" for the ABL program and came after a series of activation tests that began late last year. The work paves the way for "Knowledge Point 7," which will involve firing the laser through the system's Lockheed Martin-developed beam control/fire control system and out of the nose-mounted turret. This is targeted for the end of the year and is a crucial milestone towards an airborne intercept test against a ballistic missile, which ABL prime contractor Boeing says remains "on track" for around August 2009.
The COIL laser test was conducted under simulated flight conditions with fuel being supplied by onboard chemical tanks, and the laser itself subject to "atmospheric conditions consistent with those at the altitude at which the aircraft will fly," Northrop Grumman says. The "first light" test involved firing the laser into an onboard metallic calorimeter, or "beam dump," which measures the power of the beam by measuring heat rise in the metal.
Since it's Sept. 11, 2008, I'm going to do something I've never done before and share with you my experience of Sept. 11 and Sept. 12, 2001. I'd like to open up the site all day for DT readers -- worldwide -- to describe where you were, what you saw and your impressions were on 9/11. I'll post the responses throughout the day...
I was eating breakfast in the National Press Club that morning when I saw the images of the first hit on the WTC playing on the news shows that morning in the dining room. At first I really thought this was a mistake, but when I realized it was a much larger plane, I began to suspect some sort of terrorist attack.
I ran down to my news office -- at the time I worked for a defense industry newsletter called Defense Week -- and by the time I got to the TVs in my office, the second plane had hit. Then I knew we were truly being attacked.
Then the Pentagon...
As a new news guy, I figured it was time for me to swing into action. I wasn't sure what to do so I grabbed my things and headed toward what most people thought would be the next target...the White House.
The streets were jammed with cars and people, but it was orderly. No one was totally freaking out but there was a thick tension in the air. I got the sense that folks in that part of DC -- near the White House and various other 'executive office buildings" -- were used to tension and stress. I walked quickly over to the park in front of the White House and was quickly shoved away by an MP5-wielding uniformed Secret Service. People were starting to freak.
Then all of a sudden, you could hear Air Force jets in the air, flying low. As if on cue, the Secret Service guys started running down Pennsylvania Ave. herding people west, away from the White House. Another plane was coming and its target was right where we were standing.
I walked fast, but not too far. The excitement of the stress kept me planted there. I was small fry so the Secret Service officers ignored me. No plane showed up (it turned out this was the Shanksville, Pa., plane), so I went back to the office and started banging the phones for colleagues in the Pentagon and elsewhere. My first series of stories was on the coming conflict in Afghanistan and an examination of the Soviet defeat there.
The next day, Sept. 12, I went to the Pentagon. It was incredibly emotional for me. The building gaped from the impact. The air was still thick with smoke. The rafters smoldered. But the building was open for business. A testament to the resilience of the American military.
I've spent the last seven years covering the "global war on terrorism" in one way or another. Truly 9/11 was the first life-changing event I've been a part of. And it reminds me of the "where were you when Kennedy was shot?" or "what were you doing when man set foot on the moon?" kind of questions. But 9/11 had far more impact than those events could have on my daily life. I've been shot at, risked explosive injury, met tribal elders in poppy fields, seen the "worst of the worst" in chain link cages, witnessed new alliances seen the best -- and the worst -- of our government's capabilities and felt first hand the grief of loss than never wanes.
9/11 is the seminal event of this century. It has in many ways defined me -- professionally and personally -- and it's something I wish away every time I think of it.
-- Christian
A Modest Proposal on the F-22
Lockheed Martin and the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area has been doing an awful lot of hand wringing over the impending doom closure of F-22 assembly lines. Senators John Coryn and James Inafoe, both long time Raptor advocates, have argued that closing the Raptor plants would cause massive "disruptions and layoffs," and that Congress should green light $531 million for 20 additional F-22s in FY-2009.
Here's a solution: let the Aussies foot the bill. Australia is so hot for the Raptor, they'd probably trade in New Zealand for a couple of squadrons. And their loyalty can hardly be called into question, Australia has been spilling the same blood in the same mud with us since the first World War.
The real issue is whether or not we can trust them to keep the F-22's technology under lock and key. Secretary Gates says we can, but Congress hasn't budged on foreign sales.
If you asked in July, most in the defense community would -in all likelihood- favor keeping the Raptor restricted to the USAF. Then Russia went and invaded Georgia in August and suddenly all those big ticket, Russian-killing weapon systems became cool again.
So with a newly aggressive Russian in mind, let the Aussies keep our production lines open -and perhaps the equally interested Japanese, with an assurance that they don't use the Raptor to attack Pearl Harbor again- while Congress and the Pentagon figure out just how many jets they want.
Sans the technology security concerns, that's a win-win solution. We get more superbad Raptors flying for the home team, and the greater number of jets that are pushed through Lockheed's production lines, the cheaper the F-22 becomes for the USAF to purchase.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, clearly worried that the atmosphere is so poisoned by the battle between Boeing and Northrop and tainted by the poor performance of the Air Force, has decided to punt and leave any tanker RFP to the next administration.
“Rather than hand the next Administration an incomplete and possibly contested process, Secretary Gates decided that the best course of action is to provide the next Administration with full flexibility regarding the requirements, evaluation criteria and the appropriate allocation of defense budget to this mission,” the Pentagon release said this morning..
The release quoted Gates, saying that “It is my judgment that in the time remaining to us, we can no longer complete a competition that would be viewed as fair and objective in this highly charged environment. The resulting ‘cooling off’ period will allow the next Administration to review objectively the military requirements and craft a new acquisition strategy for the KC-X.”
The first congressional reaction was positive, from one of the Capitol’s most important money men. “I believe that Secretary Gates made the right decision in providing the next Administration with the opportunity to review the requirements and proceed with a new solicitation. Our committee advised the Defense Department to ensure that there was enough time for legitimate competition. This decision will allow for that,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) said in a statement. He signalled pretty clearly that the House Appropriations defense subcommittee would come up with whatever money might be needed to keep the tankers flying. “Now our job will be to work with the Department to make certain that our current tankers, that are over 40 years old, will be rehabilitated to ensure we have tankers available for world-wide Air Force missions,” he added.
The Russian government is sending one of the world's largest warships into the Caribbean for a joint naval exercise with Venezuela. This will mark the first time since the end of the Cold War in December 1991 that a Russian naval force will sail that "American sea." The ships will operate in the Caribbean during November, showing support for Venezuela's government, which is strongly anti-United States.
Leading the Russian force will be the Petr Velikiy, a 26,000-ton, nuclear-propelled "battle cruiser." The ship, completed in 1998, is the world's largest warship other than aircraft carriers, and displaces more than twice as much as the largest U.S. surface combatants, the Aegis missile cruisers of the Ticonderoga (CG 47) class.
While Russian officials have denied that the deployment is linked to the United States sending naval ships into the Black Sea to visit a Georgian port, the Petr Velikiy cruise certainly reflects Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's efforts to demonstrate that Russia is again a major political-military "player" on the world scene. The single Russian aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, led a task force into the Mediterranean in late 2007, and there have been periodic long-range flights by Russian Bear bombers as the Putin regime seeks to impress other nations that Russia is still a great power. Admiral Eduard Baltin, former commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, said that the Caribbean maneuvers mean that "Russia is returning to the stage in its power and international relations which it, regrettably, lost at the end of last century".
"No one loves the weak," Baltin was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency.
Baltin, in January 2007, had declared that there was a buildup of U.S. nuclear-propelled submarines in the Persian Gulf area for the purpose of a Tomahawk missile strike against Iran.
"The presence of U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region means that the Pentagon has not abandoned plans for surprise strikes against nuclear targets in Iran. With this aim a group of multi-purpose submarines ready to accomplish the task is located in the area," he said.
There has been intense Russian interest in the Caribbean area since 1959, when Fidel Castro took control of Cuba and began negotiations with the Soviet Union for economic and military assistance. As the Soviets built up an arsenal of defensive and offensive weapons in Cuba in 1962, there were plans to dispatch cruisers and destroyers as well as submarines to the area to be based in Cuban ports. In the event, at the time of the crisis only a few Soviet diesel-electric submarines were in the area. Following the crisis additional conventional submarines visited the island's ports, with the first nuclear submarine arriving in 1969. Almost simultaneously a missile cruiser and two other surface combatants visited Cuba. Additional Soviet warships made periodic deployments into the Caribbean, including the helicopter carrier-missile cruiser Leningrad in 1984.
At the same time as these ship visit to Cuba, naval Bear reconnaissance/targeting aircraft made periodic flights from their Northern fleet bases, down the Atlantic, and landed in Cuba for short-term operations. They subsequently returned to their Soviet bases.
Such flights and warship visits came to an end with the demise of the Soviet Union.
The relatively modern destroyer Admiral Chabanenko (completed in 1999), probably another surface combatant, and an oiler will accompany the Petr Velikiy to the Caribbean. The nuclear-propelled warship is one of two remaining ships of a class of four "battle cruisers" at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg. The two other ships are no longer operational. These giant cruisers have combination oil-burning and nuclear propulsion plants that can drive them at 32 knots. They are armed with a massive array of anti-ship, anti-submarine, and air/missile defense weapons.
All right, I just wrote out a long entry but it got erased when I tried to post it...frustrating.
But the deal is, I'm wondering what in the Sam Hell is going on with this Azizabad raid story.
Saw a story last night on Fox about it. Ollie North (who I do not respect as a journalist, but isn't a bad guy personally -- I've bumped into him on two trips to Iraq) and a pretty damned good cameraman with no Fox agenda were embeded with the MARINE special operations force on the raid.
They saw the engagement. They saw the casualties. They did not see what "witnesses," the UN, the Afghan government or the New York Times (nice try with that BS iPhone video) saw.
Watch the report:
Now, what I want to know if there's anyone else out there who can tell us the straight gouge. Why? Here's what I'm worried about. There's a high level delegation going over there to conduct another "investigation." They HAVE to find something wrong. Who are they going to hang out to dry? MarSoc...once AGAIN. Remember all the "civilians" they killed in March 2007 after that roadside ambush? They got kicked out of theater, the commander in Afghanistan prostrated himself before the Afghans, the media and the Pentagon for forgiveness. The Corps holds a public inquiry on the incident and what do they find? The MarSoc operators did NOTHING wrong.
How much do you want to bet this will be replayed once more? Help us keep this from happening again, folks.
-- Christian
Cave Canem: the Robot Dawg for MOUT
I like dogs. Always have. A house without a pet is not a home? Bullshit. A house without a dog is not a home. Now they're building dogs we'll eventually take into places like the Hindu Kush, possibly instead of a humvee, certainly in the place of a donkey, backbreaking ruck or indentured servant. It's wicked cool. Me and Slim have watched the video a dozen times since our buddy Mark the Ninja sent us an e-mail about it from the depths of his DC hidey-hole.
Honestly, this thing is more like a techie's metal donkey than a dog. Nobody north of Tijuana wants a donkey curled up in their bed or bringing them the paper though, which I'm confident is why they named it what they did.
Billed as "the most advanced quadruped robot on Earth" and funded by DARPA, Boston Dynamics' Big Dog is just one of several robots under development. It walks, runs, climbs rough terrain, carries more weight than an 0341 and won't piss on the floor. Cyberfido runs on a gasoline engine that "drives a hydraulic actuation system", which I'm guessing is a little more complicated than a self-propelled pull-start mower (at least a little bit). It walks a little bit like an Imperial ATAT and sounds like a pissed off remote control airplane, but the potential for this thing is awesome.
According to the Boston Dynamics website, "BigDog's legs are articulated like an animal’s, and have compliant elements that absorb shock and recycle energy from one step to the next. BigDog is the size of a large dog or small mule, measuring 1 meter long, 0.7 meters tall and 75 kg weight.
Here's a video:
BigDog has an on-board computer that controls locomotion, servos the legs and handles a wide variety of sensors. BigDog’s control system manages the dynamics of its behavior to keep it balanced, steer, navigate, and regulate energetics as conditions vary. Sensors for locomotion include joint position, joint force, ground contact, ground load, a laser gyroscope, and a stereo vision system. Other sensors focus on the internal state of BigDog, monitoring the hydraulic pressure, oil temperature, engine temperature, rpm, battery charge and others."
I don't know as of this writing whether BigDog is a two-stroke or four-stroke engine, whether it used dilithium crystals or how many gigs of memory it has. Presumably BigDog's processing suite is duotronic rather than positronic. Unconfirmed rumors allege that Boston Dynamics pulled all Windows Vista operating systems from the prototype BigDogs after they suffered repetitive epileptic fits during task performance reviews.
BigDog can carry about 20 pounds and reach speeds up to 4 mph (which is certainly fast enough to keep up with some poor bastard of an 11C trying to climb the Ghilzai plateau, and certainly faster than you can drive through traffic in Tikrit), climbs slopes up to 35 degrees, walks across rubble, and carries a 340 lb load. BigDog is part of a program intended to create robots with "rough terrain mobility that can take them anywhere on Earth that people can go." Marc Raibert, the founder of Boston Dynamics, says of BigDog's locomotion, "Legs can go places that wheels and tracks can't go, and there are lots of those places on Earth."
From what's been accomplished so far, it seems like they're well on their way to reaching this goal. I'm sure further testing remains. Certainly I'd have questions for such a machine once it went operational. How would it do in the heat and grit of the Dasht-e Kavir? Could it ford the Khash-rud River with the grunts if they had to wade across? Could a version be built to withstand small arms fire as it humped a load of AT-4s across the street to resupply the grunts clearing houses?
The possible uses for such a machine are by no means bound by military application, of course. Think of them working with the Forestry Service fighting wildfires, or carrying life saving equipment for search and rescue teams.
I think it would be funny to have BigDog walk the dog so I don't have to, but then again I'm pretty lazy. I back my damn car down the driveway to check the mail and I never run unless someone is chasing me.
There's a lot more about BigDog and his cousins on the web, if you're interested. BigDog Beta even has a MySpace page. The official Boston Dynamics website is right here.
WARNING: Do not go to RedTube and type in BigDog, you'll be grossed out.
That's it for now. Thanks again to Mark the Ninja.
Colin has a great commentary from ousted Air Force secretary Mike Wynne over at DoD Buzz on how the West should respond to Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Here's an excerpt:
The Russian incursion in Georgia raises fundamental questions about Western policy responses and the tools available to support Western policy. Russian actions can not be a surprise to the West; The Georgian People spoke out at least two weeks prior, and it takes time to move troops into and out of the tunnel separating Ossetia and Georgia. Also; where was the verification from the media? Where were the satellite images of the destruction of the town in Ossetia that has been heavily propagandized to support the two pronged invasion? All this makes one wonder about the reality of the event. The ability of the Georgians to see and broadcast the event was blinded by the Russian shootdown of the Georgian UAV weeks earlier.
In hindsight, the Russians sent many signals, yet those signals seemingly were ignored or set aside. What is real is the recognition of the two breakaway provinces,and de-facto occupation of the port city.
Russian actions challenge the West to revisit its ability to defend the states bordering Russia, including the new states of NATO, against Russian military petro-power. Beyond Georgia or Europe, there is the question of the credibility of Western responses to states like Russia that take into their own hands the fate designing borders.
After all, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein led to a unified Western response to restore the territorial integrity of Kuwait. But to do this required a 6-month military buildup before a response could be generated.
Can we not do better now in providing appropriate military tools for Western decision-makers? We need tools or force packages which let states like Russia know that their actions will not go unobserved or unmitigated. We need flexible tools for ambiguous situations so that Western decision-makers can make NATO a serious enterprise.
How might have we responded and what can we do now? We could have flown Global Hawks or U2s on the Russian-Georgian border to signal our watchfulness to the Russians. We could have escorted these assets with the F-22s, which fly at high enough altitude to operate as a defense of unmanned assets, or can operate to defend key assets in Georgia. If the Russians determined to invade, we could have strengthened air defenses of key Georgian positions, provided fighter re-enforcements, and placed special forces or Marines on the ground in the national capital. We need to strengthen our capability to shape flexible force packages which can generate firebreak messages rapidly and effectively. And Europe, under the leadership of President Sarkozy, could shape their military capabilities to inject similar force structure capabilities to shape choices and limit Russian options.
With regard to the new states, I have written elsewhere about the need to shape cyberwarriors to defend against Russian attacks, and we need to enhance their ability to provide for air and tank defenses through providing aid to the new states in Europe. When considering Ukraine, we need to discuss with their leadership how they would like to enhance their defenses against external threats. In the 1980s, West Europeans discussed the need to enhance the tools for “defensive defense.” Such tools are stronger now, ranging from cyber to ground and air defenses. Europe, as well as American industry, has appropriate technologies at hand to assist endangered states to provide firebreak defenses against a Russia which thinks its petrol interests will block the will of the West to respond.
Private organizations and for that matter individuals that provide military-style security have been in existence for thousands of years. Their origins can be traced back to the medieval times. Many refer to the individuals who make up these groups as Soldiers of Fortune. A Soldier of Fortune is a person hired to fight for a cause in a country other than their own. Many times they are referred to as mercenaries, but that term carries negative connotations. These professional soldiers go where conflicts break out and where their skills are needed. Now Cyber Soldiers of Fortune are beginning to appear as are cyber arms dealers.
We have entered a new age of conflict. The new era of conflict is one that does not operate in the physical worlds and is not defined by physical boundaries. Cyber warfare, conflicts and attacks are now a reality and a reality that every nation in the world must address. Given that this type of warfare is relatively new, there is a severe shortage of resources. The three hottest positions emerging are cyber conflict resolution specialists (CCRS) and cyber operational support technicians (COST). CCRS create cyber attack strategies, plans and direct offensive strategies against specific targets. The COST provides the hands-on development, customization and deployment of cyber weapons as directed by the commanding CCRS. The third hot resource is the cyber espionage operative (CEO) –- the spy.
More and more attention is being given to cyber attacks. They have become an all too frequent a topic in the media today. Metrics collected by Spy-Ops clearly indicate the rapid growth in coverage of these incidents. The chart to the right tracks cyber threat awareness. As the number and significance of incident increase the media coverage and threat awareness increase. The spike that occurred in April is sure to increase the demand for these resources. Patty Luther, a security recruiting specialist said, “There is an ever increasing demand for highly skilled cyber security resources. When you add the demand for Cyber Soldiers of Fortune, resources are in short supply.” It's no secret that there are fewer students majoring in computer science today. The Computing Research Association's statistics show that the number of freshman who list computer science as a probable major has fallen by 70 percent since 2000.
New national data shows that what has been a traumatic decade for computer science departments is finally starting to turn around. For the first time since 2000, the number of newly declared undergraduate majors at doctoral-granting computer science departments is now on the increase.
As the cyber warfare threat environment continues to evolve new opportunities will be created. This threat is in its infancy and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. While Cyber Soldiers of Fortune are now a new entity, they will soon become old news and common place. In the past two months I have received emails and phone messages asking if I would be interested in joining/leading a cyber militia. This is a very dangerous proposition. It is difficult to determine who really is in controls of these organizations and how the cyber capabilities of the militia would be used. I would urge any of our readers on here to resist the temptation to join or support such groups.
Napoleon famously quipped, "An army marches on its stomach." And anyone who's been hungry in the field knows that few things out there are as big a deal as chow. So when I visited Natick last week, I was especially interested in seeing what was new at the DoD Combat Feeding Directorate.
Well, buffalo chicken, for one thing. That's right, warfighters; come FY '09 you'll have a new menu item in your MREs. And I had a chance to taste the stuff, and I'm happy to report it's really good . . . and I'm a hot wing connoisseur.
Jeremy Whitsitt, Combat Feedings outreach coordinator, explained that the command is conscious of the morale elements along with the nutritional value of menu choices . "An item like buffalo chicken makes a Soldier feel in touch with life back home," Whitsitt said.
Since 1992 Combat Feeding has added over 200 components to the basic MRE.
Whitsitt described the "ration timeline," which is the strategic plan behind combat chow:
- Initial wave eats MREs for 15-20 days. (No requirement for heat or electricity.)
- After that "heat and serve" group rations (like the Unitized Group Ration - Express) will be used for the next 10-15 days.
- Then hopefully things are settled to the point that a chow hall is up and running and "A Rations" are being served. This assumes refrigerators, boilers, and stoves are in place.
Speaking of the UGR-E, Whitsitt demonstrated how easy it is to fire one of those bad boys up. The box comes with chow for 18 folks, and with the simple pull of a lanyard, the auto-boiler starts heating the entrees. They're ready to eat in about a half hour.
The UGR-Es have been a huge hit in the field. Introduced in June '07, Combat Feeding had planned on moving 60,000 modules in the first year. Because of demand, they wound up shipping 60,000 modules a month instead.
Now we've reported on the "First Strike Ration" here before, but what we didn't know was what caused the development of it. MREs are packaged per meal. Turns out that special operators didn't like the bulk of 27 MRE bags when headed out for a 9-day op, so they'd break them down and take out what they really wanted and leave the rest behind. When Combat Feeding got wind of this trend they feared that the spec ops boys might be missing out on some basic nutrients in their zeal for mobility. So they designed the FSR, which is about the same cubic size as an MRE but contains enough nutrients for an entire day instead of just a single meal.
In the days before cable TV and on-demand everything, folks were at the mercy of the big three networks. And, what's even more amazing, television wasn't a 24-hour proposition. Networks used to actually "sign off" at the end of the day. And since these sign offs were like a companion going away for the night, they evoked a lot of emotion. Chris Michel, the man who founded Military.com and brought DT to the masses, recently found some classic sign off footage very germane to our audience. Reading the comments you can see that some attribute military careers to these scenes of an F-104 soaring across the sky. And, of course, "High Flight" remains one of the greatest poems ever written about the art of flying.
Speaking of the Starfighter, I had the opportunity to do exercises against Turkish F-104s back in the day. As you might guess from the stubby wings, the F-104 isn't much of a dogfighter. (It was designed as a straight-line "interceptor.") An elegant machine, nonetheless.
The idea of an exoskeleton in a military application conjures up images of a digital cammie robocop, perhaps; and one day we may treat "exos" the same way we treat body armor. But the nearer-term utility of exoskeletons are somewhat less glamorous.
In 2007 the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center assumed responsibility for the management of the Exoskeleton project from DARPA. The Natick project is currently funded through FY 2009 and its goals are as follows:
1) In conjunction with the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command, develop a set of performance specifications for a full body Exoskeleton that will be the basis for a requirement for a version of the Exoskeleton that can assist Soldiers in accomplishing physically demanding tasks associated with loading and unloading supplies and heavy materiel, and performing vehicle maintenance.
2) Improve the human interface, biomechanical efficiency and ergonomic acceptability of the Exosketeton.
3) Develop compact, portable, efficient, safe power sources.
4) Reduce the cost and ruggedize the system.
5) Demonstrate reliability and safey for use by Soldiers.
During my recent visit to Natick, Exo-czars Jeffrey Schiffman and David Audet explained that they were focused on helping Soldiers make repetitive tasks like loading boxes on racks and rolling oil drums up ramps easier. They also have a vision of assisting Air Force and Navy ordies with loading missiles and bombs. Whereas it might take four guys to lift, say, a Sidewinder missile onto an F-16's wingtip station, an Exoskeleton would allow the same task to be performed by one guy.
Schiffman and Audet allowed that their main concerns right now were power sources and safety backup modes if the Exoskeleton suffers a mechanical failure. (Not a good thing if you're the ordie holding a Sidewinder, for instance.)
But otherwise Natick (in coordination with contractors like Sarcos and Raytheon) has the test plan on track. So maintainers and loggies everywhere take heart. Help for that aching back is on the way.
(Photo: John B. Carnett / POPULAR SCIENCE MAGAZINE)
A little unconventional I know, but I figured I'd toss out the invite to come over to Military.com's Election Center blog to discuss the speeches tonight at the Republican convention, including the keynote address from John McCain.
We'll be doing it live from the press stand at the event. So if you wanna get all riled up, come on over.
-- Christian
Liquid-cooled Underwear and Other Micro-climates
According to Walter Teal, an engineer in Natick's micro-climate lab, throughout the U.S. Army in 2005 there were six heat-related deaths, 1,400 cases of heat exhaustion, and 2,500 cases of heat stroke. It's bad enough if a Soldier collapses on the ground, but the consequences can be even worse for Soldiers behind the controls of the Army's helicopters.
Natick engineers listened to the feedback from pilots operating in the hot environments of Iraq and Afghanistan and, with the assistance of private contractors, designed and produced "liquid-cooled underwear." Basically, the garment is a vest the pilots wear that hooks into a cooling system integrated into the helicopter. The system is comprised of a lunchbox-sized black box that houses the liquid cooling components, a series of tubes routed to each pilot's seat, a quick-disconnect fitting that allows the pilot to egress without worrying about reaching down to detach the vest, and the vest itself.
As with any airplane that has systems added to it as it continues its service life, finding the real estate to house the black box (one for each crew member) and tubing was an issue. The Blackhawk has six feet of tubing between the cooling unit and the respective seat; the Chinook has twenty-two feet of tubing. But whatever the design challenges have been along the way, the helicopter pilots have seemed happy with the results. One went so far as to proclaim the liquid cooled underwear system as "the best thing to happen to helicopters since the rotor."
And Natick isn't forgetting the guys on the ground either. They're in the process of testing two different types of individual cooling units. One is a single 1.5 liter cylinder that weighs four pounds, the other is a pair of brick-sized devices, one housing the compressor, the other housing the fan and condenser - not unlike the HVAC system in many homes. The units are designed to be worn at the hip. Both units are hoping to meet Military Standard 810 (duh . . .), which of course states that these sorts of devices have to provide 120 BTUs/hour of cooling. Both units provide about four hours of cooling.
The Navy's approach to the overheated personnel issue is a bit more basic. Blessed with the luxury of freezers on ships, they simply use Steele vests, which are nothing more than vests with pouches that hold ice packs.
I spent some time at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass. (about 20 miles due west of Boston) this week, and like any government organization worth its salt they have their own set of acronyms. So if you were not wise in the ways of Natick and I walked into a room and said, "HRV," you would say?
Exactly.
Well, an HRV is a "Human Resource Volunteer." According to the HRV handbook "Soldiers are the key element in research efforts. The results from test conducted by these volunteers determine which items the Army will adopt and how much energy a Soldier will use under various climatic conditions."
Private Grant Huffman had just finished advanced infantry training and was cooling his heels around Fort Knox waiting to start learning how to drive a tank when the Natick team headed by John Ward, who is an Army vet and former HRV, approached him with their HRV pitch. Huffman was looking for a change of scenery and the idea of participating in studies that might help other Soldiers appealed to him.
Soon enough Huffman found himself walking on a treadmill in a climate chamber in full combat gear with a next-generation pack strapped to his back. Durning the course of testing, the Natick staff might make the treadmill go faster. They might make the chamber hotter . . . then colder. They could pelt Huffman with wind and rain . . . all in the name of making Soldiers safer, more effective, or more lethal.
There have been approximately 3,700 HRVs since the program officially began in 1954. (Obviously there were HRVs before then; those Soldiers just didn't know it.) These days HRVs might test a new uniform item or see what effect a probiotic substance has on their gastrointestinal tract.
But as the HRV handbook states, "[The Natick] program is strickly voluntary. No one does anything he/she doesn't want to. Period."
Plus, Fenway Park is only a short jaunt east on I-90. Who wouldn't risk a little bodily discomfort for that? Okay, maybe a Yankees fan wouldn't, but still . . .
Courtesy of the USAF, an AC-130 deploys anti-missile flares near Hurlburt Field, FL. The flares distract incoming enemy surface-to-air missiles presumably by making the AC-130 appear totally effin' radical.
I've been wondering why my GPS has been a little off.
"We've had an anomoly..." That's the understatement of the year!
(Gouge: CM)
-- Christian
Sikorsky Debuts Fly-by-Wire UH-60M
[Editor's note:Just a quick note folks...I'll be attending the Republican Convention this week and will be posting entries on Military.com's Election Center blog. Ward, John, Kevin and the rest of the gang will be backing me up here while I'm wading through all the politics and hot air in Minniapolis-St. Paul.]
Sikorsky has begun flight testing the UH-60M Upgrade, the latest version of the Black Hawk and the first fly-by-wire helicopter for the U.S. Army.
The first flight at the company’s West Palm Beach, Fla, test center lasted around 60 minutes and included hover, forward flight and a hover turn, Sikorsky says.
The M Upgrade introduces a digital fly-by-wire (FBW) system with triple-redundant Hamilton Sundstrand dual-channel flight control computers and actuators, and BAE Systems active control sticks.
Sikorsky says FBW, coupled with Rockwell Collins’ Common Aviation Architecture System (CAAS) glass cockpit, reduces pilot workload, improves aircraft handling qualities and increases pilot situational awareness.
Eliminating mechanical control linkages also saves weight and reduces maintenance, the company says. At the same time, the engines are upgraded to General Electric T700-701Es with fully authority digital engine control.
Protecting the Information Infrastructure of the United States
The security of the United States depends on secure, reliable and resilient information systems. In light of this need the national security community came together to address traditional and emerging information security issues. Increasing security in cyber space is a very complex undertaking. Cyber security cuts across so many lines in the executive branch of government it creates a maze that is difficult to navigate. When you look at responding to and investigating cyber attacks, the Department of Homeland Security oversees protection of government networks.
What we need is a holistic approach that focuses on securing the physical and information infrastructure that is critical for our nation to function. In order for this to happen the government must form a tighter relationship with the private sector. This is primarily due to the fact that most of the Internet's infrastructure is owned and operated by private business. This is not a new issue. For nearly a decade now, the government has called for greater cooperation between the public and private sectors on this issue. So far the response from the private sector has been a cold shoulder. Increasing security around our information infrastructure to the level now required due to the threats by cyber war and organized criminal activity requires a huge and ambitious initiative. Cyber security has to become a top issue for the 44th president of the United States. Both candidates have very little to say about cyber security thus far. This month, the McCain campaign released a document that outlines his technology policy vision. A review of the document yielded very little insight into the issue of cyber security. In fact, it was barely mentioned. Obama's position is not much different. That being said, Obama has stated his intention to create a new White House position of the Federal Chief Technology Officer.
It is clear that the next president must focus on achieving our strategic security policy and doctrine as they relate to the issue of cyber crime, attacks and cyber warfare. Real-time security management, threat response and situational awareness activities coupled with fortification of the information infrastructure are critical capabilities to ensure that our information communications capabilities are not disrupted and continue to function under a seemingly endless variety of adverse conditions. The threats against our information assets in the public and private sectors have risen to a level that the risks now demand the immediate attention by the White House.
The most excellent Bill Sweetman of 
Chin up kids -- Strategic Air Command's back!
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
