The Blue Angels will fly the balance of their 2008 season with five jets instead of six because of pending administrative action against one of the team's pilots. Marine Corps Capt. Tyson Dunkelberger, the Blue Angel's spokesman, allowed that the pilot had been removed from flying duties for an "inappropriate relationship" with a female member of the demonstration team. Dunkelberger would not, however, identify the rank or squadron billet of either party involved, citing legal reasons.
The five-plane demonstration will employ a diamond formation without the "slot" position, but Dunkelberger was quick to point out that the loss of Blue Angel No. 4 in the show did not necessarily mean that the pilot has flown in that position during this season is involved in the inappropriate relationship. The mystery will be short-lived, however, as the Blue's are scheduled to perform a practice show today in San Antonio minus the flyer in question and his absence will be obvious to anyone in attendance holding a show program.
The Blue Angels have dealt with other personnel issues in recent years. In 2000 Blue Angel No. 2, a Marine Corps officer, was removed from the team for having another "inappropriate relationship" with the team's female public affairs officer. And last year, Lcdr. Kevin Davis, Blue Angel No. 6, flew his F/A-18 into the ground and was killed during a show near Beaufort, South Carolina. In each of these cases a pilot who had been on the team the year prior was pulled out of a fleet squadron and returned to the Blue Angels so that the team could fly the balance of the season with a full six-jet complement. Dunkelberger stated that there weren't enough shows left to justify that sort of effort in the current case. After the San Antonio shows this weekend, the Blue Angels will perform at the Kennedy Space Center and then close their season with two shows at their home base in Pensacola, Florida.
Updated Nov. 1: This from a discussion thread at the Blue Angel's hometown paper, The Pensacola News Journal:
"calfan wrote: It was two officers...#4 Maj. Clint Harris and Lt. Gretchen Doan. They are both officers...they both know better. Clint flew back Sunday in his jet, minus the #4. Didn't fly in the airshow or practice. He's married with kids. She's not. Bottom line is these are two adults who made a huge mistake/decision, broke a major rule, ruined their careers, humiliated their families, got kicked off the team...they will have this hanging over their heads and following them around forever. Boss did the right thing..."
The allegations in this post are unconfirmed but the tenor of it makes me think this person knows what he or she is talking about, including the use of the term "Boss" to refer to the Blue Angel's commanding officer. And if the IDs are correct, then in fact (and in spite of Capt. Dunkelberger's insistence to the contrary) it was the slot pilot who's been removed, which makes things much easier in terms of working the five-plane show in that all the remaining pilots are flying in the same positions they've flown all year.
And making Maj. Harris fly back from his final show without the number on his jet his something right out of King Arthur's Court or a Hollywood scriptwriter's fantasy. (Remember the opening of the TV series "Branded" back in the day?) Who said the spirit of Naval Aviation is dead?
The Air Force generally does a rotten job of managing and budgeting for space programs. That was the strongest message sent today by John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, as he discussed the 2010 budget and acquisition in general during a wide-ranging discussion with reporters yesterday.
Although Young said he didn’t want to single out the service, that’s just what he did repeatedly during the almost two-hour session.
“Based on the 2010 POM they are not performing well,” Young said, who separately described the interference and gaming of the services during the budget as a “cancer.” It began with a discussion of the Transformational Satellite program, T-Sat. Young said “there are camps” in the Pentagon that “have consistently wanted to club the T-Sat for more reason than it’s a very expensive program.” The camp’s identity became clear a few second later when Young noted that the Air Force “underfunded” T-Sat in the 2009 budget.
Then Young listed a litany of space programs the Air Force had either mismanaged or underfunded. Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) is still emerging from a Nunn-McCurdy breach and apparently has not solved a software problem that has bedeviled it for more than a year. Ground terminals needed for the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) weren’t built in time to receive data from the satellites. And the Air Force goofed and didn’t budget to ensure the Wideband Gapfiller System would continue to provide data to 27 weapon systems. “It’s beyond me,” Young said in exasperation with the MUOS oversight, adding that the Pentagon had found money to keep the data flowing.
I asked Young if he would move the executive agent for space, currently vested in Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, to a joint or OSD perch. The executive agent oversees all military space programs. Young made clear he did not think the Air Force was the right place: “I would never put it there.” He indicated that Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is being given analytic data to move the executive agent to a joint perch. One likely candidate for the job: Josh Hartman, currently director for space and intelligence capabilities in Young’s office.
In other acquisition news:
“MRAP Light:” Young said the Pentagon is moving ahead on just how to meet the need for well protected vehicles that can handle the rugged terrain of Afghanistan, saying the upcoming supplemental “may have room for additional vehicles for Afghanistan.” Young was very careful to avoid saying there is an actual program here yet, but they are clearly headed that way. One of the possibilities being discussed is grabbing the nascent Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program and getting it to Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Young was very cautious not to say that JLTV was the solution, but he did say it was being discussed as a possible part of the solution.
In a conference call with reporters this morning, the BAE Systems JLTV program lead told me that most of the subsystems on the JLTV prototype are at TRL 7 (Technology Readiness Level), the first level at which a system could be considered ready to undergo operational test and evaluation. When I told Young this, he laughed and said he bet that BAE Systems would sell their system for $1.98 a copy. Then he added, with a very big smile, that he appreciated BAE’s input.
Our boy Bob Cox at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram alerted DT to his story on the downstream effects of the ARH kill.
Bell Helicopter cuts 500 jobs, mostly in Fort Worth
Faced with the loss of a big defense contract and an impatient corporate parent with a sagging stock price, Bell Helicopter announced Wednesday that it was cutting 500 jobs, mostly from its Fort Worth operations.
The job cuts, which began Tuesday, follow in the wake of the Pentagon’s Oct. 16 decision to cancel the Army’s $5 billion-plus contract with Bell to develop the ARH-70A Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.
All but about 30 of the layoffs will come from personnel at Bell’s Fort Worth-area facilities, with the rest from the ranks of its Amarillo work force.
Bell spokesman Joseph LaMarca Jr. said senior Bell executives had been evaluating the company’s personnel requirements since the ARH cancellation and concluded that more cuts were needed beyond the 280 people directly assigned to the program.
"It allows us to shape our organization in such a way as to make it a more competitive, very streamlined, lean organization," LaMarca said.
The layoffs and terminations were being made at all levels, including 40 out of about 200 upper-management positions, which LaMarca described as vice presidents and directors.
Significant numbers of engineers, marketing and other white-collar personnel were included in the cuts, but LaMarca said only about 20 manufacturing workers.
Several dozen managers were notified Tuesday that they were being dismissed, and the rest of those laid off were told Wednesday.
The laid-off Bell employees will receive 60 days of pay and benefits in accordance with federal law, severance pay and outplacement services.
The company was holding meetings with the laid–off and terminated employees to explain the severance package.
Not all of the people working on the ARH program were laid off, LaMarca said. "You have good people you want to keep, with skills you want, so you have to make some other adjustments."
The Bell layoffs are one of the largest in Tarrant County recently and could foreshadow further cuts by companies as the U.S. economy slides into what many observers say will be the most severe recession in at least two decades.
The Dallas-Fort Worth area added a net 54,300 jobs in the 12 months ending in September, said Bernard Weinstein, head of the Center for Economic Research and Development at the University of North Texas in Denton, but he says that kind of performance probably isn’t in the cards for 2009.
"Like it or not, we’re part of the national economy," Weinstein said. "The national economy is in a recession. We’ll feel it too."
At least two of the positions Bell cut were reportedly senior managers assigned to Bell Agusta Aerospace, Bell’s joint venture with Italy’s AgustaWestland helicopter manufacturer to develop the BA609 civilian tilt-rotor aircraft.
The Star-Telegram reported in July that Bell officials’ enthusiasm for that program had cooled significantly and that the company would likely turn over a larger share of the development effort to Agusta.
LaMarca said discussions with Agusta over the future of the BA609 were continuing.
In the past few months, organization after organization and expert after expert have come out and warned of the imminent threat posed by cyber attacks. There can be little doubt left about the increasing threat of cyber attacks on businesses, government and critical infrastructure. At this point cyber attacks pose an unprecedented threat to the computer systems and networks that have become so integral to virtually every aspect of our live. The top two questions that are on many peoples' minds are -- where are these attacks coming from and how are these attacks done? Well, to answer these two questions we must first examine one of the most common types of attack and the components that make up the cyber weapon that is used in the attack.
Zombies
A Zombie refers to any computer that has been compromised and has malicious code installed that puts it under the control of hackers without the knowledge of the computer owner. Zombies are widely used as the weapon of choice when launching DoS attacks.
INTEL: Research has indicated that an improperly protected computer connected to the internet is compromised and turned into a zombie in about one minute.
BotNets
Criminal elements and rogue nation states have created more active zombie networks in the last month than ever before. At any given moment there are approximately 1,000 active botnets. In total, experts estimate that there are nearly 300,000 botnets in place today. The largest botnet is thought to control between 150 and 180 million computers and is operated by the Russian Business Network (RBN). Detecting and disrupting botnets is a particularly difficult challenge. An already bad situation is getting worse!
A study using Scenario-Based Intelligence Analysis (SBIA), a strategic threat modeling methodology by Technolytics, determined that we can expect to see hackers attempting to inject malware into cell phones to turn them into remote-controlled bots as well. These Cellbots can then be used much in the same way as computers. This includes their use in launching distributed denial-of-service attacks that can cripple cell phone networks in addition to computer networks and systems that they target.
INTEL: Tools are already available for crafting exploits for the multiple smart phones.
DoS
Denial-of-Service attacks aim to bring a site down by bombarding it with fake requests for a web page or image. A denial-of-service (DoS) refers to a cyber attack technique that a multitude of compromised computers attack a single target by flooding the attack target with incoming traffic until the target is forced to shut down, thereby denying access to the system to legitimate users. BotNets are the primary cyber weapon used to carry out such attacks.
INTEL: Experts have estimated that on any given day there are about 1,300 Denial of Service attacks.
On the 27th of August at approximately 16:18 a DoS attack against the Georgian websites was launched. The main target was the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The attacks peaked at approx 0.5 million network packets per second, and up to 200-250 Mbits per second. So who was the enemy where all this attack traffic originate? The startling fact is that the enemy lives among us! Multiple reports point to the U.S. as the largest source of this malicious traffic. Estimates of 17% to around 30% of the DoS traffic that targeted Estonia and the Republic of Georgia came from compromised computers within the borders of the United States. In a separate study it was determined that 20.6 million attempted attacks originated from computers within the U.S., and only 7.7 million attempted attacks emanating from computers within China's borders (a distant second).
The threat that botnets pose to businesses and national security has never been higher. The U.S. government and American businesses have yet to take the steps necessary to secure their networks and systems. Should escalation in cyber attacks continue, targeted attacks against the private sector (commercial entities) will rapidly become more prevalent. Therefore, organization need to create a response plan now.
Any computer connected to the Net can be compromised and turned into a cyber weapon. Are your computers part of the problem? Could they be? Chances are they are! Could you be held liable? Chances are you can! Carol Baroudi, research director of security at the Aberdeen Group has stated she thinks regulations are coming.
"Ultimately I think there's going to be some liability there," she said, likening the situation to merchants being held culpable for data loss. "Why wouldn't the organization with infected machines be held accountable for DoS attacks?" This problem is growing and the impact of attacks is increasing. One report by the Congressional Research Services suggests that cyber attacks cost businesses some $226 billion annually.
The Army announced yesterday that it had awarded contracts worth $166 million to three industry teams to develop the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, also variously known as the Humvee replacement, although this vehicle will be much more than the ubiquitous Humvee. The winners are Lockheed Martin; General Tactical Vehicles (a joint venture between General Dynamics Land Systems and AM General, manufacturer of the Humvee); and BAE Systems.
The contracts are for the technology development phase of the protracted DOD production process, expected to take 27 months, when each team will produce at least seven prototypes. The idea is to build a “family” of JLTV’s sharing common parts but available in different configurations such as a six seat infantry carrier, a four seat recon, command and control, heavy weapons carrier and ambulance. Once the prototypes are tested, the Army will hold yet another competition to down select one or more winners for the System Development and Demonstration phase. Full scale production is expected in 2013.
The Army and Marines have not finalized the total number of JLTV’s they ultimately want to buy, but an Army press release said the request for proposals included a projected production quantity of 60,000 over eight years. The ultimate production number will almost certainly be much higher. Former Army Vice Chief Gen. Richard Cody, in an appearance before a House appropriations subcommittee last year, said the Army intends for the JLTV to replace 130,000 of the service’s Humvees. Australia decided this week to join the JLTV program and might buy up to 4,200 vehicles.
The joint Army-Marine Corps JLTV will strike a balance between performance, payload and protection, said Col. John Myers, Project Manager with the Army’s Joint Combat Support Services, in the Army press release. Unlike the Humvee, which was originally designed as a rear area and garrison vehicle and was converted into a passable fighting vehicle by slapping armor and weapons onto it, the JLTV will be designed from the ground up as a fighting vehicle incorporating lessons learned from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whereas the costly and lumbering MRAP vehicles (versions of which cost up to $1.2 million each) were always viewed as stop-gap to provide better protection against the scourge of roadside bombs in Iraq, the Army and Marines view JLTV as a long-term solution. To please the expeditionary focused Marines, the JLTV will be lighter than the Humvee, weighing between 3,500 and 5,100 pounds. A fully armored Humvee weighs 12,000 pounds and more. The JLTV is expected to be more resistant to mine blasts than the Humvee, will ride higher off the ground to provide added clearance and will incorporate a V-shaped hull that deflects blasts outward.
The vehicles must be light and compact enough to be carried underneath the Army’s CH-47 Chinook workhorse cargo lifter and the Marine’s CH-53 Super Stallion heavy lifter, and two JLTV vehicles must fit inside the Air Force’s C-130. The target cost per vehicle is $200,000 to $250,000, according to a May 2006 Office of Naval Research JLTV industry day conference finding. An armored Humvee costs around $150,000.
Now, Frank is not a DoD budget decisionmaker, but his views tend to jibe closely with the liberal leadership of the House and even some in the Senate.
The Journal analyzed what Obama and his supporters have said about what they'd do with defense budgets, so it's worth a close read for a worst case scenario.
We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.
All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary.
But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?
Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate.
The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.
And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's?
From the writing I'm seeing on the wall, we can basically forget end-strength increases. There's no political capital in increasing the size of the military, but there's plenty of bacon in hardware.
During an interview with defense reporters in Washington earlier this month, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig -- a top Obama defense advisor -- talked to us about "revitalizing" America's "overstretched" military, then went on to highlight Obama's commitment to veterans care, traumatic brain injury and PTSD.
"It's just an example of trying to do more for our troops and create stronger incentives for recruitment," Danzig said.
What about more guns, ammo and tanks? I know a bunch of Marines and Soldiers who want that more than a little extra money for college classes.
Danzig went on to talk about how the acquisition system is broken (who hasn't said that?) and that cost overruns on programs have gone ballistic (tell me something else I don't already know)...
"We need to come to grips with the affordibility and the requirements process," Danzig said. "The requirements need to be more appropriately fashioned not only to the desire to buy the most modern program, but also to" meet realistic costs.
"We have a strong view that national missile defense is a rewarding area that should be invested in," Danzig added. "It's an area that demands scrutiny. It should be used to the extent that it works but used with other checks and balances."
"The future combat system in the Army is a system that's been criticized ... and needs to be looked at closely," he added. "With our ship building system it's just clear that we're not building enough. ... The shipbuilding program doesn't work. It doesn't add up."
Danzig said Obama supports a 65K increase in Army end strength and a 27K bump in Marines -- but Obama ain't Congress.
Here's more on hardware:
"The new technologies represent extraordinary capabilities -- UAVs and robotics -- we need to invest in that," Danzig said. "We need to recognize that there are a set of risks in cyber warfare that are now very intense."
On defense spending:
"I don't see defense spending declining in the first years of an Obama administration. There are a set of demands there that are very important to our national well being," Danzig said.
Then he went on to explain how out of balance it was that the U.S. spends $10 billion on national missile defense and less than $1 billion trying to control loose nukes.
"Is that the right proportion for what you want in your defense budget?" Danzig asked. "And look how you could increase the one by 50 percent if you reduce the other by 5 percent. We need to achieve a better balance [between soft-power spending and hard-power spending] and I think that can be done within the context of the DoD top line."
So let's see, more money for the corrupt failure of an effort to pad the pockets of Russian nuke warehouse guards at the expense of a missile interceptor that is our only line of defense against a nuclear warhead lobbed at Los Angeles? Soft power worked great against al Qaeda didn't it?
So let's get the conversation going here. Where will a swollen Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Dem majority in the Senate PLUS a Democratic president take us in terms of defense spending, programs and force posture?
-- Christian
The Blood Stopper System
Some of you wondered what this Integrated Tourniquet System Blackhawk designed was all about. So in the interest of full disclosure, I've posted their video demo on how it works.
Now, some of you wondered about the construction of the ITS into the garments. Basically, the Nylon strap that makes up the bulk of the tourniquet is pretected behind a light, soft mesh retention pouch that keeps the strap from rubbing up against the wearer's skin. This also helps keep toes and fingers from catching on the ITS straps as the operator dons the garments.
Also, keep an eye on the HPFU entry. I need to remformat some of the promotional pics that I have from my trip to Blackhawk and I'll post them once they're done.
-- Christian
Raytheon to Launch UAV from Submarine
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
Raytheon plans to launch a small unmanned air vehicle from a submerged U.S. Navy submarine early next year to demonstrate its concept for extending the boat's sensor range in littoral operations.
Last month the company demonstrated its UAV launch concept under Phase 1 of the Submarine Over the Horizon Organic Capabilities (Sothoc) program funded by the Office of Naval Research and the Submarine Force.
The concept uses a submarine launch vehicle (SLV) containing the electrically powered UAV and stored on board as an all-up round. Ejected from the submerged submarine's trash disposal unit, the SLV is weighted to descend to a safe distance from the boat, then shed the weight and inflate a float collar.
The collar is pulsed to control the rate of ascent. As it approaches the surface, the SLV deploys a water drogue to provide stabilization and a vane to align it into the wind. The tube then pivots to a 35-degree angle and ejects the UAV.
"The SLV is a method of getting a UAS to the surface dry, then transitioning it to the air," says Jeffrey Zerbe, Raytheon's Sothoc program director.
The deployment concept was demonstrated in September at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center's shallow water test range at Narragansett Bay, R.I., where two SLVs were deployed over the side of a surface ship.
"The vehicles descended to 80 feet reverted to positive buoyancy, floated to the surface, stabilized in variable sea states, aligned into the wind, and then launched an inert representative UAS at precise orientation and velocity," according to Raytheon.
In early November, Zerbe says, the company plans to conduct a second "over-the-side" demonstration from a ship off Point Mugu, Calif. This time the SLV will deploy an actual UAV, which will then conduct a full maritime interdiction mission profile.
This will be followed early next year by a launch from a submerged submarine, probably a Los Angeles-class boat off Hawaii, under Phase 2 of the program, says Zerbe. Raytheon has already demonstrated integration of its multi-vehicle control software into the submarine's BYG-1 combat system, he says.
UPDATED: SEALs Wearing New High-Speed Fighting Threads
With extended deployments to tough combat zones like Afghanistan and Iraq, the Marine Corps -- and more recently the Army -- (and the Navy and Air Force, though those are not as "combat" driven as the others) have revamped their uniforms used in everyday operations.
The rugged terrain, urban operations, weather extremes and austere conditions of current combat zones have prompted uniform designers to take a much closer look at other industries to find user-friendly options, materials and design innovations for their forces. Love it or hate it, the camouflage of the Army's ACU might be off track, but it would be hard to argue that the uniform isn't packed with useful features that help a Soldier get at stuff he needs to do his job. Sure, there have been some durability issues with the stitching, but when's the last time the Army went as far as to put gusseted crotches in their BDUs?
Well, there's also another market for this technology that's bubbling up from the same folks who helped put more modern gear in the hands of specialized forces like SEALs, SF troops, Delta guys and Recon Marines -- among others. As the regular forces adopt shoulder pockets and chest rigs, for example, the spec ops community is pushing the envelope even further with new designs that will gradually trickle down to the regular Joes as the technology becomes more available.
One of the products I was introduced to at Blackhawk last week was their High Performance Fighting Uniform, or HPFU. They're pretty proud of this new product and it basically takes all the best whistles and bells, pockets and pouches, low-drag designs and modern materials available in the industry and packs them into a pretty innovative set of duds. Gusseted crotch, dual cargo pockets, articulated knees, a high-backed waist, padding pockets -- and that's just the pants. The HPFU also has a just-as-feature-packed jacket, and comes with a combat shirt that combines an FR-material in the chest and functional sleeves like the jacket. And there's even a nifty vest that can go over the combat shirt so it looks like you've got a full-on cammie jacket on when you go to the chow hall after a patrol -- it's Blackhawk's way of keeping gunny, first sergeant or master chief off your back.
But the high tech is more than skin deep.
Embedded within the uniform is Blackhawk's proprietary "Integrated Tourniquet System" -- a series of blood stanching bands that can lock off arterial bleeding in the arms, legs and ankles. It's a bit creepy, to be sure, but Blackhawk's clearly trying to put hardware into their software to save lives.
Company officials say the SEALs, with whom Blackhawk shares a close relationship, are wearing about 1,100 of the over $500 ensembles in combat right now. It's unclear what their feedback has been, but I'll throw in my $.02.
First, I pressed Blackhawk designers about the incorporation of fire resistant materials -- or lack thereof -- into the HPFU. Though their promotional materials state the uniform is made from "no-drip, no-melt" fibers --the arms and legs of the uniform are 70% cotton, 30% Nylon which they claim are woven in such a way as to make them flame resistant -- company officials were at pains to say whether their pricey HPFU was made with flame resistance in mind. Ironically, they touted the torso of the combat shirt's FR qualities, but that's going to be under body armor which incorporates its own flame and flash resistance.
Also, I can see that Blackhawk's heart is in the right place with the invention of its integrated tourniquet system and its incorporation into the HPFU, but my first impression with the thing is that it's not nearly as "Marine proof" as it needs to be. This is added weight and complication for a piece of kit that's supposed to be the epitome of simplicity.
Would I take the HPFU on my next embed? Maybe if I could be convinced of its FR qualities. It's a pretty sweet piece of gear and borrows heavily from the performance outdoor industry which is where I always felt the best gear is designed and made. We'll talk about their body armor systems in a later post, but if there's anything we can learn from the progression of that business segment of Blackhawk, it's pretty clear that when there are improvements to be made on a piece of gear, they don't hesitate to make them. So we'll see how the HPFU evolves. So far it's a pretty good start.
-- Christian
REVIEW: Tonight's FRONTLINE Documentary "The War Briefing"
With the presidential election only one week away and the candidates pounding the pavement in search of every last vote, the tension of war seems a long way off. It's the economy, character and taxes that are splashing across America's headlines, not war, extremism and failed states.
But just as America makes its final consideration of who should be the next commander in chief, a Frontline documentary examines the tough national security challenges the next White House will face. Though the documentary -- which airs tonight on Public Broadcast System stations nationwide -- is titled "The War Briefing" as if it were the battle update an incoming president would receive upon reaching office, the show focuses heavily on the deteriorating situation on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Correspondent Martin Smith leads the questioning of some of the country's most experienced analysts, journos, leaders and experts to see where we are, what went wrong and how we can fix it. Footage from heavy firefights and ambushes in Afghanistan add gritty shock value to the script, as does rarely before seen footage of Islamic militant camps and villages in the lawless tribal regions of eastern Pakistan.
As usual, Frontline delivers an impressive show with all its "sky is falling" drama and jaw-dropping sound bites.
"They thought they could control [the Taliban]. It turns out they can't," says the New York Times' Dexter Filkins. "They're out of control. Frankenstein's gotten off the table."
The documentary makes a compelling case that the stability of Pakistan is probably the number one national security priority for the next president. A resurgent Taliban, an al Qaeda 2.0 that has woven itself deep into the fabric of Pashtun society, a government clawing for legitimacy while teetering on the brink -- and, oh yeah, let's not forget those 50 nukes sitting in Pakistani warehouses.
"Pakistan, as a very, very large country with nuclear weapons has a very fragile government that is challenged by jihadis," Colin Kahl of the Center for a New American Security explains. "The nightmare scenario for the U.S. interest in the region -- it's not Iraq, it's not Afghanistan, it's a failed state of Pakistan."
But "The War Briefing" is most exceptional for what it is not.
In its promotional materials, "The War Briefing" summary screams "the next president of the United States will inherit a foreign policy nightmare: wars on two fronts, an overstretched military, a resurgent Taliban and a reconstituted al Qaeda base far from America's reach." Now, let's not spend the whole time dissecting each statement there, but "nightmare" is a pretty strong word.
No single expert with a solid reputation on the subject thinks the Afghan war is unwinnable. The sheer delta of casualties belies the hyperbole of the documentary's promo materials. More than 4,000 U.S. troops have died in Iraq over five years of conflict. So far about 625 U.S troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. Afghanistan is a major problem -- but a nightmare?
And the al Qaeda base is a long way from "far from America's reach." Commando raids on Sept. 3 and near constant Reaper strikes on top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders throw that contention into serious doubt.
And what ever happened to Iraq? Where's the update on that "front" in the president's "War Briefing?" A revamped counterinsurgency strategy, a bolstered diplomatic initiative and a surge of troops helped set that war on the course to victory, but you wouldn't know it from Frontline's idea of what the next president will be told as he looks at America's national security landscape.
Another glaring omission from "The War Briefing" is the total lack of consideration for NATO's role in the conflict -- for good and for ill. The word NATO is mentioned only twice in the entire documentary and neither reference has anything to do with what those troops are accomplishing there.
What ever happened to the idea of consulting our allies, asking for cooperation and the risks of a "go-it-alone" strategy? Afghanistan is the poster child for cooperative engagement, but at whose feet does Frontline place the specter of defeat in Afghanistan? Not the Germans, Italians, French or Spanish who have so many restrictions on their employment for combat that bad guys are basically allowed to run amok in their operational areas - creating what some might consider a sanctuary within Afghanistan itself. Nope, it's all America's fault.
Obviously "The War Briefing" only has an hour to deliver its message that the U.S faces some serious challenges as the next president takes his seat in the Oval Office. But are Afghanistan and Pakistan the only aspects of the "foreign policy nightmare?" Iran is looking for nukes, North Korea is still spiraling, Lebanon is waiting to erupt again and the Georgia/Russia conflict is far from over.
And let's not forget that there hasn't been another attack on the United States since 9/11; that al Qaeda was dealt a crushing defeat in the Philippines, Afghanistan and Iraq, is on life support in Europe and is facing increased soft-pressure from U.S. forces in North Africa.
"The War Briefing" does a good job of showing Americans part of the challenge the next president will face in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but does little to shape the overall debate over the direction that executive's national security policy should take.
-- Christian
Raid Pentagon Spending or Leverage It?
The debate about guns or butter hotted up last week, with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) calling for an enormous decline in defense spending of 25 percent and the head of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) saying money for weapons will have to come from spending originally slated to fund substantial increases in Army personnel. Below defense consultant Robbin Laird weighs in on the likely impacts of the financial crisis on defense spending.
The impact of the global financial crisis on US defense spending will strike in two ways, directly and indirectly. The impact will be substantial in terms of the ripple effect of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq upon the recapitalization budget.
Why? Throughout the Bush years, defense recapitalization has been overtaken to a large extent by the cost of military operations, and the re-definition, in effect, of recapitalization in terms of reset of equipment being used directly in those operations. At the same time, the wear and tear of capital equipment upon a number of infrastructural support elements, ranging from Air Force tankers, Air Force lift, sealift and related equipment means growing pressure to modernize those forces as well.
The major direct impacts of the financial crisis on the budget are three-fold and all lead to an inevitable downturn in the top line for the capital budget.
First, the new administration will be elected to deal with the financial crisis, not to recapitalize defense forces. This means that public spending to support the financial institutions plus injections of public monies in a number of civil industries or infrastructure replacement will compete directly for defense capitalization dollars.
Second, the cost of money for the federal government will go up as various public sectors compete for money to borrow for re-capitalization. Given the dependence of the US public sector on overseas borrowing, and given the increased cost of that borrowing, the result will be significant pressure to reduce new equipment acquisition simply in terms of the unit costs going up in terms of the cost of capital.
Third, the perceived need for the new administration to “borrow” from the defense budget to pay for other public sectors will go up. Because the financial crisis is as much a political legitimization as an economic crisis, defense will not get a free political ride. It will lose its privileged position as an investment priority.
The Navy is inspecting its entire fleet of F/A-18 Hornets after discovering cracks in more than a dozen of the planes' wings.
There have been no flight mishaps and no planes have been grounded, the Navy said.
Navy mechanics found the cracks this month during routine post-flight maintenance on a currently deployed plane, said Lt. Clayton Doss, a spokesman.
The damage was in the aluminum outer wing panel outboard aileron hinge. Ailerons help control the rolling motion of the aircraft, so a failure of this hinge could lead to further damage and the loss of the plane.
Subsequent inspections found similar cracks in 14 other planes. Five of the planes are deployed and are scheduled for immediate repair. The other 10 were in depot, reserve or training status, Doss said.
The Navy has issued a call to inspect all 636 of its older "legacy" Hornets -- the A, B, C and D variants. There are 112 such Hornets deployed worldwide; the remainder are in depot, reserve or training status.
The F/A-18 Super Hornets -- E's and F's -- are not affected.
Will this accelerate the argument for JSFs or just push for more Es and Fs?
-- Christian
BAE Gets of Break from DoD IG
In the interest of fairness, I just noticed this story and thought it best to include it here. We covered this issue when it broke back in May...
By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 25, 2008; Page D02
The Pentagon's inspector general yesterday rescinded a previously issued report that said technology in the U.S. military's newest fighter plane may have been compromised by unauthorized access to facilities and computers of BAE Systems, one of the aircraft's builders.
BAE is one of the two main subcontractors working on the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and is building some of the plane's electronics and weapons systems and parts of its body. Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin is the lead contractor on the jet fighter program, which is being developed by the United States and eight foreign partners, including Britain. Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles is the project's other main subcontractor.
In working on major aircraft, contractors often have to share sensitive and classified information, and the government has safeguards in place for its use.
In a March report, the Defense Department inspector general said "incomplete" Pentagon oversight may have increased "the risk of unintended or deliberate release of information to foreign competitors."
BAE is getting into a pretty wide array of defense projects for the United States, including recently taking over management of the Marine Corps Test and Evaluation office near Quantico. If the company wants to keep wrapping its tendrils around more and more of the US defense market, it was important to purge this issue from its reputation -- no matter how tenuous it was.
(Gouge: NC)
-- Christian
US Navy Global Hawk May Head To Middle East
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The U.S. Navy is considering deploying its first Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to an air base near Iraq to experiment with its ability to conduct maritime surveillance, according to defense officials.
Navy officials declined to discuss the exact location for a deployment. "Longer-term options for the system may include additional deployment situations -- allowing the system to demonstrate its unique persistent maritime ISR capabilities in various overseas environments," says Chuck Wagner, a spokesman for Naval Air Systems Command.
According to other defense officials, the Navy Global Hawk is expected to arrive at a base in the Middle East early next year, and the aircraft will be co-located with Air Force Global Hawks already at that base. Defense officials declined to identify the base, citing security issues. But it is widely known that the Air Force's high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft supporting activities in Iraq and Afghanistan operate from Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.
The high-flying Global Hawk is capable of collecting intelligence from above 55,000 feet altitude for a day or more at a time. The Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD) vehicle, one of two Block 10 Global Hawks owned by the Navy, is carrying an integrated sensor suite. These aircraft were bought to allow the Navy to experiment with using a UAV for maritime surveillance. Using various modes -- for inverse synthetic aperture radar, maritime search and target acquisition -- this sensor can conduct surveillance of surface ships. The aircraft also carries the LR100, a basic signals intelligence collector.
Exercises
The GHMD aircraft have been used for a variety of exercises, including Trident Warrior 08 and Rim of the Pacific 08. Most recently, the aircraft collected images of wildfires in California this summer and of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Ike.
The UAVs will give the Pentagon a new tool to use for monitoring shipping activity in the Persian Gulf, where several scrapes with Iranian ships have occurred in recent months. And the deployment will give the Navy some hands-on operational experience deploying the UAV prior to inducting its future Global Hawks into the fleet.
These Navy vehicles are not to be confused with the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) development program. Under that effort, Northrop Grumman is designing and building Global Hawk Block 20-based aircraft designed for maritime surveillance.
So I'm reading The Washington Post this morning and channel surfing between ESPN, MSNBC, and CNN and as a result (not because of ESPN, of course) I'm made to believe that the presidential election is already over and Barack Obama will be our president come January.
Now I'm not saying this mainstream media presaging is a good thing or a bad thing . . . I'm just saying it's a thing. And I'm asking you, wise DT readers, as your Sunday Paper tasker, to tell us what you think about it. Is the MSM creating a self-fufilling prophecy? Or will the electorate rise up and show the experts they're not as smart as they thought?
And remember, this is the Sunday Paper. We go outside the lines of things didactically defense tech-y with these (infrequent) posts. Plus we're electing the next commander-in-chief. Hello? Talk about defense-related . . .
Two distinct groups are emerging in the Army with quite different views on the nature of future wars the U.S. is likely to fight and the decisions the service should make about future force structure and weapons. The first group is the Title 10 side that urges the Army to embrace the troubled Future Combat Systems program and new operational concepts built around dominant battlefield intelligence. The other side is represented by officers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who think future wars will resemble the messy reality of the current ones.
In a new paper, Army Col. H.R. McMaster, definitely a member of the messy war group, calls for abandoning so-called transformation, which is intellectually rooted in the idea of a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). McMaster, of 73 Easting and Tal Afar fame, is a highly influential soldier-scholar who is currently putting together a brain trust for Gen. David Petraeus to review U.S. policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.
McMaster says the widely held vision of a revolution in warfare, of light, agile high-tech forces destroying an adversary with pin-point precision weapons fired from stand-off distances, ran headlong into reality in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be a superlative stretch of reality to describe the brutal fighting in those wars as anything remotely revolutionary. Both have featured much less high-tech and much more high-firepower in fierce firefights, not at the stand off ranges preferred by U.S. soldiers but in engagements where combatants were separated by only a few feet.
He says the U.S. will fight future wars “against armed groups that employ tactics and strategies similar to those it is facing in Afghanistan and Iraq.” The Army’s “legacy” formations have figured prominently in the current fight and will again in future wars. He criticizes analysts and officers - calling out Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap and Lt. Gen. David Deptula - who “advocate a return to 1990s thinking” where high-tech surveillance, air power and precision weaponry deliver “effects” against the enemy from long range in an effort to avoid costly and protracted “boots on the ground” efforts. Those who have bought into the RMA orthodoxy make the mistake of defining future conflict “as we might prefer it to be,” McMaster says.
McMaster really lets it fly at both Air Force leaders who have been very vocal in pushing the notion that airpower is America’s true asymmetric advantage. “Deptula and Dunlap fail to consider the enemy’s ability to react and adopt countermeasures that complicate our ability to remotely deliver effects. One wonders what kind of remotely delivered capability might secure people from terrorists living in their midst, reconstitute a police force, or interdict concealed vehicle bombs aimed at crowded marketplaces.” Moreover, McMaster says, future adversaries, such as China, are developing weapons designed specifically to take out U.S. surveillance and IT assets
McMaster takes a big swipe at his own service and the $200 billion Future Combat Systems program that was originally intended to supply the Army with a new family of lightweight armored vehicles but has since dissolved into a collection of some promising and many not so promising technologies. McMaster says recent combat experience shows, “we should reject the notion that lightness, ease of deployment, and reduced logistical infrastructure are virtues in and of themselves. What a force is expected to achieve once it is deployed is far more important than how quickly it can be moved and how easily it can be sustained.”
The FCS program likes to show a briefing slide that illustrates the long line of fuel tankers required to support the gas guzzling Abrams tank and the much fewer needed to support the future FCS vehicle. McMaster points out the weakness of that pitch. Sure, a 30 ton FCS vehicle with new, more efficient engine technologies will cut down on the logistical tail compared to Abrams tanks. But what do you get at the end of that long line of fuel tankers? With the Abrams, arguably the world’s best main battle tank with an impenetrable frontal arc and unmatched firepower. With FCS, you get a vehicle, with armor no thicker than that of a Bradley, that depends on situational awareness to survive an engagement.
McMaster says that despite six years of combat experience, the Army continues to embrace the “flawed doctrinal concepts and a continued fixation on futuristic experiments” that say FCS equipped soldiers will have near perfect situational awareness and will be able to promptly dispatch enemies without engaging in close combat. That’s a dangerous road to go down, he warns, that could end up costing soldiers lives. The gulf between the Army’s new warfighting concepts and the lessons coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan “demands a thorough review of Army organization.”
McMaster says theory continues to triumph over practice because of the tangled web of relationships between defense contractors, the DoD, Congress, and think tanks that often lend legitimacy to flawed concepts. He says the military should stop outsourcing its intellectual responsibilities, and defense contractors “should not produce and test operational concepts that can later be used to justify the purchase of their systems or products.”
Until recently, I never really thought that much about flashlights. I use 'em for hunting, rooting around for lost socks and trying to see if my steak is rare or medium rare on those post daily savings winter grill nights.
In 2005 I got my hands on a Surefire tactical flashlight and was impressed with its beam strength and durability. I used it on night raids in Iraq as my as my first line of defense against an AK-47-toting bad guy waiting for me in a darkened room.
It wasn't until this past week at the Blackhawk media seminar that I learned how a properly employed beam can really be a big benefit in a low light gunfight.
Vaughn Baker, Blackhawk's flashlight guru, explained some of the technology that goes into making a tactical flashlight. There's a difference in performance with the lower priced models since they use Xenon bulbs, which throw less bright light a shorter distance. They work well, but when you step up to the LED bulbed models, that's where the beam is so bright it'll almost strip paint.
As Baker puts it "you can pole vault with that kind of flashlight."
I had no idea that the LED lights are programmable -- they have an electronic chip that regulates the amount of power transmitted from the battery to the bulb. The topest-end lights have several settings, one that shoots a hard bright, constant beam, a flick of the finger delivers a duller beam so you won't flash out your eyes if you need to look at a map or write some notes and another flip delivers a strobing beam on the highest power. Blackhawk's Gladius light can be customized by the user to deliver the desired brightness on each of the settings.
But its when Baker took us to the blackened shoot house that I really saw how flashlights -- when employed with newly developed tactics -- really help.
[Please excuse the darkened videos...there's not a ton to see, but you can hear Baker give a short lesson on how to -- and not to -- use your light]
Baker runs another company called Strategos International which has a two-day low-light training course designed to teach operators how to make the most of their tactical light.
According to Baker, 80 percent of police shooting fatalities happen in low light conditions and the vast majority of those happen within 10 to 20 feet. And oh by the way, on average the engagement lasts 2.5 seconds.
That's why to Baker it's critically important to learn how to leverage that flashlight to your maximum advantage in confrontations at night, or in darkened rooms. My experience with US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated to me that while the troops had the flashlights on the end of their rifles, they weren't using them in any sort of "tactical" manner...in other words, they used them to light things but didn't use them in ways that would confuse their targets or mask their own movement.
The long and the short of it is, Baker says, hold the light away from your body with your off hand and flick it on and off in different places so an adversary can't get a fix on where it's coming from. Make sure to aim the light at the opponent's eyes when you do beam in on him and Baker's secret weapon is the strobe function. As he demonstrated on us, peripheral vision and balance are dramatically reduced when a bright as hell strobe is popping you in the face.
It was a truly fascinating look at not only the technology that goes into these highly sophisticated lights, but also how new techniques on their use can really give you an edge when you find yourself at the pointy end of the spear.
-- Christian
Is China Moving Toward a Carrier?
After more than a decade of speculation about China obtaining an aircraft carrier, there appears to be some movement in that direction -- although not related to procurement of a ship. Rather, there are reports that 50 Chinese naval officers have begun a pilot training program at the Dalian Naval Academy to provide a cadre of carrier-based aviators.
The Chinese Navy already has a large, shore-based air force, which includes more than 400 aircraft, mostly fighter/attack types, but also a score of Chinese-produced Tu-16 Badger strike aircraft as well as training and transport aircraft. There are some 26,000 personnel assigned to the naval air arm, according to the web site "Periscope."
The training program for the 50 students is reported by some sources to cover a four-year period. The training will largely be conducted at the Faculty of Automation Engineering at the Dalian school, which in one of several Chinese naval education institutions. The students will also learn seamanship alongside their colleagues who will become surface ship and submarine specialists.
The program will include flight training. The major questions are (1) will their flight training include carrier operations and (2) how and when will China acquire a carrier. With respect to the first, while simulated carrier-deck training can be conducted ashore, at some stage the student pilots must go aboard ship. This could be done through agreements to train aboard a foreign carrier -- possibly Russian or Indian. The U.S. Navy periodically permits carrier ops from its carriers for the carrier-less Argentine naval air arm.
The second issue -- of Chinese carrier procurement -- is far more perplexing. Press reports continue to declare that the Chinese Navy is rehabilitating the never-finish Soviet carrier Varyag, moored at Darlian since 2002, to constructing a nuclear-propelled "super carrier" of almost 100,000 tons, i.e., the size of the U.S. Nimitz (CVN 68)-class carriers. Both of those options are highly unlikely. Other than a new coat of paint, the Varyag has had no work done on her since arriving at Dalian; she lacks electronic gear, radars, and other vital equipment, and her engines are inoperable. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that many of the equipment producers for the Soviet carrier program are no longer making the appropriate equipment or are no longer in business. The cost of making the Varyag operational would be similar to that of constructing a new ship. (The Varyag design dates to the 1970s.)
Similarly, the cost and effort to design and construct a 100,000-ton ship as China's first carrier could instead produce two ships of perhaps half that size, a much more efficient approach to the problem. And, of course, having two ships available would provide more at-sea time for the carriers.
New construction ships could certainly be built in China, which has produced very large merchant ships, although destroyers are the largest warships that have been built in the country. A class of LPD amphibious ships of about 17,000 tons full load is now under construction. Another option would be to have a carrier built in the Ukraine, where the Black Sea Shipyard No. 444 constructed all previous Soviet aircraft carriers. Those ships were the largest warships to be constructed outside of the United States since the end of World War II. The Ukrainian government would certainly welcome a contract from China to construct a major warship in the yard.
Of significance, in the late 1980s the Chinese Navy had another naval training program in which nine pilots were graduated from a three-year training course. They were then assigned to shipboard duties and, reportedly, all have become destroyer commanding officers. Some observers believe that these men could become the commanding officers of a future Chinese carrier force. The program was interesting because Chinese naval aviators -- like their Soviet counterparts -- are not "line" officers in the Western sense and normally do not serve as ship's company, and cannot succeed to command of a ship.
Another complication is the issue of carrier-based aircraft. In the past, Chinese Navy pilots have reportedly undertaken short-run takeoffs and landings using the indigenous J-8 fighter on a simulated carrier deck, but the aircraft's poor aerodynamic performance makes it impossible for real shipboard operations. The indigenous, third-generation J-10 and J-11 fighters are potential candidate, but both would require substantial structural modifications before they could take off and land on a carrier deck.
The Russian press has reported the Chinese purchase of up to 50 Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D fighter-attack aircraft. These fighters, manufactured by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Production Association, were to be delivered to China 2007-2008. But none are known to have entered Chinese service -- assuming that the reports of their sale are correct. The Su-33 (formerly Su-27K series) are flown aboard the Russian Navy's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. (The Chinese Navy has experience with Sukhoi aircraft, currently having 24 land-based Su-30MKK2 fighter-bombers since 2004. Thirteen countries fly variants of the Su-27 Flanker series, including the Chinese Air Force.)
There is no question: The Chinese Navy is seeking to develop a carrier capability; but there are many, many questions about how that goal will be achieved.
We spent quite a bit of time on the range here at Blackhawk and one of the things they've put a lot of R&D and manufacturing effort into is their SERPA holster system.
Ever since thigh rigs became the carrier of choice for deployed troops, the need for an easy to release yet secure holster increased. The old nylon piece of junk that used to hold your M9 wouldn't cut it anymore.
The SERPA takes a little getting used to, but at the end of the day, it's probably the most logical solution for the constantly evolving pistol tactics in the military. Thigh rigs have given way to chest setups and the SERPA mounts just as comfortably on the front of your body armor as it does on a thigh rig, belt holster or shoulder holster. They've even designed a quick release system that allows you to mount the basic holster on any different carrier -- switching back and forth at will.
As you can see from the videos, the SERPA is a pretty good piece of gear even though it took this tactically deficient reporter a bit of muscle memory repetition to get the release point memorized.
-- Christian
Pouches, Pouches Everywhere
It's been two days drinking from the tactical gear fire hose here at Blackhawk's corporate HQ in Norfolk.
When people think of Blackhawk, they usually think about pouches, belts, holsters and packs. And that's not surprising because the vast majority of what Blackhawk does is design and manufacture a pouch or attachment for just about everything you could possibly need -- or imagine you need -- in a fighting situation.
Tom O'Sullivan, the company's product director for Nylon gear explains that they can take an idea out of thin air and in some cases have a working prototype within a few hours. They can make custom products for elite units with specific needs, adapt existing products from, say, the outdoor market and ruggedize them for military use or they can imitate military issue to satisfy a trooper's preference to keep his own gear the way he wants it.
The sheer amount of pouches, packs and web gear -- including attachment systems -- is down right intimidating. How O'Sullivan and his crew keep these products straight is beyond me.
Clearly the Urgent Needs Statement money and discretionary funds available to units for their own gear needs has helped companies like Blackhawk carve out quite a niche in the military market. Company officials declined to say how much they make since they're a private company, but from the looks of their HQ with its glass facade, lunch room, well-appointed gym and pro shop, there's money coming in.
It's also interesting that Blackhawk has carved out quite a bit of international business as well. O'Sullivan is on his way to Australia to chat with their military about some upcoming contracts. They've built products for Tier One units for both the U.S. military and, interestingly, the Brits, Italians, Aussies and Germans.
I guess in the end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have really helped create huge business opportunities for companies like this that were started by a couple guys in specialized units -- in this case SEALs -- who wanted more out of the gear they were issued and found themselves in a market that's just exploded since 9/11.
Monster is proud to announce the creation of HMForces.co.uk, a new online space designed exclusively for the UK military community to connect and develop their careers.
Do you need advice on landing a great civilian job once you leave the Forces? Curious if you’re claiming all the benefits you’re entitled to receive?
Or, just want to banter about which Service really works the hardest?
Check out our discussion forums, videos, benefits overview, plus much more, it’s clear – HMForces is going to be at ground zero for the military community to meet up and share.
However, since the site will always be a work in progress and as it is entirely about and for members of the Armed Forces – your feedback is crucial.
Please drop us a line if you have an idea for a new feature, want us to investigate something, or even if you’ve found a broken link.
We're proud to extend our services, news and member resources to a military community that has recently participated in a lot of U.S. operations and shares a close alliance with American forces.
I hope you all will take some time to check out the new site and feel free to throw some feedback our way on things you think could be improved.
-- Christian
On the Range with a Legend
Well folks, I've been down all day at tactical gear manufacturer Blackhawk! down in Norfolk participating in a writer's workshop to get smart on their gear and the techniques to use it.
I'm ripping through the material I got throughout the day: tactical nylon products like web gear and pouches, holsters, knives and knife fighting, tactical lights and their employment in low-light situations. So real quick, I'll post a clip from tactical pistol guru Todd Jarrett who's got probably some of the best technique in the business. It's a real honor to have even an hour of instruction with Jarrett, and it's the first time I've ever done transition work from M4 to Glock and back.
I may not be that great at it, but at least I know I've learned the fundamentals from one of the best.
-- Christian
USAF Cyber Command Winnows Base List
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
The list of possible headquarter bases for the U.S. Air Force Cyber Command will be winnowed down and evaluated more closely over the next three to four months, according to Maj. Gen. William Lord, chief of the provisional command.
There is fierce competition to provide a home for the planned Cyber Command. A list of 56 bases is being reviewed by the Pentagon, Lord told Aerospace DAILY. In March, then-USAF Secretary Michael Wynne responded to 18 states' governors interested in hosting the new command to join in the basing process. Requests for information were sent out in May and responses were due back by July 1.
Cyber Command has been in suspended animation ever since the turnover of top Air Force leadership this past summer. "My tasking is to come back with a roadmap that defines [Cyber]," Lord said. Although priority is still being given to issues dealing with better management of the service's so-called nuclear enterprise, Lord said a decision was made to stand up the command.
Lord is confident that Cyber Command's designation as a so-called Numbered Air Force (NAF), the 24th under the USAF Space Command, is t
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.