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 the best decision. "That's the way we fight today," he said. "It's not important which major command it falls under because the [capability is available] to all of the Combatant Commanders (COCOMS)." For example, he said, Air Combat Command organizes, trains and equips air-breathing assets, which are used by U.S. units in Europe and the Pacific for the commanders in those regions. "In the case of Cyber, you don't have hard assets," Lord said. "Network warfare is more distributed."
Lord also referred to what he called "cross-domain synergies," or the ability to use both kinetic and non-kinetic weapons "in concert, more efficiently. The bottom line is about changing enemy behavior," which doesn't necessarily have to result in total destruction. "Now you can have a more gradual and perhaps different kind of warfare where both a potential belligerent and another nation are not killing and maiming people" to effect change, Lord said.
Many nations are under constant cyber attack. The United States seems to be ground zero for the vast majority of the cyber attacks launched be their digital enemies around the world. A former CIA official provided the following statistics. In 2007 there were 37,000 reported breaches of government and private systems. In addition, there were nearly 13,000 direct assaults on federal agencies and 80,000 attempted computer network attacks on Defense Department systems.
In addition who could forget the U.S. Air Force commercial showing a picture of the pentagon and saying this building gets 6 million cyber attacks a day.
Cyber attacks are now expected to cause maximum damage because of the professional tools being used by the attackers. According to the cyber threat report released by Intelomics, the following list identifies the cyber attack techniques that have seen a significant increase in their level of sophistication.
Internet social engineering attacks
Wireless and wired network sniffers
Packet spoofing
Hijacking sessions
Automated probes and scans
GUI intruder tools
Automated widespread attacks
Widespread denial-of-service attacks
Executable code attacks (against browsers)
Techniques to analyze code to identify vulnerabilities
Widespread attacks on DNS infrastructure
Widespread attacks using NNTP to distribute attack
Man-in-the Middle plus Man-in-the-Browser exploitation
Cyber threats are now demanding immediate attention because of the increased dangers they pose to commercial and government entities and national security. The Congressional Research Service study found the economic impact of cyber attacks on businesses has grown to over $226 billion annually. Despite the significant impact, there is no clear framework for business executives to assess the financial impact of their cyber risks. According to two new surveys, the threat to corporate computer systems from cyber attacks is getting worse, despite stronger corporate defenses. Some cyber security measures might include more restrictive hiring practices, restricting remote working arrangements, increasing monitoring of flexible work hours and telecommuting as well as restriction on access by trading partners, vendors and consultants. In addition, organizations must also increase computer security awareness training for information technology workers as well as the general systems/computer user community.
A cyber attack special investigator at Intelomics said, "the reports of attacks, breaches and system compromises that make the news are only the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of these attacks go undisclosed and thus are not covered by the media."
Most nations do not have adequate IT security to protect against targeted cyber attacks. Technolytics have warned before that these cyber attackers are well financed and have an arsenal of highly sophisticated weapons that not only circumvent current security controls, but leverage anti-forensic techniques that remove evidence of their attacks. The United States, European Union, United Nations and NATO must act and act now. In view of the current situation I would like to suggest they seriously consider the following actions and move immediately to adopt and implement these measures.
1. Establish a cyber threat operating committee under the United Nations Security Council.
a. This cyber threat operating committee must be closely linked in a collaborative relationship with the Counter-Terrorism Committee.
2. Create a framework to determine what constitutes an act of cyber war and create a legal framework that addresses international criminal cyber acts.
3. Proactively create a framework of actions that can quickly be levied against cyber aggressors.
a. These actions must include both economic and military sanctions as well as suspension of connectivity to the Internet backbone by both physical communications cables and via satellite.
4. Create a cyber peacekeeping force that is a rapid response asset to assist in repelling any offensive cyber-based aggression.
In the interest of global peace, economic integrity and stability, I believe that the United States, European Union, United Nations and NATO must proactively send a stern warning to those who choose to use cyber weapons against other nations, that there will be severe consequences of such actions.
Fed up with schedule delays and soaring costs, the Defense Department late Thursday axed the Army’s Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program that was to provide a replacement for the service’s ageing OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The Army’s contract with Bell-Textron was valued at more than $6 billion for some 500 new lightly armed scout aircraft. The Army’s Kiowa Warriors have seen heavy use in Iraq and are valued among aviators for their exceptional maneuverability at low altitudes.
In a press release, John Young, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer said, “Rather than continue this program, I have decided that the best course of action is to provide the Army with an opportunity to define a coherent, disciplined Kiowa Warrior helicopter replacement program, and to obtain more rigorous contract terms for its development.”
The ARH was originally projected to cost $8.56 million per aircraft with delivery to begin next year. DoD now estimates the helicopter will cost $14.48 million per copy and the initial delivery date had slipped to 2013.
In the same Pentagon statement, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren stated, “The cost and schedule that were the focus of the decision to award the contract to Bell Helicopter are no longer valid. We have a duty to the Army and the taxpayer to move ahead with an alternative course of action to meet this critical capability for our Soldiers at the best price and as soon as possible.”
In an Army press release, Lt. Gen James Thurman, Army operations director said, “the war-fighting capability for a manned, armed, reconnaissance helicopter is crucial to supporting our ground combat commanders and remains a critical requirement for the Army. To this end, we will rapidly pursue a re-validation of the particular characteristics needed for this capability so that we can restart the process of acquiring a manned, armed reconnaissance helicopter.”
The Army has been upgrading its Kiowa fleet with new avionics and electronic countermeasures.
I received an e-mail last week from a young man who'd had some issues with his M9 over in the Big Sandbox. As a complaint, this isn't a terribly new or unusual one. I'm pretty sure that if you did a survey of every military related blog and all the various tactical- or military-type magazines out there, you'd find numerous mentions of M9 problems in the desert.
But it was particularly important to me to answer the young man's query, since just a couple weeks ago I was talking to Slim about some Cav scouts we'd trained with previously. They'd also mentioned their M9 problems, and were also pretty disgruntled that they weren't given more time on the range with it before deploying. One of said he'd only fired it a couple times for qualification, never for proficiency or on a combat course. With the subject coming up twice in a month, once from the Marines and once from the Army, it seemed time to see what we could do to help.
So. The M9, 9mm Beretta. Civilian-wise we call it the 92F or 92FS, et al. Some guys love it, some hate it. There are civilian cops that swear by it, which baffles me personally, but guns are like boots and beer. Everyone has a favorite, usually held with a devoted certainty that says anyone that prefers a different model is a dumbass. you know what I'm talking about. 1911 guys (of any breed) make fun of Glock guys, who shake their heads at Sig guys, who just can't understand the S&W guys.
For myself, I prefer the M9 as a boat anchor if a Ruger isn't available but that's just me.
Anyway your opinion doesn't really matter in the military, as you're not given a choice. TO make matters worse, most of the guys that carry one aren't all that well trained with it. Trained, I said, not familiarized. I've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time on the range with a lot of different folks, and with some exceptions it's been pretty clear that most military trigger-pullers are competent at best with the handgun. I don't equate competent with true proficiency. Keep in mind I'm not passing judgment. It's not the troops' fault. There's only so much training time and so many training rounds, but that doesn't excuse training NCOs and rangemasters from putting their people through some good drills to really promote mastery of the weapon.
Anyway, this isn't about training or courses of fire. This will be just a few quick hints we've found to be helpful when you have to carry one. So, Jeremy, here you go.
First off know how to do your own inspection for BMCLS (Broken, Missing, Worn, Clean, Lubed, Serviceable) as best as you can. Spend any extra time you can on the range and pay attention to guys that know more than you do. You never know when you might pick something up.
The firstest, mostest importanest thing after keeping it cleaned and lubed (which should be obvious unless you're one of my handlers, who cleans his guns once a year religiously on his birthday whether they need it or not) is your magazines. By far the most common feed failures experienced (that I'm aware of anyway) with the M9 pistol has been due to magazines. Check yours and make sure they're good to go. Oh, and you know how there are black ones and gray ones issued out? They gray ones are after-market, and usually they suck. The springs aren't as good and they're nowhere near as durable. If you've ever dropped one of the after-market gray ones on a hard surface you've probably watched it explode into its component pieces or have at least seen the rounds drop back until their noses are all pointed straight up.
Check the grips, especially if your magazine isn't wanting to seat. If it's an older M9, the grips were attached to the weapon with screws. There are/were washers inside the grips that spaced it properly so the screws held the grips on without intruding into the magazine wells. Depending upon who cleaned it last, or just got bored and took it apart, there's a good chance those washers are gone. With the washers gone the screws can sometimes protrude and get in the way of the magazine when you go to seat it.
The newer M9s (I think it's the M9A1, but I could be behind the curve here) uses allen wrenches to hold the grips on, so you don't have to worry about that. They're the ones with different rear sights and the half moon hammer pin showing, and depending upon attrition and replacement their recoil spring guide will be polymer instead of metal.
Oh, also, even if you don't have time to clean it or brush it out, always check the feed ramp for debris. If anything builds up there, even just a little bit, the front of the projectile can catch on it and prevent a good chambering of the round.
That's pretty much all I've got. Perhaps some of our readers can help out as well, or correct me if I gorked something up here. Remember, FATS or CATS or whatever is good, real range time is better, and it never hurts to dry fire. You can improve your skills just by drawing, presenting, aiming and pulling the trigger of an unloaded weapon. I've never heard of a police course or academy that didn't hound is students mercilessly to dryfire.
Now, remember: PRACTICE doesn't make perfect. Practice just makes you rehearsed. PERFECT practice makes perfect. Make sure you've got a good grip and you're doing it right every time you train. One last thing you might consider - if a shooter is going to have trouble with the M9's trigger pull, it will usually be the first one (double-action). This is natural, a double action shot trigger pull is typically going to be less accurate than a single action trigger pull (for most people). If you have the money and the inclination (and you don't live in the People's Republic of California) you might think about going and buying one of the civilian model 92s with the bobbed hammer. It's a pain in the ass, but all you can shoot with it is double action. Spend some time on the range with that in order to get used to that first trigger squeeze after you drag iron.
A top designer of flexible body armor similar to the much-vaunted Dragon Skin says he has just tested a new type of ballistic material that is far harder than current plates and can defeat one of the most deadly armor piercing rounds in the world.
And it can do all this at the same weight as a standard Enhanced Small Arms Protective Plate, but in a more flexible and comfortable package, developer Allan Bain claims.
Bain, who body armor experts agree was a founding father -- with Dragon Skin maker Murray Neal -- of the so-called "scalar" armor concept, has developed a new way to forge the ceramic that goes into the bullet-blocking plates, giving it greater density and the ability to be bent into odd shapes.
"This is probably about as cutting edge as it gets," Bain told Military.com during an October 15 phone interview about the new armor, "Skaalar Exoskin Gen 4+". "An E-SAPI plate is an inch thick. Then you've got the vest … This [SEG4+] is an inch thick with everything included."
With the help of experts at Georgia Tech University, Bain produces his armored disks in an oven that reaches nearly 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit - nearly half the surface temperature of the sun - to make the ceramic stronger, smaller and without sacrificing weight.
SEG4+ body armor wraps around the wearer like Dragon Skin, weighs about 7.5 pounds per square foot of coverage -- about the same as a standard-issue E-SAPI plate -- but delivers far more protection with "gapless, seamless" coverage for high-powered armor piercing rounds.
The military's current body armor system, with two rigid front and back pates and two side plates, leaves open areas with no defense against rifle rounds.
But don't get your hopes up that SEG4+ will be on order anytime soon for troops.
Manufacturing costs is one reason. Army caution is another.
Bain said the armor is currently so expensive to make that only the most elite units would likely be able to afford it. Special Forces may order and use armor the regular Army doesn't get, and is currently testing this to see of it's something they want.
And officials with the Army's Program Executive Office Soldier confirmed to Military.com that the service was putting its search for flexible armor on hold because it deemed the scalar technology too immature.
But don't tell Bain his armor isn't ready.
"At this point in time, if someone wanted 100 of these we could deliver them," he said.
The best known scalar system, Dragon Skin, is manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor. However Dragon Skin has a shaky reputation within the Army - which does the majority of armor testing, design and procurement for the services - after Pinnacle's feisty president, Murray Neal, launched a full-scale public relations war touting his vest's superiority after ballistics tests conducted by the Army in May 2006 showed Dragon Skin failing basic ballistics and durability tests.
Neal's public campaign got Congress got involved, with hearings on Capitol Hill to get to the bottom of the controversy. Lawmakers ordered the Army to do further tests and the service asked industry to submit samples of flexible systems and armor that could withstand rounds more powerful than the current E-SAPI plate.
The Army planned to test the armor concepts later that year but had to postpone the evaluation after manufacturers asked for more time to acquire the exotic materials and do more testing of their own.
PEO Soldier officials at Fort Belvoir, Va., said the service will begin testing in November on new E-SAPI and X-SAPI designs - more than a year after the Army had originally intended to shoot the experimental plates.
Officials also said the flexible-system test will not go ahead as planned because "an F-SAPI capability has not reached the level [of] technical maturity to protect Soldiers in combat," PEO Soldier said in an email response to Military.com.
Bain was cagey about the specific design and shape of his armor components but said it makes heavy use of lightweight polymers such as Dyneema and Kevlar fabric to achieve its ballistic resistance capability. The super-hardened ceramic retains 100 percent of its density after manufacture, as compared to a standard plate with 93 percent density, he added.
"It's still some type of a disk," Bain said. "But we've made interlocks. We've eliminated weak spots. We've made it very difficult for a bullet to hit a flat surface."
"Everything's geared toward getting that bullet to hit a severe angle," he added.
In September, Bain subjected his armor to ballistic tests with shots from a Swiss-made armor piercing round that is more powerful than the one specified by the Army for its X-SAPI capability (for security reasons Military.com has declined to name the specific round the Army wants to beat).
The round shattered the tile, penetrated nine layers of Kevlar but was largely stopped by the Dyneema backing.
"That's a really good stop," Bain said. "And that's a phase-one tile. We've already redesigned it."
With more support from industry, Bain thinks he can cut down on the cost of the vest - currently, each tile costs about $50 to make - and with continued design improvements, he might be able to shave off some weight.
But for now, the Exoskin Gen 4+ is reserved for special operations troops and other high-risk forces, though Bain feels he's demonstrated that the technology is there for flexible armor that defeats the meanest threats.
"This is the kind of process that can lend itself to making the 'Star Wars' style armor … with lots of different segmented shapes," Bain said. "It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what you can do with that."
-- Christian
DEVELOPING: Army Abandons Flexible Armor Search -- For Now
The Army has postponed its attempt to find a flexible body armor system similar to Dragon Skin after determining that the technology hasn't matured enough to be fielded to troops.
While working on a story that will be the lead headline on tomorrow morning's Military.com homepage, I queried PEO Soldier about the progress of ballistic tests on X-SAPI and F-SAPI armor submitted by manufacturers after the June 2007 solicitation asking for new armor concepts. As you all might remember, the Army postponed tests after I spoke with BGN Brown because manufacturers were short on materials (probably Dyneema/Spectra and B4C) and needed to do more testing of their own.
I then spoke with Murray Neal at an industry event several months later and he wondered where the testing stood as well, saying he'd submitted samples but heard nothing in reply. Brown had told me tests were supposed to start in March 2008.
Remember, the Army solicitation (which has been removed from their server but was described in a June 2007 posting) called for X-SAPI to defeat "future" AP threats -- namely the M993 -- and also asked for submission of "flexible" systems to be designated "F-SAPI?" This, in part, answered the mail after hearings in the House regarding the Dragon Skin tests by Army officials and the NBC program that broke it all wide open. These were supposed to be the "head-to-head" tests -- or something loosely approximating that -- Neal was asking for and lawmakers acquiesced to.
Well, the Army has deemed the technology too immature, telling me only E-SAPI and X-SAPI vendors qualified, including Ceradyne, BAE, Protective Group and Armacel, for the tests.
"An F-SAPI capability has not reached the level [of] technical maturity to protect Soldiers in combat," PEO Soldier said.
Ooooh, really!? Wonder if Mr. Neal has anything to say about that? (And we'll show you someone else who'd like to debate that point in our story tomorrow AM)...
-- Christian
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Delays continue for the U.S. Air Force's $15 billion combat, search and rescue (CSAR-X) helicopter replacement program.
Contractors confirm that Air Force briefings scheduled for early October have been postponed as the service focuses more intently on its internal review of the troubled acquisition, which was slapped down twice by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and is now the subject of a Pentagon Inspector General (IG) investigation.
GAO sustained two protests by CSAR-X competitors Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky against the Air Force's original award to Boeing, saying the service failed to consider certain lifecycle costs in its decision.
In response, the Air Force apparently has sought input from professional logistic managers to review the CSAR-X lifecycle cost component, contractors have confirmed.
Just what the extra internal review will do to the CSAR-X contract award schedule is unclear. The program is scheduled for a Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting in early December and the Air Force has maintained it hopes to make an award this fall.
"We do believe the CSAR-X contract will be awarded this year and our HH-47 proposal stands ready to meet the requirements," Boeing spokeswoman Jenna McMullin said.
But the briefing postponements, added Air Force scrutiny and more intense focus on lifecycle costs have analysts and others familiar with the program doubting that any award can be made by year's end.
Then there's the IG report. Investigators are reviewing how and when the Air Force changed some CSAR-X requirements.
The Air Force had said it had to receive something from those investigators by mid-September. But sources say there's likely to be no word for at least another month. And a scathing report, Air Force leaders acknowledge, could add even more delay.
In a July memo, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young emphasized the importance of considering program lifecycle costs when making acquisition decisions.
A tipster told me this morning and I have confirmed with the Army that Brig. Gen. Mark Brown will soon be leaving as the commanding general of PEO Soldier to be replaced by Brig. Gen. Pete N. Fuller.
[Brown is pictured left]
Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie told me Brown will soon become Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) in Washington, though Downie wasn't able to tell me when this would all go down.
Fuller, currently the Deputy Commander for Systems of Systems Integration, United States Army Research, Development and Engineering Command at Fort Belvoir, will take Brown's place.
I don't know Fuller, but I've chatting with Brig. Gen. Brown a bit over the short time he's been PEO Soldier and he seems like a technically proficient acquisition officer who's a straight shooter. He told me during an interview about the Dragon Skin testing that he wanted his relations with the media to be "open kimono" -- a far stretch from the edicts of his predecessors who kept information about programs that effect almost every Joe to themselves.
I wish BGN Brown the best of luck and look forward to keeping the spirit of openness going when Fuller takes the helm as PEO Soldier. He's going to have tighter budgets, a changing administration and lots of recapitalization issues hitting him full force when he arrives, and we'll look forward to talking with him as he decides how to re-equip the force for a new paradigm.
-- Christian
At Least Someone Gets to be Camouflaged
Calling the Army's new "universal" digital camouflage scheme for its field uniforms controversial is an understatement. People tend to fall into two camps: some grudgingly tolerate it, particularly in an urban, desert or urban/desert environment and others (most) just flat out hate it and can't understand why the Army went the way of loden greens and grays.
Why not Multi-cam (which almost everyone likes)? That's a whole 'nother subject...
No matter how you feel about it, sure seems like Joes are going to be stuck with the new pattern for a while since the Army spent gobs of money replacing its classic woodland scheme only within the last few years. But it turns out not everybody in the Army has to stick with the unpopular mandate.
According to the "Soldier Systems" blog, the Army G1 recently sent out guidance that allows special operations troops the option of wearing the old-school woodland cammies in jungle environments. The message states that USASOC troops can wear the old BDUs in the Pacific theater, Southern command area and Africa Command while "conducting operational training and contingency missions" there.
The order calls for logistics to keep the woodland items in the supply system for the snake eaters until otherwise notified.
Here's the message Soldier Systems pasted on its site:
SUBJECT: EXCEPTION TO POLICY FOR WEAR OF THE ENHANCED HOT WEATHER BATTLE DRESS UNIFORM (EHWBDU), AVIATION BATTLE DRESS UNIFORM (ABDU), AVIATION FLIGHT SUIT, AND ACCESSORY ITEMS
1. THIS MESSAGE SERVES AS AUTHORIZATION FOR WEAR OF THE EHWBDU, ABDU, AND ACCESSORY ITEMS AFTER THE MANDATORY WEAR OUT DATES FOR SOLDIERS ASSIGNED TO UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND (USASOC) CONDUCTING OPERATIONAL TRAINING AND CONTINGECY MISSIONS IN THE FOLLOWING OCONUS THEATERS:
A. PACIFIC COMMAND
B. SOUTH COMMAND
C. AFRICA COMMAND
2. THE FOLLOWING WOODLAND ORGANIZATIONAL CLOTHING AND INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT (OCIE) ITEMS WILL BE MAINTAINED AS ISSUE IN THE ARMY SUPPLY SYSTEM:
UNIFORM ITEMS
BOI
A. EHWBDUs (COAT AND TROUSERS) 4
B. ABDUs (COAT AND TROUSERS) 4
C. GEN I GORTEX (COAT AND TROUSERS) 1
D. BDU, SUN HAT 1
E. BROWN T-SHIRTS 4
F. PATROL CAP 1
G. AVIATION FLIGHT SUIT 2
H. ARMY COMBAT HELMET COVER 1
I. BLACK BOOTS (HOT WEATHER, SPEED LACE) 2
3. POC FOR UNIFORM POLICY IS XXX.
4. THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE DCS, G-1.
5. EXPIRATION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED.
Isn't that just like the Army? Can't have the HK416 or the SCAR...nope, you gotta stick to your M4. And now, you're being forced to stick out like a sore thumb in the jungle, but the commandos can stay nice and concealed. Thanks...
-- Christian
Defense Spending vs. Economy
One of the most interesting undercurrents at last week’s Association of the US Army conference was worried talk about whether the recession or downturn or whatever we’re calling it will affect defense spending.
Army Secretary Pete Geren was relatively hopeful. Congress, he told reporters, understands what the Army is trying to do and largely supports it. FCS, the Army’s premier modernization effort, is in good shape and has strong congressional support. As you can tell, Geren was all about Congress and declined to talk about the larger economic issues.
As I went from display to display on the floor I spoke with about a dozen industry sources about the economy and the budget. Most were gravely concerned about their 401Ks and a bit less worried about the budget. Still, they all expressed concern that the Army will have to begin choosing between so-called reset choices and those of modernization. This is one of several major friction points in the coming budget. First, the services have all made noises about how they are going to build the spending that has been in supplementals into their regular budget baselines. That’s one place for tradeoffs. Then there is the squeeze that will probably result from lower government revenue figures. There will be political pressure to withdraw from Iraq and thus lower operational costs. Operational and maintenance money has been very important to the Army, in particular. And then there is the normal budget wrangling. That offers an awful lot of places where Army — or any other service’s — spending can be whittled away.
And the Army is going to face skepticism over FCS even if the economy does hold relatively firm during first three months of next year. For example, when I asked Maj, Gen. Charles Cartwright during the big FCS briefing whether House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) supported the Army’s approach on FCS, the general offered all sorts of explanations about how the program was on track and, in the best tradition of message management, avoided issuing a potentially damaging statement. To his credit, Cartwright did it with style and humor, even when pressed. The problem is that Skelton made clear after the Army scrambled to restructure the program and get more FCS components to troops as quickly as possible that he (and Airland Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Neil Abercrombie D-Hi.) worries the Army may be rushing the testing on the programs. Included among them are: Tactical and Urban Unattended Ground Sensors; the Non Line of Sight-Launch System, network kits for Humvees; the Class I Unmanned Air Vehicle; and the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle.
Of course, during AUSA reporters were watching the world’s stock markets plummet day after day and no one knew whether there would be an upside any time soon. With the encouraging ballistic trajectories in the market so far this week, one could argue it’s all moot except that the US economy already appeared headed to rough waters before the market plunges.
One of the most impressive products I ran across at the Modern Day Marine expo was this material called Outlast. It's almost too good to be true, and for the last week I've been testing a few products made with Outlast and I'm pretty impressed.
So here's the deal. Under Armour made a big splash in the military community a few years ago with their moisture wicking fabrics -- particularly their t-shirts that in the extreme heat of an Afghan or Iraqi summer, kept troops relatively cool compared to straight cotton. My experience (I wore the same material from Patagonia back in the summer of 2003) was that the shirts didn't do much better than cotton for keeping you cool until you took off your body armor, when the moisture was able to evaporate and cooled your body much quicker. I had boxer shorts made out of the same material and hated them. It's commando all the way for me from now on, baby.
Sure, the Under Armour-like material (Patagonia calls it Capilene, UA calls it HeatGear) worked great if you weren't wearing anything over it -- walking to the chow hall or working in the hooch -- but its strength came when you doffed your gear and let the sweat melt away.
Then an IED hit...literally.
Because of the risk burns from the melted synthetic material in the flame flash of an IED blast, the Army and Marines Corps banned Under Armour base layers on patrol. The troops still love them and that hasn't stopped the services from using them. Problem is, the Nomex or Nomex-like materials in the combat shirts now are still a little on the hot side.
That's where Outlast comes in. The material is impregnated with "micro-encapsulated Thermocules" that actually absorb body heat and feel cool to the touch. It's what's called a "phase change" substance that goes from a solid to a liquid as it's warmed. Thing is, it's so small in the fabric that you don't even notice it. And it really works.
If you grab a piece of the fabric in your hand and ball it up, you feel the cool against your skin. There's a limit to how cool the substance gets...eventually it warms up to the temperature of your skin, but if you stop exerting and take a short break, the material cools back down. I've tried a sample of the material in one of the harshest environments in the world: my shoes. Trust me, you NEVER want to go there when my hot feet are aboard, but the Outlast impregnated footbeds have been able to regulate the steam bath of my inner shoes to a degree that it doesn't insult the olfactory.
The potential for the material is limitless (it was originally designed for the temperature extremes of space suits)...think about it as a liner for your body armor, a replacement for your base layer shirt on patrol, lining a cold weather parka so you don't over heat, flight suits...It's not often that I run across something that seems like a game changer in a lot of ways, but so far as I can tell with my own "field test," Outlast seems to work pretty darn well.
-- Christian
DARPA Cancels Hypersonic Blackswift
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The Blackswift reusable hypersonic testbed has been canceled by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) after Congress slashed the program's fiscal 2009 budget to $10 million, from $120 million.
Blackswift was to demonstrate an unmanned hypersonic vehicle able to take off, accelerate to a Mach 6 cruise and return to a runway landing.
"Congress made significant reductions in the amount of funds available to DARPA and the Air Force for the Blackswift testbed," the agency said in a statement. "Based on this, DARPA determined that it would not be possible to proceed with the solicitation for the effort."
DARPA had hoped to award a contract for the demonstrator later this year, and was believed to be negotiating with a Lockheed Martin Skunk Works-led team that included Boeing. The Blackswift was expected to fly in 2012. Meanwhile, DARPA says it will continue with the Falcon program to fly unpowered hypersonic test vehicles in 2009.
Congress was skeptical of Blackswift's technical achievability and operational utility, cutting DARPA FY '09 funding from the requested $70 million to $10 million and eliminating the Air Force's requested $50 million for the joint program.
"Obviously we are disappointed that we will not have the appropriated funds to move forward with the Blackswift flight test," DARPA program manager Steven Walker said. He said a significant effort had been made to develop the propulsion technology and build a national government and industry team capable of developing and flying a reusable hypersonic testbed.
"The Blackswift testbed would have been able to take off under its own power, cruise at Mach 6, maneuver at hypersonic speeds and land, and then do it again," Walker said. "Blackswift, or something very much like it, will be a required step prior to the U.S. developing an operational, reusable air-breathing hypersonic airplane."
p>Other people can debate whether the JSF is a waste of money, as vulnerable as a clay pigeon at a trap range or the best thing since the A-10.
Our good friend and contributor Steve Trimble has been getting the goods on the program for a long time and continues his good work over at the DEW Line blog on Flight International's Web site.
I covered the program back during the concept demonstrator phase and was always a bit personally partial to the Boeing version because I liked the idea of a lifting body concept and the scoop air intake (perfect for shark's teeth -- it just looked more intimidating). I did get a chance to see the Lockheed version of the STOVL JSF sitting on the hover stand at that company's Skunk Works facility in Palmdale and have always been intrigued by the lift fan engineering.
Unfortunately, as our boy Steve has reported, it's going to be a while before the STOVL plane flies in real life. So for now, this YouTube video will have to suffice.
(Gouge: ST)
-- Christian
A Cyber Attack on the Poor's Wallet
Last week's blog posting "Offshore and Cyber Security" rang true as cyber security and financial security were rudely awakened by word of what was being dubbed the largest security breach in history. This incident began over a year ago, but federal authorities and bank officials were able to keep this under wraps until Thursday October 9th. The data breach at the World Bank (WB) was discovered in mid 2007. After receiving a tip from the FBI, the World Bank moved quickly to investigate. This investigation continues today and like the vast majority of cyber events I have been involved with, it is highly dynamic and there is a great deal of contradictory information.
Here is what we know at this point. There were cyber security events at World Bank. I discussed the event with Carl Hanlon of World Bank and he stated that many of the news stories are fraught with errors and called some of the reporting out right irresponsible. Our discussion went on and he said, "Like other public and private institutions, the World Bank has repeatedly experienced cyber attacks." He emphatically stated that "At no point have we uncovered evidence the cyber attackers' accessed sensitive information in the World Bank's Treasury, procurement, anti-corruption or human resources departments."
World Bank issued the following statement: "TheFox News storyis wrong and is riddled with falsehoods and errors. The story cites misinformation from unattributed sources and leaked emails that are taken out of context."
In my conversation with Mr. Hanlon, a conversation I had just this past week at a U.S. StratCom meeting was repeated.
"We do not have the context framework necessary to intelligently discuss cyber attacks. We do not have a standard definition of what actually constitutes a breach, a cyber attack or an act of cyber war."
I have called for such a cyber attack framework and cyber warfare doctrine for some time now and this is clearly evidence that we need it now.
I also contacted Satyam (a company alleged to be involved with the attack) and this is what they sent me via email:
"There have been reports in a section of the press allegedly linking Satyam to possible security breaches at the World Bank (WB). These accounts are based on a single speculative story that appeared on Friday evening IST, in the US. Satyam is unaware of any facts that substantiate this allegation. ... Satyam takes this matter very seriously. We hold ourselves to the highest standards in the industry, and we take extraordinary care to develop secure networks and IT infrastructure for all our clients."
I posed the following question to Satyam: Was anyone associated with Satyam fired, asked to resign or put on leave pending an investigation of the security events that did occur at World Bank? Here is what I got as a reply: "As a matter of policy, Satyam does not comment on individual client contracts."
Like every other security breach it takes a long time to determine what the implications are and what the true impact is for a cyber event like this. In a piece by Fox News, they have a quote stating "They had the keys to every room at the bank. And we can't say whether they still do or don't until we fully and openly address what's happening here."
While the email seems to support that statement, it is still not known how much information was compromised or stolen.
Satyam is a global business and information technology company that provides consulting, systems integration, and outsourcing solutions to clients in over 20 industries. Satyam Computer is publically traded under the symbol SAY on the ADR and NYSE, their site says. As such, they need to formally address the allegations of information espionage because it could have a material impact on the company's performance and stock price. While they have stated that "the story has no validity," they seem to be just quoting/referring over and over to the World Bank's statement.
Were any of their employees/contractors involved or not, and if so, to what extent? Oddly enough, a five-year contract with the World Bank and Satyam lapsed in September. Failure to get in front of these allegations with a full disclosure could expose the company to shareholder litigation and possible investigation by other authorities including the Securities and Exchange Commission. Note: After being up by 1.29% at the market close on Friday, after hours saw the stock drop by 6.45% to 11.50.
The only thing for sure is that we will not know the extent of the information espionage if any and who was behind it. While I would have loved to point to the articles and say see I told you so, it would be totally irresponsible of me. These digital forensics and cyber attack DNA analysis are very complex undertakings and take years, not hours, days or months. Could new evidence be uncovered in the future that cause both of these organizations to change their current statements? Yes.
What bothers me is this. During these investigations, it is critical for all information that is going to be made public be vetted by all those authorities involved and get their approval so not to compromise the investigation. An ill timed leak can compromise an investigation and derail the efforts to bring the cyber attackers to justice. There are at least two lessons to be learned from all of this and that is communication, internally and externally, must be carefully controlled and prudently crafted before release. So free advice to every one who may experience a data breach, here is what to say if the media calls you about a breach:
We are aware of the claims of a security breach and take them very seriously. We are actively investigating and the situation is quite fluid. At this point we will not confirm nor deny anything in regards to this matter. We are working with authorities and as facts are uncovered and cleared for release to the public, so that they do not compromise the ongoing investigation, we will provide that information to you.
The second lesson is handling a security breach or any event involving information espionage requires a significant amount of coordination and security intelligence. Organizations would be well advised to plan for this coordination and obtain sources for security intelligence.
On a more philosophical note. How despicable this act was -- attacking an organization like the World Bank that does nothing but good. This comes close to rivaling the nasty hacking of web sites that contained information about photo sensitive epilepsy and implanting swirling, flashing images in an effort to trigger elliptic seizures. Clearly nothing is beyond the reach of cyber attackers and they will attack whomever and whereever they like. It is past the time for industry to stand up to this threat. Now governments around the world as well as the United Nations (UN) must address the global threat of cyber terrorism, cyber crime and cyber warfare.
Look, I'm not a big fan of 60 Minutes, but for some reason they keep drawing me in.
Last week it was the Dalton Fury/Kill bin Laden furor (BTW, I got a review copy of the book and am having a hard time putting it down) and this week it's 60 Minutes' take on how technology provides a key enabler for counter insurgencies.
Here's the deal...
There are a lot of folks out there -- many who read this blog -- who say Rumsfeld and his ilk were wrong about emphasizing "transformation," the "RMA" and otherwise leaning on technological solutions to act as force multipliers that can justify "slimming down" the force. The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan show, these detractors say, that it's about low tech, human interaction, not wiz bang robots and electronic networks.
But, as in all things, you have to have both. And the 60 Minutes piece titled The Battle of Sadr City is a pretty good explanation of where high-tech is crucial to enabling a counterinsurgency strategy that saves lives.
Though the piece gives me that icky feeling of being played (a gooey argument for high defense budgets as Americans decide on a new president...Just look at how stiff Odierno looks during the "briefings") and I just want to puke when I see Lesley Stahl's open-toed shoes, red shirt and lack of PPE while on patrol in Sadr City (no wonder the military holds reporters in such high contempt. When you come to their home court and refuse to adapt to the realities of combat, safety and risk, it just reinforces the mentality that reporters are aloof and unable to comprehend the of the situation), it does present a strong case for continuing the drive to perfect the high-technology that has truly "transformed" how we fight.
And I do savor the juxtaposition of the old-school concrete wall with the Reaper drone cover -- so 10th Century meets 21st...
-- Christian
Stop Suicide Bombers in their Tracks
As the female suicide bombing in Diyala the other day demonstrates, the more Iraqi government and security forces take charge and the US takes a back seat to counterinsurgency, the emphasis on offense is going to increasingly shift to defense.
Some folks I met at the Modern Day Marine Expo last week have an interesting system called "Counter Bomber" that uses radar and some wiz bang algorithms to detect if someone is concealing a suicide vest under his clothing.
Here's a short video that explains how the system works...
Counter Bomber costs about $300K, and that includes a computer and software that gives a no-joke "Marine proof" indication of whether someone's hiding something or not. A chime sounds if the radar detects a signature (it basically can pick up metallic objects under clothing) and gives a green-for-safe or red-for-threat indicator as the person passes the Counter Bomber's radar. The system works up to about 150 meters and the designers say it's best to have a couple arrayed so security officers can get a 360-degree view of what the person might be hiding.
Company reps say there are 12 Counter Bombers fielded to Marines in combat: eight systems are fielded in Iraq, including al Asad air base and the busy entrance to Ramadi on route Michigan, and four are stationed in Afghanistan.
-- Christian
War Spurs Change in Sniper Gear, Tactics
From the headlines at Military.com...
The conflicts stemming from the attacks on 9/11 showed America's military snipers were badly in need of modernization. Their gear, operational doctrine and training needed an update -- and fast. As the war evolved, units with combat experience shared lessons learned, identifying new requirements for a unique conflict. Fortunately the services took notice and began to revamp the sniper community in numerous ways.
Problem: Inadequate/outdated doctrine.
Solution: Small-unit leaders began to develop employment strategies that earlier training never covered, based on the current situation and environment. This, coupled with after-action reports, lessons learned and the general sharing of information, led to comprehensive sniper planning, support and employment-things like providing security for the sniper team during movement and relying on the sniper to provide the real-time intelligence for on-the-spot combat decisions.
Probably the biggest change was when-and-how to bring the snipers to bear for the desired result. Unit leaders learned that snipers could control large areas, create enemy reluctance and force enemy movement in a desired direction. There was a gradual recognition of how valuable assets like snipers and designated marksmen could be when properly utilized.
Problem: Inadequate equipment.
Solution: A number of commercially procured items became popular, including the Eberlestock pack, which allows the sniper to carry his rifle on his back protected and concealed while he carries a battle rifle for his own protection during movement. Other items such as rests, tripods and various bipods were procured to meet the varied terrain and conditions.
The issued spotting scope and tripod did not perform as needed in environments where ranges were either very long or very short, and precise optical definition was an absolute requirement for friend-or-foe identification. High-end spotting scopes such as the Leupold 12-40x60mm Mark 4, Zeiss 85mm, and Swarovski ATS 80's were quickly procured along with better quality tripods/mounts. Hydration systems, too, became a crucial ingredient in the sniper's pack.
The sniper of today is vastly better outfitted than he was six years ago. Individual and organizational efforts outside of official channels to provide free equipment/gear to snipers played a huge role in sniper evolution as well. Groups such as "Adopt a Sniper" (www.AmericanSnipers.org) collected and pushed large quantities of equipment to operators in the war zone and provided a conduit for specific requests from the field. In most cases the equipment was donated by industry or provided at a huge discount.
Problem: Inadequate optical sights.
Solution: Early on the word went out to procure optics for a variety of uses from crew-served weapons to M4 carbines. Many snipers purchased or procured variable-power optics for use on their sniper systems to allow them to open up their field of view while retaining the zoom capabilities.
In other cases higher-power optics were procured to allow the snipers to engage at extended ranges. The Marine Corps was in the process of selecting the Schmidt & Bender PMII (a.k.a. M8541), which has proved to be an outstanding product. Many Army units procured the Leupold Mark 4 M3 LR/T 3.5-10X as a replacement for the fixed 10X Leupold M3 "Ultra." Many other optics companies such as U.S. Optics and Nightforce saw increased sales of their products in an effort by the military to meet field requirements.
The acquisition of new optics also opened up the need or desire for mission-enhancing accessories. Devices such as the "angle cosine indicator" from Sniper Tools and a variety of mounting solutions like the Modular Accessory Rail System from Remington became popular and are now in widespread use.
In addition to the new optics, mounts and accessories, this new war brought interest in new reticule systems such as those offered by Horus Vision, Leupold, Nightforce and U.S. Optics, which provide different or enhanced approaches to range estimation, hold offs, elevation/windage changes and firing solutions.
Problem: A shortage of snipers and precision weapons.
Solution: Simple things such as adding an optic to an M4/M16, which previously had been considered "Hollywood," became the norm with the widespread purchase of the Trjicon ACOG. While not by itself a "sniper" system, units quickly discovered that troops with above-average shooting ability and snipers could extract a heavy toll on the enemy with such a system. It was this revelation that helped define the concept of the designated marksman - basically a soldier with slightly more training than the average grunt, equipped with an optically sighted rifle to engage targets at ranges the "typical" shooter could not.
Problem: Modernization of existing SWS (Sniper Weapons Systems.)
Solution: Around 2004, Remington introduced its M24A2 as an upgrade to the M24. This included a new stock, variable power optics, an optics rail that allows the use of in-line night vision IR lasers and a sound suppressor. While being very popular with the snipers, funding and authorization have never materialized. The U.S. Navy worked with Sage International to procure the Enhanced Battle Rifle, which is a modified M14 placed in an aluminum chassis that features multiple rails and a collapsible stock. They found this combination, although somewhat heavy, to be very effective. The Corps has conducted a variety of experiments with adding suppressors to their M40A3's but to date these suppressors are not in widespread use.
Problem: Rate of fire.
Solution: This problem gave rise to the development by the Army of the Semi-Automatic Sniper System solicitation. This effort was intended to procure a 7.62 semi-auto system that provided the accuracy of a bolt system in addition to the rapid firing capability of a semi. The Army eventually selected a system which they are now beginning to field in small quantities. The original concept was to replace all of the bolt-action systems with the new autoloading system. But it now appears that snipers need both capabilities. The USMC and USAF are currently reviewing the concept to determine which direction they will go.
Problem: Weight and the inability to engage targets at ranges beyond 1,000 meters.
Solution: Early solutions included the application of the .300 WinMag, but the availability of ammo was an issue. Many U.S. allies fielded systems chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum, which has gained considerable popularity among U.S. snipers. It remains unclear as to what direction this will take, as both industry and the services themselves are exploring alternatives.
The benefit of the current conflict in terms of equipment and technology development has been vast and modernization efforts in this area will likely continue. As in any war, necessity has been the mother of invention and snipers have never been as educated and well equipped as they are today.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The copy keeps pouring in from Colin and the gang over at DoD Buzz who are all over the Association of the US Army convention in DC like white on rice. We'll feature some of their content, but I'd recommend keeping an eye on what they're up to over at the Buzz.]
With up to $100 billion at stake in an era when defense budgets are probably going to shrink, you can understand why defense industry officials lust after the contracts for the three variants of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). Final proposals are due this week with a contract award set for the end of the month. The rubber is about to hit the road with the Army set to award three 27-month technology development contracts.
One interesting tidbit: Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, Army’s deputy chief of staff for programs, told reporters Wednesday afternoon that JLTV must be able to withstand both IEDs and explosively formed penetrators. Until now, industry and government officials had avoided discussion of explicit protection levels. Most details of protection requirements are classified. Industry officials with each team declined to discuss this, only saying that their vehicles met or exceeded MRAP protection requirements.
Here are the teams competing: Boeing, Textron and SAIC; BAE and Navistar; Northrop Grumman and Oshkosh Truck; Lockheed Martin and Armor Holdings; Blackwater and Raytheon. A lot of the floor space at the AUSA conference this week boasted a variant of the JLTV. All of the JLTV’s variants on display boasted ISR systems that will allow them to joint FCS brigades, as the Army plans for them to do eventually. They also had either the ability to let drivers flip a switch or hit a computer screen for differing terrains and weather conditions.
BAE unveiled its prototype for variant B [pictured above], a rakish looking vehicle with a relatively spacious interior capable of seating seven fully loaded troopers.
Lockheed displayed a very impressive vehicle. During a press briefing, Lockheed officials boasted of the 20,000 miles their JLTV prototype has endured. Troops had clambered in and out of the vehicle with full combat gear, proving their cabin design, they said. The company had declined to use a hybrid engine after extensive analysis, said Katherine Hasse, who leads the company’s JLTV effort. “Our experience with hybrids was that they are not ready for military use yet,” she said, adding that they boost vehicle weight by up to 700 pounds.
An Oshkosh official agrees that hybrids aren’t ready yet. There also are disadvantages to the big hump between the two front seats caused by the GTV vehicle’s transmission. (The Oshkosh official had not seen the Lockheed vehicle.) “That’s fine if you’re a hurdler,” said Ken Juergens, Oshkosh’s program director for JLTV. The Northrop-Oshkosh team is using a diesel-electric drive system, which eliminates the need for a transmission and conventional drivetrain. Juergens also touted Oshkosh’s experience in building vehicles in different weight classes: Nobody else has gone to different weight classes.” The
Congress has concerns about whether the Army can handle all the ground vehicles it plans to buy. In the House report accompanying its version of the 2009 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee mentioned JLTV twice in separate sections.
“In addition to the thousands of light, medium, and heavy trucks and hundreds of armored security vehicles, the committee is aware the Army would purchase over 12,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles by the end of fiscal year 2008 and almost 2,000 additional Stryker vehicles through fiscal year 2013,” the report noted.
“Concurrently, the Army and the Marine Corps continue to develop the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), which would perform many of the same missions that current up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV) and MRAP vehicles now perform.” So it calls on the Army to work with the Marines to come up with a long-term strategy and to “consider cost reduction strategies, reliability, and maintainability improvement initiatives.”
Reporters can be really dumb. There I was in front of Raytheon’s booth at the Association of the US Army’s conference with a little button under my thumb. I hit the button. My lower thoracic area got very hot, very fast. So I waited for the machine to recycle and hit the button again. This time the pain was more intense — I wasn’t screaming or anything — and my skin felt like it was about to catch fire.
I didn’t do this just to make you all chuckle. The idea was to see what the Marines will probably buy from Raytheon with $25 million buried deep in the summer supplemental spending bill. The Marines haven’t signed the contract — yet — but negotiations are well under way for five nonlethal Silent Guardian systems . It looks as if the system will be used in Afghanistan to help protect high value assets as well as bases.
The system beams millimeter wave energy at the speed of light for more than 250 meters and penetrates the top layer of the skin. As soon as you move away from the beam the pain stops, although there is a nagging sensation of pain for few moments afterwards. The antenna covers a full 360 degrees and the beam can be used to sweep across a crowd or to target one person at a time. It’s got safety cutoffs so it doesn’t cause permanent damage, according to John Patterson, a Raytheon spokesman.
The Silent Guardian is one variant of Raytheon’s Active Denial Systems, most of which provide area-wide protections against weapons such as missiles.
Non-lethals have been in development for a very long time. The first big burst of enthusiasm hit in the mid-1990s when the Pentagon created its first non-lethal office. Most of those technologies foundered — such as sticky foam — among concerns that non-lethals might hurt people, which always seemed ironic given that high velocity bullets and bombs are considered legal.
In addition to the Marines, the National Institute of Justice is investigating development of a much smaller version of Silent Guardian for police and other homeland security forces.
-- Colin Clark
IAR Additions
Judging from the comments there's quite a bit of interest -- and insider knowledge -- of the IAR competition.
I just want to set one thing straight: I wrote the earlier post mainly to get what I had out there and I caveated the whole deal with the fact that my reporting was incomplete.
Thanks to Krag who set me straight on whether the IAR was replacing all SAWs...it clearly is not but I didn't specify that in my post. And sorry Sven for getting the Singapore company wrong. My source said Ultimax and in my notes it looks like I wrote it as the name of the company, not the name of the gun.
What I decided to do was to go ahead and post the entire response on my questions about the program to SysCom (Marine Corps Systems Command). They would not grant me a phone interview, but that's not surprising given my long a sordid relationship with them (body armor recall). Maybe if they'd agreed to let me talk to a real person, there wouldn't have been this confusion (and delay).
Anyway, here's what Syscom told me:
The Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) marks the return of the automatic rifle to the Corps. It provides the Marine Fire Team and Rifle Squad the capability to achieve fire superiority through short term accurate, high volume, automatic fire to suppress targets and enable the remainder of the unit Fire Team to close with and destroy the enemy. Additionally, The IAR is the individual weapon of the Automatic Rifleman in the Fire Team and, as such, provides his means for offensive and defensive direct fire engagement. The IAR consists of an automatic rifle, designated optic, magazines, bipod, cleaning and maintenance equipment, and sling. The IAR includes attachment points for integration of the full range of currently available weapon accessories such as the Rifle Combat Optic (RCO), PEQ-2A, PAS-13, PVS-17, MWS Broomstick grip, and others.
The source documentation is the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) for Infantry Automatic Rifle dated Jan. 21, 2005, that validates a requirement for an individual Marine operable, high volume of fire automatic rifle at the Infantry Fire Team level. The Approved Acquisition Objective is for 4,476 weapons to be fielded to the rifle squads within Marine Infantry Battalions and the scout teams within Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions. There have been no weapons purchased and no contract(s) awarded during this phase.
The IAR will enhance the Automatic Rifleman's maneuverability and displacement speed, while providing him the ability to achieve fire superiority and suppress or destroy those targets of most immediate concern to the fire team. The IAR LAR shall provide accurate automatic or semi-automatic fires against point (550 meters) and area (800 meters) targets in all light, environmental, and terrain conditions. The IAR will be operated by a single Marine and employed from all doctrinal firing positions. Additionally, the IAR shall demonstrate improved portability, reliability, and maneuverability through constricted terrain and conditions over the current M249 SAW.
Analysis that pointed toward establishing this requirement is listed below:
a. Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan (JSSAMP), 2003. The JSSAMP provides the description of the Services' desire to evolve current small arms systems into the next generation of more capable and lighter weight systems.
b. U.S. Army Infantry Center LMG JCIDS Capabilities Base Assessment (CBA), Version 1.2, November 2004. Findings: There is a need to improve or replace the current M249 given the capability gaps that the current LMG displays.
c. The need for an Infantry Automatic Rifle was identified by experimentation conducted by 2d Battalion, 7th Marines, during August 2001.
d. The Ground Combat Element (GCE) Conference Report of Sept. 20, 2001 stated Phase I of the experiment was complete with results demonstrating the need for a more effective automatic rifle in the infantry squad.
e. US Army LWMG Analysis.
f. Joint Service Small Arms Individual Small Arms Analysis.
Hope that sheds some additional light on the IAR issue. I'll post more on this as the news comes in...
-- Christian
Bye-Bye Pave Low, Hello Osprey
The deployment of the CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to North Africa this month for Operation Flintlock 09 overshadows the retirement of the long-serving MH-53 Pave Low helicopter. The final Pave Low mission was flow in Iraq in September by the Air Force’s 20th Expeditionary Special Operations Squadron.
Once numbering 39 helicopters, the Pave Low fleet was employed around the world for low-level missions to insert and take out special forces as well as for Combat Search And Rescue (CSAR) operations. The Sikorsky H-53 series is the largest helicopter flown in the West, with the largest (three-turboshaft) H-53E variants also flown by the U.S. Navy (MH-53E) and Marine Corps (CH-53E).
The Air Force retired the last MH-53M Pave Low IV variants -- all upgraded from earlier models -- in September. The Air Force is acquiring 50 Bell-Boeing CV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft for the special operations role. The CV-22 and MH-53 are roughly the same size (but with very different configurations); however, the Osprey is much faster and has a greater range, and is provided with an in-flight refueling capability. (In July 2006 two MV-22s flew across the Atlantic in the first trans-ocean flight of the aircraft.)
The Marine Corps has already forward deployed its Osprey variant, the MV-22. In October 2007 the Marines sent ten MV-22s to Iraq, where they continue to operate. The Marines have a requirement for 360 MV-22s for the assault and combat support missions, replacing the long-serving CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter. (The original Marine requirement -- developed during the Cold War era -- was for 552 MV-22 aircraft.) The Marines currently have four MV-22 deployable squadrons plus a transition squadron, with a schedule to activate two additional squadrons per year.
At a press conference last May, Marine officials cited the excellent record of the MV-22 in Iraq. During a seven-month period the unit -- with ten aircraft -- flew 2,500 sorties, with each averaging 62 hours per month. Pre-deployment forecasts were that the MV-22s would fly about 50 hours per month. Maintenance time was 9.5 hours per flight hour (compared to 24 hours for the CH-46E).
The U.S. Navy has a requirement for 48 HV-22 aircraft for the CSAR role. But the Navy has yet to fund procurement of those aircraft. Thus, the probable near-term U.S. buy of V-22 Ospreys is on the order of 400 to 450 aircraft.
At times the U.S. Army has also expressed interest in the V-22, with some official statements having cited about 230 aircraft for the medical evacuation role as well as for Special Electronic Mission Aircraft (SEMA). Again, there are no near-term procurement plans. And, several other countries have expressed interest in eventual procurement of the tilt-rotor aircraft.
Perhaps further into the future, various Bell Boeing studies have indicated the feasibility of anti-submarine (SV-22) and airborne early warning (EV-22) variants. Such aircraft could operate from the Navy’s large aircraft carriers as well as from LHA/LHD-type VSTOL carriers.
I've been working on this for a few weeks and haven't been able to eke out enough gouge from the other participants for a fuller story, but I figured I'd share with you what I know before it dies on the vine.
An industry source told me that the Marine Corps is close to deciding who will replace its M249 Squad Automatic Weapon with a new gun so-far called the "Infantry Automatic Rifle." Basically, the Corps wants something that looks more like a standard assault rifle, fires from an open breech (and closed breech) in both full and semi-auto modes and "shall demonstrate improved portability, reliability, and maneuverability through constricted terrain and conditions over the current M249 SAW," SysCom told me.
The Corps plans to purchase 4,476 IARs and I'm told the decision on who wins the competition will be coming very soon. The industry source told me that about six companies entered the competition, including Land Warfare Resources Corp., Colt, H&K, FN-USA and a team of General Dynamics and the Singapore company called Ultimax.
Future Weapons has a good video on the LWRC version of the IAR and I'm told the FN-USA version is a play on the SCAR that fires in both open and closed bolt configuration.
The one thing I'm a bit concerned about is the amount of rounds in the mag -- 30 rounds is going to go awfully quick in a suppression or cover fire situation. I'm sure there's a drum being developed for each, but then it's going to be obvious who the automatic rifleman is.
But as long as it's lighter and more portable than the SAW, I guess I can see why they want to make the switch. If anyone has any insight on this competition, please chime in.
-- Christian
No (Quranic) Justice in Peace
The new Army doctrine intended as the by-the-book bridge between combat and stability operations is a bold step — even making clear the Army’s role in helping to establish a judiciary once the major shooting stops.
But there’s one place that doctrine framers decided not to boldly go with that mission — setting up a judiciary when the host nation is bent on having one rooted in religion.
“When we looked at the judicial sector, at the end of an operation you want what we call rule of law … where people are empowered, where the law serves the people and not necessarily the government,” Lt. Col. Steve Leonard, the primary author of the 200-plus page Field Manual 3-07, Stability Operations, told Military.com during a bloggers’ roundtable held in Washington as part of the Association of the United States Army annual symposium. Though just released Oct. 6, the document has been in the making since late 2005. It points out that the U.S. military has a long history — though not a consistent one — of establishing or re-establishing civil authority once major fighting has ended.
The Stability Operations manual goes so far as to lay out the Army’s obligation to restoring civil authority, including existing laws, courts and justice systems when they function. Of course, these may be suspended by the Army if the players cannot or are not performing them, or if they impede the Army from carrying out its own obligations under international law, including the Geneva Conventions, according to the manual.
“But oftentimes what we see in these countries is rule by law, where the ruling authority maintains control over the civil populace by leveraging the laws to their benefit. You don’t want that.”
What the doctrine looks at is just two of three types of authority: civil authority, in which law is used to govern the population and provide for its essential needs, safety and security; and transitional military authority, which is what the doctrine calls for while the Army and its partners — other U.S. agencies, allies, or non-governmental agencies — help establish a working judiciary.
“You hit the third leg of that [religious authority],” Leonard told Military.com. “We actually had this debate as we developed the doctrine. Did we want to address establishing a religious authority or a religious judiciary? Say a … judiciary based on the rule of the Quran, for instance?”
Not only does Leonard not believe the Army or any partners would have the expertise to do that, but the developers of the doctrine did not believe it was a place they wanted to go.
“In this book [doctrine] there were not too many things we declared off limits, but that was one we just felt was too far down the road for us to [address], although it exists. But I don’t think our national interests push in that area that we would be trying to establish religious authorities.”
[EDITOR: Updated Nov. 7, 2008 -- After some correspondence with the author I have decided to redact his real name, though it had been revealed by another forum quite a while ago. Fury made a compelling case that he was worried about putting his family's live in danger, and as someone with a young daughter of my own, compassion outweighed journalistic ethics. I am sincerely sorry for any problems this may have caused and I wish Fury the best of luck in his endeavors...Please read the upcoming review of "Kill bin Laden" on Military.com.]
So, after I posted the last thread, I went over to a forum that's populated with no-joke special operations forces troops and looked at the discussion on the KBL/ Dalton Fury imbroglio. Man is it hot in there.
Apparently, Dalton Fury's real name is [DELETED BY EDITOR]. I was wrong in thinking he was Pete Blaber, though it does turn out from the discussion that Blaber has a book of his own coming out called "The Mission, The Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander" that's supposed to be available in December.
These operators at the forum are none too kind to a guy who's attempting to "profit" from revealing covert operations covered under top secret non disclosure agreements. They skewer him and smoke his body over a pit of coals. But none of them disputes who he is, what he's done or how the mission went down. There's little comment about the actual 60 Minutes broadcast, though it would have been helpful if the reporters had mentioned the controversy Fury has caused and held fast on calling him by his real name [DELETED BY EDITOR]. Once it's out in the open, it looks a little ridiculous for a reputable news organization to stick to a pseudonym.
As a reporter who's covered the military for a decade, I get a little annoyed at the knuckle-dragger attitude that someone who says anything about their covert activity should be banished. Give me a break. That attitude perpetuates an elitist, Samurai mentality that says "you don't need to know. Just trust us, we know what we're doing..."
Sorry, but I -- and millions of other Americans -- pay your salary and we damned right want to know what you're doing. You work for us. So I'm glad, as long as it doesn't deliberately put lives in danger of death (like the politically-motivated CIA tell-alls did back in the '70s), that these stories come out. There's been seven years between then and now, surely Delta and CIA have new ways of doing things that aren't compromised by this book.
I will say that I think Eric Haney's book went over the line -- in terms of TTPs and training. Ouch...And the guys over at the operator board skewered him for that as well. But that's a case where the quilty pleasure of the inside gouge outweighed my scruples a bit...Inside Delta Force was SUCH a good read.
-- Christian
Plan to Kill bin Laden Rejected
I saw this program last night on 60 Minutes and I thought I'd explore it with you all.
It's a segment on a former Delta officer who lead a team tasked with killing or capturing bin Laden in Afghanistan. Calling himself Dalton Fury, the former officer (a major at the time) has written a book on his experiences artfully titled "Kill bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man" (in case we couldn't understand the title itself)...
I know nothing about the book, though I have requested a review copy from the publisher and I'll peel it open for you when I get it. But the premise of the report is that Fury was frustrated by higher headquarters' management of the hunt, denying his plan to A.) attack bin Laden in Tora Bora from the rear -- aka from Pakistan...and B.) lay landmines in the approaches to bin Laden's Tora Bora lair so that one one went off, Delta could target the al Qaeda troops with Specters and Spookies.
After being denied on both, they decided on a frontal assault with Afghan allies of questionable loyalties and motivations, eventually allowing bin Laden to slip away -- though they did think they'd killed him in an air strike.
My thought is this: First of all, NO DUH they denied your plan to approach Tora Bora from Pakistan...the risks, both diplomatic and military were too much to contemplate. It's one thing to have planes flying out of remote bases; another to have an "invading" ground force try an Alpine assault from an area teeming with AQ and their sympathizers. Also...LAND MINES!? Come on, you HAD to have known that would never fly. As if Afghanistan doesn't have enough of them littering the landscape already. What are we, the Soviets? (their potential words, not mine)...
Also, in terms of who this guy is...I'm wondering if he's Pete Blaber, a star of Sean Naylor's "Not a Good Day to Die" on the fight for Takur Gar and Operation Anaconda.
Check this report out and throw your $.02 into the comments. To me this seems like a reasonably frustrated officer irked at reasonably legitimate restrictions on his operations. But I can't wait to read the book...
-- Christian
Offshore and Cyber Security
The 'Offshore' IT services market has grown extraordinarily fast in the global market in the past few years. Since the 1980's, offshore outsourcing has become a major facet of the business world. An increasing number of organizations have turned to offshore outsourcing of application development and maintenance as a means to reduce the cost of information technology.
Definition: Offshore IT outsourcing is the practice of sub-contracting to a third-party company the performance of certain application development, maintenance and support function to a country other than the one where the primary organization resides.
In a report issued by Datamonitor, the current market is estimated at more than $10 billion USD annually. Some industry analyst estimate worldwide spending on IT services delivered by offshore companies will exceed $75 billion USD within three to five years.
According to Gartner, the leading offshore outsourcing countries by region are listed below.
Americas: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay
Asia/Pacific: Australia, China, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Vietnam
Europe, the Middle East and Africa: The Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Northern Ireland, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine
Large organizations see this as a huge opportunity for costs savings. Many experts view IT offshore outsourcing as a potential threat to the domestic job market in the technical world and have asked the government for protective measures or at least closer scrutiny of existing trade practices. There is another threat that IT offshore outsourcing poses, the threat of covert espionage, backdoors and remotely accessible exploits.
Security and privacy concerns are now the biggest issue for companies considering outsourcing their IT projects to companies offshore. These concerns included, but are not limited to -- fraud, backdoors, data theft, extortion and espionage and are the major components of offshore security risks that are now a major area of concern for outsourcers and our national security alike. Moreover, the unauthorized use of proprietary technology is another facet of security concern. Most clients and outsourcers come together to integrate safeguards into their systems. New laws are being enacted regularly with regards to IT security and data theft. These laws have given some degree of protection to outsourcing software development. Many organizations find comfort now that these laws have been enacted. That being said, security loopholes exist and are addressed when they are identified. Not only that, but in the world of cyber conflict, terrorists, extremist groups, hackers in general and rogue nation states do not make a habit of following the law.
In a random survey of technology professionals with a combined 250+ years of experience, the following insight was gleaned.
1. The current approach to code reviews, walk-thrus, testing, validation and acceptance reviews of software development that was outsourced would be extremely unlikely to detect the existence of back doors, trap doors or any other type of exploit.
2. The detailed testing, code review and walk-thrus required for a high degree of confidence that no malicious code has been embedded within the application
Below are the major influencing factors that came up during the data collection discussion.
1.Organizations that outsource application development have little if any control or oversight of the personnel assigned and working on the software development.
2. The size and complexity of current applications do not allow code reviews and analysis to a granular level that would ensure there are no back-doors or exploits.
3. The current state of automated testing and validation tools has very limited capabilities for detecting back-doors or exploits.
Below are some interesting facts and figures that were discovered during this analysis.
Fact: The software and services revenues of India are expected to hit $50 billion USD by the end of 2008
Fact: The three most common offshore outsourcing functions are software development, software maintenance and help desk support.
Given the current cyber threat environment, extra security measures must be taken to protect the information infrastructure of the nation, our government and our corporations. Failure to take such measures and address this threat results in a huge risk and liability. According to Ed Maggio, Professor of Criminal Justice at the New York Institute of Technology and an Advisor to Spy-Ops, "Organizations can outsource the work, but they cannot outsource their liability to ensure the integrity of the software produced." Even with the added security testing and validation, you cannot be 100% sure the delivered software contains no malicious code.
So the only question that remains is, given the added cost of security testing and validation coupled with the remaining risk of undetected malicious code, do you really save anything by using offshore outsourcing for software development? Finally, for those skeptics out there, to think that our enemies have not thought of and may have actually placed covert assets in major development centers around the globe is short sighted and endangers our national security and the economic health and prosperity of our country and businesses.
It was one of the more popular booths at the Modern Day Marine show this week.
A huge screen with little computerized Russians running around and a couple Marines plinking them off like a warm sunny day on the Fulda Gap. That's the Virtual Battlespace Trainer and it's about as close to real life as a video game can get.
Except it's much more than that. According to Dale Pruna, Range Systems Manager for Laser Shot, the simulator has a full ballistics calculation capability and can track and map where shooters shoot and how badly they miss. The scenarios are totally programmable, so if you have an HVT mission with specific intel on the house layout and where targets are, you can run through it with full diagnostics.
The system also has target shooting programs that work on marksmanship skills against running targets and there's a module for shoot-no-shoot scenarios using live video images rather than computerized footage.
Pruna also said the services are looking at the company's live fire version of the simulator which uses a reusable rubber screen that can absorb everything from 5.56 to 7.62 rounds.
I gave it a whirl and it was fun as heck. And darned realistic too. All I can tell you is I'm glad I'm a better shot than I am a pilot (on a simulator).
-- Christian
Osprey Fire Docs
Here is some supporting documentation from the JAGMAN I obtained. I have only scanned a few pages, including the Opinions and Recommendations, testimony of the command pilot, the airframe change notice and some pictures of the aircraft.
A catastrophic fire that nearly engulfed a Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey late last year was sparked by a leaking hydraulic line in the left-side engine nacelle, investigators found.
The fire broke out about half way through a nearly five-hour training mission, when fluid from a key hydraulic system that powers landing gear, opens the rear door and helps filter the air inlets to the Osprey's engines poured out of the lines after spikes in pressure fractured the thin-walled tubes.
The fluid drained onto the infrared suppressor section of the nacelle -- where hot exhaust from the engine is cooled to cut down on the plane's heat signature -- sparking the mid-air fire which caused more than $16 million in damage to the aircraft, according to the Judge Advocate General Manual Investigation report obtained by Military.com.
Both pilots and three crew members who were aboard the MV-22 for the Nov. 6 night vision goggle training flight survived the incident after landing the aircraft in Landing Zone Phoenix at Camp Lejeune, N.C. The aircraft has not been repaired and returned to flight status, the Corps said.
The fire occurred about seven months after the service admitted another blaze in the same part of the aircraft had ignited just before takeoff. The Corps called the earlier incident a "minor nacelle fire" in a news release at the time, and told Military.com in an email response to questions regarding the November fire that the service "was in the process of implementing appropriate aircraft modifications when this incident occurred."
"All Ospreys in flight operation have the modifications, including those that are deployed," wrote Maj. Eric Dent, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters in Washington. "The modifications have also been fully incorporated into the V-22 production line so that new aircraft will not require further modification after leaving the factory.
The investigation report, which was released to Military.com after a Freedom of Information Act request, also cites the maintenance control division of the New River, N.C.-based Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204 for allowing the MV-22 to fly a nearly five-hour training mission before undergoing an inspection of the engine air particle separator -- the area where the hydraulic lines failed.
"The evidence supports that there was not enough time remaining on the [mishap aircraft] to complete the 4.5 hour event that was scheduled," the report states. "It was not inspected due to an error in tracking flight hours accumulated on the" mishap aircraft.
Potentially more worrying, the system designed to control a fire in the Osprey's two nacelles -- a compartment situated at the end of each wing that houses the engine and tiltrotor propulsion system -- failed to extinguish the blaze even though it was activated by the pilot before he escaped the burning plane.
The Corps says it is looking into a new solution to the fire suppression failure but explained that new modifications will allow more hydraulic fluid to drain should another rupture occur. Dent added that the VMMT-204 maintainers "misinterpreted" the inspection requirement and that a new automatic logging system will correct the problem.
No one was disciplined as a result of the incident.
Pictures of the MV-22 provided in the JAGMAN report show a twisted hulk at the end of the left wing, the Osprey's huge rotors bent downward, melted composite material solidified in mid-air as it dripped toward the ground.
Problems with the Osprey's ultra-lightweight hydraulic system are not new. In 2000, a hydraulic tube ruptured after a wire bundle chafed the thin-walled titanium, causing a crash near New River that killed four Marines.
Despite a thorough redesign after the fatal crash, the Bell-Boeing manufactured Osprey suffered another hydraulic failure in March 2007 that caused an engine fire -- a failure of the same hydraulic system investigators point to in the November mishap.
An Airframe Change Notice dated Aug. 3, 2007, included in the report indicated the Osprey's engine air particle separator needed to be retrofitted with thicker hydraulic tubing.
The modifications were made to newer, so-called "Block B" aircraft -- the ones sent to Iraq on the Corps' first deployment of the MV-22 in combat. But some "Block A" Ospreys that were awaiting the retrofit still flew despite the danger of a hydraulic rupture.
-- Christian
How the Osprey Gun Works...
[Sorry for the delay, folks. Had an interview with Obama's top defense advisor, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig this AM...More to follow on that later.]
At the Modern Day Marine Expo, Adamiak explained that the crew chief will use an X-Box-like controller to move and shoot the gun. The GAU-17 (GAU-2 for the SOCOM version) Gatling gun is slaved to a sensor that rolls down out of the Osprey belly when the gun deploys -- housing a CCD camera, IR camera and laser range finder.
The gun can track 360 degress, but there is a software-driven safety zone that makes sure rounds don't blow the rotors off. If the Osprey has to maneuver away from the target and the crew chief can't hold the gun on the bad guys manually, the system slaves the gun to the point of the last shot, slewing it as the plane moves. The fire control computer compensates for range and angle as well.
There is no capability for the pilot to control the gun, but there's an auto feature than swings the gun to the barrel forward position, 10 degrees down so the pilot can steer the Osprey onto target. But he can't fire the weapon, that'll still be up to the crew chief in the back.
-- Christian
The Osprey Gun
Went to the 2008 Modern Day Marine expo today down at Quantico and got a ton of good material I'll be shooting your way over the next couple days.
First, I attended a breakfast meeting with the folks from BAE Systems. There was an interesting brief on the Remote Guardian System, that underbelly Gatling gun the company is developing for the MV and CV-22.
I've posted a video of Biz Dev director Dave Adamiak explaining the components and I'll post another soon after that shows the system in use on a simulator. I did press Dave on the issue of the Corps' reluctance to use powered defensive weapons on their rotorcraft for fear that a loss of power would leave the aircraft vulnerable. That's why for years the Corps had rejected rotary cannon on their helos in favor of the trusted, Marine-proof "Ma Deuce."
Dave, rightly I think, admitted the Corps was leery but explained that there is no better solution based on the Osprey's design. The tail gun will probably stay, he said, since the Guardian has to be retracted when the V-22 lands.
He said BAE has flown the Guardian on an AFSOC CV-22 and all is going well there. Clearly the Osprey needs a defensive weapon, but will this complex system prove itself Marine-proof enough to be cost-effective in the long run?
-- Christian
Gripen Delivers Fighters To South Africa
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The South Africa Air Force (SAAF) has taken delivery of the first four of 26 Gripen NG advanced fighter aircraft ordered at the biennial Africa Aerospace and Defense show in Cape Town, South Africa.
[Av Week Online Editor Sean Meade corrects: South Africa has accepted the first four fighters under an order for 26 Gripen C/Ds. An Aerospace Daily & Defense Report article Sept. 30 incorrectly identified the type of those four Gripens. (thanks DT reader Logan Hartke for the catch!)]
Nine of the fighters are two-seaters and 17 single-seaters. Deliveries are scheduled through 2012.
Armaments
Currently the fighters are said to be armed with only a 27mm Mauser cannon. The short-range IRIS-T air-to-air missile is on order from Diehl BGT and additional weapons are under development. The first class of six instructors are now in training at Makhado.
Denel SAAB Aerostructures (DSA) has delivered 220 pylons for Gripen aircraft, with 80 more contracted. The South African company is set to receive another follow-on contract to make 80 more pylons through a modified design, bringing the total to 380.
Modification kits for the earlier pylons will also be produced under a separate contract. SAAB predicts there will be further requirements for pylons until 2013, implying further work for DSA, according to a trade magazine.
In addition to the pylon contracts, DSA has longstanding contracts for the manufacture of the Gripen main landing gear and the rear fuselage sections, for both the Swedish air force and all export customers. These contracts form part of SAAB’s Defense Industrial Participation Program for South Africa.
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
