Sounds practical: The navy's supersonic mine layer
--John Noonan
Cyber Attacks & Warfare - Rules of Engagement
The rapid advancement of cyber attacks and the emergence of cyber warfare have caught government and military leaders around the world off guard. Decision making in time requiring defensive measures or military crisis is guided by doctrine and rules of engagement, but in the case of cyber attacks and cyber warfare they do not currently exist. The complexities and unique characteristics of cyber warfare mandate establishing Cyber Attack and Warfare Rules of Engagement (CAWRoE).
Cyber warfare is different than the conventional war in many ways. It is this difference that will challenge the minds of experts around the world when they attempt to create cyber warfare doctrine and ROE. To frame this discussion, below you will find two definitions that put this challenge in context.
Definition - Cyber Warfare & Terrorism - "The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives." Source: This definition was published in the U.S. Army Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02. This definition was written by Kevin Coleman back in 2004 for an online article.
Definition - Rules of Engagement - Rules of engagement date at least to the Middle Ages in Europe. In military terms this refers to a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force, esp. specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat. The directive delineates the limitations and circumstances under which forces will initiate and prosecute combat engagement with other forces encountered. Source: This definition is based on multiple authorities' sources and combined to clearly articulate ROE.
NOTE-- After months of research, we will soon publish a paper that addresses the question: "What constitutes an act of cyber war?"
History has shown that ROE are often over controlled and regulated by politicians and military leaders. It is anticipated that this will also be the case as it relates to cyber attacks and warfare. In addition, commanders and government leaders at all levels must understand the situation, complexities and uncertainty they face.
The increase in complexity, technical aspects and difficulty in tracing the cyber attacks back to the aggressor will combine to increase the difficulty of creating the ROE for cyber. Careful crafting of cyber ROE is required to diminish ambiguities that could caused delays in actions when the use of force is required and will surely lead to increased implication on the United States.
Cyber attack and warfare rules of engagement will undoubtedly require hundreds of pages to establish a decision framework. That being said, there are a few critical areas that will pose the most significant challenge to policy makers. One of these areas will be the level of confidence in the identification of the entity behind an attack on a nation. Tracing and tracking cyber attacks back to those responsible is not an easy task. Usually this takes months or years not minutes and hours. Current intelligence and surveillance capabilities will provide only minimal assistance in this effort. Although promising research on tracking and tracing cyber attacks is currently underway and advances are occurring on a regular basis, we are far from being able to rapidly identify the party or parties behind the attack with the high degree of confidence and hard evidence necessary to launch an offensive cyber response. At the present time, the newness of cyber attacks and weapons coupled with their potential, but unproven power and the uncertainty about how they might be used, have pushed the decision around the response to cyber attacks all the way to the top and in the hands of the President of the United States.
Conclusion
Over 140 countries around the world have cyber weapons development efforts underway but lack a comprehensive doctrine and legal framework for responding to cyber attacks as well as using offensive cyber weapons against attackers and adversaries. President-elect Barack Obama's national security team will have to rapidly establish the rules of engagement as they relate to cyber attacks and all out cyber warfare. His national security team is said to include: Sarah Sewall, Tom Donilon, Wendy R. Sherman, Michèle A. Flournoy, John P. White, Robert R. Beers, Clark Kent Ervin, Gayle E. Smith, Aaron Williams, John O. Brennan and Judith A. ("Jami") Miscik.
The United States Military has an expansive arsenal of sophisticated cyber weapons at its disposal, policy makers have yet to define the rules of engagement that govern when and how to use them. In a briefing earlier this year I said: "This is totally uncharted territory for policy makers. The characteristics of cyber attacks coupled with the operational aspects of cyber weapons make this a unique challenge."
This remains the case and time is growing short before the next significant cyber attack is launched. Cyber warfare requires new rules of engagement.
Sources tell ABC News that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will be staying on in the top Pentagon job, for at least the first year of the Obama administration. "It is a done deal," a source close to the process tells ABC News.
Update from Colin: Two sources told me they believe Richard Danzig will be named Deputy Defense Secretary. He will choose the new faces to man the Pentagon, ensuring the Obama people get folks who are loyal to them and reflect their policy inclinations. Apparently, Danzig will hold that slot for up to a year. Then, if all goes well, he will replace Gates.
ALSO:President-elect Obama will introduce his national security team to the public early next week, a seasoned team that will include: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), as Secretary of State; retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as National Security Adviser; retired Adm. Dennis Blair as Director of National Intelligence; and Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations.
Gates, while a registered independent, has served numerous Republican administrations. President George W. Bush nominated Gates to replace the Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections, when the war in Iraq was spiraling out of control.
The former Eagle Scout is expected to be rolled out immediately after the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend as part of a larger national security team expected to include Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, as Secretary of State; Marine Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) as National Security Adviser; Admiral Dennis Blair (Ret.) as Director of National Intelligence; and Dr. Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
[EDITOR: Okay, I swear, this is the last time a make a political prediction. I dismissed the rumor of Gates' being retained as ridiculous for weeks. Man am I eating crow now. I still say Danzig will eventually be SecDef...but, wait, there I go again! --Christian]
--John Noonan
The "Buzz" on F-22
For a jauntier and updated version of some of my F-22 coverage, you can tune into my latest podcast. I did the interview with Addison Schonland, president and founder of Innovation Analysis Group, a consulting firm based in San Diego.
We spoke about the Pentagon’s out-maneuvering Congress on the F-22 funding and John Young’s subsequent comments slamming the Raptor’s availability, maintenance and costs.
BAE Mobility & Protection Systems’ Advanced Design Group has been pumping out some innovative load carrying solutions. In addition to recently capturing USSOCOM’s armor carrier contract with the RBAV, the ECLiPSE line is beginning to hit the market. So what’s next for BAE?
Poised to become a true leader in the Soldier Systems market, BAE has been working with new materials and there will be a few surprises in store at SHOT show. But for now, we can show you two products designed by Matt Campbell and Mike Walker. Both products are mounted on velcro backs and can be fitted directly to a low-viz armor carrier or to a MOLLE adapter panel.
The Elastic Ammo Pouch carries three M16-style magazines and won’t lose it’s elasticity over time. Additionally, the fabric is durable and will resist abrasion.
The modular holster (not shown) is designed to carry a different pistol than the M9 but it will accommodate several models and specialized cuts will be available in the near future. Due to the velcro backing the holster can be carried vertically or turned 90 degrees for a horizontal carry. Additionally, the magazine can be inserted in either direction to the holster’s orientation.
-- Christian
Pookie Power!
When the US military began taking massive casaulties to IEDs in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the ever-and-always technologically minded DoD looked to procure the latest hot-topic (and expensive) anti-mine toys. The Air Force insisted that their sleek fighter jets could be used in a mine-detection role, while the Army and Marines ordered thousands of new MRAPs for mine detection, convoy duty, and road clearing.
Sometimes it helps to look backwards instead of forwards. Enter the Rhodesian Pookie, an ugly little contraption that helped clear roads and highways during the Rhodesian Bush War of the 1970s. The Pookie was invented as a response to the influx of Soviet mines, by way of ZANU and ZIPRA black liberation movements, into the Rhodesian theater. With it's light weight evenly distributed over wide Formula-1 racing tires, the Pookie carried nothing more than a slanted, v-shaped armored cab for a driver and a large mine-detector centered beneath the vehicle's undercarriage. Only five were ever constructed, but despite small numbers, Rhodesian Pookies cleared thousands of miles of deadly mines, saving untold civilian lives.
Of course the Pookie would have been decimated in modern Iraq or Afghanistan, where radio controlled IEDS -not mines- ruled the roads. But that's not the point. The Pookie, though inadequate for today's fight, was a fine example of an easy military solution to a complex military problem.
Such is the lesson inherent in its design and deployment, best illustrated by DaVinci's an old maxim: simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
If only we could be a fly on the wall when our enemies are plotting to attack us. Better yet, what if that fly could record voices, transmit video and even fire tiny weapons?
That kind of James Bond-style fantasy is actually on the drawing board. U.S. military engineers are trying to design flying robots disguised as insects that could one day spy on enemies and conduct dangerous missions without risking lives.
"The way we envision it is, there would be a bunch of these sent out in a swarm," said Greg Parker, who helps lead the research project at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. "If we know there's a possibility of bad guys in a certain building, how do we find out? We think this would fill that void."
In essence, the research seeks to miniaturize the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle drones used in Iraq and Afghanistan for surveillance and reconnaissance.
The next generation of drones, called Micro Aerial Vehicles, or MAVs, could be as tiny as bumblebees and capable of flying undetected into buildings, where they could photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.
By identifying and assaulting adversaries more precisely, the robots would also help reduce or avoid civilian casualties, the military says.
Parker and his colleagues plan to start by developing a bird-sized robot as soon as 2015, followed by the insect-sized models by 2030.
The vehicles could be useful on battlefields where the biggest challenge is collecting reliable intelligence about enemies.
"If we could get inside the buildings and inside the rooms where their activities are unfolding, we would be able to get the kind of intelligence we need to shut them down," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
Philip Coyle, senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information in Washington D.C., said a major hurdle would be enabling the vehicles to carry the weight of cameras and microphones.
"If you make the robot so small that it's like a bumblebee and then you ask the bumblebee to carry a video camera and everything else, it may not be able to get off the ground," Coyle said.
Parker envisions the bird-sized vehicles as being able to spy on adversaries by flying into cities and perching on building ledges or power lines. The vehicles would have flappable wings as a disguise but use a separate propulsion system to fly.
"We think the flapping is more so people don't notice it," he said. "They think it's a bird."
Unlike the bird-sized vehicles, the insect-sized ones would actually use flappable wings to fly, Parker said.
He said engineers want to build a vehicle with a 1-inch wingspan, possibly made of an elastic material. The vehicle would have sensors to help avoid slamming into buildings or other objects.
Existing airborne robots are flown by a ground-based pilot, but the smaller versions would fly independently, relying on preprogrammed instructions.
Parker said the tiny vehicles should also be able to withstand bumps.
"If you look at insects, they can bounce off of walls and keep flying," he said. "You can't do that with a big airplane, but I don't see any reason we can't do that with a small one."
An Air Force video describing the vehicles said they could possibly carry chemicals or explosives for use in attacks.
Once prototypes are developed, they will be flight-tested in a new building at Wright-Patterson dubbed the "micro aviary" for Micro Air Vehicle Integration Application Research Institute.
"This type of technology is really the wave of the future," Thompson said. "More and more military research is going into things that are small, that are precise and that are extremely focused on particular types of missions or activities."
-- Christian
Blackwater Shuts Down Vehicle Manufacturing (UPDATED)
Blackwater USA, the private security and training company, has shut down a large part of its manufacturing subdivision after losing the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program and facing dwindling demand for its "Grizzly" Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle.
Reports had previously indicated that Blackwater would lay off its JLTV workers, some of whom were lured to the Moyock, N.C.-based company from Ford and Volvo. But according to sources the company is shutting down all vehicle manufacturing.
Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined to specify how many employees were laid off by the cut, but sources close to the company say about 50 workers will lose their jobs.
"Any time a specific business venture doesn't go as planned it is disappointing," Blackwater president Gary Jackson told Defense Tech. "After a detailed review of our vehicle manufacturing operation, we made the difficult decision to discontinue this particular business line."
The cuts do not affect Blackwater's manufacturing capability for firearms range systems, Tyrrell added.
Company sources also admit that the military's shift from purchasing new MRAP II vehicles to keeping current MRAPs and outfitting them with stronger armor contributed to Blackwater's business losses since demand for the Grizzly shrank with requirements. And industry watchers say the military will likely skip over the MRAP II design entirely and take a closer look at the MRAP Light, such as Navistar's Maxpro vehicle.
Tyrrell said the vast hanger spaces previously used to build Grizzly's and to design their JLTV prototype will be converted into an aviation maintenance and repair center to build on the company's already expanding contract aviation support business.
Blackwater will also soon launch a new MRAP vehicle driver's training course at their sprawling North Carolina compound, using unsold Grizzlies to prepare troops for navigating the topheavy vehicles in tortuous terrain.
(Gouge=SS)
-- Christian
Flying Submarine or Submerging Seaplane?
The answer is simple: Submarines cannot fly, but seaplanes can submerge -- if you build them properly.
That's what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is seeking to develop. A recent Request for Proposal (RFP) from DARPA calls for a submersible aircraft [that] would combine the key capabilities of three different platforms: (1) the speed and range of an aircraft; (2) the loiter capabilities of a boat; and (3) the stealth of a submarine. "By combining the beneficial characteristics the and operating modes of each platform, DARPA hopes to develop a craft that will significantly enhance the United States tactical advantage in coastal insertion missions," according to the RFP.
The irony of the RFP is that the U.S. Navy was developing such a craft some 45 years ago.
The objectives issued by DARPA are for a vehicle that would have an airborne tactical radius of 1,000 nautical miles, a low-level flight radius of 100 nautical miles (which may leverage surface effects), and a submerged tactical radius of 12 nautical miles. The sum of these must be achieved within eight hours. Endurance on the surface has to be 72 hours in sea states up to five between inserting and extracting personnel. The craft's payload objective is eight men and their equipment with a total cargo weight of 2,000 pounds.
DARPA has identified the major challenges to the project as (1) weight, (2) fluid flow regime, (3) structure, (4) lifting surface geometry, and (5) power and energy storage. These factors force the consideration of a seaplane that can submerge as opposed to a "submarine that can fly." The relatively light construction of an aircraft can be submerged to shallow depths, and to even great depths with internal pressurization. But submarine-like vehicles, built to withstand greater depths, are too heavy for consideration.
The U.S. Navy had begun contemplating the merger of aviation and submarine technologies into a single vehicle as early as 1946. By that time several Navy laboratories were looking into the required technologies. When asked by the press in 1946 whether such a vehicle could be produced, Vice Admiral Arthur W. Radford, at the time the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air, replied: "Nothing is impossible."
A decade later, in 1955, studies were being conducted under contract from the Department of Defense by the All American Engineering Company while aviation pioneer John K. (Jack) Northrop was designing such craft. The All American vehicle was to alight on and takeoff from the water on "hydro-skis"; once on the water the craft could be "sealed" and submerge.
Although nothing resulted from these studies, by the early 1960s the U.S. Navy was ready to invest in such a vehicle. A Navy engineer working on the project, Eugene H. Handler, explained, in a 1964 article in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, "there is... a tremendous amount of [Soviet] shipping in the Soviet-dominated Baltic Sea, the essentially land-locked Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the truly inland Caspian Sea. These waters are safe from the depredations of conventional surface ships and submarines."
The Navy's Bureau of Naval Weapons -- at the time responsible for aircraft development -- awarding a contract to Convair in 1964 to examine the feasibility of a "submersible flying boat," which was being called the "sub-plane" by those involved with the project. The Convair study determined that such a craft was "feasible, practical and well within the state of the art."
The Bureau of Naval Weapons specified a set of design goals:
air cruise speed 150 -- 225 mph air cruise altitude 1,500 -- 2,500 feetair cruise radius 300 -- 500 n.miles maximum gross takeoff < 30,000 lb submerged speed 5 -- 10 knotssubmerged depth 25 -- 75 feet submerged range 40 -- 50 n.miles submerged endurance 4 -- 10 hourspayload 500 -- 1,500 lb takeoff and land in State 2 seasSeveral firms responded to a Navy request and a contract was awarded to Convair to develop the craft. The flying boat, which would alight and takeoff using retractable hydro-skis, would be propelled by three engines -- two turbojets and one turbofan, the former for use in takeoff and the latter for long-endurance cruise flight. Among the more difficult challenges of the design was the necessity of removing air from the engines and the partially full fuel tank to reduce buoyancy for submerging. Convair engineers proposed opening the bottom of the fuel tank to the sea, using a rubber diaphragm to separate the fluids and using the engines to hold the displaced fuel.
To submerge, the pilot would cut off fuel to the engines, spin them with their starter motors for a moment or two to cool the metal, close butterfly valves at each end of the nacelles, and open the sea valve at the bottom of the fuel tank. As the seaplane submerged, water would rise up into the fuel tank beneath the rubber membrane, pushing the fuel up into the engine nacelles. Upon surfacing, the fuel would flow back down into the tank. The only impact on the engines would be a cloud of soot when the engines were started.
When the engines were started their thrust would raise the plane up onto its skis, enabling the hull, wings, and tail surfaces to drain. The transition time from surfacing to takeoff was estimated to be two or three minutes, including extending the wings, which would fold or retract for submergence. Only the cockpit and avionics systems were to be enclosed in pressure-resistant structures. The rest of the aircraft would be "free-flooding." In an emergency the crew capsule would be ejected from the aircraft to descend by parachute when in flight, or released and float to the surface when underwater. In either situation the buoyant, enclosed capsule would serve as a life raft.
The craft would have a two-man crew and could carry mines, torpedoes or, under certain conditions, agents to be landed or taken off enemy territory.
The Navy Department approved development of the craft, with models subsequently being tested in towing tanks and wind tunnels. The results were most promising. But in 1966 Senator Allen Ellender, of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services, savagely attacked the project. His ridicule and sarcasm forced the Navy to cancel a project that held promise for a highly interesting "submarine." Although the utility of the craft was questioned, from a design viewpoint it was both challenging and highly innovative.
DARPA would do well to check the Navy's historical records as it embarks on the development of a flying submarine -- -oops, I mean submerging seaplane.
-- Norman Polmar
The Sunday Paper (Transition Edition)
Okay, I'm going to use this edition of The Sunday Paper to make two predictions:
1. Robert Gates will not stay on as SecDef and will be replaced by Richard Danzig a few weeks into the Obama administration, if not immediately.
2. Once the new administration gets into office, F-22 will be the first major program to be cut significantly or cancelled altogether followed shortly by Presidential Helo (VH-71). (JSF is also a target, especially if any more foreign partners balk.)
So what do you think, dear erudite-in-DoD-matters-type DT readers? Who's going to be SecDef? What programs are toast?
We had a couple great pieces up yesterday at Military.com on the Army's accelerating manpower issues.
One of the perspectives comes from that CSBA seminar I've been talking about here for the last couple of days. Basically, Andrew Krepinevich -- a former Army colonel and 10-pound brain on strategic issues -- made the case that the Army should curtail its plans to expand by 65,000 Soldiers over the next few years.
His justification is labor pool one: the Army's having too hard a time getting good recruits and the drain of senior NCOs and junior officers creates a leadership vacuum.
Here's part of Greg Grant's story on the issue and you can read the rest of it HERE:
His central message is alarming: the quality of the Army’s soldiers is in sharp decline, from enlisted personnel to NCOs to officers. It’s a “particularly discouraging” trend for the Army as it is happening despite the service’s “increasingly aggressive” use of financial incentives including bonuses and a salary increase of 33 percent between 1999 and 2005.
The Army has lowered standards to fill recruitment quotas, including weight and body fat restrictions, number of high school graduates and is allowing in more recruits with moral waivers. Krepinevich sees troubling signs of a repeat of the Vietnam era “shake-and-bake” sergeants, with the widespread promotion of inexperienced enlisted soldiers ill suited to the challenge of leading small units in combat.
The officer corps is also dropping in quality. Of the nearly 1,000 cadets from the West Point class of 2002, 58 percent are no longer on active duty. The Army is forced to pull soldiers from the ranks who have not graduated college and send them to OCS. Today, over 98 percent of eligible captains are promoted to major. The number of involuntary “stop loss” extensions has increased, by 43 percent between 2007 and 2008. Nearly half of those affected are NCOs.
This, at a time when the ongoing counterinsurgency wars demand much more intellectual horsepower in its soldiers. As the Army’s new doctrine manual FM 3-0, states: current and future conflicts “will be waged in an environment that is complex, multidimensional, and rooted in the human dimension.”
He goes on to recommend that the Army should specialize by creating Security Cooperation BCTs that are trained in the hard work of nation building, foreign internal defense in a permissive environment and mil-to-mil relations. This idea has been tossed around a lot in Washington and has been summarily rejected by the Army at every turn. Krep argues that it takes too long to refocus a line unit to stability ops and risks losing the "Golden Hour" before insurgencies take root.
That's true, but my experience has been that aside from the numbers and stats and "big think," the Army has learned a heck of a lot in a very short time during the post 9/11 conflict environment. I tend to agree that a broadly trained force is a stronger one: "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" so to speak, so that when that third block of the "three block war" erupts, we've got guys who can close with and destroy when needed.
One thing that Krep does say that I think bears some thinking is that the Army needs to recognize that it can't do everything and shouldn't be postured thereto. I thought to myself that that's easy to say until you have Capitol Hill screaming about "why can't we solve this NOW!" It's one thing for the Army to say "sorry, not in our lane" and quite another to tell Congress and the President to call someone else.
We also ran a great story from our friends at Aviation Week looking at the flip side of the force sized coin. Bettina Chevanne wrote up a dispatch on Army Sec Pete Geren's justification for the continued Army buildup.
"We're growing the U.S. Army, but is it enough? If demand stays the same, the answer is no," Geren said. Determining the right end strength for the Army begins with a "realistic" Quadrennial Defense Review and a national security strategy, he added.
So to Krep's point...'if the demand stays the same...' I've never understood the justification for the demand and the Army has never really been publicly explicit about it. If the Iraq commitment shrinks by, say, 100,000 troops and the other 40,000 goes to Afghanistan (which would be a bad idea in my view given the Afghans fiercely anti-occupation streak) that leaves a 100,000 buffer. Now, don't come down on my too quickly there, dear readers, that's just back of the envelope math. But it seems to me the Army is arguing for a force increase during a time when the demand for a large occupying force is going to shrink.
And that doesn't even take into account budgetary pressure and rumblings from Congress that saving jobs on the F-22 production line might be more important to them than adding more personnel at Fort Hood.
Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see how reality collides with the shrinking momentum from an Iraq hangover over the next 12-to-18 months for the Army.
Frozen Phantom: The South Korean air force showcased its new aircraft testing and evaluation center on opening day, September 8, by coating this F-4 Phantom fighter jet with ice. In the facility, engineers simulate conditions that a plane might encounter at 40,000 feet to determine if the craft’s composite structure—particularly in its wings—can endure the freezing temperatures without cracking
--John Noonan
Pentagon Slammed by Cyber Attack
The Pentagon has suffered a direct hit from a cyber attack. The weapon used is said to be a hybrid computer worm/virus. Insiders say the hybrid rapidly spread through the thousands of interconnected defense computer networks. A computer worm is different from a computer virus. A worm is thought to be more dangerous because it can run itself where as a virus needs a host program to run. The DoD responded quickly and has taken steps to slow the advancement of the worm/virus by quarantining networks and systems until the worm/virus can be removed.
Cyber investigators have not pinpointed the entry point for the worm/virus, but insider sources point to removable storage devices as the most likely point of infection. This seems to be supported by the fact that U.S. Strategic Command has banned the use of removable media (thumb drives, CDRs/DVDRs, floppy disks) on all DoD networks and computers effective immediately. This incident has been deemed so severe that unprecedented defensive measures have been instituted to protect the military systems.
Oddly enough, all Internet users are being warned to stay vigilant by security experts who believe that Monday, Nov. 24 is poised to be the worst day of the year for computer attacks.
Security experts at Spy-Ops I spoke with said, "If this can happen to the Department of Defense it can happened to any organization." They went on to say that the cost of this attack could easily reach into the billions of dollars if the worm/virus destroys data. If that's not bad enough, one expert went on to say that the nightmare scenario is if the malicious code alters data rather than deleting it -- a much more difficult problem to resolve.
News of the cyber attack came on the heels of today's release of the "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World" document by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The document stated that non-military means of warfare, such as cyber, economic, resource, psychological and information-based forms of conflict will become more prevalent in conflicts over the next two decades.
While the source of the attack remains classified, the usual cast of characters comes to mind. At the head of the list are of course China and the RBN -- Russian Business Network. If the attack is found to be sponsored by another country, could this be considered an act of cyber war?
There's been a lot of talk about the impending collapse of "the big three" automakers over the last two weeks -- of course, what people really are talking about is GM...but panic sells better, right?
One angle we've explored at Military.com is the effect a collapse of one or more of the American automakers would have on the defense industry...specifically military vehicles like Humvees, Medium trucks, Strykers, tanks and Bradleys.
The answer from our sources: "not much."
Now, I have a lot of respect for Sen. Karl Levin, the Democratic icon and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But his pandering to the panic and his Michigan constituents about how GM's failure would put American national security at risk just isn't supported by the facts.
Former NATO commander Wes Clark tried to tie the two together the other day with an oped in the New York Times where he said stuff like this:
In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn’t have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.
Huh? AM General makes the Humvee and isn't part of the big three domestic market except for its "Hummer" line of vehicles. The armor innovations didn't come at all from GM, Ford or Chrysler. MRAPS aren't made by them either. Where does Clark come up with this?
And even the $3,000 watch-wearing, private jet flyin' CEOs are claiming the Pentagon will suffer if there are no more Suburbans made.
Chrysler's chief executive, Robert Nardelli, told the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday that a crippled auto industry "would undermine our nation's ability to respond to military challenges and would threaten our national security."
My sources are telling me -- and others -- that the Big Three pulled out of the defense market a long time ago, not seeing it as a profitable, stable market for their goods. In fact, none of the JLTV downselectees have any ties to the domestic auto business -- how's that for innovation Wes?
Levin has spread his fear dust all over the country, claiming: “This is a national security issue as well as an economy issue,” Levin said. “But first and foremost, it’s a jobs issue," according to a report on Crains Detroit Business.
Surely, there could be some downside to the crisis for suppliers to the defense industry. But another source of mine said he's done some preliminary searches of DoD contracts and couldn't find a single instance where "this just jumps out at you." He mentioned that "you need to go way down the supply chain for some widget to find a connection"...but that is very preliminary.
Yes, a collapse of one of the Big Three would suck. But a "national security issue?" That's a stretch...
Senator Clinton isn't the only female in the hunt for a major cabinet position in the Obama administration. Word on the street is that Michelle Flournoy is under strong consideration for the Secretary of Defense post.
Ms. Flournoy, a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, made her bones as a DoD worker bee with the Clinton Administration. She went on to teach at the National Defense University and -in 2007- co-founded the respected Center for New American Security. She's also one of the two principal defense brains assigned to President-elect Obama's transition team.
Flournoy knows her business, has a strong background in both asymmetrical and traditional state threats, and seems to believe in a moderate approach to any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. She's experienced, qualified, and her centrist positions on defense issues would (seemingly) make her a safe choice to head up the DoD.
Unfortunately, Ms. Flournoy's reasoned approach to Iraq -withdrawal that takes into consideration the efficacy of the Iraqi government and logistical realities- could lock horns with Obama's ideological "withdraw now, regardless" plan.
Any drawdown that falls short of Obama's campaign promise of expedited removal of US troops from theater risks upsetting the easily perturbed, zealous faction of the Democratic base. That makes Ms. Flournoy almost as politically risky as continuing the tenure of current SECDEF, Robert Gates.
--John Noonan
Stealthy Airlift for Commandos
Another intriguing idea that emerged from this week's Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments talk comes from Bob Martinage who discussed the Special Operations Community's airlift shortfall.
You saw yesterday that we mentioned the debate over CV and MV-22 numbers and the potential replacements for a reduced buy of Ospreys for the spec ops community. But one thing I didn't write about was Martinage's call for a stealthy long-range transport for use by SOF to sneak larger numbers of personnel and equipment into shady LZs.
What Martinage proposes is to use the same airframe that the Air Force decides on for its new Next-Generation bomber program. Think of it as B-1 meets C-17.
If we want to gain access into a denied environment like China in the future, we've got to have a stealthy SOF transport. The C-130, even with all the tricks it can do for active defenses and so on, is not going to be survivable against the types of integrated air defenses that are available today, let alone 2015 or beyond. Whether it's for inserting ground forces into an anti-access area or denied environment against China, Iran or you name it -- or [for] truly clandestine operations in sensitive areas around the world, I need a stealthy transport. This will almost certainly need to be a variation of the Next Generation Bomber that the Air Force is building.
You might remember that our boy Steve Trimble at Flight Global pulled a diamond out of the rough when he spotted a line in NGB-contender Northrop Grumman's press release saying they thought delivering snake eaters to their drop zone in specialized cruise missiles fired from the NGB would be a swell idea.
That is, unless you're one of those commandos stuffed in metal tube at angels 1 traveling at 300 kts.
Anyway, though this sounds a bit "Starship Troopers" Martinage admits the Air Force has shown little enthusiasm for the less sexy (compared to the fighter jocks) world of covert ops.
It is imperative for AFSOC to field a stealthy SOF transport to provide clandestine mobility and support to SOF ground units in denied, semi-permissive and politically sensitive areas. It appears that the only feasible path ahead is to develop a SOF transport variant of the NGB. Without active support of the Air Force, both in terms of integrating fundamental performance parameters for SOF applications into the initial NGB design and willingness to procure additional airframes for SOCOM-funded modification, a stealthy SOF transport is unlikely to be realized.
That would kind of suck, huh?
-- Christian
Marines Being Marines (Better than Last Time)
This is a picture from a gallery by John Moore, a kick butt shooter (photo) who's been in Afghanistan for a while during the last month.
I posted it because I want to see how quickly our well-informed DT readers can spot ... well, WHY I thought it was a cool picture.
Moore's caption reads simply: "U.S. Marines scan for Taliban insurgents as Afghan forces search a house for weapons October 25, 2008 in the Korengal Valley of Kunar Province in eastern Afghanistan."
Make sure to check out the entire gallery. It really brings back memories...
-- Christian
Dogfight Over F-22 Reveals DoD Schisms
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The battle over how many F-22 Raptors the U.S. Air Force requires is revealing some nasty infighting as the White House administration change nears.
The Defense Secretary staff has told Air Force planners not to talk to congressional staffers and to work only through the offices of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and acquisition chief John Young.
Insiders on Capitol Hill contend that the Defense Department has been and is continuing to withhold F-22 funds -- in defiance of the law and the intent of Congress -- in an attempt to punish the Air Force. England is still angry about the service's success in getting Congress to approve long-lead funding for 20 more aircraft, which would bring the service's total to 203 stealthy fighters.
However, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has released funds for only four aircraft, which brought howls from aerospace analysts that it is too few aircraft to avoid a shutdown of production between administrations.
The U.S. Air Force's new chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, is soon supposed to tell the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), how many F-22s the service needs beyond the 183 that are already in the budget.
Schwartz's budgeters and planners are expected to recommend a force of 250-275, a cut of more than 100 aircraft from the service's current requirement of 381. The 250 would allow a force of seven squadrons with 24 aircraft each or 10 squadrons with 18 Raptors.
Young points out that there is no money in the Air Force's budget plans for fiscal 2010 for F-22s. Neither Congress nor the defense secretary want to keep funding F-22 and C-17 production through supplemental defense budgets.
"John is stuck taking direction from England, which I think he agrees with in this case, unlike with the alternative engine for the F-35 [which England attempted to kill]," says a Washington-based official with insight into the affray between the Air Force, Congress and senior Pentagon civilians. "Plus John has people around him who have their own agenda, or are not competent. They had John believing that the numbers being used by Lockheed and the Air Force late last week were from a Rand study on F-22 that has nothing to do with the current circumstances.
"I don't know where all the [defense] money is going to come from," he says. "But at least with the F-22 we know what we are getting and have some grasp of the cost."
A new study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- whose CEO, John Hamre, has been mentioned as a possible candidate for President-elect Barack Obama's defense secretary -- contends that war costs, manpower costs, underfunded operations and procurement crises in every service will force the new administration to reshape almost every aspect of current defense plans, programs and budgets.
Obama will be faced with contracts worth $70 billion (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, Transformational Satellite, the Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter and a new tanker aircraft) that would be added to current procurement and force modernization plans that total more than $183 billion in the fiscal 2009 defense budget, say Anthony Cordesman and Hans Kaeser, authors of "Defense Procurement by Paralysis."
Some of the sharpest minds -- and least partisan -- on defense issues in Washington spoke during a conference with media and other military experts yesterday on where they believed the Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations forces should go in the coming years in terms of organization, equipment and strategy.
It was an incredibly interesting series of talks from the folks at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and brought up a number of key issues and recommendations that in some cases jibe with what those services/organizations are already doing and forged some new ground on how the key players in the GWOT should better shed the idea of "next war-itis."
We'll be rolling out their recommendations over the next couple days here and at DoD Buzz, but I wanted to throw this one out there at the outset to get the pot stirred a bit.
Both Dakota Wood and Robert Martinage -- who spoke about the Marine Corps force posture and that of the Spec Ops community, respectively -- called for a reduction of the MV-22 buy for the Marine Corps and a recognition that the Osprey couldn't satisfy the Spec Ops aviation shortfall.
Like the Air Force's F-22, the Osprey has become a bit of a raison d'etre for the Marine Corps, which staunchly supports the aircraft as a replacement for all of its CH-46 fleet. Wood argued that the cost was simply too much for the aircraft given other pressing, high-dollar Marine Corps programs coming in the future, reset, an expanded force and any number of contingencies the service will face. And, oh by the way, does anyone think the financial meltdown and the government's bailouts will slow down in the next couple of years?
If the Air Force is going to have to rethink its F-22 buy, why shouldn't the Marine Corps do the same thing with its MV-22 plans for similar reasons?
Recognizing the Osprey has its advantages in flying farther, faster and higher than anything in its class, Wood said the service needs to buy some MV-22s for missions that fit that kind of profile. But he added his voice to a growing chorus of experts who say it's time to scale back the buy and look to a rotary wing replacement that cheaper and more available than the Osprey to do those short hop chores the MV-22 is simply too expensive to justify doing.
Martinage made an interesting point that as spec ops forces push further and further into FID and UW missions in hard to reach corners of the world, sourcing spare parts for the CV-22 when the thing goes TangoUniform will be a deal breaker. He argued that anywhere an Osprey can go, a fleet of C-27s, U-28s and long-range helos can go -- with less risk of spare parts sources and overall O&M costs.
It's the hard, cold reality of it, but these guys aren't haters of the Osprey, they're just trying to give the best recommended solutions to critical problems in a severely fiscally constrained environment. It's good food for thought.
-- Christian
PECOC Getting More Feathers
The British military continues development of its Personal Equipment and Common Operational Clothing (PECOC) program to serve as a bridge between Soldier 95 kit and the planned Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST). Press reporting continues and in addition to the previous piece on the BBC, on 3 November 2008, The Times published an article on PECOC.
In the photo you can see an example of the new Hybrid Cam Day Sack.
Examples of trials clothing that have been seen feature Napoleon pockets to maintain a low profile under armor, stand up collars and full bicep pockets with velcro. The Smock is expected to under go some changes from the current SF smock and a second insulated, waterproof jacket is planned. Interestingly, every time the UK issues a new Smock it is based on the current issue SF Smock, which naturally changes as well. Additionally, it looks as though Britain will adopt the MOLLE standard for attachment systems as they move closer and closer to purchasing new equipment.
Finally, amid concerns of third party kit of dubious quality, there are indications that the UK military may follow a plan similar to the “Certified Team Soldier Gear” initiative proposed by the US Army’s PEO-Soldier for distinctive markings or tags on issue equipment. This will be to educate Soldiers and leaders on whether equipment has been vetted for issue by MOD.
The other day I got an email from a source of mine who claimed some of his buddies working in the private security industry in Pakistan and Afghanistan told him Pakistani intelligence officers have been found in "non life-supporting postures" after skirmishes or air strikes on insurgents in Afghanistan.
In other words, elements within Pakistan's ISI are directly aiding anti-coalition forces in Afghanistan -- sometimes engaging in combat operations with them.
I asked Edelman what the deal was...here's a brief transcript of how that conversation went:
Defense Tech: In Afghanistan, have you seen any evidence of Pakistani agencies' involvement in assisting the Taliban and other parties within Afghanistan against US troops and also within the [federally administered tribal areas]?
Edelman: I think that, you know, there's a long history here. The Pakistan government for a very long time has regarded Afghanistan as its 'strategic depth' and clearly there have been relationships that go back to the Mujahaddin era that have persisted. We've had some concerns about it, we've expressed those concerns. We had a meeting with the head of ISI, general Pasha ... my view is we ought to give him a chance to see how he can handle his new responsibilities and go from there.
Defense Tech: So is that a 'yes?'
Edelman: You'll have to make a judgment on whether that was a yes or not.
Defense Tech: So you have seen involvement...?
Edelman: As I said there have been persistent ties that have withstood over a long period of time and we've expressed concerns over those ties.
Sounds to me like a yes...What do you all think?
-- Christian
Legal Risk of Cyber Outage
New analysis indicates that critical infrastructure operators are ill prepared to deal with cyber attacks. That reinforced the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report earlier this year that found Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's largest public power company serving over 8.7 million people, is vulnerable to cyber attacks. One just released study asked respondents to indicate the state of readiness to defend against IT threats in eight different industries. The results showed that 50 percent of respondents said that utilities, oil and gas, transportation, telecommunications, chemical, emergency services and postal/shipping industries were not prepared. The energy sector emerged as the most vulnerable target. So it is no wonder the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is once again moving to address the threat to our nation's critical infrastructure.
DHS is looking for public input as it prepares for next year's release of a revised version of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), thus updating the 2006 version of the plan. The federal government has sought to actively engage the private sector in a number of industries to address the threat of cyber attacks. Originally, the federal government identified seventeen critical infrastructure areas and designated federal agencies to be in charge of creating plans as well as overseeing collaborative efforts to protect those areas. It should be noted that earlier this year DHS announced that it also had designated critical manufacturing as an additional sector.
One industry insider speaking to me on the promise of anonymity said: "Utility executives are not going to spend money on defending their systems against cyber attacks. When they do, they decrease the financial performance of the company and that subtracts from the executives bonuses." So is this yet another group of businesses that are going to the Federal Government looking for a hand out?
Cyber attacks against utilities are just not theoretical, they are real. Earlier this year there were dozens of reports that stated CIA senior analyst Tom Donohue told a gathering of 300 US, UK, Swedish and Dutch government officials, engineers and security managers from electric, water, oil & gas and other critical industry asset owners that "Cyber Attack Caused Multi-City Power Outage." Cyber attacks against utilities are now a foreseeable risk.
Foreseeable Risk and Threats - (a legal term) - A danger which a reasonable person should anticipate. Foreseeable risk is a common affirmative complaint put up in lawsuits for negligence (a tort).
We sought out a legal opinion and got one.
"The significant media attention being given to the threat of cyber attacks, as well as the fact that a number of high ranking government officials have warned about this threat, suggest that corporations have a duty to assess their exposure to this risk and create a cyber risk mitigation strategy. Failure to do so could constitute negligence due to the fact that in this day and age, cyber attacks are reasonably foreseeable," said Attorney Fred Rice specializing in corporate legal issues.
FACT: Tort litigation costs have reach nearly $300 billion annually.
But how far could the legal action go? I posed the following scenario to Edward Maggio, professor of criminal justice at the New York Institute of Technology. Scenario: A cyber attack directed against an electrical utility causes a power spike and outage. The spike and outages damage a piece of life support equipment resulting in the death of a patient relying on the device.
Given the above scenario, if the electrical utility did not take appropriate action to protect against such attacks, could the utility be held accountable?
"While culpability for the impact resulting from cyber attacks is a somewhat uncharted area of law, legal action against a power utility will be based on negligence. It is likely that hackers who engage in successful cyber attack against a power utility have likely made previous attempts against a chosen target. Such previous attempts would serve as evidence that a power utility had a duty to mitigate and protect itself from cyber attacks," Maggio said.
It is clear that any utility that fails to appropriately plan for or respond to the increased threat of cyber attacks are failing in their duty to protect the general public. Anyone harmed as a result of a cyber attack against a utility may have cause of action (lawsuit) when they were harmed due to the power utility's failure to increase its cyber security he went on to explain.
Will it take a major cyber attack with litigation before the necessary steps are taken to protect our critical infrastructure? It sure looks that way.
Blast from the past part II: Freaky deaky airmobile ICBM test
Project Valour-IT
I hope you all don't mind, but I've got to hit the pause button for a moment and knock out a little public service announcement.
I've been involved with Project Valour-IT for several years now and I can honestly say that the annual fall charity drive is one of my favorite times to be a blogger. The blogosphere-driven fundraising drive raises all kinds of dosh to purchase voice-activated laptops for soldiers who have lost limbs in combat. Those specially modded lappies make it possible for wounded troops to write and answer emails, update friends and family on their progress, and otherwise make them feel human and functional again.
Major Chuck Ziegenfuss, who was seriously injured by an IED blast in 2005 and was one of the first recipients of a Valour-IT laptop sends (with some selective edits) the rundown:
Valour-IT is completely out of money, and it's really going to be a shitty Christmas for wounded service members waiting for laptops. And yes Virginia, there is a waiting list.
So we begin the Valour-IT veteran's day fundraising project. Our goal is $250000, and that means each of the five branches are racing to the $50,000 finish line. Team ArmyAir Force, will, of course, win, because all of you WILL contribute. You will get your friends, family, and coworkers to contribute. You will get acquaintances to contribute.
Look, you don't have to donate your life savings. Just figure out how much you spend on mini-luxuries for a week. Five trips to starbux is $30. Drink coffee at work instead, and you've sacrificed little, but you can now contribute three percent of a laptop. Think about your weekly luxuries. What can you do without, so that you can give the gift of modern functionality to someone who needs it?
We've made sure the fund raiser will cover the mid-month pay period, too. So put back that can of creamed corn (really who eats that?) when you are doing your turkey day shopping. That's a dollar right there. Put back the second can of purple jelly too. Learn to make gravy instead of buying a jar.
It's important. It's something you can do to give, really give, someone such a great gift this holiday season. While we focus on being thankful for what we have , take a little time to remember what others have recently lost, and know that the only thing stopping them from regaining a piece of what they've lost--is you.
Please click the Team Air Force donation button below if you'd like to help out. Thanks so much to all who gave back to those who gave all.
John Noonan
Resolving the Next-Gen Armor Muddle
[From our friends at Breach-Bang-Clear on the Woroner armor debate.]
All right boys and girls, there’s been a helluva lot of discussion here about Dave Woroner's armor design and whether it would work or not work or whatever. Honestly I think part of the problem is that first off it’s over most (not all) of our heads. Second off, Woroner doesn’t want to tell too much about the damned thing out of OPSEC or COMSEC concerns, which makes explanation difficult at best. Imagine trying to explain a lawnmower engine if you couldn't talk about internal combustion, or if pistons were classifed.
Lemme see what I can do to make it make a little sense.
Have you heard about the Boomerang System made by BBN Technologies in Boston? It’s an acoustical sensor system that uses "acoustical entrapment" to quickly and reliably identify the location of a sniper or other shooter that’s putting rounds downrange towards our grunts. It's been on Future Weapons and a couple other shows, has actually deployed to the AOR and apparently works.
Woroner’s system is kind of like that, but it uses light sensitivity to detect incoming projectiles. Sound won’t work, it’s too slow for a system to detect an EFP or whatever and mitigate the blast. You might be able to detect the blast, depending upon the strength of the device and the range, but you damn sure wouldn’t be able to detect it and then take steps to defeat it. Only light and electricity are fast enough to react to something moving at thousands of feet per second, which is why light and electricity are the basis of Woroner’s “barrier system”.
It’s in the high nanosecond, low microsecond range of response, putting a countermeasure out to intercept the incoming weapon and either destroy it or mitigate it by shearing the blast wave off with it’s own blast moving at a reciprocal speed. This is effectively a countermeasure system intended to be used in addition to next-gen armor to reduce or nullify the incoming blast and projectile(s). Let me put it to you the way I had to explain it to Slim, which I think you’ll find is a little simpler than Dave’s explanation.
Some delinquent little bastard in your neighborhood uses a potato gun to launch a spud at your car. You’ve got Woroner’s system mounted on the hood. It detects the incoming spud using light, not sound, and throws out some high tech shit you can’t pronounce let alone explain to intercept it. That stuff is moving at about the same speed as the spud. It hits the potato and slows it down, possibly deflecting it some so that while it still hits your fender, it only hits with the impact of a nerf dart.
Potato-gun launched spud to nerf dart. Makes sense to me. I’d rather get clocked in the head with an orange foam bullet than an Idaho baker any day.
Translate that to the Big Sandbox. Hajji detonates an IED next to a humvee with Woroner’s system mounted on it. Woroner’s system senses the wave of the incoming projectile and puts a radically different defensive measure into play. This measure deflects the oncoming shear waves and ameliorates the remaining overpressure and underpressure events by shear redirection and deflection. Whatever’s left of the incoming projectile and its blast hits the humvee. The crew inside are better off if its up-armored, and better off still if it’s armored in next-gen armor and best of all if they weren't in it to begin with (but that's not really practical now, is it?).
[EDITOR: Essentially Dave's idea is to deploy a sort of air bag around the vehicle to absorb the shock waves and also help deflect any projectiles by creating space between the vehicle and the offending spawl
Jake Tapper: Gates a 
Sometimes it helps to look backwards instead of forwards. Enter the Rhodesian Pookie, an ugly little contraption that helped clear roads and highways during the 
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
