MALD Paves Way for Swarm Ops

A DT tipper, who prefers to remain anonymous (and who has proffered some pretty good stuff in the past), sent me this little tidbit with his analysis:

The Miniature Air Launched Decoy, a Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) state-of-the-art, low-cost, modular air- launched programmable flight vehicle, successfully completed government and Raytheon seamless verification team flight testing Jan. 11. This sets the stage for the MALD to enter low-rate initial production (LRIP) later this year.

The testing, which began in June 2007, put the MALD through a series of flight profiles including jettison and powered flight tests from both F-16 and B-52 aircraft. The MALD, which weighs less than 300 pounds and has a range of approximately 500 nautical miles, succeeded in 33 of 35 tests...

"Completion of this flight testing brings the versatile MALD platform one step closer to becoming a staple in the warfighter's arsenal," said Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems' Strike product line. "MALD is more than just a decoy -- we designed it with modularity in mind to evolve as the warfighter's needs evolve. We're ready to get the MALD to LRIP."

MORE:

The Miniature Air Launched Decoy is a low-cost, air-launched programmable craft that accurately duplicates the combat flight profiles and signatures of U.S. and allied aircraft. In addition to protecting valuable aircraft, MALD offers counter air operations to neutralize, if not destroy, air defense systems that pose a threat to U.S. and allied pilots.

Our DT reader and tipmaster comments:

In addition to the stated benefits, the successful design and implementation of efficient miniture engines will allow the US to perfect swarming techniques, develop aAAV missions (attack atonomous air vehicles) and drive the development of associated information exchange necessary to exploit the application of this technology.

Plus, they are relatively cheap.

Keep 'em coming boys.

-- Christian

Pirate Hunting Drone Boats Unleashed

The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard have expressed interest in the 30-ft.-long Protector, which comes mounted with a machine gun and could be retrofitted for commercial use.

Robots versus pirates -- it's not as stupid, or unlikely, as it sounds. Piracy has exploded in the waters near Somalia, where this past week United States warships have fired on two pirate skiffs, and are currently in pursuit of a hijacked Japanese-owned vessel. At least four other ships in the region remain under pirate control, and the problem appears to be going global: The International Maritime Bureau is tracking a 14-percent increase in worldwide pirate attacks this year.

And although modern-day pirates enjoy collecting their fare share of booty -- they have a soft spot for communications gear -- they're just as likely to ransom an entire ship. In one particularly sobering case, hijackers killed one crew member of a Taiwan-owned vessel each month until their demands were met.

For years now, law enforcement agencies across the high seas have proposed robotic boats, or unmanned surface vessels (USVs), as a way to help deal with 21st-Century techno Black Beards. The Navy has tested at least two small, armed USV demonstrators designed to patrol harbors and defend vessels. And both the Navy and the Coast Guard have expressed interest in the Protector, a 30-ft.-long USV built by BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Israeli defense firm RAFAEL.

The Protector, which comes mounted with a 7.62mm machine gun, wasn't originally intended for anti-piracy operations. But according to BAE Systems spokesperson Stephanie Moncada, the robot could easily fill that role. "Down the line, it could potentially be modified for commercial use as well," she says. Instead of being deployed by a warship to intercept and possibly fire on an incoming vessel, a non-lethal variant of the Protector could be used to simply investigate a potential threat.

A favorite tactic of modern-day pirates is to put out a distress call, then ambush any ships that respond. The unmanned Protector could be remote-operated from around 10 miles away, with enough on-board sensors, speakers and microphones to make contact with a vessel before it's too late. "Even without the machine gun, it could alert the crew, give them some time to escape," Moncada says.

The 55-mph Interceptor could become the long-range patrol boat of the future, while the jetski-size Sentry (inset) could help prevent a terrorist plot such as Al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in December 2000.

Read more about the pirate-hunting robot boat and other stories from our friends at Popular Mechanics in an exclusive feature on Military.com.

-- Christian

The Hunt for Future Navy Air Weapons

Defense Tech reader Ned Conger just sent us a thorough list of weapons and munitions the U.S. Navy thinks are key to winning the future aerial fight.

"Our program develops a mix of legacy, advanced and next-generation weapons that will outpace the capable threat across the spectrum of military operations," wrote Rear Adm. Kenny Floyd, the director of aviation and aircraft carrier plans and requirements (OpNav N880).

"Current combat operations and analytic scenarios in a wide variety of tactical environments have kept the pressure on my Strike Aircraft Plans and Requirements staff to refine weapons requirements and to work closely with program management and industry to ensure the timely delivery of relevant warfighting capabilities to the fleet."

There's a lot of red meat on these bones, so I’ll include the whole thing to let you all chew over it without any of my long-winded commentary. There are some interesting tidbits in there, so be sure to let other readers know what you think about Rear Adm. Floyd’s shopping list.

NEAR-TERM DEVELOPMENTS

Direct Attack Moving Target Capability (DAMTC)

DAMTC will be a level-of-effort weapon intended to provide Naval and Joint warfighters with a lethal, interoperable and cost-effective precision strike weapon system that can engage moving targets. As adversary threats advance in capacity and mobility, the improved capability to engage moving targets from legacy aircraft becomes crucial to strike warfare. I expect that an open competition for DAMTC will result in a retrofit kit for existing direct attack weapons and be available to the fleet in the near future.

Low Collateral Damage Bomb (LOCO)

The BLU-126/B, also known as the Low Collateral damage bomb (LOCO), delivers ordnance to urban targets with reduced collateral damage. It fulfills a need for a weapon that is both combat effective and adheres to United States Central Command’s collateral damage rules of engagement. Air-to-ground weapons historically were produced to deliver the maximum amount of explosives. In modern urban warfare, there is often little delineation between friendly, neutral and enemy forces, requiring better blast control. LOCO allows tactical aircraft to employ a precision strike weapon with reduced collateral damage.

Externally, LOCO is identical to the 500-lb. BLU-111, but it contains less explosive mass. Therefore, it produces a reduced fragmentation pattern and blast radius. Our team developed the weapon for use in situations in which friendly forces or civilians are in close proximity to the target. LOCO can be used with the same guidance kits as the BLU-111, including those for laser-guided bombs (LGB), dual-mode laser-guided bombs (DMLGB) and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). By modifying an existing weapon system, the program reduced costs associated with design, production and sustainment of this new weapon.

Dual-Mode Laser-Guided Bomb

The DMLGB is a retrofit to legacy LGBs that converts them to the dual-mode configuration using common components. It provides increased flexibility by combining proven technology of laser terminal guidance with all-weather fire-and-forget capability of Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System (INS/GPS).

The retrofit involves replacing the existing Computer Control Group (CCG) system with an INS/GPS to provide legacy LGBs with an all-weather guidance system. By using a retrofit strategy vice developing a new weapon, we can streamline qualification time lines and put a new weapon capability in the warfighters hands faster. DMLGB is currently scheduled for IOC in August 2007 on both the AV-8B and F/A-18 with future integration on F-35.

Standoff Land Attack Missile — Extended Range (SLAM-ER)

SLAM-ER is a long-range, highly precise air-launched strike missile capable of attacking high-value fixed and relocatable land targets, as well as surface ship targets under way or in port. Terminal control of the weapon is accomplished by the aircrew designating the impact point on the imaging infrared scene transmitted from the weapon and displayed in the cockpit. Man-in-the-loop commands are sent to the SLAM-ER via a data link pod, which is carried by the launch or secondary control aircraft. Hornet A/B/C/D and Super Hornet E/F variants can provide terminal control of SLAM-ER, but only the legacy Hornets can launch the weapon. Launch capability for Super Hornets is scheduled for release to the fleet in 2008.

MIDTERM DEVELOPMENTS

Harpoon Block III

The Harpoon Block III weapon system upgrade provides the U.S. Navy and its allies with surface warfare (SuW) capabilities from ships, aircraft, submarines and coastal defense systems by retrofitting Harpoon missiles in the existing inventory. This upgrade creates a highly capable weapon for the open water and littoral warfare environment by adding GPS capability and inflight target solutions. GPS capabilities provide significant littoral performance improvements such as target discrimination, minimized target-to-shore separation and a land-attack capability with JDAM/GPS accuracy. The addition of a data-link system provides inflight target updates, positive terminal control and connectivity with future network architecture. This enables the weapon to receive information from intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) targeting platforms and gives the launching platform a man-in-the-loop, over-the-horizon SuW solution for the emerging threat.

The Harpoon Block III upgrade offers the option of an inherent spiral development path for future Department of the Navy targeting improvements as well as the ability to integrate the data link on new platforms like the P-8A, organic vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles and unmanned vehicles.

Joint Standoff Weapon C-1

The JSOW-C-1 variant, also known as a JSOW Block III, provides upgraded capability to strike moving land targets as well as maritime targets. The JSOW-C-1 will be introduced to the fleet as an engineering change proposal to the existing Block II JSOW-C base line. JSOW-C-1 will employ a secure, jam-resistant, high-speed digital tactical data link using Link-16. It also will provide attributes necessary for launch and control or relay of weapon data links by F/A-18E/F aircraft. Future increments will address other control platforms, weapon and data link options.

The JSOW-C-1 will incorporate new target tracking algorithms into the seeker for moving targets, giving Joint force commanders an affordable, air-delivered standoff weapon that is effective against fixed and relocatable land and maritime targets. The JSOW-C-1 system must maintain legacy JSOW-C functionality to be effective against point targets in or through adverse weather conditions, both day and night. JSOW-C-1 must provide low and high altitude launch capability to enable launch platforms to stand off beyond target point defenses. Used in conjunction with accurate targeting information and anti-radiation weapons, JSOW-C-1 will destroy enemy air defenses and create sanctuaries that permit the rapid transition to low-cost, direct attack ordnance.

LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENTS

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)

JAGM is critical to long-term Navy and Marine Corps Aviation. This missile will replace aging Hellfire, TOW and Maverick missiles. JAGM will provide extended standoff, all-weather moving-target capability in a high-countermeasure battlefield environment. JAGM will be the first fixed-wing, rotary-wing and UAV compatible missile in the DoD inventory and will greatly enhance the warfighter’s operational flexibility.

Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II)

SDB II is a Joint interest program providing the capability to attack mobile targets in all weather at standoff ranges. SDB II addresses the following requirements — attack mobile targets, multiple kills per pass, multiple ordnance carriage, all-weather operations, precision munitions capability, capability against fixed targets, reduced munitions footprint, increased weapons effectiveness, minimized potential for collateral damage, reduced susceptibility of munitions to countermeasures and a migration path to network centric operations capability. The Navy and Marine Corps aircraft planned for integration are F/A-18E/F and F-35B/C.

SDB II will continue incremental development to pursue net-centric interoperability. Navy initial operating capability (IOC) is scheduled for Fiscal Year 2016 on the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, followed by IOC on the F-35C CV (aircraft carrier-capable) variant.

(Gouge: NC)

-- Christian

Urgent Needs Needed Urgently

Our friend Nick Schwellenbach over at the Project on Government Oversight sent DT an interesting set of documents that deals with the Marines’ difficulty obtaining gear under “urgent needs” requests.

Nick writes:

Despite over 130 urgent need requests (known as Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUONs) or Urgent Universal Needs Statements (UUNSs)) from 1 MEF while it was deployed in Iraq, less than 10 percent were fulfilled and many were "cancelled, delayed" or led to solutions which were not asked for.

Before November 2006, the document says that the requests "frequently languished" at Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I) level until Central Command Chief of Staff (CoS CENTCOM) "intervened," restoring urgency to the process.

But more intriguing is the section on page eight under the heading “MNF-W needs competed against funded programs.”

What this shows is the tension between procurement programs that are already underway for the “next generation” of equipment and the commercial-off-the-shelf products that answer the needs of troops in the field now.

Case in point is the MRAP debate. USA Today reported yesterday that commanders realize that despite the robust construction of the massive transport, EFPs can still penetrate their thick shells. The dialectic of measure-countermeasure continues.

The services have been redirected to spend $20 billion on MRAPs even though the “ONR initiative” stated in the presentation is ongoing (that’s the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program – the next generation Humvee).

The list continues with current UAVs vs. future ones, counter mortar systems in development and autonomous logistics vehicles that could be delivered now versus those that are in experimentation.

One has to wonder whether throwing money at a war that’s losing political support is prudent. Officials claim the MRAPs won’t be fully deployed until 2009. Does anyone believe the need for them will be as great after the next president is inaugurated as they are now?

And what of the other programs? When Congress demands a “peace dividend” for getting out of Iraq, will it be so willing to devote billions to next-generation UAVs and Humvees when MRAPs and ScanEagles are sitting in motor pools and airfield hangers?

We’ll, of course, follow closely as all this shakes out. But it seems as if the real procurement battles have already begun.

(Thanks again to Nick for the gouge...)

(Photo: Navstar MPV, courtesy DID)

-- Christian

The End of Friendly Fire?

The Virginian Pilot is reporting today that the Joint Forces Command has undertaken a new effort to develop technology to help troops navigate in urban environments. According to the article "the aim is to develop a hybrid tracking system using various navigation sensors and radio waves that could be used when GPS isn't available, such as inside buildings or underground in tunnels or in caves."

It would be developed under an agreement signed this week by the Joint Forces Command and defense contractor L-3 Communications' Interstate Electronics Corp.

The plan is to get several prototypes to the Marine Corps for testing by May 2008. The effort has two purposes -- to help field commanders keep track of individual troops as they carry out missions and to allow Soldiers to monitor their own locations. Jim Benson, the director of advanced technology for the Anaheim, Calif.-based Interstate Electronics said it could help eliminate "friendly fire" deaths, citing the highly publicized case involving Pat Tillman, an Army Ranger killed in Afghanistan by fellow Soldiers.

Read more here.

-- Ward

Commandant Says "There is Going to Be a Crash"

Earlier this week, my longtime amigo and dogged defense beat reporter Chris Castelli of Inside the Navy had breakfast (along with a number of other defense reporters) with General Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. According to Chris' report, the commandant said the following:

"You know, I'll tell you there is going to be a crash. That's what airplanes do over time. And we're going to have to accept that when it happens. And we'll hear some of the folks that are not fans of the program rise up, I suspect, when that occurs."

That's an amazing statement for a service chief to make. I don't remember any similar quotes from any generals or admirals about the Super Hornet or the Raptor or any other platform. Obviously the Corps is still relatively gun-shy about this airplane.

What Gen. Conway didn't explain was why an Osprey is going to crash. Well, DT is here to help.

Now let me say up front, I'm a fan of the V-22 and believe in its potential. I want the airplane to kick butt once it gets to the tip of the spear this year. I also know a little bit about the program, having worked as PMA-275's spokesman at NAVAIR for three years (2002-2005) and having flown the sim and gone for flights in the airplane a number of times. But here is a prediction behind Gen. Conway's statement: In the first three years of fleet V-22 operations, the Marines will suffer six Class A flight mishaps with the Osprey. And here's how:

- Although VMMT-204, the Osprey RAG, is up and running, the pilots training there are relatively senior compared to other RAGs. Eventually true "nuggets" will make their way to the fleet and they will do "nugget" things.

- The test pilots (both active duty and civilian) did amazing work during the High Rate of Descent (HROD) phase of developmental test at NAS Patuxent River back in 2002 and 2003. They validated the V-22's vortex ring state (VRS) envelope. (DT readers will remember that VRS was what caused an Osprey to crash near Marana, Arizona back in 2000, killing 19 Marines.) Improvements have been made in the vertical speed displays and aural warning systems. But the fact remains that - while there are no "unknown unknowns" about VRS and that there is a buffer between the operational rate of descent limit of 800 feet per minute and where VRS occurs - the rate at which the V-22 develops a high rate of descent is unique to the V-22. Basically, the crew has to hawk the VSI gauge constantly during a descent. A moment's inattention can result in the vertical speed getting out of hand. (The test pilots actually had an inadvertant VRS entry during HROD testing because they got distracted for a second.) So imagine junior pilots during high op-tempo periods (deployed) at night, on goggles, and operating with not enough sleep (never happens if you follow NATOPS, right?) Yes, this is a training issue in that crews can be taught to watch the VSI readout on the display, but in spite of the comprehensive understanding Osprey crews have of the phenomenon (thanks to the Developmental Test Team at Pax River), somebody's going to be tired and distracted (and maybe under fire) and will enter VRS close to the ground. The outcome won't be good.

- It's unclear at this point whether or not VMM-263 will self-deploy or embark on an amphib like most USMC assault support aircraft. If they conduct sustained flight ops from an LHA or LHD, again, we will see nuggets do nugget-like things. Somebody will fly into the water while on final approach; somebody will plant one against the deck edge. And I guarantee you these things will happen at night or in bad weather.

- Ospreys will operate as multi-ships, so there's a high likelihood of a midair. Once again, when it occurs it'll be at night.

- An Osprey will be lost due to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).

- An Osprey will have an engine failure (or fire) and be forced into an extended transit to get to somewhere safe to land. During the transit the interconnect drive shaft will fail. (The one true test of the interconnect drive shaft was very early in the program's history. The mechanism failed grossly.) Because the crew was transiting at medium altitude (8,000 feet or so) they will have the opportunity to keep the V-22 in the airplane mode while intercepting a dual-engine failure emergency glide profile. The Osprey will either ditch in the water or belly land in the desert. The "crumple zones" on the nose will work as advertised; the prop-rotors will "broomstraw" (disintegrate instead of turning into flying chunks upon impact). The crew will survive with minor injuries but the Osprey will sustain strike damage.

- The Osprey has survivability features like self-sealing tanks and composite structures that will allow the airplane to take hits and keep on going. However, one of the other features of a composite fuselage is bullets don't bounce off, they pass through like a hot knife through butter. The airplane may survive an encounter with small arms fire, but Marines flying in back might not. Another prediction: Just like the Humvee, the Marines will "up-armor" V-22s in time. They didn't do it to date because that would've kept the airplane from attaining its Key Performance Parameters (payload, range, etc.) during OPEVAL.

So that equals six lost aircraft (seven if you believe the midair will result in the loss of both Ospreys). The next time the topic comes up, Gen. Conway can offer a more complete answer.

Again, you won't hear the Air Force Chief of Staff or Chief of Naval Operations making similar comments about their new platforms, and it's not because they're unrealistic. Obviously, the Marines are still a bit "concerned" about this "revolutionary" technology they're getting, like it or not.

And beyond the mishap potential are concerns about the Osprey's sustainability. Remember, this is a program that hasn't been deployed yet but has obsolescence issues with subsystems. An item - a part of the prop-rotor gearbox, for instance - will fail at a rate not predicted by the engineers. And because they didn't predict it, the manufacture of it will not have been funded at an appropriate rate. Or worse, the company that manufactures the item will have gone out of business years ago (maybe even without the prime contractors' or government's knowledge). There will be none of these items in the supply chain and V-22s will sit idle, perhaps for months on end.

Another maintenance issue: As I mention, the V-22 fuselage is made of composite materials. It's very light, by design. But over time it's going to crack both in places the engineers expect and in places they don't expect. These cracks are going to plague the squadrons for the entire operating history of the Osprey.

And don't forget the hydraulic system: 5,000 psi and titanium tubing. Let's see how well that can be maintained in the field for an extended period.

Another major indicator of USMC confidence for the V-22 will be where they choose to base it during the first deployment. Most likely they won't be based on an amphib, not because of world events but because the Osprey doesn't really fit on any of the amphibs very well (and it also has this potential problem where it warps the flight deck with its exhaust). The "brown water" Navy isn't in a big hurry to have them come aboard.

And as far as where they're based once in theater, let's keep it very simple: If the Marines believe this is the kick ass airplane that has kept it alive and funded for all the years in spite of the setbacks and the loss of life, then they'll base VMM-263 at Bagram or Al Asad. That's where the action is. That's where the enemy is. Otherwise, if they don't fully believe, they'll stick the "Thunderchickens" somewhere around the Horn of Africa and couch the move in terms like "emerging threat."

As I mentioned at the beginning, I'm a supporter of the program. I know many of the crews who will be leading the squadrons on the first deployments. I worked closely with VMX-22 during OPEVAL II. I would put pilots like "Mongo" Seymour up against the best Tomcat drivers I ever rode behind. In fact, I've never met a pilot, crew chief, or maintainer in the Osprey community who didn't blow me away with his or her professionalism and dedication to the mission. I want to be wrong with my prediction. But remember, I didn't bring the subject up; the Commandant of the Marine Corps did.

-- Ward

Busy Days at Aberdeen

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md., March 14, 2007 - As the Defense Department hurries to get the latest weapons systems and protective equipment to deployed troops, the Aberdeen Test Center here is operating at what its commander calls a "fast and furious rate" to ensure effectiveness and safety remain top priorities.

The center, on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, is the most diverse of seven DoD test facilities and is a critical partner in the Army's Rapid Fielding Initiative, Army Col. John Rooney, center commander, said.

During the past two years, the center's scientists, technicians and engineers have tested about 30 rapid fielding initiatives a week, with more than 1,400 tests conducted last year alone. There's been an 87 percent increase in range activity here since fiscal 2001.

"That's all being driven by technologies to support the warfighter in the global war on terror," Rooney said.

Technologies undergoing testing here range from enhancements to improve the way vehicles operate in combat to protective gear that helps troops survive enemy attacks.

"Our focus is on identifying the best technology available now, getting that capability to the warfighter today, and then improving on it," Rooney said.

This concept, referred to as "spiral development," turns the military's traditional fielding method on its head. Rather than developing, testing, then fine-tuning systems before sending them to the field, the priority now is to get new technologies to the troops quickly as possible, while continuing to improve on them, Rooney explained.

"We're inserting them into the war without the breadth and depth of testing that we would go through in peacetime," he said. "There's a whole different dynamic of supporting an Army at war that's different that in peacetime. You have to make sure you do an adequate job (of testing), but not at the expense of withholding capabilities."

Even with the big push to get new systems to deployed forces, Rooney said the military holds the line when it comes to safety. "We always do safety testing up front," he said. "But once we've done that, the big question becomes, 'What's enough testing to understand how (the system is) going to work (in combat)?'"

Evidence of this balancing act is prevalent throughout the combat theater. The Aberdeen Test Center staff tested for electromagnetic interference in Blue Force Tracker, a satellite-based Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below communications system, as well as for additional radios placed on M1A1 Abrams command vehicles.

They tested new software for the M1A2 tank's nuclear, biological and chemical protective system, and a variety of bridging systems so deployed forces could cross gullies and low spots throughout the Iraqi desert.

But few examples demonstrate the emphasis on expedient fielding more clearly than how the military gets new vehicle protection to deployed troops.

As DoD's primary ground-vehicle tester, the Aberdeen Test Center started exploring ways to protect troops against roadside bombs in August 2003, as soon as these weapons began appearing in Iraq.

Rooney described the motivation that drove testers here to move quickly to evaluate the first add-on armor prototypes. "We knew that every day we didn't get the test finished was another day that we weren't getting these kits to the field, and that it could have a direct impact on someone's life," he said.

The earliest add-on armor kits sent to the combat theater had limitations, he acknowledged, but still offered far more protection than no additional armor. Even as these kits were being sent to the field, the Aberdeen Test Center staff continued to look into new systems to improve on them.

Since the start of the GWOT, the center staff has subjected more than 500 potential solutions to the rigorous testing that takes place here every day, Rooney said. These prototypes have been fired at to test their ballistic protection and run through simulators, computer models and outdoor tracks to see how they stand up to real-world road conditions like they'll encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A drive around the test ranges here -- nine miles of interconnecting roads and 25 permanently constructed courses -- shows some of the armor enhancements undergoing testing now. They range from a new add-on armor kit for Humvees that includes 450 pounds of armor to the front door alone and extra baseboard armor to a one-piece door assembly for the 5-ton M977 heavy expanded mobility tactical truck to an improved slat armor kit for the Stryker light armored vehicle.

The staff here developed the initial prototype for the Stryker's slat armor-a cage-like apparatus bolted to the Stryker to protect it from rocket-propelled grenades - and Rooney calls it one of the staff's proudest achievements. Although the first users didn't necessarily like the slat armor's looks, they quickly grew to love its protective qualities, he said.

While continuing to seek out newer, more effective ballistic protections, the staff here recognizes the impact of these improvements on overall vehicle performance, Rooney said. Putting additional armor on vehicles affects everything from the way they handle, to their tip-over point, to the life cycle of their shocks and suspension systems to their overall reliability.

"Every time something gets added or placed on a vehicle, you have to look at the whole range of effects," Rooney said. "When you evaluate protective armors, you have to work hand-in-glove with the automotive side, because even if a vehicle stops everything (in terms of ballistics), if it can't drive, it's of no value."

So evaluators here put vehicles through the paces in both outdoor courses and indoor simulations to replicate the worst of real-world conditions. Vehicles get exposed to bumps, ditches, slopes, mud and sand courses, fording basins and other difficult conditions similar to what deployed troops experience regularly.

"We're trying to create the circumstances that might cause failures so we can learn from it and address those issues here," Rooney said. "The whole intent is to fully understand the vehicle's capability."

Once a vehicle passes through the rigors imposed here, Rooney said he's confident they'll be ready for the demands warfighters will subject them to.

That's the mindset at the Aberdeen Test Center that Rooney said has continued to turn ideas into solutions for combat troops. "Our end product is a better equipped, better protected warfighter," he said.

As the Aberdeen Test Center supports today's warfighters, it's carrying on a tradition that began in 1917, when it helped prepare the military for World War I.

Today, the center continues testing a broad spectrum of military weapons systems and equipment: vehicles, weapon systems, ammunition, portable bridges, generators, night-vision devices, individual equipment ranging from boots and uniforms to helmets, and even surface and underwater naval systems.

As it conducts this testing, Rooney said the staff here never loses sight of the men and women on the front lines whose lives are at stake.

"We are a very busy, very diverse and very relevant test center, doing things that people know matters," he said. "We are helping the warfighter tremendously. And because people here recognize the direct impact of what they're contributing, job satisfaction is pretty easy to come by here."

(Gouge: AFPS)

Army Future on Display

Spring may be barely peeking through the clouds and fall sure seems a long way off, but our friends at the Association of the U.S. Army are giving us a little relief from the winter doldrums.

The AUSA Winter Symposium and Exhibition kicked off today in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., with an impressive roster of Army brass, senior program managers and top defense firms displaying their wares, outlining the latest program milestones and briefing industry and the media on future plans. It’s smaller than the annual AUSA conference in Washington, DC, but it’s no less entertaining – and the intimacy can produce a lot more insight without the pressure from the crush of vendors, throngs of media and gaggle of political poobahs.

It’s a fascinating place to be. But for those of you (like me) who couldn’t make it this year, AUSA is kindly putting together a daily update of top news and views from the conference. Keep an eye on what the Army’s senior officials say as the conference plays out through Friday.

-- Christian

Learnin' From the Muj?

The web is packed with folks wondering what the recent rash of helicopter downings in Iraq means to the American war effort.

Basically, it means the enemy has simultaneously figured out how to use the gear stashed in sheds and burrows around the country and found the cojones to use it.

It also means that American helicopter routes had grown a bit too predicatable. After all, we'd flown thousands of sorties for years now without a single shoulder-fired SAM being lobbed skyward.

Those days are over.

Whether Stingers from the CIA by way of the Taliban or SA-18s from Russia by way of Iran, the bad guys have possession of weapons that can reach out and touch our rotary wing aircraft. That's a big eye-opener, considering that going by air was heretofore considered the safer alternative to traveling over IED-infested roads.

So whether or not one wants to consider the lessons learned by the Soviets in Afghanistan, the physics of the situation hasn't changed that much since the late '80s when Hips and Hinds were dropping left and right over and around the Hindu Kush. If you want to avoid small arms fire, fly above 5,000 feet or so; if you want to avoid SAMs, fly low.

So tactics and flying techniques have changed already and will continue to change. I'm sure all the "school house" experts from MAWTS and the other centers of excellence are already on the case.

At the same time the systems commands like NAVAIR (see photo of H-46 with new chaff and flare dispensers) will work their butts off performing rapid prototyping to get improved self-protect capability out to the field. (Don't even tell me that government employees don't work as hard as the private sector.)

What we're seeing here is the cycle of a protracted war. Fight, analyze, adjust . . . fight again.

In the meantime, helo drivers: Stay unpredictable.

-- Ward