Russian warships were to arrive in Venezuela Tuesday for joint maneuvers -- Moscow's first military presence in the region since the Cold War, as Washington closely monitored the situation.
The leader of Somali pirates holding a huge Saudi oil tanker denied Monday that the hijackers had lowered their ransom demand, insisting they still wanted 25 million dollars for the ship's release.
Saab has signed a contract worth approximately SEK 1.1 billion with Lockheed Martin Canada, for being a partner in the design and development of a command and control system to the Canadian Navy’s twelve Halifax Class frigates. Deliveries are planned for 2010-2017.
Digital networks are the nervous system of our civilization, essential to commerce and culture. The entire economy, from banking to utilities to manufacturing to healthcare, relies on internet-style communications.
Iran announced on Monday it had broken up a spy network linked to arch-enemy Israel's intelligence service Mossad, accusing it of gathering information on Iranian nuclear and military programmes.
To avoid unnecessary taxpayer spending, Defense Department officials here are only partially funding the expansion of F-22 Raptor aircraft production, leaving the decision for further expansion to the incoming presidential administration.
A coalition force comprising experts from the U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force deployed here recently to sustain operations for the world's most lethal unmanned aircraft system.
Poland’s first two C-130E Hercules aircrews recently completed 11 weeks of C-130E flight training in the United States, and will soon return to Poland.
Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center officials here successfully tested the Space-Based Infrared System Highly Elliptical Orbit payload and operations center and accelerated operational acceptance by six weeks.
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.
--John Noonan
From the headlines at Military.com:
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 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.
The Army recently released a solicitation that called for nearly 10,000 so-called MRAP-All Terrain Vehicles to add to their fleet of 12,000 heavy MRAPs.
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
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 feet
air cruise radius 300 -- 500 n.miles
maximum gross takeoff < 30,000 lb
submerged speed 5 -- 10 knots
submerged depth 25 -- 75 feet
submerged range 40 -- 50 n.miles
submerged endurance 4 -- 10 hours
payload 500 -- 1,500 lb
takeoff and land in State 2 seas
Several 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
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?
-- Ward
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 Armys soldiers is in sharp decline, from enlisted personnel to NCOs to officers. Its a particularly discouraging trend for the Army as it is happening despite the services 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 Armys 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.
-- Christian
Nuclear moon bases
B-52s now working as standoff jammers?
Rad meter pinging: Brit Challenger II does its thing
Gulp: Use of nukes "more likely" in the future
Norway burns Gripen, puts in order for the F-35
--John Noonan
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 didnt 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, its 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...
-- Christian
An important step for the Eurofighter Typhoon, the main European industrial collaborative programme: Alenia Aeronautica, a Finmeccanica company, has officially delivered to the Italian Air Force the first Tranche 2 Eurofighter Typhoon produced in Italy.
Tali-baddie snuffed out in Pakistan
Hogs now porting JDAMs
Awesome: History's six most lethal aircraft
Squids getting their money's worth out of LANTFLT
An open letter to the CNO
--John Noonan
Northrop Grumman Corporation's E-2D Advanced Hawkeye System has completed its Operational Assessment (OA), flying out of the Northrop Grumman East Coast Manufacturing and Flight Test Center in St. Augustine, Fla.
This ADM allows for the procurement of parts support for 4 aircraft beyond the 183 total F-22's that DoD has already contracted for.
Killing time at the combat outpost...
(Gouge: Militaryphotos.net)
-- Christian
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated how critically important snipers are to a fight marked by urban canyons and high-mountain caves. Problem is, those highly-trained sharpshooters are in short supply, and the need for accurate, long-range fire has outpaced the services' ability to field one-shot killers.
So both the Army and Marine Corps began a program to seed infantry squads with so-called "designated marksmen" -- call them "snipers-lite."
The growing need to equip these new marksmen with accurized rifles prompted the Army to reconsider the role of the venerable M-14 rifle for the war on terror. Back in Desert Storm, armorers from the 10th Special Forces group took M-14s equipped with a match barrels and fitted a gas piston on them for optimal performance, re-designating it the M-25. They replaced the stock with a McMillan M1A fiberglass one, developed a scope mount and added a Bausch & Lomb 10x40mm fixed-power optic or a Leupold Mark 4.
The revamped M-14 provides the Army squad designated marksman with on-command direct fire support for his squad, a fire team or his platoon. The heavier-caliber sharpshooters provide cover when machine guns displace, counter-sniper fire in urban areas, and they help in overtaking valuable real estate.
Infrared targeting lasers such as the AN/PEQ-2 and PAQ-4C make the DM's job more like 24-hour shift work. Now that suppressors for the M-14-series of rifles are available, the night-vision capabilities coupled with sound mitigation makes the Soldier's ability to own the night even more secure.
Taking the M-14 modifications a step further, Crane Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center teamed up with Sage International to create an M-14/M1A package that is dubbed the "Enhanced Battle Rifle."
Using the M-14 barrel, receiver and trigger groups, the EBR chassis adds a retractable stock, a cheek piece that's adjustable for height and a floated Picatinny quad-rail fore-end made of high-strength aluminum. The EBR also adds a pistol grip for additional control and ergonomic sling points.
But the new rifle is heavier than the M-16 or M-4 which weighs nearly seven pounds, with each 30-round magazine adding another pound. The basic M-14, however, weighs nearly 10 pounds with an addition of almost two pounds for every 20 rounds of 7.62 the EBR fires.
A soldier's wisdom varies from one to another but many don't care about the weight. The confidence in the effective range and terminal ballistics of the M-14's 7.62mm round brings the argument back to the Vietnam-era rifle.
The EBR feels a little heavy at the fore end, but this helps the rifle address criticism that it is uncontrollable when firing on full-auto. The additional weight -- and the fact that the stock is in line and parallel with the barrel -- helps reduce muzzle climb.
The EBR chassis comes with a Picatinny rail that replaces the stripper-clip guide, helping Soldiers mount high-powered scopes that can extend the rifle's range. Unique to the EBR is an extended rail just forward of the receiver. For the followers of the Jeff Cooper doctrine on scout rifles, red dot optics work well in making this rifle an effective close quarter battle scout rifle. Regardless of scope height, the shooter can obtain proper cheek weld by adjusting the EBR's stock.
As the Army and Marines Corps continue to develop a semi-auto designated marksman rifle, many within the tactical community feel that the resurrection of the M-14 is just a stopgap. But praise from troops using the M-14's variants and moves made by the Navy suggest otherwise. In 2004, the Navy signed a contract to upgrade nearly 3,000 of their M-14s with the Sage EBR chassis.
What will remain, in any case, is the designated marksman. The smallest infantry unit includes a team leader, two riflemen and a gunner. One of these riflemen will be expected to fill the role of the designated marksman, using optics to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and minimizing collateral risk with precision fire in urban areas.
The book on small unit tactics has evolved to defeat a new kind of enemy, and the old standby Springfield Armory M-14 has evolved right along with it.
The Army Combat Shirt has only been an issue item for about a year but much of its success can be attributed to PEO-Soldiers decision to field the garment immediately and improve it over time. In fact, although the basic concept has stayed constant, the design has been in a perpetual state of change. At the recent SOFEX at Ft Bragg, NC we got a chance to take a look at the latest version (v5.3) of the ACS at Massifs booth. While this version has not yet been approved for procurement, it features design refinements specified by PEO-Soldier. Many Soldiers will be happy to hear that noticeably absent was the Army of One logo.
Manufactured from Massifs proprietary Blaze, Breeze, and Helium fabrics, the ACS is completely FR, even incorporating new flame resistant resin zippers. The Blaze fabric is a four way stretch and used for the sleeves and under arm panels. Designed with comfort under body armor in mind, the ACS is constructed with flat seams and features raglan sleeves. The body is formed from Breeze fabric and the modesty panel designed to cover the breast area is made from Helium fabric. A high mock-T collar prevents chaffing caused by the IOTVs high collar.
While garments in other color schemes (including Multicam) are currently on the drawing board, development of military variants including the Airman Battle Shirt and a khaki version for the Navy.
Currently, the ACS can only be ordered by members of the United States Army. To order contact Massif Mountain Gear Company.
[Photo of New ACS from Massif Mountain gear]
Raytheon Company, along with Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace, provided support during the Spanish Army's successful live-fire exercise of its National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), a surface-launched AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) system.
The "Scorpions" of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 132 held a final flight ceremony for the EA-6B Prowler at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Nov. 7, giving the aircraft a respectful farewell and beginning the squadron's transition the EA-18G Growler.
Russia on Tuesday said the delivery of Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier to the Indian Navy would be delayed till 2012 as the vessel could be refitted only sometime in 2010.
India has successfully test fired 'Shaurya', a medium-range surface-to-surface ballistic missile on Wednesday, to be used by its Army.
Unidentified gunmen kidnapped an Iranian diplomat Thursday, killing his Pakistani police guard in the latest attack in the northwestern province bordering Afghanistan, police said.
Members of the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron here test drives the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system and ensures the aircraft is up to par with advertised specifications.
Sudan's President Omar al-Beshir has called an immediate ceasefire in Darfur and a campaign to disarm feared militias in a speech dismissed by rebels as a propaganda stunt for the West.
A meeting of the Nordic Ministers of Defence was held on the 11th of November in Bornholm, Denmark. Topical issues such as Nordic participation in crisis management in Africa, defence material cooperation, cooperation with the Baltic States and development of the northern regions were on the agenda.
Boeing today announced the successful demonstration of a common software application that can support the space and ground segments of the Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT).
The Finnish Defence Forces are investigating what they suspect is unauthorised copying of the M05 camouflage pattern by the Russian military, Finnish business daily Taloussanomat reported on its website Tuesday.
In what could prove to be the first step toward creating a joint RQ-4 Unmanned Aircraft System training unit here, pilots of the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron are teaching a class of Navy pilots the Global Hawk system.
European Defence Ministers, meeting in the Steering Board of the European Defence Agency, launched today concrete initiatives and projects for improving European military capabilities.
The Navy has officially placed in service a new submarine rescue capability, replacing its long-serving and highly versatile rescue submersibles. The Submarine Rescue Diving and Recompression System (SRDRS)replaces the submersible Mystic, the Navy's last Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle (DSRV).
The SRDRS, according to Navy statements, "is a rapidly deployable rescue asset that can be delivered by air or ground, installed on pre-screened military or commercial vessels of opportunity. . . and mated to a distressed submarine within a 72-hour time to first rescue period."
Unfortunately, only two of the three major components of the SRDRS are now available, and the system in some ways lacks the flexibility of the now-discarded DSRVs. The SRDRS is a three-phased acquisition program:
The first phase was the Atmospheric Dive System 2000 (ADS2000), which was delivered to the Navy in 2006. This is a manned, one-atmosphere dive suit that enables a diver to inspect a disabled submarine on the ocean floor to a depth of 2,000 feet, i.e., approximately the "crush depth" of the U.S. Navy's deepest-diving submarines. The diver would also have a limited ability to clear debris from escape hatches.
The second phase is the Rescue Capable System (RCS), delivered to the Navy in October 2008. This system is based on the "Falcon," a tethered, remotely-operated, pressurized rescue module that is lowered from the surface ship to "mate" with the escape hatches on a disabled submarine. The survivors climb into the module, which is then brought back up to the surface ship. The RCS also includes the ship-based launch and recovery system, and controls. The Falcon can conduct rescue operations to a depth of 2,000 feet, can mate to a disabled submarine at a list and trim of up to 45 degrees, and can transfer up to 16 personnel at a time.
But the third phase of the SRDRS -- that will not be delivered until late 2012 -- is the submarine decompression system. This will enable rescued submariners to remain under pressure during the transfer from the rescue module to hyperbaric treatment chambers aboard the surface ship to prevent their being affect by the "bends" as they reach surface pressure after being in a disable submarine that might have increased internal pressure.
The Navy touts the SRDRS as being air transportable and then able to be taken to sea in a variety of pre-designated U.S. and foreign naval and merchant ships. However, being a surface-based system, the SRDRS is vulnerable to bad weather and rough seas and, of course, could not affect a rescue under Arctic ice.
The SRDRS underwent a test and operational evaluation during the international submarine rescue exercise Bold Monarch in May-June 2008. The rescue module transferred personnel from three participating submarines -- from Norway, the Netherlands, and Poland. More recently, the SRDRS conducted an exercise with the Chilean submarine Simpson on 17-18 September 2008.
The SRDRS replaces the rescue submersibles Avalon (DSRV 2), which was deactivated on 1 September 2000, and the Mystic (DSRV 1), deactivated on 1 October 2008. Both DSRVs became fully operational in late 1977, although they were completed several years earlier. The DSRVs, also air-transportable, could be carried and supported by specially designed surface ships -- that have since been discarded -- and submarines (SSN and SSBN) that have special fittings provided. Several U.S. and foreign submarines were modified to carry a DSRV. The rescue submersible could then be carried to sea and both launched and recovered from the submerged "mother" submarine.
The DSRV could mate with all U.S. submarines except for the new discarded NR-1 and Dolphin (AGSS 555) as well as most foreign submarines. A DSRV could carry 24 survivors (plus 3 or 4 crewmen), and could transport them under pressure to the mother submarine, which could also have a pressurized compartment to receive the survivors. And, with the DSRV there was no need to place a diver on the disabled submarine, in part because the DSRV had a capability of both examining the submarine and clearing debris from a hatch. However, while the DSRVs had a capacity of 24 crewmen compared to 16 for the Falcon rescue chamber, the latter received power through its tether while the DSRVs required a two-hour battery charge between rescue cycles.
The two DSRVs were built as part of the comprehensive Deep Submergence Systems Project (DSSP), established following the loss of the nuclear-propelled submarine Thresher (SSN 593) in 1963. Two DSRVs were built, each weighing 37 tons and just under 50 feet in length. They had an operating depth of 5,000 feet -- far beyond the collapse depth of U.S. submarines -- and, because they could be clandestinely employed from submarines, they provided a very use capability for special missions.
The DSSP also sponsored the development of advanced emergency submarine location devices, submarine escape gear, the ability to locate and recover small objects on the ocean floor, and a large object salvage capability. It was also responsible for developing systems for the nuclear-propelled research/recovery submersible NR-1.
In honor of Veteran's Day, I wanted to share with you all a quick story on a Soldier's valor to help us all remember the heroism and sacrifice our armed forces display each and every day on the job:
On Sept. 24, 2008, Staff Sgt. Christopher Upp, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, was awarded the Silver Star for actions on July 31, 2007 in Chowkay Valley, Afghanistan. While at Vehicle Patrol Base Seray, an incoming mortar round struck the bases mortar pit, killing the platoon leader and initiating an attack. Staff Sgt. Upp led a small group through machine gun and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) fire towards the mortar position.
The incoming fire knocked them to the ground several times. When they reached the 120-mm mortar, an incoming RPG damaged the tripod and shrapnel tore a large gash in Staff Sgt. Upps left arm. With the mortars support legs damaged, Staff Sgt. Upp used his hands -- and when the tube got too hot, his back -- to guide return fire. Through heavy fighting, he fired 75 rounds at the attacking enemy and significantly contributed to the successful defense of the patrol base.
I've been honored to witness acts like this in my many days and months covering the armed forces as a reporter. Thank you for all of the great times and endearing memories.
-- Christian
Eurocopter, a world-leading helicopter manufacturer, today has a presence of more than 650 helicopters flying in the Arab world, be it with civil or military operators.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) can address the alarming dip in its operational capabilities by upgrading its fleet of Mirage-2000 fighter jets, even as it evaluates a global tender it has floated for purchasing 126 new combat aircraft, says French electronics major Thales, which is on the verge of inking the upgrade deal.
Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine successfully completed engine restart testing at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. The engine air restart tests are a significant program milestone demonstrating the reliability of the F135 engine in flight. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. company.
Multiple sources are reporting that hackers have penetrated the email system of the White House.
People described as "US government cyber experts" are said to suspect the cyber raids were sponsored by the Chinese government. These sophisticated, targeted attacks repeatedly penetrated the unclassified network's defenses. The breaches seem to closely follow the "Grain of Sands" technique used by Chinese intelligence agencies.
The "Grain of Sands" is a methodology used to derive intelligence from disparate pieces of data no matter how seemingly trivial, as each data point might just be the final little piece that completes the puzzle. It is important to note that inside sources tell us that the classified network and system was NOT compromised.
This comes just days after Newsweek reported that both the Obama and McCain campaigns had their security breached by overseas hackers. Reportedly a significant amount of data had been exfiltrated. Intelligence Analysts at Spy-Ops believe that the hacks and data transfers were a concerted effort to track the candidates' policy positions which could aide in future negotiations with the United States. The FBI and U.S. Secret Service had notified both campaigns of the security breach in late August.
At first, the campaign security thought it was just another "phishing" attack, using common methods. One source said the FBI told them: "You have a problem way bigger than what you understand. You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system." Unofficial sources tell us that the attacks were traced back to Russia, China and an un-named third country.
This is at least cyber espionage or is it an act of cyber war? Are we at Cyber DefCom 1? A clear-cut cyber warfare doctrine is needed to answer these questions.
[EDITOR: Please be sure to take a look at the transcript of last week's interview with Kevin on the DT Live Q&A]
The Iraq War is won, Afghanistan -- mmm not so much
Behind the scenes of an ICBM launch
A ballistic missile's newest enemy: mirrors
SOCOM gets the Hummingbird
Inside Israel's missile shield
[NOTE: Here's another contribution from our friends at Breach Bang Clear. The author is a friend of mine, David Woroner of Survival Consultants International. He's a ballistics expert, former PSD contractor and all-around mad scientist who's come up with a novel new armor for newly built vehicles. This is part one of a multi-part series on new solutions for ballistic defeat.]
If it has a new gen armor system attached to it, then Im in favor of the JLTV over the MRAP. Why? Well, a number of reasons.
The MRAP has some things going for it, and its saved some lives, no question. But its not the end-all be-all, ultimate solution to whats going on in Iraq and Afghanistanand its not going to be the solution in future wars that may be fought differently and certainly will be fought in different terrain.
Lets face it, the MRAP is a bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. A million dollar bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. Consider some of its weaknesses, and the financial burden to fix or repair. Were talking about a serious chunk of change just in the case of blowing the undercarriage out. My opinion on this shouldnt be misconstrued as some reticence on my part to help out the troops. Anyone that knows me or has served with me knows I am STAUNCHLY behind the protection of our troops. It can be done with the technology at hand, and it can be done more efficiently.
Consider the cost, operational relevance and troop transportation capability of the MRAP (and the coming MRAPII) vs. something like the JLTV. Were in a war, and in a war, particularly conducted with blitzkrieg type operations, its always going to be better to put fewer men and less equipment into less expensive vehicles. Put simply, Id rather attack anything with a million ants than a pair of elephants. When it comes to those vehicles, protection doesnt have to be expensive, the vehicles can be more efficient to operate in a disparate variety of terrains, and lets dont forget the cost of fuel.
Let me explain further.
The concepts of blitzkrieg were known in other countries, albeit poorly developed (the British army had partially implemented it), by the end of the First World War, but the Germans had worked out the complexities of breaking through a front with highly concentrated resources. This technique failed the Germans in their offensives of March 1918, largely because the breakthrough elements were on foot and could not sustain the impetus of the initial attack. The deployment of motorized infantry was the key to sustaining a breakthrough, but this would have to wait until the 1930s to be realized.
Superimpose the realities of modern war and we can see that the Humvee has proven itself to be a woefully inadequate method of safely transporting troops into battle, even with all the so-called hillbilly armor, up-armor packages, etc. We should have done it right the first time, or not done it at all. We should still be doing things right the first time or not doing it at all...
Lets scroll back a hundred years to see the appearance of the first true British/American tanks worthy of the name. These hunks of steel, bristling with machine guns and small guns, were long enough to accomplish what they were originally designed forto bridge the gaps of trenches. In those days, this was perhaps a good idea. Review the realities of today again. Everything has changed. Virtually every fundamental tenet of modern warfare is different than it was in WWI. So why do we persist in reverting to brawn over brains?
In those days, all we had were metals and a cubic mentality. Today we understand there are lightweight materials perfectly suitable for making lighter and more maneuverable vehicles of war without sacrificing the protection necessary to make them worthy of deployment. Yet our powers that be have built and fielded a 21ST century version of the WWI tank.
Why?
There are some laws and rules that must be applied to the discussion. Obviously we know that our modern vehicles must be lightened. We have a multitude of materials now that werent dreamed of then. Most vehicles in this discussion use some type of composite armor, meaning a hybrid of several materials much stronger as an admixture than by themselves. To fully understand my contention, however, one must understand some basic Laws of Physics and Materials.
First of all we have Spectra, Dyneema and other lightweight soft material that can take up some of the weight.
But there are two laws that must be obeyed:
First, any projectile (or spall) traveling over 2,000fps will liquefy and penetrate just about any type of material. Imagine if you will a 22.250 cartridge. Its velocity is in the 4,000fps range. Now envision an M249 or Minimi type weapon putting out that sort of high velocity projectile at an incredible rate of fire and you begin to see some of the problem.
The second rule pertains to the shape of the armor. If it has a poor deflection angle, the round will penetrate rather than deflect. Take a lesson from our stealth aircraft. Its angles do the same thing, only with radar instead of hostile fire. The same principle applies to ballistic trajectory impact.
The reason boron carbide is so widely used is that it is a ceramic, which is essentially a glass. The majority of heavy duty anti-penetration materials in hard armor utilize this form of material. There are alternatives in play, such as pressing with an applied resin on top of soft armor until it hardens, then sandwiching it between some hard armor. One thing that has always taken me aback, though, is the lack of geometry used in armor design. Why was it such a surprise that we eventually put v-shaped boat hulls on armored vehicles? Did our modern designers just completely disregard the successful work of their Rhodesian forebears? V-shaped hulls were part of the way they tamed the landmines employed against them to such good effect by SWAPO, ZIPRA, ZANU and assorted other acronym-happy Communist-backed insurgents.
If youve ever seen the holes an 88 would punch into a Sherman tank in WWII, it is pretty apparent that they were cold-rolling (to the best of the contemporary technology) the armor. Then came Chobham, which basically utilizes a mixture of ceramics and different metallurgy. However, a balance of materials, placement, spaced methodology and geometry is the key to a true winning formula.
When discussing armor, one would be remiss not to bring up the subject of conventional Reactive Armor. These devices are nothing more than high speed reactive chemical bombs designed to detonate upon the impact of a hypervelocity shell. It is really meant to defeat copper jet penetrating charges, be they from an RPG or another tanks main gun round.
Although not specifically part of the subject matter at hand, its worth pointing out that anyone who appreciates what may become future armor will appreciate Electro-Magnetic Armor. EMA uses electricity to defeat shaped charge warheads such as those from RPGs. Repetitive live fire testing has proven not only the theoretical properties of EMA but the actual, demonstrated ability to defeat shaped charges.
I wont digress further by discussing other intelligent but somewhat whacky ideas such as Shear Thickening Fluids. From my understanding, development along these lines has been abjectly taken out with the garbage.
There are some good principles starting to come about that I believe originated with two or three different groups at once. These have to do with spacing, which in the light seem to make good ole fashioned sense.
Since weve all heard about how much Mine Resistant Vehicles weigh, its no wonder that scientists and material engineers continue to search for the elusive mixture of this and that necessary to reduce weight and retain the capacity to stop a hypervelocity round.
The offensive and defensive races for a defense-to-offense weapon is often elusive. This is NOT because the offensive weapon cannot be defeated. It is because nobody has grasped the necessary concepts or been given the green light to go ahead in reference to the consternating weapon.
Even if the JLTV is FCS compatible (which would be a big plus), the lightweight armor will still be of concern. The DoD is even now handing out massive contracts to the JLTV producers they feel best suited to construct them, but the armor problem has yet to really be solved.
There are a couple of things that must be brought into the overall picture:
1. The weight of the MRAP has already resulted in the stranding with personnel inside until reinforcements or flyboys arrive to bail them out. Still on the weight issue, youd better have a nice paved road for the beast, otherwise you WILL be stuck in the mud or sand. These cost a MILLION USD apiece? Its worth spending money to save troops, hell yes, but can we not do better? Could we design one that would crawl over rough terrain without tipping over?
2. Whatever the incarnation of the JLTV turns out to be, it will require the real and true next-gen armor. There are better answers than what is being considered now. They must eventually come into play because the majority of WIA and KIA suffered has been, horribly, due to a lack of thinking like good ole Heinz. Far better to put them into play now.
Look, military improvisation to deal with tactical problems isn't new to American war-making. Think about all they did when they hit the hedgerows in '44, or take a look at the pictures of sandbags held by chicken wire to the front glacis of Sherman tanks. My point here is that we should design our JLTVs, and whatever else we're going to go to besides the MRAPs, and make sure our troopers aren't having to improvise in some other faraway place to keep themselves whole.
Remember, do it right the first time...
To be continued...
Colin has an excellent piece up on DoD Buzz that's generated a ton of conversation over there so I thought I might share it over here...
The Obama transition team has issued ethics guidelines that are likely to make it extremely difficult to attract qualified defense industry appointees.
No political appointees would be able to work regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration, the new guidelines say.
You can understand the motivation behind it, but its not clear that you will get the best and brightest people who understand what needs to be done to serve in the government. As you know previous administrations have had great difficulty attracting people under the existing guidelines, a procurement expert with experience in and out of government told me this morning.
The Aerospace Industries Association recently published a report, Overcoming Barriers to Public Service, on the difficulties of finding good people.
Three of the candidates for senior Pentagon positions Paul Kaminski and Jacques Gansler for deputy secretary of Defense, and John Douglass for undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics might well benefit from the Obama strictures. All three men are eminent in their field, none of them have worked for a defense company recently and all are old enough that they probably would not have to scramble for a high paying job in industry after they leave government.
-- Colin
So, let me get this straight. Bush critics have been whining for years that the president wasn't doing enough to kill bin Laden and his deputies -- that he should essentially invade Pakistan, Syria and other places to kill him or Zawahiri if US officials get the right intel.
And now the New York Times -- after Obama wins largely on an anti-Bush referendum -- decides to publish a story that shows all the way back in 2004, the much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld secured an executive order form the president to allow the same kind of commando raids administration critics have been saying should have been pursued all along? And don't tell me the NYT didn't have a good portion of this story a month ago...this is an evergreen piece that didn't have any news hook to it other than the recent Syria raid, which is probably when Mazzetti and Schmitt fleshed out most of the sourcing.
Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda in Many Countries
WASHINGTON The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.
These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.
In 2006, for example, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Officials watched the entire mission captured by the video camera of a remotely piloted Predator aircraft in real time in the C.I.A.s Counterterrorist Center at the agencys headquarters in Virginia 7,000 miles away.
Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the C.I.A., according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on Oct. 26 of this year, the military commandos acted in support of C.I.A.-directed operations.
But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence.
More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.
Apart from the 2006 raid into Pakistan, the American officials refused to describe in detail what they said had been nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks, except to say they had been carried out in Syria, Pakistan and other countries. They made clear that there had been no raids into Iran using that authority, but they suggested that American forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.
According to a senior administration official, the new authority was spelled out in a classified document called Al Qaeda Network Exord, or execute order, that streamlined the approval process for the military to act outside officially declared war zones. Where in the past the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days when there were only hours to act, the new order specified a way for Pentagon planners to get the green light for a mission far more quickly, the official said.
Be sure to read the rest of the story HERE...
-- Christian
It was bitter cold. The harsh wind swept across their high mountain redoubt with only thin native blankets to shelter them from the bitter Afghan air. They were hours from resupply, carrying only what they could on their backs.
And that's just how they wanted it.
Peering through their high-tech spotting scopes and talking in low whispers to pilots above, the Delta Force operators high in the mountains of Tora Bora were warmed by the thought that they, more than anyone else in that desolate land, were killing more perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks than anyone else in the world.
For nearly a week, 40 of America's best trained, most elite Soldiers from the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta, or "Delta Force," combed the 14,000 foot peaks with wavering Afghan militia allies to hunt down the world's most wanted man: Osama bin Laden. In a first ever account, the man who shepherded those bearded warriors into Tora Bora's thin mountain air writes of the near misses, frustrated plans and weak-kneed guerrillas that stymied their quest for al Qaeda's top commanders.
Writing under the name "Dalton Fury," the Delta Force commander -- a major at the time - gives a detailed look in "Kill bin Laden: A Delta Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man" how the unit prepared for, planned and executed its complicated mission.
For Delta, it was an unprecedented task. A force best know for lightning-fast counterterrorism raids, long range reconnaissance and high value target snatches, the operators on the Tora Bora mission had to work a hybrid plan that combined unconventional warfare, intelligence collection, long-range logistics and close air support - all while waiting for the call to swoop down on an Osama hideout at a moment's notice.
"We went into a hellish land that was considered impregnable and controlled by al Qaeda leaders who had helped defeat the Soviet Union," Fury writes. "We killed them by the dozen. Many more surrendered. ... And we heard the demoralized -- bin Laden speak on the radio, pleading for women and children to fight for him."
"Then he abandoned them all and ran from the battlefield," Fury adds with some satisfaction. "Yes. He ran away."
(Though Defense Tech knows Fury's true name, we will honor his wishes and not reveal it here and I have updated my previous post with the redaction.)
As Fury tells it, his Delta colleagues racked up an impressive body count and thought for a while they had actually killed the al Qaeda leader or his deputy. But a reader can clearly see between the lines of "Kill bin Laden" that Fury was frustrated with his unit's lack of success in killing their key target. While dropping JDAMs on terrorist caves was gratifying, Fury never mentions a single shot fired by his operators in the entire early December 2001 engagement -- cold comfort to some of the best combat marksmen in the world who were itching for an up-close fight.
Fury is also disappointed by his commanders' reluctance to engage his operators more into the fight, mandating the reliance on Afghan militias to do most of the heavy lifting. His unit proposed two plans to corner bin Laden. One involved a backdoor, high-altitude mountaineering assault from the Pakistan border, the other called for sowing GATOR anti-personnel mines along the most likely approaches and escape routes to stymie an al Qaeda escape long enough for a commando assault.
Both plans were rejected by higher headquarters -- or the White House -- and Fury was left to the worst possible alternative: a frontal assault.
"Kill bin Laden" is one of the most detailed and informative descriptions of a battle forgotten by most Americans, but one that was truly the closest the West gotten to bin Laden since 9/11. It's not the "tell all" of Eric Haney's "Inside Delta Force" but compares well with Gary Bernsten's "Jawbreaker" in it's revelation of black ops.
And that's where Fury has bumped into the most controversy. Some in the Army Special Force community have rejected Fury for his breach of Delta's code of silence - a written and un-written rule among operators that one never speaks to outsiders of their endeavors. Credible online forums have already revealed Fury's true name, ignoring his pleas for anonymity for fear of endangering his family.
Fury declined several requests for an interview with Defense Tech to discuss this issue and details of his book.
Revealing his missions and opening Delta to the world in even this small way has earned "Kill bin Laden" scorn from portions of the special operations community. But Fury's critics never dispute his facts.
So give "Kill bin Laden" a read; the author did the American public a service by explaining to the victims of 9/11 how America tried to kill the mastermind behind that horrifying day, and it could serve to remind us all that "enemy number one" is still out there - and so is Delta, hunting him to the ends of the Earth.
-- Christian
Defense Tech is proud to announce the arrival of a new regular contributor to our blog.
You've seen a couple of his posts pimped here, but we've just brought on board Eric from Soldier Systems Industry Daily blog to help us get the word out on technical developments in the personal military and tactical equipment arena.
Eric brings 20 years of military experience to the Web -- split evenly between the Army and Air Force -- and much of that in the special operations world. Soldier Systems is a tapped in crew, pulling gouge from the industry and the services way before the competition.
We're thrilled to have them join us in a collaborative effort to bring the most relevant and cutting-edge gear innovations to Defense Tech readers -- stuff we all hope will help you folks in your worldly endeavors.
Here's another from our new bros at Soldier Systems Daily:
Manufactured from lightweight Acclimate® FR 100% Flame Resistant no melt cotton, the new XGO is the first FR Shemagh ever. The material passed the American Society for Testing and Materials vertical flame resistance test (ASTM 6413-99). What is just as fantastic is that the Shemagh is treated with Ag47 Silver Antimicrobial treatment to fight odor that builds up from using the Shemagh day after day in a hot dusty environment. It exceeds the standard for antimicrobial resistance in accordance with American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists test for determination of antimicrobial effect (AATCC 100).
This isn't some cheapo shemagh you buy down the souk, these are 100% American made. They have barely hit the market and have already been adopted as part of the BAMS kit.
Currently available in Tan and Coyote versions, XGO is capable of doing custom runs of colors and patterns. For more info, contact XGO on the web.
Again, please welcome Eric from Soldier Systems Daily to our growing list of contributors.
-- Christian
The number of attacks in Iraq is at its lowest level since January 2004, and this is proof of the growing capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, the vice chief of staff of the Iraqi Joint Forces said yesterday.
In a new study, “The Market for Light Military Rotorcraft,” Forecast International projects that 2,176 light rotorcraft will be produced for military use during the 10-year period from 2008 through 2107.
The Boeing Company today rolled out the first F-15SG jet fighter to the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). The F-15SG is a variant of the highly capable, combat-proven F-15E.
The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) rolled out its first F-15SG multi-role fighter aircraft at a ceremony on 3 Nov at St. Louis, Missouri, United States. The F-15SG roll-out marks yet another significant milestone in the transformation of the RSAF into a 3rd Generation Air Force.
The U.S. Army has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation a $97 million contract to procure, modify and deliver 12 Hunter MQ-5B Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft; six One-System Block II ground control stations; eight tactical common data link, ground data link terminal sets; two sets of ground support equipment; and four sets of spare parts.
Thanks to ESA and UK technology transfer support, a British company has developed a device based on the gamma-ray detection equipment used in ESA’s Integral astronomy satellite to detect and identify the radioactive material mixed with conventional explosives in ‘dirty bombs’.
Calling nuclear weapons one of the world's "messy realities," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here Oct. 28 that as long as others who could potentially threaten the United States possess or seek them, it's critical that the United States does as well, and that they be kept safe, secure and reliable.
A three-month process, planned a year in advance, involving hundreds of man-hours of detailed coordination with people at more than four Air Force bases funnels down to one aircraft, one missile, one sortie and the push of a button.
The RAF has taken delivery of the first of 91 new Typhoon combat aircraft, ordered four years ago and delivered on time and to cost. The new Defence Equipment and Support Minister Quentin Davies was at RAF Coningsby to witness the arrival of the second generation Typhoons.
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. together with Bluebird Aero Systems Ltd., announces that the SkyLite B, mini-UAV, reached the remarkable flight ceiling of 36,000 ft during recent demonstrations of operational flight capabilities for a tactical reconnaissance team operating in mountainous areas.
Steel items imported from India showing faint traces of radioactivity were found in Sweden, before the same substance was traced on Indian-made lift buttons in France, officials said Wednesday.
An Army unit originally formed to counter weapons of mass destruction in the United States now has more than 6,000 members and will continue to grow, said Brig. Gen. Jeffrey J. Snow.
The commander of Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) landed the unit's first F/A-18F Super Hornet at it's new home at Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon, Nev. Oct. 21.
The United States is updating its plans to defend Baltic allies against attack, its military chief said Wednesday, calling Russia's invasion of Georgia a "stark reminder" of NATO's responsibilities.