Even as a Russian naval task force enters the Caribbean for joint exercises with Venezuelan forces, and a pair of Russian Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers fly from a base in the Kola Peninsula to Venezuela, the Russian government is discussing the possibility of a satellite launch facility in Cuba.
Revelation of the interest in Cuba came from Anatoly Perminov, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, in a September statement. This may be the latest move by Russian prime minister (and former president) Vladimir Putin to reestablish Russia as a key "player" on the world political-military scene.
The Russian interest in the Caribbean-South America region is reflected in the high-level Russian delegation visiting the area, led by Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. Perminov is part of the Sechin delegation.
(Sechin had visited Cuba on 30-31 July of this year for talks with Raul Castro and, possibly, the ailing Fidel Castro.Putin followed up Sechin's visit with a 5 August announcement that Russia should "restore [its] position in Cuba and other countries.")
The Soviet Union-Russia was the principal political and economic supporter of Cuba from the early 1960s through the demise of the USSR in December 1991. Indeed, Soviet attempts to establish Cuba as a strategic missile and military base led to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 when the United States and Soviet union came closer to a nuclear exchange than at any other time during the 45-year Cold War. After the demise of the USSR support for Cuba ended, causing considerable economic hardship in Cuba.
A major satellite launch facility in Cuba would permit placing satellites in certain orbits that cannot be done from Russian launch sites: Easterly launches close to the equator are the most efficient because of the earth's rotation, maximizing the payload that a launch vehicle can boost into orbit. Such a launch facility and its support infrastructure would be a major source of employment and foreign investment for the Cuban economy.
From the Russian perspective, beyond the political impact of having a major technical facility less than 100 miles from the U.S. coast, it easily enables the reestablishment of a major intelligence collection capability in Cuba. (From the mid-1960s until 2002 the Soviet military intelligence agency -- the GRU -- operated a massive collection facility at Lourdes, Cuba. At its peak operation it was manned by more than 2,000 technicians, both military and civilian.)
Russia's interest in the Western Hemisphere far exceeds Cuba and Venezuela, as the Moscow regime seeks to sell arms to other South American countries, gain access to South American resources (which is now subject to major Chinese efforts), and to develop improved commercial ties to an area that many feel has long been ignored by the United States.
While some Americans will see a satellite launch facility in Cuba as a "cover" for the possible use of such launch stands for military missiles, that concern is a non-starter. U.S. satellite surveillance and the presence of numerous American technicians and businessmen in Cuba, as well as visiting educational groups, would make such a clandestine effort impossible.
Further, because of the non-military nature of such a facility -- which would take several years to establish -- the U.S. government would be hard pressed to claim that it violated the 1962 agreements between Moscow and Washington that prohibited strategic weapons -- missiles and bombers -- from being installed in Cuba.
As the Russian government reacts to American anger over Russian intervention in Georgia, the continuing expansion of NATO, and U.S. plans to install ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, a non-military satellite launch installation in Cuba could be considered a valid action by the Moscow regime. Of more concern to American leaders should be the arms sales to Venezuela, especially the expected sale of up to five advanced diesel-electric submarines of the Project 877EKM or Varshavyanka series, known in the West as the improved Kilo class.
These submarines and other arms sales -- and joint Russian-indigenous weapon programs -- will enhance Russia's influence and access to resources in South America. And that situation could greatly harm U.S. interests.
I've gotten my hands on an investigation report into the fire that nearly destroyed an MV-22 back in November during an NVG training flight near New River, N.C.
[NOTE: Picture is a scan from one provided in the investigation report]
Turns out, the fire sparked after the #3 hydraulic system ruptured due to pressure spikes from the engine air particle separator which filters inlet air before it is ingested by the engine. The hydraulic fluid spilled all over the IR suppression system, igniting the left nacelle into a ball of flame. The pilots and crew landed safely but the nacelle was a melted, twisted hulk. It caused $16 million in damages.
The crazy part is that this is a known problem. Our friend Bob Cox of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram has reported this same rupture before and his sources in the maintenance community indicate to him the problem is much worse than the Corps admits. In fact, the report shows a Airframe Change notice (#88) that calls for the installation of thicker hydraulic tubing in the EAPS system because of known pressure spikes that can cause a "catastrophic failure." That notice came out in August, three months before the November incident.
The Corps (an Navy) told us not to worry, this was a problem on the Block A aircraft and the retrofits would go on those. Problem is, the November fire happened on a Block B Osprey [CORRECTION: Corps PA says the mishap aircraft was indeed a Block A bird].
I'm working more sources on this and giving the Corps a chance to respond, so you won't see the final version of the story for another 36 hours. But I'll scan some of the docs and try to post them when I push this one live so you can determine for yourselves what's going on...
-- Christian
I just couldn't resist...
-- Christian
Multiple countries are now discussing the need to establish a comprehensive cyber protection program given the continued increase in the threat of cyber attacks and cyber warfare. The attack on Estonia and the more recent attack on Georgia are being viewed as the harbinger of what is to come. I was recently asked what might a comprehensive Cyber Protection Program (CPP) look like. So I thought I would put down my top ten areas that I think would be critical to include in a CPP.
1. Mandatory requirement to have up-to-date protection software on any device connecting to the Internet that includes:
This software will automatically upload attack data to a central reporting center.
2. Mandatory isolating capability on every system with high processing capabilities and a firewall on every device connecting to the Internet with the following functionality.
3. Legislation mandating software vendors comply with the following:
a. Report to authorities within 24 hours of discovery malware software vulnerabilities
b. Minimum security testing requirements that must be met prior to release of any software program.
4. Criminal laws specifically addressing the unique characteristics of cyber attacks, malicious code and system compromise including language that addresses the threat of DDos attacks.
5. Criminal laws specifically addressing the development and sale of cyber weapons.
6. Criminal and civil laws that address organizations who fail to immediately report cyber attacks or data breaches that include those who destroy evidence of cyber attacks, systems compromise and data theft.
7. Establishment of a quasi government/business entity that coordinates defensive and protective capabilities of the information infrastructure. This would also include a cyber attack and threat alerting system.
8. Establishing an Intelligence Center that is charged with cyber intelligence collection, analysis, trend reporting as well as collaboration across the other intelligence agencies.
9. A federal cyber attack investigation unit that is the center of excellence and develops tools and techniques as well as works with all other agencies and law enforcement to dissect cyber attacks and malicious code and assist with investigations.
10. Implement within the federal cyber attack investigation unit a division that provides sufficient audit and control measures to ensure the laws are being followed. The private sector has already proven self governance is unreliable to ensure adherence to the protection necessary for cyber defense.
Now I know there will be many comments about "big brother" and "big government," but given what has taken place thus far, I am not sure we have any other choice. It is deeply concerning that 85 percent of organizations have admitted they have had systems and data breaches. A significantly smaller number have actually reported them in accordance with the 40 data breach notification laws that are currently in place.
An improperly protected computer or other device connected to the Internet is a cyber weapon waiting to be loaded and used.
Pakistani troops fired at two US helicopters from the NATO-led force in Afghanistan Thursday, causing no damage but accusing them of crossing the border amid escalating tensions in the area.
Israel seriously considered bombing Iran's nuclear sites earlier this year but US President George W. Bush refused to support such a strike, according to a British newspaper report.
For once it seems the Army is actually turning fiction into science.
After nearly a decade in the shadows -- with billions spent on earlier versions long since abandoned -- the Army is moving quickly to field a revolutionary new weapon to Joes a lot sooner than anyone had ever imagined.
It's a weapon that can take out a bad guy behind a wall, beyond a hill or below a trench, and do it more accurately and with less collateral damage than anything on the battlefield today, officials say. It's called the XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapon, and by next month the service will have three prototypes of the precision-guided 25mm rifle ready for testing.
"We've done a lot of testing with this, and what we're seeing is the estimated increase in effectiveness is six times what we'd be getting with a 5.56mm carbine or a grenade launcher," said Rich Audette, Army Deputy Project Manager for Soldier weapons.
"What we're talking about is a true 'leap ahead' in lethality, here. This is a huge step," Audette added during a phone interview with Military.com from his office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
Born of the much-maligned and highly-controversial Objective Individual Combat Weapon -- a 1990s program that sought a "leap ahead" battle rifle that combined a counter-defilade weapon with a carbine -- the XM25 only recently gained new momentum after the Army formalized a requirement and released a contract in June for a series of test weapons.
Current infantry weapons can shoot at or through an obstacle concealing enemy threats, but the Army has been trying for years to come up with a weapon for engaging targets behind barriers without resorting to mortars, rockets or grenades -- all of which risk greater collateral damage. After fits and starts using a 20mm rifle housed in a bulky, overweight, complicated shell, technology finally caught up to shave the XM25 from 21 pounds to a little more than 12 pounds.
If the XM25 does what its developers hope, it will be able to fire an air-bursting round at a target from 16 meters away out to 600 meters with a highly accurate, 360-degree explosive radius.
The semi-auto XM25 comes with a four-round magazine, though testers are looking at whether to increase the capacity to as much as 10 rounds.
Brains are what really makes this Buck Rogers gun work -- it has them. The weapon combines a thermal optic, day-sight, laser range finder, compass and IR illuminator with a fire-control system that wirelessly transmits the exact range of the target into the 25mm round's fuse before firing.
A Soldier can aim the XM25 at a wall concealing a sniper, for example, but "dial in" or adjust the distance by an additional meter above the target. When fired, the Alliant Teksystems-built round will explode above the enemy's position, essentially going around the obstruction, Muldowney said.
"It's so accurate, that when I laze to that target I'm going to be able to explode that round close enough that I'm going to get it," Audette added.
The service hopes to field several types of 25mm rounds for the XM25 -- for breaching doors, piercing armor, even non-lethal air burst and impact rounds, and an anti-personnel round.
Testers at Picatinny plan to put the XM25 through its paces over the next several months, certifying it as safe for a Soldier to operate and tinkering with the weapon's effectiveness and durability.
The weapon costs about $25,000 each, but experts were quick to point out that a fully-loaded M4 for optics and pointers costs pretty close to $30,000. Each ATK-made 25mm round costs about $25.
As Heckler and Koch, makers of the weapon itself, and L3 Communications -- which makes the fire control system -- crank out more weapons, the Army plans to push them out to the field for testing beginning in March 2009. That could include the first use of such a weapon in combat, Cline said.
If all goes according to plan, Soldiers might have their first XM25s in hand by 2014, far sooner than the Army's small arms community had predicted even last year.
The program "came very close to ending," Audette explained. "But the Army took a look at all the work that was done -- and the testing that projected the kind of lethality increase that we could get -- and they said 'we've got to do this.' "
-- Christian
In a successful test of its advanced fire control system, Lockheed Martin's Aegis Open Architecture Weapon System performed a successful missile firing from the U.S. Navy's "USS Desert Ship" at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR).
Australian warships, combat aircraft and soldiers are to join with air, ground and naval forces from Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to practice inter-operability between the nations.
South Africa’s Denel Group showed a range of new defence products and systems for the first time at Africa Aerospace & Defence (AAD2008) that took place in Cape Town last week.
India is to buy 30 more carrier borne Mig-29K (Fulcrum-D) fighters for the Indian navy and an agreement to this effect would be firmed up during the upcoming visit of Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov's to India next week.
The first flight of the A400M, until now planned before the end of 2008 will be postponed, because of the unavailability of the propulsion system.
Russia may launch nuclear energy cooperation with Venezuela, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Thursday during talks with the country's fiercely anti-US leader Hugo Chavez.
A team of 170 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been tasked with recruiting, training and equipping the Afghan National Army Air Corps.
Lt. Gen. Michael A. Hamel, the former commander of the Air Forces Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is one of the generals who has been punished in connection with the services nuclear lapses. Hamel was reprimanded, according to a source who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. He is retiring effective Oct. 1, according to the official Air Force web site. Hamel was responsible for managing the research, design, development, acquisition and sustainment of space and missile systems, launch, command and control, and operational satellite systems. The formal announcement of the punishments will be made at 3 p.m. today by Acting Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.
[NOTE: Follow this minute-by-minute breaking scandal at DoD Buzz. We'll be taking calls from sources and asking the hard questions at the Pentagon briefing in an hour.]
-- Colin Clark
A giant US aircraft carrier docked here Thursday to become the first US nuclear-powered vessel based overseas, setting off protests in the only nation to have suffered atomic attack.
A U.S. Air Force F-15C completed the first captive carry test of Raytheon's AIM-9X Block II air-to-air missile. The infrared-guided AIM-9X Block II missile faced the same stressors -- wind, vibration and altitude -- that it would encounter during an operational mission.
[Editor's Note: Colin broke this story last week and has a follow up that we posted last evening on the continuing fallout from the Air Force (and DLA) nuke scandals.
A source tells me he's upset by the double standard of this punishment versus the one handed out from the Minot incident. He wonders whether there's more to the after action report on the mis-shipped fuses than meets the eye.
Obviously, our sources would not give us any names -- but we did confirm this is going to be announced today at 4pm. The AP came out with a story on this issue about the same time we posted...but Colin got it first with his own sourcing...Great work...]
In further fallout from the nuclear scandals that have plagued a beleaguered Air Force, the Pentagon is set to announce Thursday afternoon that at least seven general officers -- including at least one three-star general -- and five to seven colonels have been disciplined in connection with nuclear lapses, according to two sources familiar with the issue.
The generals are expected to be named; the colonels will remain anonymous.
A congressional aide confirmed the timing of the announcement but did not know how many officers were to be disciplined or what their punishments might be.
"They are holding this extraordinarily close," the aide said of Air Force and Pentagon officials.
Earlier sources - who sought anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter -- had indicated the number of general officers to be reprimanded stood at five, but that number has climbed since last week.
The Pentagon is expected to announce the names of the general officers and their punishments at 4 p.m. on Thursday, following a long meeting on Monday during which several of the punishments were reconsidered.
Sources declined to specify whether punishments were changed, nor would they name those to be disciplined. But there is clearly concern that the Air Force has rushed to judgment in an effort to put the nuclear mess behind it.
One source said he is not "convinced the Air Force did its own thorough investigation," adding the service accepted the Schlesinger and Donald reports about the nuclear lapses at face value "so they could make the 'sacrificial offering' and move on quickly."
A second source voiced similar concerns.
A report by Navy Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, into the nuclear enterprise detailed a loss of oversight from senior Air Force leaders and lowered performance related to the nuclear mission.
Read the rest of this story and other kick-butt news breaks at DoD Buzz.
-- Colin Clark
Pakistan's army said Wednesday it was investigating the crash of a suspected unmanned US spy plane near the Afghan border amid claims by tribesmen they had shot it down.
Today's military communications systems consist of more than phones and radios. The market encompasses the sharing of voice, data, video and imagery communications in near real-time while adding encryption protection to ensure the exchanges are private.
The 10,000th mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle is scheduled to be delivered to troops supporting Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom Sept. 25 by Air Mobility Command Airmen.
E-2C Hawkeye 849, equipped with a new glass cockpit and navigation upgrades, completed its first test flight as part of the Communication Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management system evaluation Aug. 13.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), a leading manufacturer of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and tactical reconnaissance radars, today announced that it has successfully passed acceptance test procedure (ATP) testing for the first of five Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft
An Air Combat Command RQ-4A Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system from the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., made a trans-Atlantic flight Sept. 20 with the assistance of Navy officials.
Air Force-funded researchers at HRL Laboratories in Malibu, Calif., are working on holographic impedance surfaces for antennas that will give aircraft improved aerodynamics.
Quick and dirty, here are the basic defense spending decisions made by the House Appropriations Committee as Congress races to adjourn for the November elections. Highlights of the continuing resolution (since a stand-alone appropriations bill wont be passed) include funding for one DDG-1000, $750 million for ISR needs, the JSF second engine program and advance funding for 20 more F-22s.
Shipbuilding: $14.1 billion (same as administrations request). Congress wants to build eight ships one more than the request. Heres the list: one LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock; one DDG-1000 Guided Missile Destroyer; one Virginia Class Submarine; two Littoral Combat Ships; two T-AKE cargo ships; and one Intra-Theater Troop Transport Ship.
Planes: Joint Strike Fighter: $6.3 billion, same as the administrations request but Congress slices the money differently, including $2.9 billion for 14 aircraft (two fewer than the request) and $430 million for the second engine program that was not included in the presidents request, for a total of $3.4 billion in RDTandE.
F-22: The House will almost certainly approve $2.9 billion for 20 F-22s, but another $523 million (not requested) is included for advance procurement of anotherl 20 F-22s.
Ground systems: Future Combat Systems: The House approved $3.6 billion, $26 million more than the budget request to speed up the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Unmanned Ground Vehicle programs.
The continuing resolution includes $150 million in advance procurement money for a fourth Advanced Extremely High Frequency communications satellite that the administration did not want.
Finally, the House appropriators included $750 million that the administration did not request for urgent intelligence needs, items identified by the Pentagons ISR Task Force.
-- Colin Clark
This article first appeared at AviationWeek.com.
AgustaWestland has begun flying the pilot production version of its VH-71A variant of the AW101 for the U.S. presidential helicopter program. The helicopter, PP-1, was flown from the company's Yeovil site in England on September 22. It is the first of five production aircraft that will be built under Increment 1 of the program, with 23 improved helicopters to be produced under the follow-on Increment 2.
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the VH-71 program, is installing the first mission systems in two Increment 1 test vehicles, TV-3 and TV-4, at its presidential helicopter integration facility in Owego, New York. Another two helicopters, TV-1 and TV-5, are continuing air-vehicle flight testing at the U.S Navy's Patuxent River test center in Maryland.
Read the rest of this story, see how FCS is moving forward, chart the submersible drug catcher and explore the myths of Airlift from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.
-- Christian
Well, it looks as if the Army has again officially opened the can of worms that is the debate revolving around a replacement for the M16/M4. With this go around however, the Army says all limitations are off. They say theyre willing to consider any caliber, any operation system, and any configuration.
Given the Armys track record with sticking with the M16/M4 through thick and thin, as well as the Armys previous position that it would stick with the M4 until there was a revolutionary breakthrough in small arms technology (hand held death rays?) Im taking this most recent statement with a salt lick, but in as much as they are soliciting ideas, I might as well offer up mine.
On its face, it would seem that there are only three real issues to consider; how big (in caliber) how many (bullets in the magazine) and how to crank it (what operating system do you go with.) Once you settle on those, putting them together is packaging. While there are any number of cartridges and operating systems that offer obvious advantages over the M16s feeble 5.56mm bullet and wretched gas carrier key operating system, if you wanted a truly revolutionary replacement for the M4, I would put my money on the H&K G11.
For those of you not in the know (not that I am, but I remember when it was developed) the H&K G11 rifle was developed as a replacement for the 7.62mm G3 battle rifle in the 1970s. What the Germans wanted to develop was a weapon with a large ammunition capacity (50 rounds) low weight (< 10 pounds loaded) flat trajectory (no sight corrections at <300m) and a high degree of accuracy in 3-round burst mode.
To meet the burst accuracy requirement there were two ways to go, either fire projectiles simultaneously (shotgun shells or duplex rounds) or fire bullets very fast. The shotgun shell method was dropped because the bullets which would do the job not only generated too much recoil to be effective, but their size put them outside the round capacity requirement, so H&K went with the shoot really, really fast approach. This is where the G11 comes into its own as a revolutionary weapon.
H&K realized that the bigger the bullet, the more propellant it would require to drive it, and that propellant would be translated into not only recoil to be absorbed by the shooter but a loss of overall ammunition capacity in the magazine. One solution was to use a smaller bullet. The 4.73x33mm bullet developed for the G11 is smaller that the 5.56mm bullet currently used in the M16 but the high degree of accuracy with the G11 in burst mode makes the G11 as accurate firing 3 shots as the M16 firing one, so the combined effect on the target, with the G11, is greater.
The second issue was dealing with the recoil. As has been documented since the invention of the first shoulder-fired automatic weapons, felt recoil will bring the weapon off target, thus rendering accurate, aimed automatic fire impossible at desirable ranges. H&Ks solution was to eliminate the issue by having the weapon fire a 3-round burst so fast that the bullets were out of the barrel and going down range before the recoil reached the shooter.
Again, how H&K did this was pretty slick. To speed up the firing process H&K eliminated several steps in the firing sequence, specifically locking, unlocking, extracting and ejecting, by going with a caseless ammunition, where the propellant, rather than held in a metal casing behind the bullet, is actually molded around it. This eliminated the need for extracting and ejecting spent casings, as there were no cartridges to extract, since, when fired, the propellant body was consumed and the bullet launched out the barrel. Using a caseless cartridge also enabled H&K to not only make lighter bullets (there was no weight wasted in metal casings) but also allowed them to pack more of the bullets into a given space (since the bullets are square, theres no wasted space in the magazine.) The net result was a cyclic ROF of 2,000 RPM in 3-round burst mode (in single shot and full auto, the ROF is only 460 RPM.) An additional benefit with going with caseless ammunition was the elimination of additional openings for contamination. Lacking an ejection port, the G11s chamber remains relatively sterile.
To eliminate the recoil issue H&K floated the barrel and action on a secondary recoil mechanism. The effect here was that when the burst was fired, the body of the rifle would remain stationary against the firers shoulder, while the action and barrel recoiled down the secondary rail; by the time the action came completely out of battery, where the recoil would be felt by the shooter, the burst cycle would be complete (a recoil spring pushes the action back into battery for the next burst.)
The end result was a weapon that was light, with a high ammunition capacity, and which was capable of firing accurate 3-rounds bursts.
So what happened to the G11? Well, as luck would have it, as the G11 was nearing production capability, peace broke out all over the world and with all the lions-and-lambs group hugging going on, the West German government decided it had more important things to do than buy a bunch of new wunder rifles, (like look for jobs for all its new citizens from the East zone) so the program was shelved.
Well, if the Army is looking for revolutionary, I dont think you can get any more revolutionary than this. I just dont expect the Army to explore it.
-- Eric Daniel
North Korea, accusing Washington of breaking a nuclear disarmament deal, said Friday it is working to restart its atomic reactor and no longer wants US concessions promised under the pact.
The first UK Tranche 2 twin-seat Typhoon is now in the final stages of assembly at BAE Systems Warton. The Tranche 2 Typhoon will provide the customer with an increased capability thanks to the improved speed and power of the aircraft’s computers combined with the stronger airframe to enable the aircraft to carry heavier weapons.
Lockheed Martin's Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) recently deployed on the B-1B Lancer in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Aircrews deployed with Sniper technology marked a combat first in August when they successfully targeted and engaged enemy forces on the ground.
The Indian government welcomed a decision by nuclear supplier nations to end the decades-old ban on trading with the country, saying it would propel India's future economic growth.
India's government hailed as "historic" a decision Saturday by nuclear supplier nations to end the country's nuclear pariah status and adopt a US initiative to allow atomic trade with New Delhi.
France's President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Thursday that pulling out of Afghanistan, where 10 French troops were killed by the Taliban last month, would amount to abandoning nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Any decision by Australia to scrap a deal to sell uranium to Russia to protest its action in Georgia would be "politically biased" and economically harmful, Moscow's envoy to Canberra has reportedly warned.
The U.S. Navy's leadership has shown unprecedented ineptitude in the handling of surface ship programs. The previous (and ongoing) mass of problems with the amphibious ships of the LPD 17 class and the littoral combat ships (LCS) seem to pale in comparison to the handling of the DDG 1000 "destroyer" program.
For eight years the Congress and public have heard the Navy's leadership -- civilian and uniformed -- declare that they wanted no more ships of the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class. Sixty-two of these destroyers are in service or under construction.
Chiefs of Naval Operations Vern Clark (July 2000 -- July 2005), Michael Mullen (July 2005 -- September 2007), and Gary Roughead (since September 2007) had been adamant that the DDG 1000 was the surface combatant of the future. All three admirals are surface warfare specialists, giving credibility to their statements.
Furthermore, the 30-year shipbuilding plan, which the Navy Department presented to Congress in February 2008 (covering the period fiscal years 2009-2038) still indicated a total of 32 DDG 1000s.
The DDG 1000 program -- assigned the class name Zumwalt -- dates to the early 1990s and a Mission Needs Statement that evolved from the Navy's post-Cold War strategy paper from the Sea (1992). The strategy postulated that future Navy emphasis should be oriented toward supporting joint/coalition operations against the shore. The "land-attack destroyer" and DD-21 concepts followed, evolving into the DDG 1000.
But this spring the Navy's leadership essentially stopped supporting the DDG 1000 within weeks of contracts being awarded to construct the first two ships. At the same time, the Navy's leaders began advocating for eight or nine additional Burke-class destroyers. Now, at congressional instigation, the third DDG 1000, which is in the president's fiscal year 2009 budget, is also being supported by the Navy leadership.
Another turn-around? Not really, as the Burkes are still being asked for in addition to the three DDG 1000s. As indicated in an earlier blog, the DDG 1000 offers improved capabilities in most warfare areas compared to the earlier destroyer as well as greatly enhanced survivability features. Indeed, the Burke-class destroyer design, which dates back to 1979, will be extensively modified compared to the earlier ships, in part because of basic upgrades to that design, and in part because newer features must be provided to make the ships viable for the next three decades. These changes and other factors will increase the cost of the new Burkes to at least $2 billion per ship compared to just over $1 billion for those units now being completed. (By comparison, in production the DDG 1000s are estimated to cost about $2.5 billion after the first two ships, which are estimated at $3 billion each.)
The situation is confusing, in large part because of the actions of the Navy's leadership. This state of affairs will lead to the new Congress and the new Secretary of Defense undoubtedly taking more control of the Navy's shipbuilding program next January.
Airmen employed a Guided Bomb Unit-54 laser Joint Directed Attack munition Aug. 12 against a moving enemy vehicle in the Diyala province to support a combined Iraqi army and U.S. Marine operation.
The economic affairs ministry has extended negotiations it is conducting with the Dutch defence industry on their contribution from sales achieved from the participation in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The White House said Thursday that it was considering scrapping a US-Russia civilian nuclear cooperation pact in response to Moscow's actions in Georgia.
Lockheed Martin has received a $61 million follow-on contract for Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Unitary rockets. To date, more than 850 GMLRS rockets have been fired in the Global War on Terror.
Boeing and the U.S. Navy delivered a proposal Aug. 15 offering the advanced F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to the Royal Danish Air Force as part of Denmark's New Combat Aircraft competition.
It looks like the Air Force got a new arrow in its quiver recently with the first employment in combat of the new Guided Bomb Unit 54 -- a hybrid Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Guided Bomb.
Seems that the Air Force issued an urgent need statement for a 500 lb. munition that could take out moving targets. Maybe the fighter jocks were getting jealous of their missile-wielding robot friends who seem to be the go-to platforms for such moving target engagements.
Officials in Iraq announced that on Aug. 12 (why could they not talk about this any sooner? Typical Air Force) F-16s had engaged a moving vehicle with the so-called LJDAM:
The GBU-54 is the U.S. Air Forces newest 500-pound precision weapon, equipped with a special targeting system that uses a combination of GPS and laser guidance to accurately engage and destroy moving targets.
On, Aug. 12, 2008, F-16s from the 77th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron deployed to Joint Base Balad, Iraq, successfully executed this combat first when the weapon was employed against a moving enemy vehicle in Diyala province, Iraq...
Identified as an urgent operational need in early 2007, the Air Force completed the GBU-54s development and testing cycle in less than 17 months, fielding it aboard 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing aircraft in May.
We have consistently used precision-guided weapons to engage stationary threats with superb combat effects, said Brig. Gen. Brian Bishop, 332nd AEW commander. This weapon allows our combat pilots to engage a broad range of moving targets with dramatically increased capabilities and it increases our ability to strike the enemy throughout a much, much broader engagement envelope...
"At end game, on Aug. 12, the team of the joint terminal attack controller, alongside his ground unit commander in this event, ensured all criteria were met for the first combat delivery of the LJDAM. And finally, our F-16 pilot accurately and precisely delivered and guided the weapon to desired weapons effects, the disabling and destruction of an enemy vehicle and personnel, Gen.North said.
All right, so ignore the retarded "cop speak" of the last paragraph (I mean, who says "ensured all criteria were met for combat delivery" -- just say "we lazed the target and said 'cleared hot!' ") -- this seems like a pretty interesting development and one that could improve the Air Force's ability to play in an urban fight. But my question is how expensive is it and what's the ROI compared to a hellfire shot by a Reaper? Again, it looks once more like the Air Force saw an "urgent need" to give its fighter jocks a job other than CAS orbits and "tron banging" for IEDs.
-- Christian
The situation in Afghanistan has gotten me pretty pissed off these days. I got off the phone a little while ago with the commander of a battalion of Marines -- 2nd battalion, 7th Marine Regiment -- who's trying to hold back the waters of "Taliban" violence manning the ramparts of a 28,000 square kilometer area of operations ... a swath the size of Vermont, he said.
Because of this lack of forces, Lt. Col. Richard Hall, the battalion CO, has lost by my count 13 Marines in the short time he's been in Afghanistan. That's getting close to the total number of Marines killed in Iraq this year. Hall's been extended once already -- and he's praying for relief by November if Gates will free up some Marines from Anbar (Iraq) as the commandant reiterated his desire to do today at the Pentagon.
My fundamental question is how could we have let it get this bad? Hall said he's got no coalition forces buffering his provinces (Helmand and Farah) to the north, so the enemy slips back and forth with impunity. He says the "Taliban" that are killing his men aren't religious fanatics -- they're criminals who are pissed about the disruption of their smuggling routes.
A couple weeks ago, we talked to the deputy director for operations at Centcom, Brig. Gen. Robert Holmes. He said the enemy in Afghanistan has gotten "more organized" and in some cases stronger. Stronger!?
"Well, we've seen, fighting season after fighting season, the Taliban have become more organized. And their fighting, in terms of being in units, has become more organized, and in some cases stronger."
How can that have been allowed to happen after more than six years in-country?
There's no excuse. Other than the obvious, I guess. the USG put Afghanistan on the back burner to get Iraq squared away and now it's turning back to the fight. Hall said his Marines are getting attacked in the "spaces in between the districts" -- the no man's land of rock and sand roads that connect the arid villages of his AO to one another. Hall said he doesn't have enough men to "hold" the villages and that his original mandate was to train and mentor the Afghan army and police there.
"There are not enough forces here to completely control those districts, so there is going to be risks. And consequently, the casualties do come. ... The way I'm task-organized right now, I as a infantry battalion don't have the numbers of Marines that can effectively operate within all these different districts as well as influence the area in between those districts. And that is where we normally get hit by the enemy, is in between those districts that we don't control."
Ummm, didn't we figure out that more troops were needed to "hold" Iraqi towns after the insurgents and AQ guys were kicked out? And somehow we didn't know we need to do that in Afghanistan...?
And most of Hall's casualties are from IEDs. Why? Because he can't patrol enough to keep bad guys from building and emplacing them. The commandant said there's about 40 MRAPs with Marines in Afghanistan. MRAPs aren't going to defeat IEDs; counterinsurgency tactics will. And the risk of rollover and getting stuck on some dirt road in one of those "bank safes on wheels" makes it a heck of a juicy ambush target.
It's not about tech, it's about tactics and manpower. Let's hope now that Petraeus is taking over Centcom he can have some influence over pushing more troops to Afghanistan to get this thing back in the bottle.
-- Christian
Along with U.S. Africa Command going fully operational Oct. 1, the Defense Department will reach another milestone as U.S. Southern Command officials complete a major reorganization that also promotes joint, interagency and even private- and public-sector cooperation.
For decades its name could not be spoken outside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or mentioned to someone without at least TS/SCI clearance.
It built wondrous satellites that did things like detecting missile launches from space that no one had believed possible until the National Reconnaissance Office did them.
But a string of failures, goofs and budget busters, combined with the increasing importance of intelligence gathered by air breathing assets such as Predator and Global Hawk drones, has led a prestigious commission of space experts to recommend that the NRO be merged with Space and Missile Systems Command to create something called the National Security Space Organization.
The recommendation is made by something called the Allard Commission, which was created by Congress last year. It is led by the national security space guru Tom Young, a former Lockheed Martine executive and the man who always seems to get the call to figure out how to fix space when things go wrong. Young has kept his panels recommendations under wraps but word began leaking out last week.
The plan would also lead to stripping the Air Force of its executive agent for space the person who serves the Office of Secretary of Defense as the lead on unclassified space acquisitions and transferring it to the new authority. This office will also have budget authority for all space programs.
This would include a combination of the NRO and SMC and other elements of Air Force Space Command to create a single National Security Space Command.
A veteran space intelligence expert, Bob Butterworth, rejected the Allard Commissions proposals, especially its efforts to integrate so-called black (NRO) and white (military) space. The effort to integrate is just misconceived, he said. People who even started out doing black-white integration mostly gave up after going through the first space based radar experience. Space Radar was an idea generated from the top of the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon. It was supposed to provide the US with both moving target indication the ability to track trucks and tanks and highly refined strategic radar imagery of use to the intelligence community. The idea has foundered on the rocks of wildly differing requirements and enormous cost.
Integration exponents also argue that the space industrial base is largely shared between the two communities. Thus, integrating programs could save money and lessen the strain on the limited pool of engineers and other specialists needed to build satellites and their sensors.
That has not been documented. It is just hand waving as far as I can tell, Butterworth said.
For those watch these things closely, the Allard Commissions use of the NSSO name has caused considerable confusion in the rumor mill. Was the commission recommending dissolution of the NSSO, an office without budgetary authority that advises the Pentagons executive agent for space? No. It was suggesting creation of an entirely new organization.
Part of the NROs problem is that under current law no one really knows including congressional aides who help write the laws deciding this who is in charge of classified acquisition programs. This raises the question, who is in charge, and that is unanswerable, said a congressional aide. For background on some of this, see last weeks story on the BASIC program.
Does this mean the NRO will vanish? The name may change, the organization may be rebuilt but the functions wont disappear. More on this tomorrow.
-- Colin Clark
The agreement between the United States and Poland on ballistic missile defense is important for the relationship between the two countries and for the NATO alliance, a senior State Department official said today.
NATO should not be able to use Russian routes to transit supplies and equipment to Afghanistan because Russia has suspended military co-operation with the Western alliance, the country's ambassador to Kabul argued in an interview published Tuesday.
The September issue of Soldiers magazine highlights the use of gaming throughout the Army.
DCNS, a world leader in the design and realisation of advanced naval defence systems, today announced the completion of the New Frigate Programme for the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), with the delivery of RSS Supreme (73).
It's the term the 512th ACF uses for the C-5 Galaxys they've inspected and accepted back into the Air Force inventory after receiving a modernized glass cockpit and avionics upgrade through the Avionics Modernization Program.
The United States said Monday there were no indications Russia would renege on arms reduction pacts, such as the START I nuclear weapons treaty, following the conflict over Georgia but warned that such a move "will be crossing a new threshold."
The United States accused North Korea Tuesday of violating a six-nation nuclear accord and retained it on a terror blacklist, after the hardline communist state defiantly suspended disabling its atomic plants.
The company shall be the exclusively responsible party to SSM regarding the design, development, integration, prototype production, testing, qualification of the first Turkish National Main Battle Tank (ALTAY Tank) and all activities contained in the Project.
The Air Force Information Technology Conference kicked off Aug. 25 in Montgomery as members of the 754th Electronics System Group host the week-long seminar for approximately 5,600 government and civilian attendees.
China on Tuesday urged countries involved in negotiations aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear programmes to honour their commitments after Pyongyang said it had stopped disabling its plants.
The Royal Netherlands Army (RNLA) has indentified a need for five Short-Range Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (SRTUAVs).
Iranian state television has reported the launch of a domestic program to produce a midsize submarine built completely by the state. The submarine program - named Ghaem - was inaugurated by Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammed Najjar on August 25.
According to a report in the Polish press, the Ministry of Defense is seeking to make a rapid purchase of 40 personnel carriers that are more heavily-armored than the U.S.-produced Humvees currently being used by Polish forces in Afghanistan.
Jason posted this comment a while back on my What is a Combat Handgun? entry.
When I got out I worked personal security for individuals. I had to take 3 levels of firearms qualification classes. Even with my experience several of my instructors asked me to try the revolver (yes I am going there)
I was skeptical. But in their opinions (all were similar), if I got the **** scared out of me I would be more accurate with a revolver. I went to a gun shop after doing some research and picked up a S&W Model 66. Stainless steel, .357 Magnum, and adjustable sights. Night sights too.
I started practicing with it every night for about an hour during my courses and would shoot both types of firearms. No question I could get two in the chest and a head shot (had to unlearn that per my instructors, though...) even when worked up (we did push ups, sit ups and ran in place and then went into shooting scenarios and drills at the sound of a whistle).
In my very few engagements I felt 100% better with the revolver. Stainless steel doesn't rust and conceals nicely when not in use. Speed loaders are exceptionally fast to load when taught the right technique. And a .357+P hollow point round will mess the BG up.
Besides aren't almost all of these engagements where you switched to a pistol for whatever reason CQB. You are going to end up stabbing the BG in the head or chest anyway when the gun is empty, so reloading is unlikely.
I know the instructors who taught me had rarely seen statistics that involved a successful engagement between two combatants where the winner (good or bad) had fired many more than 3-6 rounds. Anything with more shots than that fired usually involved one or more of the combatants retreating and looking for cover with someone or both wounded. All instructors (to my best recollection) had fired their handguns successfully as I remember. That is what made me pay such good attention.
Jasons comment got me to thinking.
Why not?
Fine, revolvers, as battlefield weapons went out of style in the American army a century ago (surviving until recently as aircrew holdout weapons) and they dont carry as many bullets as modern automatics go (6 v. 15) but is the revolver really that bad as a defensive firearm when compared with an automatic?
I would think, from a purely layman perspective, that revolvers would have a number of things going for them, as a mass-produced, mass-issued defensive firearm.
Firstly, they are reliable. Yes, I know that most properly maintained military-grade weapons are reliable, but I would think that a revolver would have an advantage over an automatic in that it has fewer moving parts and its operation isnt dependent upon the effective transfer of energy (be the slide gas or recoil operated.) Theres no energy to be lost, no slide to bind, no failures to extract, eject, or feed. In short, if you can get the hammer to fall, the weapon should function as advertised. Hell, even if you get a misfire, theres no SPORTS to perform, you just pull the trigger again.
Secondly, they are durable. Again, Im not saying that automatics are not durable, but I would think, especially when compared with a polymer-slided auto, the all-metal revolver has a longer working life. Now, to clarify further, when I mean durable, I mean 30-50 years durable. My issue .45 was 40 years old for Petes sake. Yes, I think modern firearms are, for the most part, well built and will provide years of service, but I do believe theres a difference between a sportsman who uses the same handgun for target practice for 10 years and a weapon that gets issued to soldiers for field duty over a 30 year period; in general the Army pistol will see more abuse and have a poorer maintenance program, so soldier-proof weapons are a big plus (now before all you out there bag on me about dissing your weapon maintenance habits, youll notice I didnt mention you by name, so I wasnt talking about you.) How many police officers us hand me down weapons that old, or stick with the dame duty weapon for that period of time? Durability would also translate to maintenance costs as well. With fewer moving parts, there would be fewer parts to replace over the life of the weapon, though this might be negated by the cost of having to replace a barrel (Ive never replaced a revolver barrel, mind you, but its got to be harder to do than swapping out one in an automatic) but then, on the flip side, there are no magazines or magazine springs to replace either.
Finally, there are the politics and training considerations. Revolvers are double action only weapons (okay, sure, if we brought back the Colt SAA, wed have a cool single-action handgun in .45 Colt, but I dont see that happening) which means that they are politically more palatable than are SA weapons (which also dovetails well with the fact that a revolver only has 6 bullets rather than 15.) Mind you, Im not saying that this is a good thing, or that it is even appropriate to entertain such considerations when selecting a piece of life saving equipment, but nonetheless, the fact remains that it does happen, and so it would be a consideration. In addition, in the one-size-fits-all category, a revolver would have the advantage over all the double stacked autos out there, and with the case of the .38 special/.357 magnum combination, youd even have the added bonus of issuing different rounds if you wanted to (yes the same could be said of automatics, but to get an automatic to function reliably with either a different cartridge or lower powered cartridge youd need to swap out some parts to account for the change in slide operating recoil.) Also in the ammunition realm is the discussion of anything other than ball type ammunition. Since we are never going to use anything other than ball ammunition (at least until personal linear accelerators come out) in the rank-and-file military, comparing .357 JHP to .45 WC to .460 Nitro Express is pointless and non-productive. Again, Im not saying this is a good thing, but it is something that those in power seem to focus on, so its worth mentioning.
All this having been said, however, there are a number of huge, real world, realities that a revolver would have to overcome in order to get selected.
First, there is the dearth of revolver ammunition in the military supply system, which is to say theres none at all. Before we all started shooting our new wheel guns, wed need some bullets to shoot first (no, I dont see the Army adopting a 9x19mm revolver, though given how things have been going of late in procurement, I wouldnt be surprised if they did.) I also realize that thered be the issue of overall effectiveness.
Second, all those revolvers would have to be purchased, and those purchases mean money. This issue is further compounded by the fact that revolvers, at least on the free market, appear to be more expensive than automatics (I came to this conclusion by looking at the MSRP for a variety of stock handguns, so it is more an anecdotal conclusion than a scientific one) and that there wouldnt be any commonality offsets associated with the new purchase, meaning a S&W Model 60 and a Beretta 92 FS are not going to have anything in common. This means that all those Berettas still on the books would need to find a home in someone elses army.
Thirdly, there is the fact that revolvers are, well old. While this has absolutely no bearing on the actual merits of the item in question (youll notice farriers still use an anvil and hammer for shaping horseshoes, devices introduced in the early Bronze Age (3300 BC)) in todays, its gotta be digital, carbon fiber, and Land Warrior compatible world, revolvers are looked down upon as being less advanced than automatics, and therefore less effective and ultimately less desirable. Also, as mentioned, while there are very few things that can go wrong with or wear out on a revolver, the things that do wear out, like the barrel, are big-ticket maintenance items. Given the Armys tolerances for equipment wear, and the relative ease of replacing worn parts on an automatic, the revolver, over the long haul, might be the less effective of the two options. There is also the issue of weight. Hands down, revolvers, especially when compared with polymer automatics, are significantly heavier than automatics. Is that weight difference a deal breaker though?
That all having been said, where are we now? Personally I would want a weapon that was firstly reliable (if it doesnt work, what good is it) secondly effective (the purpose of the weapon is to kill or disable the target, not piss it off) and thirdly is everything else; size (smaller is better) capacity (6 v. 15.) and ergonomics (how well does it fit in my hand (allowing for custom grips would be a nice touch) with political considerations last of all. Would I personally select a revolver over an automatic? I dont know, but I certainly not opposed to the idea and wouldnt frown upon a good .357 S&W if that were what the Army issued me.
A NATO E-3A Sentinel and its crew arrived here Aug. 8 to conduct training missions with 4th Fighter Wing aircrews.
Recent cyber attacks against government information systems overseas should serve as a lesson that the United States needs to continue to strengthen its defenses against those who would target the country’s financial, business and military systems, the commander of U.S. Northern Command said today.
Invisibility has long existed in the realm of imagination and fantasy, but for Army scientists and researchers studying ways to apply the latest technology to save Soldiers' lives, fantasy is slowly becoming a reality.
The Russian parliament voted Monday to recognise two breakaway Georgian regions as independent nations, prompting a flurry of diplomatic warnings amid a deepening freeze in relations.
A top Russian general accused NATO on Saturday of using humanitarian aid deliveries to Georgia as "cover" for a build-up of naval forces in the Black Sea.
Lockheed Martin's Human Alerting and Interruption Logistics-Surface Ship (HAIL-SS) system has successfully transitioned from laboratory to platform as an integrated component on the newly commissioned USS Sterett DDG 104.
Zephyr's reputation as the world's leading solar powered high-altitude long-endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) has been reinforced with a world-beating three and a half day flight at the US Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona.
The multinational air exercise 'Exercise Red Flag' presently underway at Air Force base Nellis, Nevada, USA has today entered its final ‘RUN’ phase following the crawl, walk and run pattern of exercising.
Iraqi Premier Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday Washington and Baghdad have agreed there will be no foreign forces in Iraq after 2011, setting a timeline for a US withdrawal from the war-torn country.
Lockheed Martin will produce additional combat-proven HELLFIRE II precision-strike, laser-guided air-to-ground missiles forU.S. and international armed forces under a $357 million contract with the U.S. Army.
An aviation first was accomplished when an F-15E Strike Eagle flew here Aug. 19 using an alternative fuel.
An MQ-9 Reaper dropped a 500-pound bomb against an anti-Iraqi target Aug. 16 in one of the first weapons engagements for the unmanned aircraft system.
It appears that the structure of the PLA's New Heavy Corps will be similar to the British 1 Corps in Northern Germany during the Cold War. The PLA Corps will be structured around brigades and I believe the Corps itself will contain a heavy artillery group, a ground manoeuvre group, an aviation group and a battlefield support group which would include bridging, electronic warfare and logistics.
An early version of the corps envisioned a total of 500 Model 96 or Model 99 main battle tanks in two armoured and two mechanised brigades; 586 ZDB-97 tracked infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), 126 155mm PLZ-45 self-propelled guns; 96 120mm turreted self-propelled mortars; 36 Type 89 30 tube 122mm and 27 300mm 12 tube A-100 multiple rocket launchers; 12 DF-15D tactical missiles and 48 attack, 18 multipurpose and 60 transport helicopters and around 2,000 other types of vehicles.
This was clearly outside what the PLA is currently able to afford with armored brigades now have three armoured battalions for a total of 99 main battle tanks, one mechanised infantry battalion, one artillery battalion with 18 self-propelled guns and one air defence battalion of 18 AAA guns. Each armoured battalion will have three armoured companies, each of three platoons with each company having 11 main battle tanks; three in each platoon and two headquarters vehicles. There are no tanks at the battalion or brigade headquarters. This is a total of 33 main battle tanks.
The new mechanized infantry brigade is to have four mechanised infantry battalions, one armoured battalion, one fire support battalion, one engineer battalion and one communication battalion. Each mechanized infantry battalion has three mechanized infantry companies, each of three platoons with each company having 13 infantry fighting vehicles; four in each platoon and one headquarters vehicle. A complete brigade contains approximately 4,000 soldiers.
By comparison the British Army's armored regiment (battalion) had tank squadrons (companies), each with four platoons of three Challenger 1 main battle tanks for a total of 58 tanks including headquarters vehicles. The mechanised infantry battalion had four companies of FV432 armoured personnel carriers, each of four platoons with four vehicles per platoon and one or two and the company and battalion headquarters. These vehicles were the direct equivalent of the PLA's current ZSD89 APC and its family of vehicles, and the recent Type 96 and Type 99 main battle tanks. Similarly the battalion battle groups envisaged by the PLA are similar to the British Army battle groups of 1981. Each British army battle group was built around a battalion headquarters, a close reconnaissance troop (platoon) with eight Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles, an anti-tank troop with four to six armoured long range anti-tank guided missile vehicles, six self-propelled guns and one or two armoured vehicles with man portable surface to air missile systems.
This comparison quickly shows two glaring deficiencies in the PLA's current structure and move towards modular combined arms battle groups. The first is the lack of a dedicated scout/close reconnaissance vehicle and the second, which in many ways is far more important, is the shortage of in-house infantry in the armored brigade and the mechanized infantry battalion.
The mechanised infantry lacks a fourth company in the infantry battalion meaning the armored brigades cannot create balanced battalion battle groups. Besides being unsuited to operations on complex terrain (urban and high altitude), armored forces that have neglected proper infantry support and have suffered large casualties include the Russian Army's 131st Maykop Brigade on New Year's Day 1995 in Grozny, and the Israeli tank forces during their initial counterattacks along the Bar Lev in the first morning of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Reconnaissance in the New Corps
Unlike the German and British Armies, the PLA like the United States Army does not have a dedicated mechanised brigade reconnaissance element. Under the new corps/brigade structure there will be a reconnaissance element as part of the corps. In the tracked units, the medium reconnaissance vehicle will be the Model 03 amphibious reconnaissance vehicle, which is replacing the Model 62 light tank and the Model 63 amphibious tank in PLA service. It will operate ahead of the main forces; and provide a flanking screen up to four km on the flanks. It is too bulky and large for scouting and close-in reconnaissance which could be performed by the ZBD05 airborne vehicle which besides having a 30mm automatic gun can carry a scout section. This role may have been trialled with aviation and other armoured vehicles by the composite reconnaissance/cavalry brigade in the Peace Mission 2007 joint exercise. The Model 02 100mm assault gun would have provided medium reconnaissance and explain the large amount of assault guns compared to the number of armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
The Marine Corps has issued thousands of new body armor vests that are lighter, more comfortable and allow more freedom of movement than the current vest, but offer less ballistic protection than the Corps' standard-issued armor.
The so-called "scalable plate carrier" uses the same enhanced small arms protective plates and Kevlar ballistic inserts as the Corps' Interceptor body armor and modular tactical vest, but in a more streamlined, less bulky package than vests issued to most Marines.
So far the Corps has fielded about 5,500 of the plate carriers, made by Eagle Industries of Fenton, Mo., throughout the three Marine Expeditionary Forces, but the vest is primarily intended for Leathernecks deployed to the western Pacific region and parts of Afghanistan, officials with Marine Corps Systems Command said.
In February, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway fired a shot across SysCom's bow in an interview with Fox News during his trip to Iraq and other Middle East war zones. Then, he wondered why the office responsible for equipping Marines chose the current MTV -- which Leathernecks have nicknamed the "Hesco" after the sand-filled wire-and-burlap barriers that protect remote bases from enemy fire.
He then ordered SysCom to come up with a new design, even though the Corps had already shipped 84,000 MTVs to the war zone.
"We put the last 25,000 [MTVs] on hold, and I asked, 'How is it that we got to this point? What was our pre-selection survey like and wear test like to the extent that we've got this thing now in large volume,' " Conway said during an Aug. 18 interview. "Frankly, we're hard pressed to understand."
Despite the plate carrier order, nearly six months after the commandant's request SysCom still hasn't followed through with a replacement for the MTV.
"We are currently gathering data and information from Marines returning from OIF and OEF," said SysCom spokeswoman, Capt. Geraldine Carey, in an Aug. 7 email statement to Military.com. "Once all the data is collected and analyzed, we will approach industry for possible new designs and or changes to the current body armor."
The new plate carriers are essentially a slimmed-down version of the MTV, with larger arm holes, thinner shoulder straps and a shorter chest profile. The reduction in weight and lower silhouette of the plate carriers "would allow greater mobility with reduced thermal stress in high elevations, thick vegetation and tropical environments," SysCom said.
In 2004, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit purchased plate carriers for its Marines during a deployment to the scorching deserts of southern Afghanistan. Since then, many troops have favored the uncomplicated plate carriers over their more weighty counterparts, which incorporate ballistic yokes, chin guards, groin protectors and various ballistic add-ons, depending on the mission.
"Now the Marines who are wearing [the MTV] repetitively don't like it so much," Conway explained. "It is heavier. It gives a little more protection -- that is one of the net positives with it. We still need a lighter vest that gives us the same amount of protection."
In March 2007, the Corps received an "urgent needs statement" from field commanders requesting the plate carriers for forces in Afghanistan and units deployed to Asia -- where hot, jungle environments make wearing the 30-pound MTV impractical. Since then, the Corps made plans to buy nearly 10,000 plate carriers and has made them available to vehicle crewmen as well.
"For the most part, we think the vest has particular application in Afghanistan because, once again, if you're climbing up and down mountains you want to be protected, but you don't want to be weighed down so much that you're just going to be sapped," Conway said of the SPC vest.
The issue of body armor and the balance between ballistic protection and mobility has been a controversial one, particularly since casualties mounted in Iraq from powerful roadside bombs and armor-piercing sniper rounds. As the blast injuries increased, the services added on new ballistic protection to their vests.
But the boost in protection came at the cost of comfort and weight; some vests topped 35 pounds with various accessories and stronger plates. That prompted some commanders to ask for leeway in how they outfit their troops, given the security environment and the type of terrain units operated in.
"I like the idea of modularization as long as you had some pieces that you could add or subtract" from the carrier, said David Woroner, a body armor expert and president of Survival Consultants International. "Personal protection should be just that, it's a personal choice at some point."
In January, the deputy commander for Marines in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Allen, told Military.com he was on the verge of allowing his troops in Anbar province -- which had seen a steep reduction in violence and roadside bomb casualties -- to strip down their armor, leaving their chin guards, groin protectors and side plates at the base while on patrol.
That prompted a sharp rebuke from superiors in Baghdad who still believed the risk from IEDs was enough to keep Marines buttoned up behind the MTV's full ensemble.
But now it seems the restrictions have softened.
"A lot has to be left to the commander. Threats will vary in different locations," explained Conway, who wore the SPC during a recent trip to the Middle East. "You may have a sniper threat in one place and a shrapnel threat in another. You may have a commander whose force mainly rides to the fight and another one that has to climb up the side of mountains."
"That we've got these various [types of armor vest] is marvelous," Conway said.
-- Christian (with help from contributor Kimberly Johnson)
I just wanted to give everyone a head's up that I'll have a story running tomorrow AM about a new kind of body armor the Marine Corps is fielding to some of its troops in Afghanistan, the Western Pacific and to some vehicle crewmen.
The so-called "scalable plate carrier" was purchased after a March 2007 urgent needs statement from the field requested armor with less weight and coverage for troops in hot, high altitude or jungle environments.
I'm sure this will spark some debate about the pros and cons of ballistic protection vs. mobility. The SPC looks pretty cool (it's not exactly the one pictured above -- I'll reveal the actual one tomorrow) but I'm not sure I would wear it where IEDs are in play.
And, no, Systems Command still hasn't come up with a new design for an MTV replacement after the CMC requested they do so back in February.
Stay tuned to tomorrow morning's headlines on Military.com.
-- Christian
Russia reoccupies Syrian port
It'd be awesome if it wasn't Chinese....
Was knocking down a satellite a prudent public health initiative?
You know, with all the scandal surrounding the Air Force recently, it's refreshing to see that the service is breaking ground in areas that might be a little below the radar now, but will pay big dividends in the future for both the service itself and the general public.
F-15 Hits Mach 2 on Synthetic Fuel
History was made at Robins Air Force Base this week as an F-15 Eagle flew at more than twice the speed of sound using a blend of synthetic fuel.
The Aug. 19 flight was the world's first test of a high performance fighter aircraft powered by a 50-50 mix of traditional JP-8 jet fuel and a synthetic using natural gas as a source.
The Air Force already had tested the new blend on a C-17 cargo aircraft and B-52 and B-1 bombers. But Jeff Braun, director of the Air Force's Alternative Fuels Certification Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, conceded that fighter aircraft offered a much different challenge.
"They are much higher performance and a much more demanding environment," he said during a late afternoon interview.
Braun said the daylong process included a 50-minute ground test Tuesday morning that pushed the aircraft's engines from military power to full afterburner.
"That was just another risk reduction step to prove the aircraft was not leaking fuel and the engines were behaving nominally," he said.
The actual test flight came in the afternoon. "It was a full functional check flight of about 55 minutes," the engineer said, "reaching speeds of Mach 2.2." Mach 2.2 is approximately 1,450 mph.
Immediate feedback came from the pilots.
"We asked them point-blank if they noticed any difference in performance and they said it was a 'non-event,' " Braun reported. "In other words, they couldn't tell the difference. The aircraft behaved the same."
For a service that's so fossil fuel intensive, it's amazing to see that something as high performance as USAF fighter jets can be powered by blended fuels seamlessly.
Wonder if the airlines will be reluctant to adopt the program since they seem to like nickel and diming the public with extra charges to cover their (waaa waaa) higher fuel costs...?
-- Christian
Security gains made in southern Afghanistan could suffer if US Marines are pulled out later this year without replacements, the head of the Marine Corps has warned.