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.
The guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul departed from Crete Wednesday loaded with humanitarian relief supplies for war-torn Georgia, a US defense official said.
After months of acrimony, Russia has finally agreed to transfer key technology for the frontline T-90 tanks enabling Indian armament factories to now go ahead and produce these weapon platforms indigenously.
The Boeing Company has been awarded a U.S. Army contract valued at approximately $36 million to continue developing a truck-mounted, high-energy laser weapon system that will destroy rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds.
In what is a major milestone for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) Boeing 757 modification and upgrade programme, the first of two aircraft (NZ7571) has returned to New Zealand from Mobile Aerospace Engineering in Mobile, Alabama.
The IAF's special force commandos 'The Garuds' successfully demonstrated their mission capability during the Exercise Red Flag, when they neutralized an enemy radar site capturing an airfield and carrying out combat search and rescue operations, in Nevada desert USA.
Warsaw and Washington signed a deal Wednesday to deploy a US missile shield in Poland, in the face of deep anger and threats of retaliation from Moscow.
The 8th meeting of the Indo-Russian Working Group on Shipbuilding, Aviation and Land Systems was held on 18-19 August, 2008 in New Delhi within the framework of the Indo-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission on Military Technical Co-operation.
Northrop Grumman Corporation today completed -- on budget and on schedule -- the center fuselage for the first U.S. Navy F-35C Lightning II aircraft, an aircraft carrier-capable variant designated CF-1.
A long-awaited clarification of rules governing the export of civil aviation items, which was finalized today, will be a shot in the arm for the aerospace industry and American exports, AIA President and CEO Marion Blakey said.
The MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft system surpassed 400,000 flight hours during a mission in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility Aug. 18.
[Editor's Note: I wrote this story for posting this AM at Military.com. I know it's not a tech piece, but I thought for those of you in the service or with strong service affinity, it might stir some of that "rivalry" in ya...]
When the incoming Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway looked around the Corps, he didn't like what he saw.
No, it wasn't the Corps' aggressiveness, tactical savvy or combat acumen that worried him. Instead, it was the bulging gut, extra skin under the chin and the runaway waistlines that Leathernecks were squeezing into their cammies that got his dander up.
"Inspector General of the Marine Corps review of body composition programs indicates we still have Marines that fail to meet body composition standards," Conway wrote in an Aug. 11 Marine Corps-wide message. "This impacts combat efficiency and effectiveness and, unfortunately, is a clear indicator of some commanders' failure to enforce standards."
See for yourself. Check out the new Combat Fitness Test.
Marines have been at war for seven years -- rotating in a near-constant seven-month cycle of workups and deployment that leaves little time for physical training and all-around fitness. Come home, work out, pass the PFT, deploy.
Now, that's all changed.
Early this month, the Corps introduced a new fitness test that goes way beyond the current PFT that measures pull ups, crunches and a timed, three-mile run. The new "combat fitness test" -- which will be administered in addition to the standard PFT -- is more representative of what Marines are doing on deployment.
Divided into three events, the new test includes a timed ammo can lift, an 880-yard "movement-to-contact" run and a so-called "maneuver under fire" event that covers 300 yards.
"It's not often that we have to do a hump across the desert, but we sure have to sprint like this in urban combat," said Sgt. Maj. Ronald Green, top enlisted advisor to the commander of Marines assigned to the Pentagon.
"This challenges that 'two block war,' " Green said, sweat pouring off his brow after running through the CFT himself.
Marines will be required to start taking the combat fitness test in October. For the first year, the CFT will be graded on a pass/fail basis, with those who fail entering a remedial fitness program to get them up to snuff. Officials with Training and Education Command, which developed the new test, said the PFT and CFT will not be administered on the same day.
Marines who watched a demonstration of the grueling test on Aug. 18 were excited about the new demands if not a little nervous.
"It wasn't impossible, but it was pretty challenging," said 21 year-old Cpl. Hudson Bull, an infantryman assigned to the ceremonial marching team in Washington. Bull has taken the test before.
"I like anything that breaks people off," said Staff Sgt. Richard DeBoy, a platoon leader with three Iraq tours under his belt, describing the crushing effect the CFT's various "short burst" movements can have on a Marine.
Leathernecks will have to take the CFT wearing combat boots and cammies. After the 880-yard run, Marines get a five minute break, then must lift a 30-pound ammo can from chin height straight above their head as many times as they can in two minutes.
Then the hard part begins.
The "maneuver under fire" portion of the test is a 300-yard muscle-burning combination of crawling, casualty dragging, fireman carry, grenade throw simulation ending with a slalom run to the finish line with two 30-pound ammo cans.
In order to pass the test, a male Marine aged 17 to 26, for example, will have to complete the movement to contact run in three minutes, forty-eight seconds or less, execute at least 45 ammo can lifts in two minutes and run the maneuver-under-fire portion in three minutes, 29 seconds or less.
While the first year of this test will be conducted as pass/fail, beginning Oct. 1, 2009, the Corps will count scored results of CFT toward promotions and cutting scores, officials said.
The test was developed in close collaboration with the Corps' internal fitness professionals, sports medicine experts and Leathernecks from the Marine Corps Martial Arts program. It "fills in some gaps left out by the PFT," Marine fitness experts say, and it'll force Marines to re-engineer their workouts.
No more body building, Marine, it's time to put together a "functional fitness program" that incorporates short bursts of high-intensity activity using lots of muscles.
"How often do you actually do the motion in a leg curl?" asked Lauren Baker, head athletic trainer for Marines based at the Pentagon. "Unless you're a soccer player, not much."
Preparing for the CFT will "change their workout routine," she added. "Now they can have a little more fun with it."
-- Christian
A Muslim rebel commander behind deadly raids in the southern Philippines on Wednesday declared an "all-out war" against the government, saying his fighters were willing to die in battle.
A base defense operations center (BDOC) responsible for monitoring the security of a U.S. forward operating base (FOB) spots an unknown civilian pickup truck that suddenly stops just outside of their perimeter and begins lobbing mortars at personnel within the FOB.
Russia's conflict with Georgia has caused a swing in public opinion in Poland over hosting US missile interceptors on Polish soil, according to a new poll.
Alliant Techsystems, the U.S. Navy, and the Italian Air Force completed another challenging missile firing of the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) at the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake on August 11, 2008.
Diminishing the threat from violent extremism is the U.S. military’s top priority, but not its only priority, a top Defense Department policy official said Aug. 15.
Russia said on Tuesday it will not participate in the NATO-led Open Spirit 2008 naval exercise in the Baltic Sea, and will refuse to receive a U.S. warship in the Far East port of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.
The Australian Minesweeping System, developed by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), has scored another export success with India being the latest to acquire the innovative system that protects ships from underwater mines.
An Iranian missile test aimed at putting a dummy satellite into orbit failed, a US defense official said Tuesday.
Japan on Tuesday signalled it would approve a nuclear energy deal between India and the United States, raising the chances that the controversial pact will come into force.
NATO-Russia relations plunged to their lowest point in years Tuesday over the conflict in Georgia and Russia's failure to withdraw from the former Soviet republic.
With the Indo-US nuclear agreement firmly on track, the two countries are to open talks soon at the highest level to further boost up security and defence partnership.
Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation on Tuesday tasked six local companies to hunt for potential sites for new nuclear power plants, the official news agency IRNA reported.
Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration said Monday that Korea and Thailand will hold talks this week on an envisioned agreement that could significantly increase Korea's defense exports to the Southeast Asian country.
The Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman Longbow Unmanned Aerial Systems Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA) and Lockheed Martin's Arrowhead modernized target acquisition/night vision sensor debuted during the first flight of the U.S. Army's AH-64 Apache Block III attack helicopter.
The massive Russian air, ground, and naval assault against the country of Georgia is certainly reminiscent of the earlier Soviet assaults against East Germany and Hungry, and, to some degree, the Russian campaign in Chechnya. But there are major differences in the cause of the current conflict and in the world political-military situation from those earlier military operations.
At this writing there were strong indications that the odd situation in the Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia could have only led to conflict. The border provinces appear to have had Russian peacekeepers in them to protect the interests of the local populations that include many Russian citizens and sympathizers. According to Russian sources, Georgian troops attacked those Russian troops, although the exact circumstances of the initial exchange are unknown.
In response, after a brief delay, Russian forces invaded the two provinces, taking control after inflicting heavy civilian casualties -- some press reports cited approximately 2,000 deaths. But the Russian troops, carried in armored personnel carriers and supported by aircraft and helicopters, continued into Georgia, reportedly coming within 12 miles of the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.
In addition to civilian (and military casualties), Georgia has suffered perhaps 100,000 people being uprooted, and severe damage to towns and cities.
Georgian troops -- trained and partially equipped by the United States -- were unable to withstand the Russian onslaught. As this blog was written it appears that the Russian government has accepted the truce, brokered in part by the French government.
Why did the Kremlin order the land-air-sea assault on its weaker neighbor? Obviously, the Russian regime is concerned about South Ossetia and Abkhazia and their large Russian populations. There were certainly other factors. American influence in Georgia has been increasing over the past few years; when the Russian assault began there were 35 U.S. civilian contractors and almost 100 military personnel in Georgia to help train the army. More than 1,000 U.S. troops -- including reservists and national guardsmen -- were recently in Georgia for a joint exercise.
Further, Georgia has been seeking full membership in NATO. The continued expansion of NATO since the end of the Cold War, especially including Eastern European states, has particularly been a concern of the Russian government. This situation has been exacerbated by recent U.S. proposals to build advanced X-band ballistic missile detection radar in the Czech Republic and base ten interceptor missiles in Poland. The stated rationale for these installations is to protect Western European countries from long-range missiles launched by rogue states, including Iran. The perspective from the Kremlin, however, is that these defenses -- and other U.S.-sponsored military activities -- as well as the missile defenses are part of an American campaign to encircle the Russian state.
Thus, some Western officials and analysts see the Russian action in Georgia, beyond the obvious intent of protecting Russian citizens and sympathizers in the border provinces, as a clear message to the United States that further expansion American political-military influence in Eastern Europe will not be tolerated.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government is attempting to gain support for political actions by Western European countries and the United Nations, hopefully to censor Russia. There is no possibility that the United States will take military action against Russia, or immediately rush to the support of the shattered Georgian army.
The Lockheed Martin C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP) flight test team has successfully completed developmental testing of all three C-5 RERP test aircraft.
Iran said on Monday that a home-built rocket sent into space in a move that triggered US concern over possible military use will be able to take a satellite into low orbit around the earth.
With one F-35 Lightning II aircraft in structural testing, two in flight test, six in final assembly and another 14 in various stages of production, Lockheed Martin added to the program's momentum on Saturday by finishing assembly of the fourth F-35 aircraft, a short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B.
On August 14, Poland and the United States signed an agreement on the deployment of 10 ground-based missile interceptors (GBIs) on Polish territory.
Gen. John D.W. Corley, Air Combat Command commander, with concurrence from the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, announced today that Holloman AFB, N.M., is the preferred potential location for an additional unmanned aircraft system formal Training unit.
As violence tapers off across the country, Iraq's security forces are increasingly taking responsibility for the security of the people. Seen as a critical component of success here, Iraq's Army has grown from a pocket-sized force in 2004
BAE Systems is to build and trial a new 155mm gun to better protect existing and future warships in the Royal Navy fleet, under a £4 million contract awarded by the UK’s Ministry of Defence.
Poland and the United States have reached agreement on stationing 10 interceptor missiles on Polish soil as part of an American missile defense system, according to Polish Prime Minister Tusk.
BAE Systems today joined with industry partners Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) to celebrate the handover of the first HAL built Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) to the Indian Air Force (IAF).
Iran says it has successfully test-launched a rocket capable of carrying a domestically-built satellite into space.
The development of a transparent coating that causes water to bead up into drops and roll or bounce off a surface will help protect and sustain Air Force systems by preventing corrosion and reducing ice formation on optical elements and aircraft.
The Minister for Defence, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP, today announced a $68 million program to provide enhancements to the ADF’s Maritime Patrol Capability.
The Boeing Company delivered a detailed proposal July 30 offering its advanced F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to the Brazilian Air Force as part of Brazil's F-X2 fighter competition.
The Marine Corps’ newest utility helicopters, the UH-1Y, achieved Initial Operating Capability Aug. 8.
The chief opened his talk by telling Airmen that despite the bumps and bruises the Air Force has taken in the world community lately, "Airmen are doing an incredible job."
The Office of Naval Research held its annual partnership with industry conference last week here in Washington, DC. The envelop-pushing Navy lab is particularly keen on developing game changing laser beam and hypervelocity rail gun weapons. Much of the available funding is for early phase modeling and simulation. Some of ONRs high-priority research areas include:
Solid-State Fiber Laser. Defined by ONR as: A laser in which the active gain medium is an optical fiber doped with rare-earth elements such as erbium, ytterbium, neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium and thulium. Okay. ONR says a fiber laser is the way to go for a 100 kW laser weapon that could fit into aircraft pods.
Free Electron Laser. A shipboard point defense weapon, the laser will fight off swarms of both high end anti-ship cruise missiles and low-tech, explosive laden small boats. The trick will be developing controllable laser beam strength for graduated lethality and speed of light engagement. An Innovative Naval Prototype program is scheduled to begin in 2010.
High-Power Microwave Directed Energy Weapons. A focused microwave beam transmits high levels of energy via concentrated radio waves that will knock out computers, sensors, most anything electronic. So far, ranges have been limited by weak projectors and a cluttered environment, but newer, compact high-power microwaves under development may eventually produce a destructive capability.
The Revolutionary Approach to Time-Critical Long Range Strike (RATTLRS) Program. An ONR, DARPA, Air Force and NASA collaboration, started in 2004, to build a faster than Mach 3 air-breathing cruise missile. ONR says building the high Mach turbine engine remains a challenge.
Next Generation Integrated Power Systems. With a multitude of power hungry electrical and automated systems, including propulsion, launchers, sensors, countermeasures and ultimately high-powered weapons, running simultaneously, shipboard power management and supply will require smaller, lighter, quieter, cooler running and stealthy batteries and generators. As with the rest of the world, the Navy seeks solutions to the battery limitation challenge.
Electromagnetic Railgun. A rail gun uses magnetic rails instead of an explosive charge to accelerate a solid projectile to super high velocities, around Mach 7, promising accurate strikes on targets out to 230 miles with damage inflicted by the projectiles kinetic impact. ONR set a world record this year with its laboratory gun for the highest electromagnetic muzzle energy launch of a projectile 10 megajoules (Im told a hand grenade is equivalent to somewhere around 1 megajoule). Drawing enough power - around 3 million amps per shot - to fire the guns remains a distinct challenge, particularly onboard smaller destroyer sized vessels. Finding strong enough material to build barrels that can stand up to repeated firings at such high muzzle energies pose another challenge.
ONR is funding research into enabling technologies for next generation air-launched missiles, including: new rocket motors using solid propulsion technologies, low erosion nozzles, pulse motors and advanced radomes designed for ultra-high speeds.
Laser-based Landing Aids. A new start (for 2009) Enabling Capability, the program will develop laser terrain video imaging that can spot obstacles or uneven terrain for helicopter pilots trying to land in brown-out conditions. The hoped for system will be compact, lightweight and rugged.
-- Greg Grant
South Africa has taken delivery of its third and fourth Gripen multi-role fighter aircraft, which arrived in Cape Town this week.
The Acting Commander of U.S. Central Command, Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, handed over four F-16 jet fighter aircraft to Pakistan Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed in a ceremony at Pakistan Air Force Base Mushaf here today.
The physical world battle-space is well known and the parameters defined. Similarly an act of aggression or act of war in the physical sense is just as well defined and accepted. That is not the case when it comes to the cyber battlespace. Federal officials, military leaders, policy scholars and security experts are all looking at this issue and struggling to answer the question -- what constitutes an act of cyber war?
Back in 1994 I was asked to define cyber warfare and cyber terrorism. My response happened to end up in the U.S. Army Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02. Here is what I wrote.
Cyber Warfare & Terrorism is defined as -the premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.
With that in mind we used real world events from the recent Georgian conflict to frame this issue and get your opinion.
Scenario:
The Georgian government relocated their President's website to a sever on U.S soil (in Atlanta Georgia) and connected to the U.S. Internet backbone. Would an attack on the Georgian President's web site (hosted within the U.S.) be considered an act of aggression against the United States and ultimately an act of cyber war?
Yes - is one point of view supported by the fact that the attack is against components of the internet infrastructure owned by a U.S. company and located on U.S. soil.
No - is one point of view supported by the fact that the attack is against the web site that represents an individual/leader of a foreign government.
This is a great opportunity for you the reader to voice your opinion and possibly even influence policy makers in Washington. I would encourage the full review of openly available information that may help you formulate your answer.
It's cookie cutter Iranian bluster, of course. Though some Iranian fighters do have the legs for such an operation, they'd have to drop most of their armament and load up on fuel to make the trip.
And that's assuming that Iranian warplanes had a straight shot into Israel. The minute the Mullahs sortie a strike package large enough to field against the razor sharp Israeli Air Force, the even sharper USAF and US Navy would make short work of it. That type of chest-thumping from Iran is the stuff that makes fighter jocks like Ward and Pinch drool.
"Target rich environment?" Yeah, you betcha.
--John Noonan
Lawmakers warned this week that escalating tensions with Russia may leave the U.S. without ready transport to the ISS after NASA retires the space shuttle fleet in 2010.The space agency does not expect the shuttle's replacement, the Orionan Apollo-like craft being developed as part of the Constellation programto be ready to fly until 2015. NASA's plan was for the interim was to use Russian Soyuz craft to send up crew and cargo to the $100 billion station.
How awkward would it be if the Russian relief showed up in 2010 and left the American on board? Kind of hard to ask Russia for a hitch to space while you're actively running logistics to their Georgian enemies.
It's an interesting scenario to wargame out: If Ivan refuses to send up American astronauts and sticks to a Russia-only crew, does that mean that they'd be guilty of the first documented case of space hijacking?
That said, Russia will probably honor the agreement. They'll want to avoid the natural influx of funding Congress would send to NASA to fast track Orion or keep the shuttles running for 5 more years.
Lucrative business, spacelift.
--John Noonan
Navy 'rudderless'
Ukraine flips Russia the bird
US invades the Artic
Phew: Minot AFB passes nuke inspection
Predator UAVs require "17 mouse clicks" to kill baddies
The Coast Guard wants to get a bit more "hooyah" by jumping on the special operations forces bandwagon with a new program that could put as many as 28 of its personnel into elite Navy SEAL teams by 2016.
Under an agreement signed in early August among the Navy, Coast Guard and U.S. Special Operations Command, as many as four Coastguardsmen from across the service will be selected each year to undergo the rigorous SEAL training, including Basic Underwater Demolition School and follow-on instruction. Eventually they would become full-fledged members of SEAL commando teams deployed to terrorist war zones.
Coast Guard officials say this limited number of Coasties-turned-SEALs re-entering their ranks after a tour in the special warfare community -- which could last as many as seven years -- will be a boon for morale, training and job skills in a service that bridges the worlds of counter-terrorism operations and law enforcement.
"What this does is it provides us better capability, increased competencies, more experience and greater knowledge to do the things that we are already doing today," said Rear Adm. Thomas Atkin, commander of the Coast Guard's Deployable Operations Group which deals with specialized counter-terrorism and military missions.
"They're going to be able to bring back an esprit de corps that you learn within the SEAL community. We don't always have that," Atkin added during an Aug. 15 interview with military bloggers. "We have a great service, I'm very proud to wear the blue, but the esprit de corps that comes out of the folks that go to BUDS [and] members of SEAL teams ... those experiences, that knowledge, that mindset are all things that are going to benefit the Coast Guard in the long term."
Though Atkin said "anecdotally" there's a lot of enthusiasm for the program, so far no Coastguardsmen have applied in the two weeks since it was announced. The deadline for applications is in mid-September.
The SEALs, along with other special operations forces in the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, have been adding to their ranks since the Sept. 11 attacks and the injection of even a few more personnel from the Coast Guard is a welcome addition, a Navy Special Warfare officer said.
"What that means to us is approximately two SEAL platoons," said Lt. Cmdr. Christian Dunbar, director of training at the Navy Special Warfare Center in Coronado, Calif. "This just adds a greater base of qualified candidates that don't come from recruits in the Navy or from the fleet. ... It's a win-win for everyone."
The new relationship between the SEALs and Coast Guard was forged in an Aug. 1 memorandum of understanding signed by Commandant Thad Allen and representatives of the Navy and Special Operations Command after nearly a year of negotiations among the services. Allen wrote in an "Alcoast" message announcing the plan that Coastguardsmen will gain "valuable skills and knowledge to support [the] DoD and increase the Coast Guard's capabilities in our ports, waterways and coastal security mission, specifically counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism operations."
But the new program is not without its critics, particularly within the highest ranks of the Coast Guard community, sources say. The culture of the more than two century-old service bridges both civilian and military operations with a traditional emphasis in rescue, maritime safety and law enforcement.
Since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard's new counter-terrorism role, that culture and operational mentality has changed, experienced Coast Guard sources say. That's made the shift toward a more SEAL-like ethos -- particularly in the newly established Deployable Operations Group, where the SEAL vets will return for duty after their team tour -- more acceptable to old-school Coastguardsmen.
"I think it's going to be very compatible," said Coast Guard Master Chief Petty Officer Darrick DeWitt, the DOG's senior enlisted advisor. "When you look at the way the Coast Guard's evolving ... bringing in that type of mentality and culture and understanding of the operations is going to be great for our organization."
Officials with the DOG will handle the initial SEAL applicants, putting them through a set of physical tests to demonstrate whether they have what it takes to be a commando -- a process Dunbar said would "set them up for success." Those who make it through will enter pre-BUDS training in December, and the first group will join a BUDS class in February 2009.
So far the plan is to have two officers and two enlisted personnel assigned to the SEALs each year, but Atkin said he's not going to stick to that formula if the qualifications don't match.
To Atkin, a former SEAL steeped in both the traditions of special warfare and law enforcement would be a key addition to his command -- and one long in coming.
"This is historic, it's different, but I think it's very consistent with the long partnership we've had with the United States Navy stretching all the way back to our birth 218 years ago," Atkin said.
-- Christian
Reports by the Associated Press who obtained a memo on the subject said this week the Pentagon delayed and may even kill the Air Force's planned Cyberspace Command. Why exactly is up for speculation, but according to one insider who absolutely did not want to be identified - "It's a dollar Grab".
The insider went on to say that "with an estimated $30 billion being spent on cyber capabilities, who can blame them?"
As I tally it, the Army, Air Force, CIA, NSA, DIA, DHS, StratCom and two unidentified black-ops units have already begun developing cyber warfare capabilities. Anyone with an ounce of sense would not want to get in the middle of that group! The Pentagon has to be thinking it would be better to have one unified cyber command rather than all these dispirit efforts.
Cyber warfare is a highly desirable command area -- it is new, it's exciting, it's a real threat and arguably the hottest topic in military circles. Multiple security experts, including myself, have warned that significant and very special resources and expertise are required to execute the core elements of the Bush administration's cyber security plan.
Earlier this year I wrote an article titled "The Department of Cyber Defense" that was published by International Intelligence Magazine. It looked at this exact issue. The article was based on rumors back then that the Executive Branch was considering establishing a new department and cabinet level appointment responsible for our country's cyber offensive and defensive capabilities. By establishing a new department and cabinet level position, one entity can focus on developing cyber warfare technologies needed to support both defense and civilian agencies.
Remember we even created a new patch for the organization.
Richard Clarke has warned how significant a threat cyber attacks pose to the United States and our allies. Turf battles and infighting are slowing the United States' efforts to mitigate this threat and develop the necessary offensive cyber warfare capabilities. We cannot and should not tolerate the inaction and lack of progress this squabbling is causing.
F-35 factory to pump out a jet a day
U.S, Allies talk payback
How Georgia tried to match the Russian arsenal
Now who'll ban blogs? Air Force pulls the plug on Cyber Command
In the "gadgets and gizmos" category today, I ran across this interesting item as I was perusing the sight from our friends at BreachBangClear.
Think of it as a magazine for M-16 mags.
The STRAC Technologies FAST (Fast And Smooth Transition) system is a hardened pouch designed to hold three spring-loaded rifle magazines that feed out as the operator reloads his carbine. The folks over at MilSpecMonkey did an intensive review of the product, the full version of which you can read HERE.
But, while it seems like an interesting idea, I agree with the folks at MilSpecMonkey that there are limited applications of the product. I can see uses for it in law enforcement, where tactical teams really don't have a need for any more than 100 rounds for a particular situation. And I can see where vehicle operators might like it for its more flush-to-the-body configuration.
From MilSpecMonkey:
As with most things, the FAST System has pluses and minuses. The good part is that the system functions totally as advertised. You can become a consistent reloading super star in about 20 minutes of practice and only get better from there. One of the first downsides however is the bulk. The space required by FAST is the equivalent of over 6 30 round magazines, but it only holds 3 magazines. Also some may feel the required grips for mag extraction are awkward. Personally after using it I feel the grip is "good enough". On this particular prototype, I wish the body was connected to the carrier in a more solid fashion. The only thing holding it in there is a piece of velcro on the back of the body and friction inside the carrier. With the dust cover down I can wiggle the body out of the carrier with one hand while still on my body. It doesn't feel outright unsafe, but could be better. That said, it should be noted this preview is of a prototype and the final version will solve this issue with webbing loop slots to lash the body down to one's vest. This is to get the extraction area closer to the body, but would secure the system further as well. Unfortunately the simple design only allows standard NATO magazines to be used in the FAST system. Magazines with any additional height such as PMAGs, Lancer, and HK mags will not fit. Although I wish they could fit, as a designer I can see where the system would become overly complicated if altered to do so. As the final con, the FAST System could easily be called expensive, but that is usually the price of cutting edge technology.
Here's a pretty good video of the FAST system in action at the range:
And another one with some SWAT bubbas giving their impressions of the system:
-- Christian
It's interesting that this should come out now because I was just talking to Ward after his glorious showing on Fox News Channel where he discussed the airborne laser program that I thought the real leap in this arena was with the tactical laser being incorporated onto a C-130.
Well, it turns out, the program office just had another successful test of the system, this time running through all the components of the laser generating device, through its targeting system and onto a target.
Sure, the test was on the ground, but come on, it's a laser gun for crying out loud. Looks like the Boeing team that's running this show put the whole kit and kaboodle on the airplane and basically ran through an entire firing procedure without being actually in the air.
From Boeing:
During the test Aug. 7 at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., the ATL aircraft, a C-130H, fired its high-energy chemical laser through its beam control system. The beam control system acquired a ground target and guided the laser beam to the target, as directed by ATL's battle management system. The laser passes through a rotating turret on the aircraft's belly.
"By firing the laser through the beam control system for the first time, the ATL team has begun to demonstrate the functionality of the entire weapon system integrated aboard the aircraft," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. "This is a major step toward providing the ultra-precision engagement capability that the warfighter needs to dramatically reduce collateral damage."
After conducting additional tests on the ground and in the air, the program will demonstrate ATL's military utility by firing the laser in-flight at mission-representative ground targets later this year.
Again, while the ABL program is interesting based on its scale, the ATL seems to me has many more real-world applications than the ABM one. I'll be interested to see the real capabilities of the ATL system later this year -- how does it deal with enemy personnel and equipment? Are we Star Wars here or Buck Rogers?
-- Christian
The second real cyber was has broken out. On August 8th, Russian troops crossed into South Ossetia vowing to defend what they called "Russian compatriots". As this was taking place, a multi-faceted cyber attack began against the Georgian infrastructure and key government web sites. The attack modalities included: Defacing of Web Sites (Hacktivism), Web-based Psychological Operations (Psyc-Ops), a fierce propaganda campaign (PC) and of course a Distributed Denial of Service Attacks (DDoS).
Shortly after noon east coast time in the United States, CNN's Wolf Blitzer attempted to interview Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili by phone on his live news program. The first attempt was unsuccessful and the second attempt took place about ten minutes later was able to successfully connect to President Saakashvili. President Saakashvili immediately apologized for the missed connection earlier blaming the problem on a "cyber attack" against the Georgian VoIP phone system. Another causality of the cyber attack was the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website. At one point in time the MFA's web site had an image of Adolf Hitler beside the image of President Saakashvili.
At one point(used in the sentence above), multiple government websites were down or inaccessible for hours. This led them to make perhaps the most strategic move to date in cyber warfare. This impressive move came when the Georgian Government decided to relocate President Mikhail Saakashvili's web site to a web site hosting service in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States. The strategic thinking surrounding this move was twofold. First, the Russian cyber attackers would surely think twice about attacking a web site hosted on servers located in the United States. Secondly, if the Russian cyber attackers were to go after the President's web site hosted on U.S. soil, that action might bring the United States into the conflict.
I was told by a Georgian insider that "We were not prepared for the use of computer weapons against our communications infrastructure." Other sources in the Estonian military also told me that they had offered their assistance to the Georgian Government early on in the cyber attack. She said that they (Estonia) had gained valuable knowledge from the forensic analysis of the cyber artifacts left behind after they were attacked in April/May of 2007.
I used SBIA and TIE techniques to analyze the cyber attack against Georgia. Based on all open source intelligence, the cyber attack on Georgia analysis resulted in the following information [on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being high].
Scale of the attack = 3.3
Complexity of the attack = 3.1
Impact of the attack = 3.5
No longer can we ignore cyber weapons. This is the second minor cyber war that has broken out in the last two years. "Security experts and military leaders have been warning of the potential use of cyber weapons against government and civilian targets both as a stand-alone threat and coordinated military tactical modality," said Brian from Spy-Ops. Cyber attacks and warfare have entered into the arsenal of modern warfare. Where and when the next attack will be launched is anyone's question. The only thing for sure is there will be more.
No, not the Ohio State variety, but the primary navy jet trainer for much of the last 50 years - the T-2C Buckeye.
The T-2 Buckeye, last seen training future naval aviators and naval flight officers in Pensacola and other environs, slipped the surly bonds of earth for the ultimate time this past Friday, 9 August. As the Pensacola News Journal said:
Lt. j.g. Dave Chun, 33, and 1st Lt. Brian Miller, 29, were the last student aviators to fly the iconic jet.Chun reflected on the historic moment after receiving his pilots wings, following the successful completion of his final exercise.
This is the third best day of my life, he said, holding a freshly opened bottle of champagne to celebrate the occasion. My wife and my baby, those are the only things that beat this.
The Navys Buckeyes have flown a combined 3.4 million hours, making it one of the Navys most used jets. Since its introduction to the fleet in 1959, nearly every Naval aviator trained in Pensacola flew the Buckeye in preparation for aircraft carrier landings.
The venerable light "attack thunder guppy", first entering service in 1959, flew its last naval aviator training hop last week. Most every navy pilot or naval flight officer you saw strutting around in a flight suit since the end of the Eisenhower administration has some time in this baby.
A very forgiving aircraft, in addition to being the first jet that naval aviators climbed into, it was also used as a spin-procedures trainer for tactical aviators due to its easy recovery capabilities. That was always a fun hop - head out into the restricted area over Phelps Lake in North Carolina, do your clearing turn to ensure other aircraft weren't in the area, get to 250 knots at about 20k, pull the nose up to start bleeding off speed, then kick full left rudder while yanking the stick to full aft right. BOOM...inverted spin...watch the AOA go to 2 or 3 units, watch the airspeed go from 250 down to below 100, start to count the turns, and ye-haw! Recover...neutral stick, feet on the deck (off the rudder pedals), after a few turns the nose steadies out, the turns stop and you recover. So THAT is what an inverted spin is like!
The jet didn't have much in the way of thrust. The early models were a single Westinghouse J-34 with about 3,400 lbs of thrust - that was the thrust of the phoenix missile the Tomcats carried, for cripes sake! Later models, introduced in the early 60's, eventually had 2 GE J-85 engines installed, nearly doubling the thrust at 3,000 lbs each. Compare that to the F-35 PW F-135 engine that puts out over 40,000 of thrust. Now THAT would make a worthwhile trainer!
The T-2 was sold to 2 other countries, Greece and Venezuela, so if we ever do get into a scrap with Hugo at least we know what those boys trained in.
A fine junior-varsity steed to learn in. Sleep well, Guppy!
Runnin down the wings .balls up, caps on
U.S. Navy photo by Ensign Darin K. Russell.
I've been trolling around trying to find some inside dope and analysis on the comparison of how Georgia's troops have handled the Russian invasion and how Russian troops have stacked up against Georgia's U.S.-trained forces.
So far, the best one I can find is a blog entry from the New York Times authored by an experienced Russian expert who speaks a lot more Russian than me and delved into two separate Russian blogs that have some unique analysis.
In an interview posted on the Kreml.org Web site yesterday, Anatoly Tsyganok, a retired officer who heads the center for military forecasting at the Moscow Institute of Political and Military Analysis, argued that Russian forces had performed impressively quickly and extraordinarily well.
But in an article carried on the anti-Kremlin Web site Forum.msk.ru, Maksim Kalashnikov, who writes frequently on military affairs, suggests that the Russian militarys performance in this first war between former Soviet republics and in the first Russian conflict with a regular army since 1969 was not impressive.
For his part, Tsyganok points to three things to justify his conclusion that the Russian military prepared well. First, he says, the Georgians had a good plan, one based on Pentagon plans for operations in Serbia in the 1990s, and thus presented a challenge to Russian forces out of proportion to their numbers.
Second, he notes, the Russian military responded quickly. No one expected that Russia would so quickly become involved in an armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and thereby undercut Georgian plans for a lightning-fast war. But political Moscow made the decision and the Russian military responded incredibly fast...
...And third, again despite expectations in Tbilisi and elsewhere, Russian forces in the Northern Caucasus were ready to move. They left their bases less than five hours after the order was given, and they did not suffer the kind of losses many in Georgia had thought they would. They achieved their objectives promptly.
One reason for this success, Tsyganok says, is that the 58th Army had just completed a few days earlier the Caucasus 2008 exercises and thus was ready to take the field especially against an opponent so much smaller and more poorly equipped than itself.
There are more than 100,000 Russian troops in the North Caucasus military district, with some 620 tanks, 200 armored personal carriers, and 875 pieces of artillery. While not all of the men or materiel were available for the operation in Georgia, he notes, enough were to overwhelm the 35,000-man Georgian army with its 160 tanks.
It's a typical Russian/Soviet version of "shock and awe," but I read some quotes from another article with Russian troops wondering aloud if what they were doing was "right." Aside from the morale issues in the Russian army, it seems there's been some weakness in its tactical acumen. While they pulled out the big guns by streaming reactive armor-laden tanks through Georgian streets, their air forces couldn't seem to pinpoint certain strategic targets. Remember they tried to bomb the pipeline at a Georgian Black Sea port and missed.
Kalashnikov [the anti-Kremlin blogger] does not so much challenge the points Tsyganok makes as advances other considerations that he believes suggest that the Russian militarys performance in Georgia, while victorious so far, is far from the level that Moscow propagandists and many observers have been claiming.
According to Kalashnikov, Moscow has had six years to prepare for a response to or an intervention against Georgia but did practically nothing to get ready for either eventuality. Nowhere is that failure more obvious, he says, than in the failure of Russian forces to use air power to knock out key Georgian institutions and especially Georgian artillery.
The Russian forces did not fly a sufficient number of sorties to do either, he continues, and they lacked the pilotless drones that could have allowed Russian artillery to attack Georgian targets more effectively. And that meant that Russian forces suffered more delay and losses from Georgian artillery than was necessary.
Instead of relying on airport to deal a knockout blow to the enemy, Kalashnikov says, Russian commanders relied on the notion that if Moscow introduces tanks in sufficient number, the opposition will simply raise its hands in surrender even though that did not work in Afghanistan in the 1980s or in Chechnya in 1995.
We'll see if the current "cease fire" is for real. Seems like the West is in a bind on this one and it might turn out to be a political setback for former Soviet states who want to join NATO. What would NATO do? Nothing, I bet.
-- Christian
Just over a year away from the commissioning of the latest LPD-class ship scheduled for Sept 11, 2009, the USS New York continues her post-christening outfitting and shipyard work.
The pride this ship evokes is palpable. Most everyone knows there is 24 tons of scrap steel that was melted down and included in her bow section, but the effect that had on the shipyard workers was electric:
'those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence,' recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. 'It was a spiritual moment for everybody there.'Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the 'hair on my neck stood up.' 'It had a big meaning to it for all of us,' he said.
The fifth ship in the new San Antonio class of amphibious transport dock ship (LPD), the fleet already has the first three of this class 
on the waterfront, namely the first in the class, USS San Antonio (LPD 17) based in Norfolk, the USS New Orleans (LPD 18) based in San Diego and the third, USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), also homeported in Norfolk.
The fourth ship, USS Green Bay (LPD 20), has been launched and christened and has a scheduled commissioning, joining the west coast fleet in San Diego, in late 2008.
Farther down the construction list are the remaining ships in this class, namely the San Diego (LPD 22), Anchorage (LPD 23) and the other two ships to bear the names of 9/11 attacks, Arlington (LPD 24) and Somerset (LPD 25).
If you have the time and interest, attending one of these commissioning ceremonies is a great honor and part of a centuries-long history of naval tradition. Because USS Green Bay is too large to make it through the St Lawrence Seaway, she won't be able to visit her name-sake city on Lake Michigan. Her commissioning ceremony is scheduled for Long Beach, CA while USS New York will, of course, be in New York City.
Hack attack --
The Georgian embassy in the U.K. has accused forces within Russia of launching a coordinated cyberattack against Georgian Web sites, to coincide with military operations in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.Speaking to ZDNet UK on Monday, a Georgian embassy spokesperson said that Web sites had been unavailable over the weekend, claiming this was due to Russian denial-of-service attacks.
"All Georgian Web sites have been blocked," said the spokesperson. "Georgia is working on redirecting Web traffic."
Looks like Google's blogspot is picking up the slack.
Georgia's military isn't exactly net-centric, so it's looking like these attacks are more public-relations related than military. Both Georgia and Russia have been furiously conducting PR ops, spinning the conflict to make it seem like the other guy's fault. World opinion tends to gravitate towards the underdog, so neutralizing Georgia's most convenient and easily accessible communications medium might be Ivan's way of evening the playing field.
Then again, it might be a couple of Russian teenagers trying to do their part...
Y'know?
--John Noonan
Warp Drive Engine to make .5 past light-speed
Awesome: Scientists that close to an invisibility cloak
Russia bombs Su-25 Frogfoot manufacturing plant... with a Su-25 Frogfoot
Air Force night missions freaking out Kenyans
Tom Clancy "Ghost Recon" video game becomes reality
This one is described as "Raw Footage Following Georgian Troops." Notice the Su-25 "Frogfoot" being used in the air-to-ground attack. That's the Sov version of the A-10 and was used extensively in Afghanistan back in the day.
Here's another one that I'm not sure of the context. Since the upload date says Aug. 7 I wonder if it's Georgian troops and Ossetian rebels.
-- Christian
For those who wonder just how worried the Pentagon is about stumbling into or somehow sparking a second protest in the tanker wars, heres a baseline.
John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, issued a July 31 memo requiring that all communications outside of the Defense Department be approved by the Pentagons general counsels office and by Shad Assay, director of defense procurement, acquisition policy and strategic sourcing.
This means that anyone who wants to talk to the press or to industry must first get Air Force clearance and then get OSD clearance, including the departments top lawyers. The source who provided the memo described it as a gag order. That may be a little strong but is conveys pretty clearly just how concerned the Pentagons senior leadership is with shaping and controlling the messages it sends as it conducts the tanker rebid. In effect, this is pretty close to a gag order given that no lawyer is likely to approve any statement to anyone unless its either utterly innocuous or there is very good reason for the department to say something. After all, $35 billion is a fair amount of change and the departments handling of the tanker deal has been remarkably inept over the years.
[Editor: Loren Thompson must be sobbing right now...]
-- Colin Clark
Fusion Centers have been fairly successful since their inception back in the 1980s. The FC is a critical node in the collection and processing of intelligence from various sources. The actual operations of these centers are somewhat cloaked in secrecy. For that reason, fusion centers are somewhat controversial and mysterious. A fusion center is a physical location for interagency collaboration and intelligence synthesis based on disparate pieces of information obtained by one of the numerous agencies participating in the center.
Naturally, technology is a critical component but the human assets from the various agencies, departments, industries and businesses are the critical lynch-pin. The cyber threat fusion center will require all 15 members of the U.S. intelligence community plus many others. In total, about 25 entities from the government and representative from 6 industries as well as part-time contributions from up to 100 specifically identified businesses would make up the participants in the cyber threat fusion center.
Feeding the center with the latest cyber threat analysis is a critical aspect of pulling together a big picture of the threat environment. All Source Intelligence (ASI) is defined as a collection of intelligence products and/or organizations and/or activities that incorporate all sources of information, including, most frequently human resources intelligence, imagery intelligence, measurement and signature intelligence, signals intelligence, and open source data, in the production of finished intelligence. This is the organized collection and linking of intel from multiple sources in multiple forms about a specific subject matter under analysis. This is not an easy task. "Too much information can be just as big a problem as too little," says Spy-Ops. "We use scenario-based intelligence analysis (SBIA) coupled with trans-disciplinary intelligence engineering (TIE) to fuse the all source intelligence. By combining these two techniques we are able to capture the context with which the intelligence was collected and that directly impacts the resulting knowledge we extrapolate."
Over the past few years the experience and results gained from using these techniques warrant creating one to specifically address cyber threats. The Cyber Threat Fusion Center (CTFC) would bring together the various entities within the defense department, groups within Homeland Security, industry expertise as well as facilitate bi-directions threat intelligence information sharing with the business community.
While I have only participated twice in FC operations, both were an eye opening experience and the results were significant. Could the same results have been achieved without the use of a fusion center -- yes. However, the question is how much more time would be required to have come to the same conclusion. The difficulty will be getting all the parties to openly share the information they have. All too often the parties needed to participate in the fusion center see themselves in competition with each other. Given the severity of the threat against our nation's information infrastructure, establishing this center is time critical. When the massive intelligence community from the government is tightly coupled to and collaborates with the front line defense intelligence from the business community and both are supported by the high tech industry the output of this center will surely provide valuable insight into defending against the crowing threat of cyber attacks.
Canada buys Russian kit
Georgia v. Russia: Our bad?
Top 5 next-gen shooters
So remind me... why did we decommission the F-111?
Awesome: Liquid body armor could 'turn you into Batman'
So now that Georgia and Russia have officially challenged each other to fisticuffs, how do the two match up?
Georgia has roughly 30k troops serving in the Georgian Armed Forces, with 2,000 of their best troops serving in Iraq. Though small, the Georgian Army is respected by their Coalition partners in Iraq as a highly competent fighting force. They're equipped with relatively modern Russian weapons, to include some 200 tanks, 450 armored fighting vehicles, Su-25 and MiG-25 fighter jets, and a whole mess of artillery, mortars, surface to air missiles, etc etc.
The Russian bear is still, well... a juggernaut. Ivan's armed forces weigh in at just over 1 million troops. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation suffered during the harsh post-Soviet breakup defense cuts, but have since flourished under Vladimir Putin. They are technologically advanced, disciplined, and effectively trained. The Russians are familiar and comfortable operating in the Caucasus Mountain region, both from their unification with Georgia under the Soviet Empire and from their fighting in nearby Chechnya.
So yeah, on the surface, it looks like we've got a classic David v. Goliath matchup. Not so fast. As mentioned, the Georgians can be mean little bastards. They've got a home field advantage, are furiously calling up reserves, and are fighting a Russian enemy that has one (one!!) supply line over the Caucasus into South Ossetia. That logistics line, ironically enough, will be closed in a few short months by Russia's old tried and true ally -- Old Man Winter.
If Georgia can plug that hole, get creative with their air defense assets, kill a whole mess of Russians, and force this thing into a winter overtime -- I wouldn't be surprised if the international community forces a peace favorable to the Georgians.
Of course if they don't plug that line, I can see Russia's tanks bringing Georgia back into the family -- the old school way.
--John Noonan
The Navy's first littoral combat ship, the Freedom (LCS 1), got underway for the first time on 28 July. The first ship of a program that seeks some 55 advanced-technology ships for operations in coastal/littoral waters, the Freedom is being constructed on Lake Michigan by a team led by the Lockheed Martin Corp.
The Freedom and the competitive design, led by the Independence (LCS 2) built by a General Dynamics-led team, are noteworthy in being more than a year behind schedule and costing more than twice as much as originally estimated. The contract cost of these ships was to be on the order of $220 million -- plus the innovative "mission packages" that would be installed when they were ready for operations. The LCS 1 cost is now estimated at $550 million. And, it may be more before the ship is ready for delivery to the Navy later this year.
The delays and cost increases of the LCS program led to Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter cancelling the construction of LCS 3 and 4, to have been built by the Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics teams, respectively. The "mess" of the LCS program also led to the firing, reassignment, or resignation of several naval officers, including the Program Executive Officer for Ships, and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition).
Subsequently the LCS 5 and LCS 6 were also cancelled in 2007 as the Navy sought to restructure the overall program. Under current plans, the Navy will procure:
FY 2008 1 LCS
FY 2009 2 LCS
FY 2010 3 LCS
FY 2011 3 LCS
FY 2012 4 LCS
FY 2013 6 LCS
The Navy's program goal still calls for some 55 of these ships. Each ship will have a set of container-like modules and an MH-60 series helicopter plus unmanned vehicles (air, surface, and underwater), as well as associated surface craft in some configurations, that will comprise a mission package. In theory, these packages could be swapped between LCS hulls. Each LCS will have a core crew and a team of specialists will embark in each ship with the mission package.
At this time the Navy plans to procure 24 mine warfare packages (approximately $68 million each), 16 anti-submarine warfare packages ($42.3 million), and 24 surface warfare packages ($16.7 million). Thus, if all are procured, the Navy would have flexibility in swapping modules at U.S. ports or, if the packages are flown overseas, at forward ports.
After the Freedom and Independence complete their builder and sea trials, the Navy will decide wither to procure one or the other design, or a force mix of both designs.
The Freedom is now running builder trials, to be followed by Navy acceptance trails. The ship will displace 2,862 tons full load and is 378-feet long -- the size of a corvette or small frigate. The Navy, of course, could not accept such mundane designations for an innovative ship concept, and invented the LCS designation. Since the early 1940s "L" ships were landing ships (LSD, LSM, LST, etc.). Subsequently, from 1968-1969 all of the Navy's larger amphibious ships -- command ships, transports, cargo ships, and helicopter carriersc were also given "L" designations (LCC, LPA, LKA, LPH, LHA, etc.).
Thus, the LCS marks still another break with Navy designation procedures as well as with naval tradition. But then again, on several counts -- both good and bad -- the LCS concept itself is a break with tradition.
Gerber knives are very sturdy and well-made. That having been said, they have also always been too gimmicky for my taste and most, if not all, have typically been considered wannabe knives by real professionals who use knives. There are only two killing knives I'd consider:
1. The old Army fighting knife with a blade that's just like the issue Colt M-16 bayonet without the rifle hook-up. This knife has a sturdy, curved, dagger point, and it's very smooth with a sure-grip handle in both the old leather rings and the newer rubber rings from Ontario Knife. It doesn't jam between the ribs and is a perfect ear-canal knife. If you are a pro, you'll know what I mean.
2. Is the Tanto; although the Tanto is more geared for outright fighting, it's also a great rib-stabbing and cutting knife, and also an excellent ear-canal knife. I probably shouldn't say this, but these knives also cut through bullet-proof vests like they were butter, as long as they don't hit the ceramic plate. Even then, if they slide off of it while you are still pushing on it, they can still do some terrible damage.
The Ka-Bar of Marine fame requires too much brute force to make it work in too many circumstances, but it might be something I'd consider if I was forced to do so. That's it for killing knives.
For working knives, there is nothing like the bulky and heavy Victorinox Swiss Army Champ. Not Wenger, but specifically Victorinox. It's worth many times its weight in gold, if you have ever needed a really great working knife while out in the bush. One of my sons once cut a piece of tool steel with the hacksaw in one of my old Swiss Champs and didn't damage the knife!
Gerber knives, with all those candy-ass serrations and gimmicks are more geared for the fire-rescue unit than the fighting man. I'd like to see anyone stick one into someone else's ribs without getting the serrations stuck in between them. Yes, you can do it, if you turn it horizontally going in and coming out, but in a fight for life and limb, who the hell knows how they are sticking a knife into someone else? Sideways, upside down, it's all the same when the chips are down. A real professional, chock-full of adrenalin, with a knife stuck three inches deep between ribs will still easily kill you without a second thought while you determine how you'll get your knife back. (To free it, you have to violently pull it up or down to break a rib. By the time you decide to do this, you might be dead. Having tremendously injured the other guy is immaterial to your being dead.)
The guy who said that the aluminum handle would be bad for both cold weather and not to be left in the sun was absolutely correct. In very cold weather it will freeze to your hand and having been in the tropical sun for any length of time, you wouldn't be able to hold it in your bare hand. The guy who talked about wrapping a handle with 550 cord (parachute cord) was absolutely correct too, except that before you wrap the handle, you take out the guts, so the cord lays flatter and ties better over the handle. If you want to make it better, twist the empty cord as you tie it and create a greater gripping surface. It's not about making it stick to your hand, but about creating friction so that under any and all circumstances, including blood, gore and slime, you will be able to maintain a secure grip on your weapon. I gave my wife a Cold Steel Tanto with a 550 cord-wrapped handle some years ago and she loves it. She says it's a 'pretty' knife, as opposed to my old U.S. Army fighting knife, which she says is a 'nothing killer and a pirate knife.' I love it. My children all say they'd rather meet me at night in a dark alley than to do the same with their mother. I'm very proud of the way I trained her, especially having taught her how to overcome female deficiencies in fighting men, something a majority of women have not been taught, consequently, when the chips are down they lose. It's a shame. Me
ED The only reference to an old, bayonet-style fighting knife offered by the Ontario Knife Company was the SP3-M7 knife (Ive included the picture above) which features a 6 ¾ blade (11 1/8 overall.) I hope this is what you were referring to. If not, let me know and Ill update this posting.
Regarding your comments about the utility of the skull crusher point you see on many knives (the Gerber Yari II or the SP3, for example) I agree with you that a pointed crusher will be much more effective in a fighting situation, than would a flat basher like the Ka-bar. For me though, as the poster child for the non-knife fighter community, if push ever came to shove, Id probably reach for a cinder block as a means of self-defense rather than a professional fighting knife (Ill never hit the ear canal, but Ill probably get the guys head with my brick.)
Regarding the use of the 550 cord, I agree, you need to strip the handle down to create a smooth wrapping surface. With my kukri I sanded down the handle, with the Yari II I wrapped the forged aluminum handle with athletic tape to fill in the holes, and then wrapped it. For me, I like to leave the core threads in the OD sheath, to give the material better absorbency. One thing I found that worked real well was leather bootlaces. They wrap well and they grip well. Unfortunately, they are also porous and I was concerned about how to clean the knife up after getting it contaminated. So I went with the 550 cord.
-- Kit Up!
I'm surprised no one else caught this...or maybe they did and I'm dim...
On a cloudless summer day at Camp Mackall Airfield, the U.S. Army reached a new milestone in its airborne operations capabilities with the MV-22 Osprey aircraft July 22.
The operation marked the first official use of the Osprey by the Army for training purposes, said Marine Lt. Col. Baron A. Harrison, Marine liaison at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Until now, the Osprey had seen use by the U.S. Navy, Marines and Air Force, but not the Army. Because it is still a relatively new aircraft the Ospreys first flight was in spring of 1989 the Army had not shown a great deal of interest.
However, this appears to be changing, said Maj. Steven B. Weliver, airborne commander for the operation.
I know that AFSOC folks are tinkering with the Osprey out at Edwards, but I think it's fairly significant that Army SOF got to take a ride in it ... and jump out of it.
It's interesting too because even the staunchest critics of the Osprey grudgingly accept the bird as tailor made for the SOF. It was, actually, designed in response to the failure at Desert One, so that makes perfect sense from an historical standpoint. But I guess I hadn't thought about whether snake eaters had taken many rides in the things. Maybe this one will have been more influential than McCain's or Obama's Iraq joyrides...
The highlight of the Osprey, and the key to what makes it particularly interesting to USASOC, is its tilt-rotor engine. This dynamic engine enables the Osprey to transition mid-flight from operating very much like a helicopter to propelling through the sky as though it were a plane.
In addition to its ability to take off like a helicopter, the Ospreys top speed nearly doubles that of traditional rotary wing aircraft, such as the CH-47 Chinook.
It can get us farther, faster, so basically less exposure to any threats, Weliver said.
The clear benefit is in extracting troops from a limited and confined space, said Staff Sgt. Eduardo F. Collado, secretary of the general staff at USASOC.
But the Osprey was not always a proven method of travel. It was only recently that the evolution of the Osprey has earned the kind of credibility that catches the Armys interest, said Weliver.
The Osprey program has matured to a point where now we can start seeing what its capabilities are and how it will lend itself to the Special Operations community, he said.
Even so, until a proper number of Soldiers are familiar with safety protocol while aboard the Osprey, it will remain only a potentially useful tool. This jump was among the first substantive steps in incorporating the Osprey into future Army operations.
(Gouge: Shadowspear)
-- Christian
Iron Curtain returns?
The making (and unmaking) of the American hovercraft
Chinese Aerospace: now with less stealing from the Russians!
Why defense technologies are so damned expensive
Click HERE for the new, amended RFP for the KC-X tanker.
(Gouge: CC)
-- Christian
We're covering the Pentagon presser today at 3pm on the new tanker RFP. Here's a bit of what Colin has reported over at DoD Buzz.
A few items of interest, for perspective. former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne and I spoke recently about the options the Pentagon has. They are very few if John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, stuck with what he said he would stick with. First, the requirements would not change. So the Northrop Grumman team would seem to come out ahead on this score since all the OSD and Air Force personnel who have talked about this agree that Northrop does the best job overall of meeting or exceeding the requirements..
Second, Wynne agreed that since Young made clear a dual buy would just be too expensive that also tips things in Northrops favor. Young said several times after the GAO ruling that buying tankers from both companies would add substantial costs, costs the Pentagon was not willing to shoulder.
Still, Wynne professed to like the idea of a dual buy. But I think thats because he believes Boeing couldnt get enough planes in the air and certified quickly enough and believes it would, in the long run, just strengthen Northrops position.
Finally, while it may not be factual, the swagger of senior EADS personnel before and during the Farnborough Air Show was palpable. They have little doubt they will not lose to Boeing, amended RFP or not. Boeing personnel, on the other hand, were clearly on the defensive during Farnborough. More after the briefing.
We did just receive a note from the office of Rep. Norm Dicks who's already crying foul about the new RFP...
Note that there is an obvious change inserted into the System Requirements Document in the revised tanker RFP that clearly favors the larger aircraft even though it is not necessarily connected to any real-world use of tanker. The original RFP said no extra credit beyond threshold requirement, which both planes had met and exceeded in the first competition. New RFP says there is value in exceeding. Is this a competition for a KC-10 replacement or a KC-135 replacement?
So, the Air Force shouldn't get what it wants, right Mr. Dicks? Seems to me if they're asking for more fuel capability then they should be able to buy the tanker that gives it to them. Boeing asked for this rebid, they've gotten it, and now its backers are already complaining that it's unfair?
Is there anyone out there that believes this will be a "fair" process anymore?
Stay tuned here, to DoD Buzz and to Military.com for further updates.
-- Christian
There are a lot of difficult training courses out there in the military. There's Ranger School and jump school, SERE, HALO, dive school, the "Green Footprint" I-school, Scout-Sniper School.
Most famously of course are things like the SF Q-Course and BUDS. Anyone that watches TV or goes to the movies can seemingly discuss their relative difficulty and merits (it's hard to read sarcasm, but try).
Slightly less well known over here on this side of the pond is the Brecon Beacons part of SAS Selection, Canada's SOBQ, the Golani Training School and the BBE's "Black Tulip" shindig. All of these pale in comparison to one unnamed training cycle of such incredible difficulty it's only been successfully completed one time. That's right. It's the training regimen known colloquially as "Becoming Batman."
Legionnaire, Inside Delta Force and Bravo Two Zero were all great books -- but you're going to need to read Becoming Batman: the Possibility of a Superhero by E. Paul Zehr.
Interested? Well, Scientific American interviewed the author recently, asking such questions as How many of us do you think could become a Batman?
The response: "If you found the percentage of billionaires and multiply that by the percentage of people who become Olympic decathletes, you could probably get a close estimate. The really important thing is just how much a human being really can do. There's such a huge range of performance and ability you can tap into..."
The interview is Dark Knight Shift: Why Batman Could Exist, But Not For Long.
Here's the description of his book:
Battling bad guys. High-tech hideouts. The gratitude of the masses. Who at some point in their life hasn't dreamed of being a superhero?
Impossible, right? Or is it?
Possessing no supernatural powers, Batman is the most realistic of all the superheroes. His feats are achieved through rigorous training and mental discipline, and with the aid of fantastic gadgets. Drawing on his training as a neuroscientist, kinesiologist, and martial artist, E. Paul Zehr explores the question: could a mortal ever become Batman?
Zehr discusses the physical and skill training necessary to maintain bad-guy-fighting readiness while relating the science underlying this process -- from strength conditioning to the cognitive changes a person would endure in undertaking such a regimen. In probing what a real-life Batman could achieve, Zehr considers the level of punishment a consummately fit and trained person could handle, how hard and fast such a person could punch and kick and the number of adversaries that individual could dispatch, what it would be like to fight while wearing a batsuit, and the amount of food one would have to consume each day to maintain vigilance as Gotham City's guardian.
A fun foray of escapism grounded in sound science, Becoming Batman provides the background for attaining the realizablethough extremelevel of human performance that would allow you to be a superhero.
[Editor's Note: Welcome to our new contributors "Slim" and "Swingin' Richard" from the BreachBangClear blog. They'll give us the inside scoop on what operators like (and dislike) in terms of weapons, gear, training and tactics, so stay tuned for more.]
Elon Musk is one of the gutsiest entrepreneurs in the world. After making a pile from his share of PayPal which he co-founded Elon decided he wanted to do something no new company has done, build a new launch vehicle from scratch and then sell it.
A dogged and gifted salesman, he sold the Air Force on the idea. They were being pushed hard by Congress to come up with a cheaper and simpler rocket to lift small- and medium-sized satellites into orbit, and Elon had a workable solution risky, but workable.
But the third try which analysis of past launch programs indicate was crucial since programs that dont have a successful launch in the first three rarely succeed was pretty much an unmitigated failure, no matter how adeptly Elon tries to spin it. The launch from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific went well but the second stage did not separate correctly.
Even Jim Armor, former head of the National Security Space Office and a devout supporter of Operationally Responsive Space, now says he would not approve launch of any national security payload atop a Falcon launch system unless Elon gets two successful and successive launches under his belt.
Armor, now an independent consultant, confessed to being disheartened by the latest SpaceX failure.
What a heartbreaker, he said when I reached him on the phone. He said Elon must accept that his companys systems engineering skills are just not up to the task of putting together several rocket stages and getting them to work. As far as bringing it together in a stack Elon has been humbled by rocket science, Armor said. If I were him I would stop trying to do it by myself and would seek some outside expertise."
Read the rest of this story and get the latest update at DoD Buzz.
-- Colin Clark
After posting the story this morning about the Iraqi M1 tanks (and, by the way, how ironic is it that the tanks used to topple the Baghdad government in 2003 will be the same one they buy for the new army?) I went over to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency web site and took a look at some of their FMS deal announcements.
One -- actually, two -- jumped out at me.
It seems that both Italy and Germany have asked to buy a few MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicles. These, of course, are the killer drones that fire missiles and drop bombs covertly and are credited with quite a few high-value target kills in Pakistan's NWFP.
I thought there were several of these sorts of planes in development domestically for these EU countries, but I guess it's a question of the shortest distance between two points or they're being asked to fill in for shortfalls on missions in Afghanistan.
The Government of Italy has requested a possible sale of 4 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), 3 Mobile Ground Control Stations, five years of maintenance support, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $330 million.
...although there's not mention of Afghanistan in the above solicitation for Italy.
The Government of Germany has requested a possible sale of 5 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), 4 Mobile Ground Control Stations, one year of maintenance support, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $205 million.
But they did mention Afghanistan here...
Germany requests these capabilities to provide for the defense of deployed troops, regional security, and interoperability with the United States. This program will increase Germanys ability to contribute to future NATO, coalition, and anti-terrorism operations that the U.S. may undertake. Germany is a staunch supporter of the Global War on Terror and has over 3,000 military participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan with the U.S. By acquiring this capability, Germany will be able to provide the same level of protection for its own forces as those of the United States.
Though I doubt the Germans will be willing to take the heat after schwaking a bad guy in Pakistan, maybe it's going to free up some assets for more U.S. hits in the NWFP.
-- Christian
Iran said on Monday that it had successfully testfired an anti-ship missile with a range of 300 kilometres (180 miles) that it had developed with homegrown technology so far unused by any other country.
In circumstances echoing the Iraq war controversy, hardliners in US President George W. Bush's administration spun intelligence and triggered a nuclear crisis with North Korea, says a new book to be released this week.
In the wake of 9/11, it was generally recognized that the terrorists want to create a mass level of panic, chaos and destruction. As for the American perception, it is believed that terrorists want to kill Americans in large numbers.
The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy is the latest in a series of Defense Department messages highlighting the need to develop a U.S. foreign policy with greater emphasis on so-called “soft powers” such as diplomacy and international aid.
Germany and Italy are seeking to buy MQ-9 Reapers, new armed drones that the United States recently began flying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon said Monday.
Elbit Systems Ltd. announced today that it was awarded yet another contract to supply the Australian Army with more Skylark I UAV systems for an estimated value of several million dollars.
Speedier acquisition of armaments, systems and platforms while ensuring greater transparency in the procurement process are some of the hallmarks of the Defence Procurement Procedure – 2008 which was unveiled by the Defence Minister Shri AK Antony, here today.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of M1A1 and Upgrade to M1A1M Abrams Tanks as well as associated equipment and services.
The U.K.'s Royal Air Force completed capability demonstration trials of Raytheon Company's Paveway IV. The trials showed the full range of operational capabilities of the RAF's next-generation general purpose air-to-ground weapon system.
In conjunction with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) submitting a tender to Norway for 48 Gripen aircraft on the 28th April this year, Saab has also submitted proposals for industrial collaboration.
Littoral Combat Ship sails with Army crew
Army inches closer to the Imperial AT-AT
Inside the totally rad Aussie Bushmaster Infantry Vehicle
The ever ready nuclear missileer (pdf)
Lockheed gets all Corleone on overseas JSF customers
So with littoral combat being all the rage these days, what's being done to posture the fleet against the rising threat of enemy ballistic missiles? Rear Admiral Thomas Marfiak says "not enough."
Proceedings sends
With all the talk about the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the next guided-missile destroyer, DDG-1000, no one has seen fit to discuss the future of the next generation of cruisers-the CG(X), the follow-on to the present class of Aegis cruisers. Because those remarkable ships will reach their 30th anniversaries-and beyond-in the middle of the next decade, we need to confront the issue of their successors now.The Analysis of Alternatives for the CG(X) has been in the works for several months, but the outcome is far from certain. And with the target initial operational capability of the new cruiser class set for 2019, the present study of required capabilities and how to develop and fund them has reached the point of urgency.
A knotty problem. Back during 2006's Lebanon War, Hezzy baddies killed four Israeli sailors with a UAV packed with explosives. Granted, textbook definition doesn't exactly qualify that as a ballistic missile. But it does raise the larger point of potential enemies like Iran, Syria, and North Korea -- and what tech they'd employ as a means of knocking back our air and sea power. Seeing that every dictator and his sweet mother have -at minimum- a few medium range ballistic missiles and a whole mess of lighter ship/aircraft killers, I'm thinking that the good Admiral has a point here.
Furthermore, most of our enemies (and potentials) are eager customers of a booming Russian defense industry. Taking into consideration the fact that Aegis was originally designed to protect our carriers from Russian missile attack, logic would dictate that as the Russians upgrade their ship-killing kit, we upgrade our seaborne defense systems as well. --John Noonan
Classified Information is defined as data, regardless of form that includes sensitive information that its disclosure is restricted by law or regulation to particular group of people. Information is classified at one of three levels based on the amount of danger that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause to national security.
The highest basic level of classified information is Top Secret. Top Secret information is defined as information that if disclosed would reasonably be expected to cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security. The next to highest level of classified information is Secret. Secret information is defined as information that if disclosed would cause "serious damage" to national security. The third level of classified information is Confidential. Confidential is defined as information that if disclosed could cause "damage" to national security.
There are other restrictions on information such as NTK - need to know and SSI - sensitive security information. In these dangerous times, a slip or accidental disclosure of classified information can easily result in loss of life and billions of dollars of damage.
The extraordinary sensitivity of our intelligence and defense organizations' mission requires the extraordinary protection against possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any information coming to your attention concerning the loss or unauthorized disclosure of classified information should be reported immediately to proper government officials. Due to a number of recent security incidents involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information training programs like "Handling Classified Information" has seen a significant increase in demand according to Spy-Ops. Organizations are taking additional steps to inform employees and contract workers of their responsibilities when handling sensitive information.
The most widely known case of leaking classified information came when the identity of a secret agent was disclosed. CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, had her identity publically disclosed in multiple newspapers back in July of 2003. Since then, disclosures of classified information seem be become know monthly.
Examples (By far not an exhaustive list):
Jul 15, 2008 The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is exploring into how confidential and extremely sensitive information on airline security and the state of airporst was leaked to the press.
April 2008 A Defense Department official who worked as a weapons policy analyst pleaded guilty to disclosing classified military information that was later passed on to China.
August 2007 A Congressman revealed a budget cut in the classified portion of the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill dealing with the human-intelligence programs.
July 2007 Millions of documents containing sensitive and sometimes classified information have been floating about freely on file sharing networks after being inadvertently exposed by individuals downloading P2P software on systems that held the data. Among these documents were the Pentagon's classified (secret) network infrastructure diagrams, complete with IP addresses as well as information on five separate Department of Defense information security system audits.
October 2006 A report published on the front page of the New York Times included a classified one-page slide "Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict" from an Oct. 18 military briefing.
August 2006 A Navy lawyer could be put behind bars for 30 years after Navy officials charged him with passing along secret information while he was stationed at Guantanamo Bay.
April 2006 The CIA fired an officer who acknowledged, after failing a polygraph examination, giving classified information to a reporter.
April 2005 The Justice Department launched an investigation into leaks to the media about the National Security Agency's classified domestic surveillance program.
These incidents and many others have triggered multiple ongoing investigations by the FBI and many other federal entities. One would think that the people who have been authorized to handle classified information would take divulging this information more seriously. We should all be outraged when our country's secrets are disclosed for whatever reason. After all, it puts all of us at risk.
The US Department of Defense has released $1 billion of funding to acquire six Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft as part of the second Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract for the F-35.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Israel of C-130J-30 Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services.
New Hampshire (SSN 778), the nation's newest and most advanced nuclear-powered attack submarine, returned to the Electric Boat shipyard here today following the successful completion of its first voyage in open seas, called alpha sea trials.
The EA-18G Test Team at NAWCWD China Lake conducted its first AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) live fire on July 23, marking another critical milestone for the Growler test program.
The Pentagon said Friday it has notified Congress of proposed military sales to Iraq valued at more than nine billion dollars, including helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles.
Balance is the key word of the new National Defense Strategy, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said during a news conference today.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of Light Armored Vehicles as well as associated equipment and services.
President Hugo Chavez on Sunday said 24 missile-firing Russian Sukhoi fighter jets have been delivered to Venezuela, and warned the recently reactivated US Fourth Fleet to steer clear of Venezuelan waters.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of Helicopters and related munitions as well as associated equipment and services.
At least 15 militants and one Pakistani soldier were killed Sunday in clashes in the troubled northwestern Swat Valley, the military said in a statement.
Coalition airpower integrated with coalition ground forces in Iraq and International Security Assistance Force troops in Afghanistan during operations August 2, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.
The Portuguese Air Force today announced the selection of Northrop Grumman Corporation's third-generation LITENING Advanced Targeting (AT) system for their F-16 Advanced Targeting Pod upgrade program.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of technical assistance for construction of facilities and infrastructure as well as associated equipment and services.
Vision Systems International, LLC (VSI), has been awarded an initial contract at more than $17 million from Boeing for the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) in 145 F-15E Strike Eagles.
Sure, the franchise has come a long way. Sure, "The Dark Knight" is awesome. But at the end of the day, it gets no better than this:
Gives you goosebumps, don't it?
-- Ward
Been quite a year for Minot AFB...
Truck carrying missile booster tips in N.D.
A military transport vehicle carrying an unarmed Minuteman III booster tipped over Thursday morning on its way to a 91st Missile Wing launch facility at Minot Air Force Base, N.D.The standard firings usually ensue after public kerfuffles with nukes. But at this point, I'm not sure there's anyone left at Minot to fire... --John Noonan
Early reports show the vehicle tipped over on the gravel access road after the road gave out under the truck, according to an Air Force official. The accident occurred between the sparsely populated towns of Makoti and Parshall, N.D., about 70 miles southwest of Minot, right off County Road 24. They are still investigating now but we know there is no danger to the public and no nuclear materials were onboard the vehicle at the time of the accident, said Maj. Laurie Arellano, an Air Force Space Command spokeswoman.
Another "real or fake" contest. Got this from the good folks over at Militaryphotos.net.
Looks like a model plane to me.
-- Christian
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) and the panoply of Boeing supporters must have been whooping it up as they read the upbeat news stories about language inserted into the 2009 defense spending bill to give Boeing a better chance of winning the tanker contract.
[Photo: Boeing/Defense Tech]
I checked with some staff and a few other sources on the Hill and the early gouge is this: the Senate is unlikely to support language redrawing the rules of the competition or doing anything like a split buy that would probably lead to a substantial cost increase.
One knowledgeable source pointed out that the tankers back-stop supporters in the Senate were to be Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Ala.). Stevens has dropped his position as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee until his seven charges are settled one way or another, in compliance with Senate Republican Conference rules. And I understand Inouye, chairman of the defense subcommittee, has indicated he would prefer to stay out of this fight. Also, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a member of the defense subcommittee, would fight tooth and claw to keep any such language out of the Senate bill. Should such language get in somehow, Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are likely to oppose it as the bill moves to the Senate floor.
Of course, the average taxpayer would never know about the tanker language in the bill. Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, issued a press release yesterday simply stating that the bill:
Provides full funding ($893 million) for the aerial refueling tanker program. The Committee directs the DoD to comply with the GAO findings concerning the tanker award protest, and directs that industrial base concerns be included in the evaluation of the tanker contract award.
Read the rest of this story and the actual language of the Senate bill over at DoD Buzz.
-- Colin Clark
Well, the snake eaters have come out from their hides and begun to comment on yesterday's article about a test shoot I participated in with some SF Soldiers who demoed the SCAR.
Aside from the inevitable implication that somehow I was endorsing the weapon myself, the gist of the upcoming debate seems to be leaning toward the idea that the operators I interviewed haven't spent enough time with the weapon and don't know what they're talking about.
In all candor, I would agree. No one is going to make a definitive judgment on a weapon's capability from one day of firing. But first impressions are important -- especially if they're the impressions of Soldiers who will actually use the equipment -- and that's why I included them in an article for DT readers.
Here's an interesting response from "CDRODA396" on the Professional Soldiers web forum:
The SCAR was originally a SEAL requirement, specifically they wanted a weapon that would fire immediately upon breaking the surface of water, as stated above it can do.
The main impetus behind the SCAR has not been USASOC, which they have not helped, but the main push has been SOCOM all along. Specifically an Infantry COL who is the PM down at Tampa. More recently, the Dpty G8, USASOC (18A) has been pushing it, going so far as to making the statement, "We are ready to accept the SCAR right now, and turn in our M-4's to get it," at the last SOCOM Weapons Integrated Product Team (IPT) meeting.
This is NOT the position held at USASFC, which is more fix its problems, prove it works and then we'll move forward. MG Csrnko, CG, USASFC was briefed on the SCAR about two weeks ago. The VTC included all the Groups, USASFC, USASOC and USSOCOM, mainly represented by the O-6 PM.
At that meeting the recurring problems, like the butt-stock breaking, identified over three years ago as an issue, and again found most recently in April (I think it was April, maybe May) at the last User Assessment, were highlighted.
MG Csrnko asked some good questions, including, and probably most importantly, has the thing really been tested in anything other than a "sterile range" environment, which the answer was no.
So, it has been requested by USASFC that the current "issues" get addressed, for good, and it get tested in a FTX, CTC type environment, being used, "like we are going to use it." Until then, we are keeping the M-4A1.
And that's what I know about that.
Let's keep track of what these guys are saying. I'm interested to take a look at how others who've spent more time with the weapon feel about it. One commenter said: "start posting on this thread your issues with the wonderful SCAR that's about to be force fed to you in large doses...It's time to take the SCAR to task."
-- Christian
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is in town this week to discuss with White House and Pentagon officials what to do about Irans nuclear program. Accompanying Barak is Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz; hes the former IDF chief who set off a firestorm recently when he said an Israeli military strike against Iran is unavoidable. Current IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi was here last week and met with his Pentagon counterpart, Admiral Michael Mullen. Ashkenazi reportedly said he favors a diplomatic solution, but also issued the standard declaration that all options must be prepared for stopping Irans nuclear program.
There has been considerable debate about whether Israel could even carry out an effective air strike against Irans nuclear program. Analysts say there are too many factories, labs and reactor sites dispersed too widely across the country. According to a 2006 paper published by two MIT doctoral candidates (one of the most thorough pieces of analysis available), it would be impossible for Israel to knock out the entire Iranian nuclear program but the target set could be narrowed to the most critical facilities. They identify the critical nodes as: the Esfahan uranium conversion facility, the gas centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and the heavy water plant and future plutonium production reactors at Arak.
The MIT analysts identify Natanz as the most difficult target because much of the facility is buried deep and covered with layers of concrete. Israeli bombs would have to penetrate the earth covering, bore through the concrete layers and then dump enough bombs into the hole to generate blast pressures that could damage or destroy the equipment inside. They figure the strike package would have to drop a combination of roughly 24 BLU-109 2,000 lb. and BLU-113 5,000 lb. bunker busters on Natanz. The facilities at Esfahan are not buried and those at Arak are not hardened, so those targets sets would be relatively simple to destroy with no more than 24 2,000 pound GPS guided bombs.
What does Israel have as far as deep strike weapons? The MIT folks count at least 25 F-15I (the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle) and 20-50 F-16I, both airframes configured specifically for deep strike missions. Israel also has a large number of F-16s that could be fitted as strike aircraft, Wild Weasel jamming aircraft and over 40 F-15A and C versions to escort the bombers. Developments in precision targeting, specifically GPS guided bombs, means all Israeli aircraft carry bombs considerably more accurate than those used in the Osirak raid. They envision a 50 plane strike package evenly split between F-15I and F-16I aircraft.
Then the question becomes how well can Iran defend its airspace. Iranian aircraft are a mix of the old and the very old. Irans most modern fighter is the Mig-29, of which they have maybe 40. They also have a large number of 1970s era F-4, F-14, F-5 and some newer Chinese built F-7M and F-6. Iranian fighters would be operating over friendly territory, advantageous when they need to refuel or rearm. They could also draw on ground control radar to guide them into favorable attack positions against IDF aircraft roaming Iranian air space. If the Iranian aircraft could get into firing position against Israeli bombers, which is admittedly a big if, they have sufficiently modern air-to-air missiles that they could probably down a few.
Its not Irans fighter jets that could pose the real challenge, as the Iranian air force is more of an antique show, says David Ochmanek, an analyst with RAND who directs an ongoing study for the U.S. Air Force that examines future threats from Iran. The real threat to an attacker, he says, are Iranian surface-to-air missiles. There are reports that the Iranians field some of the newer Russian-built double digit SAMs, such as the SA-10, though not the newer and more potent SA-20 (the newer Russian designation is S-300 and S-400). The S-300 is considered by some accounts to be comparable to the U.S.-built Patriot air defense missile.
Ochmanek says the double digit SAMs are far more capable than the earlier SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6. The newer systems have high powered radars that are difficult to jam and more powerful, faster missiles. Barry Watts, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington thinktank, and a Vietnam-era fighter pilot, says if pilots could spot the smoke trails of the earlier generation of SAMs they could outmaneuver them because of the G-force limitations of those older missiles. With the latest generation SAMs outmaneuvering doesnt work. Those missiles went from ten G missiles, to about thirty or forty Gs, which means the missiles turn rates are vastly improved, he said. Coupled with the new powerful radars, if the missile is locked up on you and its guiding, the only thing you can do is pull the ejection handles and get out of the airplane.
Iran has also reportedly bought the fairly sophisticated Tor-M1 SA-15 Gauntlet, a short-range mobile SAM system. The Tor M-1s greatest strength is its mobility, which, because of Irans sizeable and mountainous terrain, could make for a very difficult target because it can pop-up almost anywhere. Iran lacks the resources to protect all of its air space, so it relies on point defense, deploying its anti-aircraft guns and missiles around strategically important sites, Ochmanek says.
The MIT folks figured that to carry out an effective strike, twelve F-15Is would have to arrive over Natanz, six F-16I over Esfahan and five F-16I over Arak. Their analysis said that a 50 plane strike package would provide the Israelis significant attrition cushion. The papers authors note that to cause the operation to fail, Iranian air defenses would have to down close to 40% of the attacking Israeli jets, an attrition rate that would exceed even the disastrous U.S. raid on Ploesti in Word War II. The MIT analysts conclude that largely because of advances in precision weaponry, Israeli leaders have access to the technical capability to carry out the attack, and that it would be no more risky than that of the 1981 raid on Osirak.
If a couple of students from MIT came up with that conclusion, the Israeli intelligence and military communities probably have a fairly high degree of confidence in the success of air strikes. The Israelis likely believe they can set back any progress the Iranians have made in nuclear enrichment by at least five years. What that would buy Israel and the rest of the world in terms of changing Tehrans policies is anybodys guess.
-- Greg Grant
Emphasizing that the mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles known as MRAPs are the best protection available against roadside bombs and other underbelly explosions, defense safety officials are promoting enhanced training and troop awareness to reduce rollovers and other accidents.
Northrop Grumman Corporation has won a $74.6 million contract to provide 21 ALQ-135M electronic combat systems for the Republic of Korea Air Force F-15K.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has agreed to explore deploying a powerful missile defense targeting radar in Israel, a senior US defense official said Tuesday.