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.
History was made today when the nation's first Littoral Combat Ship, Freedom (LCS 1), put to sea for the first time, marking the beginning of Builder's Sea Trials for the first-in-class coastal surface combatant.
The Defense Logistics Agency kicked off its fuel cell forklift pilot project here July 24 at the Defense Depot Warner Robins. It is part of an effort to find alternative energy sources and reduce America's growing dependence on energy imports.
A new tool may soon help route clearance teams detect and neutralize potentially deadly improvised explosive devices in Iraq.
It's a rifle designed specifically for the special operations community. Modular barrels, ambidextrous controls, a gas-piston operating system, a host of adjustment options -- but you already know that.
So with all the slick marketing language and eye-popping specifications of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, it's a given that operators will embrace the thing wholeheartedly, right?
Well, let's ask them.
"This rifle is awesome," said one Special Forces operator who, like the rest of the Green Berets in this interview, declined to be named for security reasons. "It's spot on."
Now you get an idea of how the men who'll use the weapon in combat felt about it, not just some six-figure marketing guru spewing crafty catch-phrases. But what's most interesting is why they liked the rifle so much.
In an exclusive, Military.com joined a group of about a dozen special operations Soldiers from around the country who traveled to Northern Virginia this summer to test fire the SCAR before their upcoming deployment to the Middle East. Ground rules agreed to between the special operators, the rifle manufacturer and Military.com precluded naming the unit, its members or its deployment destination.
See the Military.com SCAR Demo Slideshow
The SCAR, which comes in a 5.56mm version and a 7.62mm one, is nearing the end of its field user assessment phase -- the final stage before full-rate production and fielding to units under U.S. Special Operations Command, including SEALs, Green Berets and Air Force Special Tactics units.
The entry of the SCAR into the spec ops community comes as the services, Congress and the Pentagon scuffle over whether or not to replace the current M4 rifle and address persistent complaints over the standard-issued carbine's reported lack of "stopping power" and its need for constant maintenance and cleaning to avoid jams.
But ask the special operations troops firing both the Mk-16 (the 5.56mm version of the SCAR) and the Mk-17, its 7.62mm brethren, and you'll get a completely different response on the rifles' advantages over the venerable M4.
To these hardened commandos, the issue wasn't the new carbine's gas-piston system that many experts agree causes fewer stoppages than the all-gas operated M4 -- they keep their weapons in tip top shape. Instead, some operators appreciated how well the SCAR felt with lead pouring from its muzzle.
"I like it a lot better than the M4," one special operator said after firing a magazine full of 5.56mm through the Mk-16. "There's a lot less recoil."
One Special Forces Soldier applauded the weapon's controls, with safety latches located on both sides of the receiver and situated much closer to the weapon's handle.
"This works better with my stumpy hands," the stocky operator joked.
But by far the feature that most impressed these operators was the SCAR's ability to change from something as small as a submachine gun to a weapon with the reach of a sniper rifle.
Like many competitors to the M4, both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 can be outfitted with barrels ranging from 10 inches for close-quarters battle operations to 18-inch designated marksman barrels.
"That's the best part of this weapon," explained one Special Forces Soldier. "When we deploy, we usually go with just our M4s. But if we're on an operation where we need an overwatch or we're observing at a distance, the M4 doesn't do us much good until it's too late."
With the SCAR, the NCO said, the team could have both the reach and protection of a long gun and the maneuverability and portability of an assault rifle -- all in one.
Both the Mk-17 and Mk-16 have a fully adjustable stock that can be folded to the side to shrink the carbine into the length of a submachine gun. Some of the operators at the test shoot gave the stumpy rifle a try in this configuration, but marksmanship was mixed.
"I'm not sure I'd ever want to fire it like this," one operator said after shooting the Mk-17 with its stock folded. "But it'd sure be nice to fold it up like this for transporting in a vehicle or something."
Officials with FN-USA say that U.S. Special Operations Command has ordered about 18,000 SCAR variants for commandos and a limited run of about 1,200 rifles has already begun.
It's unclear still whether these Special Forces Soldiers will be slinging lead down range with a SCAR pinned to their shoulder on their next deployment, but judging by the pile of spent casings littering the ground during their demo shoot, some of them wouldn't complain if the new rifle wound up in their armory.
-- Christian
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of C-130J-30 Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services.
As the first decade of the 21st Century draws to a close, the United States faces a new myriad of threats and challenges in which both the landscape and operating environment of the world continues to undergo dynamic and dramatic upheavals, claims Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025.
On July 24, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of Armored Security Vehicles as well as associated equipment and services.
Northrop Grumman Corporation recently completed the land-based test phase of the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare (MFEW) system at the Naval Research Lab's (NRL) Chesapeake Bay Detachment (CBD) in Chesapeake Beach, Md., as part of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) MFEW/ES program.
Fincantieri signed a contract for the construction, at its Liguria yards, of a ship conceived for the transport of irradiated fuel and radioactive waste deriving from the dismantling of Russian nuclear submarines.
The U.S. Air Force recently awarded Lockheed Martin an $80 million follow-on contract for the Gunship Multispectral Sensor System (GMS2), the electro-optical/infrared fire control system for the AC-130U Gunship.
The first Boeing CH-47, a 33,000lb machine powered by two 1,640shp Lycoming (now Honeywell) T55 engines, achieved first flight on Sept. 21, 1961.
Nearly 47 years and seven major upgrades later, the CH-47F and MH-47G has doubled in weight to 50,000lb, while the engine shaft horsepower rating has tripled with introduction of the 4,868shp T55-GA-714 powerplant.
With only 10% of the CH-47F delivered, however, Boeing is again proposing to radically increase the size of the airframe. The "growth Chinook" would be stretched and widened to accommodate and up-armored HMMWV (Humvee) inside the cabin. This would increase maximum takeoff weight to around 70,000lbs and demand a much larger engine. Honeywell has already proposed a roughly 6,000shp T55-GA-715.
It's still unclear what the army thinks about all this. After all, the army is planning to buy another 400 CH-47Fs. It's also still debating how much it needs a Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft that would be more than twice the size of the CH-47F.
On top of all this, the army has also started a program to replace the venerable T55 with an all new engine in the 6,000shp to 7,000shp range after 2018. Last week, I confirmed that Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are each participating in the earliest stages of the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE) program.
All this really means is that no one can predict the future of the army's heavylift rotorcraft needs after 2015, when the Future Combat System will allegedly be fielded. When the future of FCS is finally settled, the army will have a range of good options for a Chinook replacement.
The Soviet Operational Manoeuvre Group in 1986 was looking at creating a 'Shock Division' of three regiments, with each regiment containing two tank and two mechanised infantry battalions. Armoured divisions are too unwieldy in complex terrain and an armoured battle group (battalion sized) is easier to control and execute its mission.
The Peoples Liberation Army, following on from their experience with the Operational Manoeuvre Group, can now deploy the new mechanised infantry division and using modular forces have created a composite cavalry brigade for use in complex terrain.
Utilising the deep operation theory, they can employ am air mechanised and/or fast wheeled force as a 'lance' followed up by the mobile force (tank heavy) to exploit the breach in an enemys defences followed by a holding force (heavy mechanised), that is the dozer blade.
An article in the 1/2008 issue of Tanke Zhuangjia Cheliang (Tank and Armoured Vehicle) is titled 'News From Overseas- Chinese Built Many Light Type Mechanised Units.' The article was written to correct the mistakes that appear in non-Chinese media about the structure and equipment of these new light mechanised units.
The mechanised infantry brigade has four mechanised infantry battalions, one armoured battalion, one fire support battalion, one engineer battalion and one communication battalion. Each mechanised infantry battalion has three mechanised infantry companies, each of three platoons with each company having 13 infantry fighting vehicles; four in each platoon and one headquarters vehicle.
Each armoured brigade has four armoured battalions for a total of 132 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 has three armoured companies, each of three platoons with each company having 11 main battle tanks; three in each platoon and two headquarters vehicles. A complete brigade contains 4,000 soldiers.
The 112th Mechanised Infantry Division, part of the 38th Army Group, uses the Model 99 main battle tank and the Model 86 infantry fighting vehicle. The 3rd and 116th Armoured Divisions, part of the 39th Army Group are to be equipped with 198 Model 99 main battle tanks each, meaning at present they will stay with the three tank platoon structure and two regiments.
The 54th Regiment, part of the 127th Mechanised Infantry Division uses the Model 96 main battle tank as do the independent 20th Tank Regiment and 58th Tank Brigade.
The 113th Mechanised Infantry Division of the 38th Army Group is equipped with both Type 92 and 92A wheeled infantry fighting vehicles. Other vehicles based on the chassis include command, anti-tank with the Hong Jia- 8 ATGW, the Yi-Tian self propelled SAM system and the wheeled 122mm self-propelled gun is close to approval.
While no "final" decision has been revealed, the indications "inside the Beltway" are that the Navy's long-gestating DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program will end with only two ships. Indeed, there are also rumors that even those two ships will not be constructed.
Contracts have already been awarded for the first two destroyers -- authorized in the fiscal year 2007 budget -- to General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (Maine) and to Northrop Grumman (Pascagoula, Mississippi). Originally the Navy planned a class of 32 of these DDGs, but, as previously reported here, last year the Navy cut the program to seven ships, although the 32-ship requirement was still "on the books."
The Navy's leadership, both uniformed and civilian, has been lackluster in its support of the DDG 1000 class. Indeed, the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, when recently asked by Congress what he believed the new ships' most important feature would be, he told of the reduced manning for the ships.
The new "destroyers" are to have a full-load displacement of almost 15,000 tons and an overall length of 600 feet -- the dimensions of a cruiser by most standards. Armed with two 155-mm rapid-fire guns (with a range of more than 75 miles firing guided projectiles) and 80 Standard and Tomahawk missiles or their equivalent, and fitted with a large manned- and unmanned helicopter facility, the ships would be highly capable, multipurpose units.
The price has become a "deal breaker" for some involved in the shipbuilding process. The Navy estimates that the first two ships will cost $3.3 billion each, with follow-on ships to cost $2.5 billion. This compares to the last of the 62 Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) destroyers having a cost some $1.2 billion each.
The most likely, near-term alternative to the DDG 1000 is to resume construction of the Burkes. The Navy now has 62 in the fleet and under construction. The former CNO, and now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has declared repeatedly that the Navy does not need additional Burke-class ships. And, restarting that line and updating the ships would give them a pricetag of about $2 billion each. (The Burke original design dates from 1979.)
Further, according to Navy data, even building two Burkes per year, and dividing the buy between the two shipyards, would probably not enable keeping the Bath Iron Works yard in business.
The lack of Navy support for the DDG 1000 is seen by some observers as a rationale for accelerating the Navy's next surface combatant, the CG(X) missile cruiser, which would be optimized for the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) role. This seems ironic because there was no Navy requirement for the DDG 1000 to have that role, although her new-design radars could certainly have been developed with that capability. Of course, even after the ships are completed their radars/fire control systems could be upgraded for the BMD role. That is exactly what is being done now for the Aegis cruisers of the improved Ticonderoga (CG 47) class and for the Burke-class destroyers.
Further, the CG(X) is getting significant support in Congress, especially from Representatives Gene Taylor (D-MISS) and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who want that ship to be nuclear propelled. They have even proposed a new generation of Burke-class ships with nuclear propulsion! Both proposals are ludicrous when one looks at the percentage of U.S. oil consumption by the Department of Defense (less than 2 percent) and the percentage of that which is used to drive U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships (about 8 percent). Considering the additional cost to design and construct nuclear-propelled ships; adding the cost of recruiting, training, and retaining nuclear-qualified personnel; and including disposal costs of those ships, and the idea does not hold water.
Further, the basic DDG 1000 design could become the CG(X) -- obviously not CG(X)N -- with only modifications to the ships' radar/fire control systems. The ships have a significant growth margin and deleting the two 155-mm guns could provide space for additional missiles or other advanced features.
The DDG 1000 is not, in this writer's opinion, the best surface combatant that could have been produced at this time. But considering the time and dollars that have been invested in developing the DDG 1000 design and the ship systems, and the Navy's need for additional surface combatants, the DDG 1000 is far, most superior to the alternatives available.
Over the past several months, this blog has carried a number of posts on the efforts of the United States to prepare for and defend against a cyber attack or war. In addition, we have posted profiles of other nations and groups who are adversaries of the U.S. and are building cyber attack capabilities. In May, U.S. Strategic Command referenced one of our posts in its testimony before Congress. The hearing was about the security and economic situation as it relates to China.
All this is based on open source intelligence coupled with input from contacts throughout the global security and intelligence communities. Given the vast readership this blog has seen, we thought it prudent to assess your feelings on the state of readiness of the United States for a cyber conflict. You will be able to view the results as you vote.
Lockheed Martin Corporation has delivered the Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-16I Flight and System Trainer (FST) that will be used to support a variety of training requirements for the IAF F-16I "Soufa" fighter and ground attack aircraft.
Approximately 130 Airmen and five F-22 Raptors from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, are deployed to Guam for two weeks to fulfill security requirements in the Asia Pacific region.
The Spanish Air Force has announced the assignment of Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) responsibilities to Eurofighter Typhoon.
A small country like Norway cannot afford more than one type of fighter aircraft. Unlike larger countries, we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of having specialized single role planes," says Espen Barth Eide, State Secretary in the Ministry of Defense.
The Boeing Company has signed a commercial contract with the government of Germany for the production of Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions (LJDAM) and integration support on Tornado aircraft, marking the first international sale of the LJDAM weapon system.
The first candidate for the Partial Tiger Replacement programme (PTR) landed Emmen this morning. With the arrival of the Swedish Gripen aircraft in Switzerland, the air and ground tests for the PTR programme will begin.
Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) made the following statements on the Navy’s decision to modify its shipbuilding plan with respect to surface combatants.
The Boeing Company today announced that Raytheon has joined its EP-X industry team. EP-X is a manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting aircraft that will replace the U.S. Navy's EP-3 signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform.
The Secretary of the Navy today informed members of the Senate and House of its plans to cancel the DDG-1000 program after completion of the first two ships, one of which is scheduled to be completed at Bath Iron Works.
Now I've seen footage of SOF dudes catching a ride in the ammo bay of a Cobra in Afghanistan. And I've heard of other operators flying the "wings" of Apaches during an evac near Ramadi, but this is a tough one to believe...
Photoshopped or not?
-- Christian
[Editor's Note: Our good friend Martin Andrew, who publishes an investigative blaster chronicling Chinese military development called the Gi Zhou Newsletter, has some interesting tidbits for us this week. And please note, the picture at left is an earlier Type 89 self-propelled gun.]
New 122mm Self-Propelled Gun
In 1966, Luo Ruiqing, the PLA's then chief-of-staff criticised the defence industry because it was concentrating on R&D rather than on production. He was accused in the official Report of Luo's Mistakes that, 'he still frantically attacked our national defence scientific research work as going from data to data, from design to design, without completing anything'. Luo believed China was in imminent war with the United States, and advocated Soviet assistance. His criticism of the Chinese defence industry could well have applied into the 1990s as well as today with too many designs that achieve little.
A new 122mm self-propelled gun has been shown in the online version of PLA Daily. Titled 'Artillery troops enhance combat effectiveness with new equipment', it shows a battery of these guns. The vehicle uses the chassis from the new ZBD97 infantry fighting vehicle with a turret, most probably a modified version of the one used on the Model 89 122mm self-propelled gun.
WZ731 Tracked Scout Vehicle
Identified as a xinxihua zhanchang (Informationalised battlefield) system, the WZ731 tracked scout developed from the ZSD89 hull with a low profile turret mounting two armoured sights, one with a laser rangefinder and CCD daylight sight and the other a thermal imager. The WZ731 had a crew of up to six including a three man scout team. It was 6.62m long, 2.626m wide and 1.88m high at the hull and 2.556m at the top of the armoured sights. The combat weight was only 8.1t which gave it a maximum road speed of 80.5 km/hr.
The armament comprised eight 76mm smoke grenade dischargers, four mounted in a row on each side of the turret and a pintle mounted Model 59 12.7 x 108mm heavy machine gun on the left side if the commander's cupola which is directly behind the driver on the left hand side. This single machine gun on its open pintle mount was deemed insufficient in the event of the vehicle coming under attack. The lack of an automatic cannon was one reason the vehicle was not introduced into service. The British Scimitar tracked reconnaissance vehicle is similar in weight, is better armoured, smaller in size, more mobile and m mounts a 30mm cannon.
The basic design was sound and a new scout version of the ZSD89, using the enlarged rear hull of the ambulance version, with a modified low profile turret from the WZ731. This incorporates flat transmitter panels on the turret roof, and on top of this is a compressed gas catapult for a small UAV.
New Unmanned Air Vehicle
The Wenchuan Earthquake has seen the use of at least one Chinese developed and manufactured unmanned air vehicle (UAV). It was to survey the extent of the damage.
It is only 2.1 m long and has a wingspan of 2.6m. It weighs 20kg and is of pusher configuration with twin booms connecting a 'V' shaped rear fin. It can travel at 110km/hr, reach an altitude of 3,500m and has GPS assisted guidance. Its photographic images are excellent.
-- Martin Andrew
According the the Daily Telegraph of Australia:
FORMER NASA astronaut and moonwalker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens do exist.
And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades.
Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'
He said supposedly real-life ET's were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head.
Chillingly, he claimed our technology is "not nearly as sophisticated" as theirs and "had they been hostile", he warned "we would be been gone by now".
Dr Mitchell, along with with Apollo 14 commander Alan Shepard, holds the record for the longest ever moon walk, at nine hours and 17 minutes following their 1971 mission.
Was Mitchell a technical advisor to the new X-Files movie? Heck of a promo...
"I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real," Dr Mitchell said.
"It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.
"I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes - we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit."
So, I guess we are not alone.
Officials from NASA, however, were quick to play the comments down.
In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
Typical coverup from the spooks at NASA.
-- Christian
While the increase in troop numbers known as the surge has gotten much credit for the decline in combat and civilian deaths in Iraq one key component of the effort has been underplayed the changed role of intelligence teams operating in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.
In an exclusive interview with DoDBuzz, the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Robert Murrett, said his people are working in teams with DIA, NRO, FBI and other intelligence agencies in theater and those teams are providing improved actionable intelligence to troops.
For example, every brigade combat team has NGA and other intelligence community personnel embedded to provide analysis and information on a 24-hour basis.
Its those intelligence community interagency teams that are working hand in glove with the forces that we have deployed forward that are making a difference, Murrett told me. While he was very cautious in discussing examples of just how those teams have operated, he offered two details: they are embedded with troops, often on the front lines; and the intelligence community teams have been a major factor in helping find IED caches.
One key component of this intelligence comes from commercial imagery. Since it is not classified NGA can supply that data much more quickly to front-line troops than it can provide classified imagery, Murrett said. However, I would want to emphasize that, particularly when our military forces are involved, we derive the very best data we can from whatever source we can get it from, he added. Often that means overlaying data from classified sources on to the commercial imagery, which requires that the whole package be classified.
Read the rest of this story and some more gouge on acquisition politics at DoD Buzz.
-- Colin Clark
The US Army has Constant Hawk. The US Marine Corps has Angel Fire. Somebody has something called Highlighter.
What the heck are they?
Constant Hawk, Angel Fire and Highlighter are the names of manned, light aircraft that have been invented since the Iraqi occupation began to fight against the scourge of improvised explosive devices.
Public details vary greatly for each of these semi-classified aircraft programs. Thanks to funding and turf wars, we know quite a bit about Constant Hawk (a modified Shorts C-23B Sherpa) and Angel Fire. [USA Today article is here. Great analysis by StrategyPage.com is here.]
The US Army Material Command was even generous enough to post a photo of Constant Hawk on their Flickr page.
All I know about Highlighter is that it was invented by the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), and it is an aircraft. (Dear Maj Gen Montgomery Meigs, Thank you for disclosing Highlighter's existence in a commentary you wrote to "correct" a critical Marine Corps Times editorial on April 16, 2007.)
We may -- finally -- have a clue about how all of these ideas were invented.
It could be a project office embedded in the Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD] called "Liberty Ship".
Perhaps modelled on the US Air Force's famed Big Safari project office in Dayton, Ohio, OSD may be using Liberty Ship to skirt around the traps and tripwires of the military's acquisition system.
The code word Liberty Ship was first mentioned in a public forum earlier this week by General Norton Schwartz, OSD's nominee to become the next USAF chief of staff.
Before his nomination hearing, the Senate armed services committee posed written questions to Schwartz, including one query about how he would address the shortfall of spy aircraft in Iraq.
Schwartz replied in writing:
"By increasing the number of MQ-9 vehicles, pursuing the "Liberty Ship" construct for acquisition of more "light" manned ISR aircraft, and accelerating the development of the Wide Area Airborne Surveillance sensor system, the Air Force is working very hard to get more ISR capability to the combatant commanders in support of on-going operations. If confirmed, this will have my personal attention from day one."
For background, here's an excerpt from the Senate armed services report published in May on the fiscal 2009 defense budget request.
"The Army Constant Hawk and Marine Corps Angel Fire systems are current examples of wide-area collection systems. The DOD leadership requested funds for the Air Force to acquire a combined, enhanced system, currently called Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance (WAAS), to image a larger area than Constant Hawk or Angel Fire, enable night operations, real-time support to ground forces, provide a forensic capability, and support many simultaneous targeting and surveillance missions. It could cue and hand off targets to [full motion video] platforms for prosecution."
Liberty is not a common prefix for a code name. According to William Arkin's Code Names reference book, there are only two other known Liberty prefix's in the Pentagon's classified lexicon:
- Liberty Shield, a Department of Homeland Security operation to increase security at the nation's critical infrastructure
- Libertycap, a National Security Agency program to standardize all signals intelligence software
Clearly, these code names -- Angel Fire, Highlighter, Constant Hawk, Liberty Ship -- are the barest glimpse into the massive, multi-billion dollar and ambiguous effort to thwart the threat of IED attacks. I can't wait to read the book someday.
[[PS: Don't forget Hunter Green Dart!]]
I wrote earlier this week about the apparent demise of the DDG 1000 in the Navy's future budget planning. Well, in an unusual step, two very key lawmakers have come out in favor of curtailing the program.
I am pleased with the Navys decision to focus its resources on the DDG 51 destroyer, with its known costs and capabilities, rather than the increasingly expensive DDG 1000, said Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO). Our committee recommended this action in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, and I am pleased to see the Navy heed our advice. It is a responsible decision that will benefit both the Navy and the taxpayer for years to come.
I believe this is the right thing for the men and women of our Navy and the citizens who pay for these ships, Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) commented. The DDG 51 class destroyer is the premier destroyer in the world today. The ship has tremendous flexibility in a variety of warfighting missions, including the ability to serve as a ballistic missile defense platform. Just as important, the costs of these ships are well known. The Navy has built 62 of these superb vessels and our shipyards know how to build them on budget and on schedule.
Taylor continued, The two DDG 1000s that our nation will build will be extremely capable ships. However, virtually every independent organization with expertise in ship cost analysis has predicted the first two ships will cost up to $5 billion each, or more than $1.5 billion more than the Navy has budgeted. Such cost overruns would cripple the Navys plan to reach a 313-ship fleet.
Now, as DT reader George Skinner noted in his comments from Monday's post, the DDG 1000 has been a great incubator for new naval technologies. I'm in favor of using programs such as this to develop new gear for the next generation of hardware -- I see the same thing happening with the FCS program and I'm all for it. And it's refreshing when services make a tactical retreat on some programs and admit that they'll be used essentially as R&D labs.
Continues Taylor:
"I believe that our Navy and our nation are better served by building a large number of DDG 51s and then proceeding with a timely and orderly plan to begin construction of the next generation of nuclear powered cruisers. I look forward to working with Admiral Roughead and Secretary Winter during the return to DDG 51 production."
Well said...
-- Christian
I'm not sure how I feel about this...
From this afternoon's Military.com headlines:
Use of Contractors for Training Faces Review
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a top-level review of the Pentagon's use of private security contractors, including the controversial Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater Worldwide, to train American troops.
"Why have we come to rely on contractors to provide combat or combat-related security training ... Are we comfortable with this practice?" Gates asked in a July 10 memo to Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The defense boss also requested more detail on how much each of the military branches is spending on contractor-supplied training and whether the services have established "appropriate red lines" governing "what types of security training are permitted to be contracted out."
He expects initial answers sometime this week, Gates said in a letter Friday to Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. A Mullen spokesman confirmed that a response is in the works.
I've run into a lot of contractor trainers in my travels and I've got to tell you, they're by in large pretty darn good at what they do and provide a necessary service to American troops preparing for battle. Most of the training Soldiers and Marines receive at the camps in northern Kuwait, including Camp Buehring, before they go into Iraq comes from contractors. Everything from urban warfare training to tactical shooting drills are taught by retired master sergeants and gunnies.
The ones I've talked to are dedicated pros who don't complain about the abysmal conditions and isolation of some of these camps. I've also looked into the training that goes on at civilian organizations for special operations forces. Again, some of the most sophisticated and highly technical fighting and weapons training goes on at these places and it would be a shame to have to shut these relationships down.
I'm not sure where Webb is going with this inquiry. I've got to admit, I am a bit squeemish when I hear that sailors with the riverine force are being trained by Blackwater staff. Not because of the company involved, but more because that seems like pretty basic training that should be conducted by sailors themselves.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see what the problem is with retired grunts finding a new career training the same Joes they once served alongside. It's the same thing that happens in the civilian world with retired whomevers "consulting" in their prior business. If the troops are more effective for it, why not do it?
-- Christian
OK, so according to Marine Public Affairs, I was wrong...or should I say the veteran crew chief who told me during one of my flights in the Osprey was wrong.
Turns out, Obama was picked up at LZ Washington in the Green Zone in the MV-22. He was flown to Ramadi, where he met with tribal sheiks there who were part of the Anbar Awakening movement. Then he reboarded the Osprey and flew to Amman.
This is logical on several levels. First, if he's going to a Marine AO for meetings with Anbar officials, it stands to reason the Corps would pick him up in an Osprey rather than a 46. The trip is faster and at a higher altitude, so at least tactically, it's safer. Also, the Osprey is the most capable aircraft for the long trip from Ramadi to Amman. A 46 would suck for that distance and the 53 wouldn't be a whole lot better. And you can't land a C-130 at Ramadi.
Hence the Osprey flight. Marine officials, though at first skeptical themselves, didn't see a publicity stunt on this one.
But I am curious about the landing at LZ Washington. That LZ is pretty tight (thought I admittedly have really only seen it at night since all of my flights out of there have been at o-dark-thirty). But I vividly remember talking to a veteran Osprey crew chief who was involved in the testing phase of the MV-22 and is now in VMM-263 that the bird couldn't land at Washington because it was too tight.
I stand corrected...
-- Christian
I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but I think it's pretty significant in one way or another.
So, if you take a look at the pictures and video footage of Barack Obama's trip to Amman, Jordan, those of you who are sensitive to this sort of thing might notice something strange about the aircraft he was walking out of. For me, the tip off was the sound the plane was making.
Having spent some time with the squadron, something in my brain told me it wasn't a C-130 and it wasn't a 53 or a 47. "But surely," my consciousness told me, "they wouldn't risk the safety of a presidential candidate on something most 'experts' say is so dangerous..."
Then I pulled out my trusty TiVo remote and confirmed my suspicions.
Obama flew from Iraq to Amman on an MV-22 Osprey from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Transport squadron 162 -- the newest Osprey squadron to deploy to Iraq.
I'm kicking over some rocks as we speak to see if this was by happenstance or by design. Was the Corps strategically placing a potential president in the Osprey to wow him into continued support for the pricey assault support plane?
I'd also be interested to know a bit about the flight plan, since Obama spent his entire day-long trip to Iraq in the Green Zone, which the Osprey can't land in (LZ Washington being too tight for the wide-winged tiltrotor). So he must have flown out of BIAP...by why not in a C-130?
Curiouser and curiouser...But still, kind of a cool trip for the Osprey anyway. And having logged many hours in one myself, I am sure Obama and his entourage were duly impressed with its performance.
[Both photos from the Associated Press via Yahoo News]
-- Christian
Russia may start regular flights by long-range bombers to Cuba in response to US plans to build missile defence sites in Eastern Europe, the newspaper Izvestia reported Monday, quoting an official.
A US Air Force B-52 bomber crashed off the coast of Guam in the central Pacific killing two crew members and leaving four others missing, navy officials said.
The Spanish civil guard launched a dawn operation against ETA in the northern Basque country Tuesday, resulting in seven arrests and the dismantling of the armed separatist group's highly active Vizcaya unit, media reported.
Officials from the Government Accountability Office testified before Congress July 10 here about their decision to uphold Boeing's protests of the Air Force's selection of Northrop Grumman Corp. to produce 179 new tankers that would replace the aging KC-135 Stratotanker fleet.
Duke Field Airmen from the 711th Special Operations Squadron dropped the last operational Bomb Live Unit-82 from an MC-130E Combat Talon I July 15 at the Utah Test and Training Range.
The Missile Defense Agency announced the successful execution of an important system test today during which a long-range ballistic missile was tracked by radars of the missile defense system.
Construction activity is expected to commence on a joint Australian and United States defence satellite communications ground station at the Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station (ADSCS) Geraldton in the third quarter of 2008.
In an effort to bring together minds and ideas from across the cyberspace community, Air University officials hosted a week-long cyberspace symposium here recently.
An unmanned submersible operated by Rutgers University's Coastal Ocean Observation Laboratory (COOL) is "flying" -- underwater -- from New Jersey to Spain. The remote-controlled undersea glider will travel more than 3,800 miles, and will collect key scientific information on the temperature and salinity of the Atlantic Ocean.
"The big advantage is, it's totally unmanned," according to Conrad Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which sponsors the submersible. "It's very efficient and can be used to obtain the same kind of data we gather from ships."
In general, sea gliders are Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) that use small changes in buoyancy in conjunction with wings to convert vertical motion to horizontal, and thereby propel themselves forward with very low power consumption. While not as fast as conventional AUVs with propulsion systems, gliders using buoyancy-based propulsion represent a significant increase in range and endurance compared to vehicles propelled by electric motor-driven propellers. The sea glider has a battery-powered data collection and satellite communication system. The U.S. Navy as well as NOAA have been developing such sea gliders for several years.
During its trans-Atlantic cruise the glider will periodically rise to the surface of the ocean to transmit data up to a satellite. But most of the time the COOL glider will travel at depths between 15 feet to 300 feet below the surface. The COOL researchers will share all collected oceanographic data with the Navy and other interested agencies. The lack of a propulsion system will aid in data collection, alleviating self-noise interference.
The Navy is also looking into glider-type AUVs -- which it calls UUVs for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles -- for several missions, primarily to undertake environmental measurements in areas where surface ships or aircraft (dropping sensors) cannot easily operate. And, of course, flotillas of such unmanned gliders would be much cheaper than manned research ships and craft.
The COOL-developed submersible is yellow, less than 8 feet long, and weighs about 130 pounds. Developed by Rutgers University, the craft will also provide the university with other important information, such as how long the crafts batteries will last and systems reliability. Larger and more capable AUV/UUVs are being developed by the Navy under the auspices of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Commands systems center in San Diego and the Office of Naval Research.
According to the 2000 Program Guide to the U.S. Navy, the highest priority missions for Navy UUVs, presumably including gliders, are intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; mine countermeasures (i.e., locating and mapping mines); and anti-submarine warfare. Sea gliders could be very useful in collecting environmental information for ASW operations.
China and Russia signed an agreement Monday that ended a decades-long territorial dispute and finally determined their borders, in the latest sign of warming ties between the former Cold War foes.
Officials at the National Guard’s Eastern Aviation Training Site here yesterday unveiled the new UH-72A Lakota light utility helicopter, for which they will become the military’s sole trainers.
African Union leaders on Monday asked the UN Security Council to delay a decision by the International Criminal Court on whether to indict Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir on war crimes charges.
Raytheon Company's Excalibur precision-guided artillery projectile received a Top 10 Army Greatest Inventions of the Year Award for 2007.
Following Asia Pacific’s rapid economic growth, which is the fastest in the world, there has been substantial rise in the armed forces’ spending on modernization and upgrade of ageing military aircraft and capabilities.
After a string of successful missile tests, India will undertake the climax trials of its indigenous third generation anti-tank missile 'Nag' next week.
Defence science and technology plays a crucial role in keeping both Australia and the United States secure, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, said in Washington D.C. this week.
The Boeing Company, working with industry teammates and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, today successfully completed a Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system test that demonstrated the most complex integration to date of sensors required to support a missile intercept.
IAE International Aero Engines has concluded an excellent week of business at the Farnborough International Airshow by dispatching the first production engine of its new V2500 SelectOne build standard to Toulouse.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of M777A2 155mm Light-Weight Howitzers as well as associated equipment and services.
It's like the Navy's version of the F-22 -- a lingering vestige of the "blue water" fighting force the service once was. But like the F-22, and despite the Navy's best efforts to shift its emphasis to surface fire support (a concept that still clings to life despite air-to-ground and surface to surface missile and artillery advancements) talk is that the DDG 1000 is slipping away.
From today's Military.com headlines:
The DDG 1000 series of ships would run on quiet and compact electric motors, not today's gas turbine engines. The ships would be unusually large but built with a radar-evading profile to make them appear small, and they would carry a new gun able to hit precisely targets 50 miles or more inland.
Most important for sailors, the destroyers would carry highly trained, computer-savvy crews half as large as the force on current destroyers.
As recently as early June, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer reaffirmed the Bush administration's support for the new ships. But as Congress refines spending plans for 2009 this summer, Navy leaders appear ready to abandon the DDG 1000 program, building only two destroyers for what once was seen as a force of two dozen or more.
The House of Representatives already has voted for at least a pause in DDG 1000 purchases, citing the cost - as much as $5 billion each - of the first two ships in the series and their dependence on still-unproven technologies.
In a statement released last week , the Navy seemed resigned to an early end for the program. "Even if we do not receive funding ... beyond the first two ships, the technology embedded in DDG 1000 will advance the Navy's future," the statement asserted.
And the sad thing is that the littoral combat ship was to precede the DDG 1000 and even that's on the skids (and is perhaps the most relevant ship the Navy's looking into right now). Rummy started it with the death of Cold War vestige programs in the Army (remember the Crusader and Comanche?) and Gates pounded a few more nails into the coffin with is "next-war-itis" crusade. The services are beginning to see the writing on the wall and refocus their efforts -- leaving a big job for the next defense secretary to get the procurement plans back on track.
-- Christian
My boy Dave Woroner sent this little item along to me and I forward it with enthusiasm.
Aside from the interesting blog site for BTDTs from which this issue came, the imagery of Chinese SWAT operators chasing down Olympic terrorists with little scooters tickles my funny bone.
From Breach, Bang, Clear:
That's right. The rolling thunder that is China's eeee-light counter-terrorist unit is locked, loaded and good to go...
No word yet on whether the gadget-loving higher-ups of the US military will invest the eleventy zillion dollars necessary to develop their own electric powered individual soldier short-range expedient deployment vehicle (or EPISSED to use the convenient acronym). Even if no one else wants one, we're confident the Air Force will buy at least a couple so the zipper-suited sun gods don't get footsore on the way to their planes.
Now, all jokes aside, the Air Force really could use some Segways on their flightlines for maintainers, loaders and crews. The huge fields employed stateside and in Iraq are littered with bicycles, so why not Segways? And I remember talking to the former head of the Marine Corps' "Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force" a few years ago and he mentioned they were looking into buying Segways to help shuttle their chem-bio suit-laden troops back and forth to infected areas.
But I do always laugh at the beat cops who hum around on these contraptions (a lot of DC, and Capitol Police included) -- which any jail-fearing perp could easily outrun..."Wait! Wait! Come back here!"...
-- Christian
DT buddy Steve Trimble scored a great scoop at the Farnborough air show this week. He reports:
Boeing's global marketing campaign for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has drawn the public wrath of the senior U.S. military official leading the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.U.S. Air Force Lt Gen Charles Davis, speaking exclusively to Flight International, has accused Boeing of "spreading lies and half-truths" about the F-35 to bolster its case for selling the F/A-18E/F.
"That's just pissing us off," Davis says. "If Boeing has to say something negative about JSF to sell their aircraft, that tells me there is something wrong with their aircraft."
Davis specifically faults Boeing executives for predicting further cost overruns and delays for the F-35 program. By comparison, Davis says, he has heard BAE Systems make no such predictions in their efforts to sell the Eurofighter Typhoon.
However, it was pointed out to Davis that Boeing had delivered hundreds of F/A-18E/Fs on time and on budget, while the JSF program has reported a 50 percent cost increase and an at least 18-month delay during the first seven years of development.
Davis acknowledges the F-35's record, but refuses to back down in his criticism of Boeing.
He says the F-35's development challenges cannot be compared with the F/A-18E/F. The Super Hornet is based on an existing airframe, he says, and reuses the avionics suite from the original aircraft.
"That's the baseline they're measured against. How hard is that?" Davis asks.
The F-35 and F/A-18E/F are in competition in several countries, and not least in the USA, where Navy officials continue to debate the need for extending Super Hornet purchases if the JSF is further delayed.
Boeing executives were not immediately aware of the news articles that provoked the Davis outburst.
"We don't know much about JSF other than what we read in the paper," says Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.
Tom Bell, a Boeing business development official, says he is unaware of the specific comments that triggered Davis' outburst, and so could not give a direct response.
Bell points out that two JSF development partners - Australia and Denmark - have already acquired or are considering acquiring F/A-18E/Fs instead.
"People with greater insight [into the F-35 program] than I are looking at the offerings available," Bell says. "Let people draw their own conclusions about why
."
So is it worse when the Air Force is pissed at Boeing or the other way around like it has been during the tanker protest furor? Or is this just the kind of "healthy tension" we need between these two legs of the Iron Triangle? Stay tuned.
(Photo: General Davis demonstrates what he'd like to do to those at Boeing who are badmouthing the JSF.)
(Gouge: NC)
-- Ward
You might remember a few months back -- as many lawmakers got themselves into a lather, treating the MRAP as the solution to every problem with the Iraq War -- we raised some questions about the pace at which they were being fielded and how they were going to be employed effectively during a counter-insurgency campaign.
Well, the dust is starting to clear from the stampede of those who were out to prove they love the troops more than the next congressman, and lo and behold, their zeal caused a few unintended consequences.
Here's an excerpt from the story running at Military.com:
The accelerated pace the military has used to buy and deploy thousands of heavily armored mine resistant vehicles for Iraq and Afghanistan could lead to problems with maintenance and cost overruns on the top priority project, according to congressional investigators.Congress has appropriated $22 billion to acquire more than 15,000 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, also known as MRAPs, to protect troops from roadside bombs and other insurgent ambushes, according to the Government Accountability Office report. Defense Secretary Robert Gates designated the program as the department's highest priority acquisition last year.
That meant testing of safety and performance occurred while the vehicles were being bought, raising the possibility costly errors would be uncovered after the fact. More than 100 vehicles the military paid for were not fielded because of problems discovered after their purchase, according to the GAO report made public Wednesday.
"While the department's concurrent approach to producing, testing, and fielding the vehicles has provided an urgently needed operational capability, it has also increased performance, sustainability and cost risks," the GAO concluded
.
Read the entire story here.
-- Ward
Multiple sources have confirmed that China has openly threatened anyone who reuses or rebroadcasts the Beijing Olympics. Chinese officials publicly stated they will punish Internet Web sites, Re-broadcasters and other new media that replay the 2008 Olympic Games and related events without the authorization of state-run China Central Television.
Xu Chao, deputy director of the Copyright Management Division in the State Copyright Bureau said during the Olympic Games, many unauthorized broadcasts will flood into the market. We should initiate an attack against broadcast piracy. Xu went on to discuss some of their anti-piracy measures including a public hotline for reporting illegal broadcasting through the State Copyright Bureau website or by dialing the "12390" anti-piracy hotline to collaborate with the government. People involved will be rewarded for the reports once the report is found to be true.
The International Olympic Committee granted CCTV the new media broadcast rights for the summer games exclusively. We were unable to obtain their exact definition of new media broadcast. However, in a statement by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, the National Copyright Administration and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, they said Web sites and mobile platforms using Olympic broadcast signals without getting permission from the CCTV will be punished.
They went on to say that Web sites may be shut down if they carry the events illegally. Olympics coverage is big business. The 2008 Summer Games in Beijing will mark the arrival of streaming content as a viable alternative to the Olympics television broadcast. Online video streaming is attracting an increasing share of ad spending and many believe is the future of advertising. NBCOlympics.com will offer 4,400 hours of on-demand streaming content plus 2,200 hours of live programming, making the Beijing Olympics the largest streaming media project to date. There is little doubt that carbon copies of the streamed media will be available from numerous sources on the web and in the physical world. So it appears China has a big challenge ahead.
Are they really threatening cyber attacks on public companies, private industry and individuals? That is the way one Cyber Security Expert we spoke to interpreted it. Only time will tell. What if a company in the United States, or any other country, is attacked? How will the government respond? One thing for sure, this is a sign of things to come.
Facts:
The Olympics have become a very, very big business. Worldwide media rights to the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing sold for $1.7 billion, with NBC Universal paying $894 million for the U.S. media rights alone.
China Central Television (CCTV) said that Web sites may be shut down if they carry the events illegally. In addition, a Chinese Government spokesperson said Any individual without authorization who uploads recorded Olympic events or pirated Olympics video broadcasting websites will face up to 100,000 RMB in penalties. The statement in its entirety can be found here.
-- Kevin Coleman
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that President George W. Bush has the power to keep a terrorist suspect jailed indefinitely, but that the detainee has the right to challenge his detention as an "enemy combatant."
About 300 Georgia National Guard Soldiers arrived in Tiblisi, Georgia, Monday for Immediate Response 2008, a three-week international exercise to help build relationships with coaliton partners from several Eastern European nations.
The first group of student pilots has begun flight training as a part of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) Basic Wings Course (BWC).
The Iraqi air force reached 2,000 flying training hours here July 13, with the help of Airmen from the 52nd Expeditionary Flying Training Squadron.
The United States and Russia held rival war games Tuesday on either side of the Caucasus mountains amid simmering tensions over the fate of two rebel regions in ex-Soviet Georgia.
The breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could join the Moscow-led Russia-Belarus union, a Russian newspaper reported Tuesday, citing the union's spokesman.
DT contributer emeritus Chris Michel gave us a heads up about a series of photos over at Gizmodo that show details of the aftermath of the B-2 crash in Guam a few months back.
Here's one of them:
Composites have afforded amazing performance capabilities in modern aircraft but they are nasty when they burn. The fibers get airborne in a fire and can get into the lungs of those who might inadvertantly breath the smoke -- which is why crash crews are careful to wear respirators even after that flames die off.
Messy, ain't it?
(Gouge: CM)
-- Ward
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter made its international air show debut outside North America today at the Royal International Air Tattoo held at RAF Fairford.
Eurofighter Typhoon flies into this year’s Farnborough International propelled by a wave of recent Air Force successes.
Northrop Grumman Corporation's Tanker team announced today that all four initial tanker System Design and Development (SDD) airframes are scheduled for final assembly and initial flight testing by the end of 2009.
As the most advanced rotorcraft technology innovation that will revolutionize vertical flight in the forthcoming future, the BA609 Tiltrotor features an unparalleled combination of high performance and maximum flexibility
This week, as Saab takes part in the world’s largest air show, Farnborough International Air Show, outside London, the world market’s interest in Gripen is greater than ever.
The Bell Helicopter-Boeing team that builds the V-22 Osprey will hold a press conference Tuesday at the Farnborough Air Show with a number of senior Marine corps officers playing the starring roles, presumably to extol the virtues of the V-22 and its performance in Iraq.
They might not want to volunteer the following recent incident so we'll do it for them. It just so happens that on June 21 a Marine V-22 crew had a serious engine problem forced the crew to quickly find a place to land.
Louisiana's Aviation Command last week became the latest National Guard unit to receive the new light utility UH-72A Lakota helicopter. 
NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan has asked headquarters for more AWACS radar planes to support its operations against the Taliban, an official said Thursday. 
Army and Air Force leaders met Monday to discuss developing a new joint unmanned aerial system concept of operations. 
Iran has test-fired nine long and medium-range missiles, including one which it previously said could travel as far as Israel and the United States bases in the region. 
Members of the 418th Flight Test Squadron here working with Boeing officials are currently conducting communication, navigation, radar and air data testing on two C-130 Hercules aircraft here as part of the Avionics Modernization Program. 
“Sukhoi” Company” has presented the newest Su-35 multifunctional fighter at the airfield of Flight Scientific Research Institute named after Gromov in Zhukovsky near Moscow. 
Coalition airpower integrated with coalition ground forces in Iraq and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan during operations July 5, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here. 
The sixth C-17 Globemaster ZZ176 to arrive in the UK was delivered to RAF Brize Norton yesterday evening, 2 July 2008. 
The Northrop Grumman Corporation built amphibious transport dock ship Green Bay (LPD 20) successfully completed builder's trials last week, a collaborative effort between the company's Shipbuilding sector and the U.S. Navy. 
The Royal Air Force's Typhoon aircraft marked another milestone in its capability today, Tuesday 1 July 2008, as it was declared operational in the air-to-ground role, becoming the Service's most advanced multi-role aircraft. 
The Royal Air Force has declared its Typhoon jets multi-role capable today. The RAF Typhoons can now carryout precision Ground Attack as well as Air Defence tasks. 
Airmen from the 8th Civil Engineer Squadron here and South Korean army soldiers teamed up for combined nuclear, biological and chemical training June 23 and 24 at Kunsan Air Base.