The head of the UN nuclear watchdog said that international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear activity have been a failure, according to an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
Our colleague Colin Clark, editor of DoD Buzz, is attending the 26th Army Science Conference in Orlando this week. He'll be updating the Buzz with his stories but the Army has gone all "Web 2.0" on us and is live streaming some of the presentations and panels.
Below is a video that was shown this morning to attendees. It looks like only two of the talks are archived on the official live cast site, but we'll have whatever content we can grab here on DT for you to peruse as we get it, so stay tuned.
-- Christian
Boeing announced today another successful test shoot of its Airborne Laser prototype.
This time technicians fired the laser using its tracking and control system to guide the beam through the nose-mounted turret at a simulated missile target.
Of course, this was all done on the ground.
It won't be until next year that the system will engage a missile target while both are in flight. But the news reminds us that behind the scenes, the ABL program -- and its offshoots -- are making quiet progress toward eventual fielding of a no-joke flying laser cannon.
Release follows in part:
During the test at Edwards Air Force Base, the laser beam traveled through the beam control/fire control system before exiting the aircraft through the nose-mounted turret. The beam control/fire control system steered and focused the beam onto a simulated ballistic-missile target.
"This test is significant because it demonstrated that the Airborne Laser missile defense program has successfully integrated the entire weapon system aboard the ABL aircraft," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. "With the achievement of the first firing of the laser aboard the aircraft in September, the team has now completed the two major milestones it hoped to accomplish in 2008, keeping ABL on track to conduct the missile shootdown demonstration planned for next year."
Michael Rinn, Boeing vice president and ABL program director, said the next step for the program is a series of longer-duration laser firings through the beam control/fire control system.
"Once we complete those tests, we will begin demonstrating the entire weapon system in flight," Rinn said. "The team is meeting its commitment to deliver this transformational directed-energy weapon system in the near term."
-- Christian
Russia successfully tested Friday a sea-based missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, the military said, amid continued tension with Washington over missile defence.
Our friends over at Soldier Systems blog have been tracking an interesting story about whether the Russian army has copied a Finnish camo pattern...or whether the Russian soldier photographed wearing the curiously similar fatigues might have been going off the reservation a bit.
It's not very often that you run across articles in the NY Times on Soldier System topics, but the Russian Interior Ministrys latest camo pattern is allegedly a dead ringer for the Finnish Armys pattern. The pattern was reportedly worn by Russian Special Operations troops during the recent hostilities in Georgia. While the Russian Government has flatly denied copying the pattern, they have been known in the past to copy US Woodland pattern as well as German Flecktarn. Additionally, tipsters have alerted us to Russian versions of the Finnish m/05 pattern for sale on ebay within the last year. Obviously, considering a sizable common border and a past history of conflict with Russia, the Finns are a bit concerned.
[Note: Picture shows Russian special operations troops wearing Brit DPM, woodland and far left, the Finnish pattern]
Update:
In an update to the NY Times story of Finnish concerns over Russias purloining of their Armys camo pattern, Strike Hold has published a photo of Russian troops in Georgia wearing the Finnish m05 camo as well as a copy of Brit DPM.
Pakistan, which has relied on French defense suppliers, is buying German-made submarines for the first time, but is still technologically behind its nuclear rival India.
Various newspapers have reported that the MOD has requested £3.7 billion from the Treasury to cover the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Infantry Brigade Combat Team is about to get more lethal. With the Army's decision in June to transition Future Combat Systems technologies to the light infantry force, the Non-Line of Sight-Launch System is slated to join the IBCT's portfolio of weapon systems in 2011.
Military helicopters over Quantico, are a common sight, yet many individuals watching do not automatically assume there is no one inside.
Russia will from December 2009 deploy its new RS-24 intercontinental missile, designed to counter defence systems like the controversial US missile shield, the military announced Friday.
Military Sealift Command-chartered high speed vessel HSV-2 Swift (HSV 2) along with various embarked Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force units departed Louisiana Nov. 25 for a five-month deployment in support of Southern Partnership Station (SPS).
Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he is powerless to halt U.S. airstrikes in his country and he would stop American warplanes if he could.
Brazil revealed that it had bought 12 attack helicopters from Russia on October 23, after a visit here by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Wednesday.
In a speech given at the Berlin Security Conference today, Thursday 27 November 2008, British Defence Secretary John Hutton has said that NATO must confront the security issues of our time and succeed in Afghanistan to maintain its crucial credibility.
Coalition offs gender confused Taliban commander
The dime bio on Lashkar-e-Taiba
Israeli radar sees through walls
Memphis Belle restored
New Xmas gift hotness: the "wifle"
--John Noonan
The rapid advancement of cyber attacks and the emergence of cyber warfare have caught government and military leaders around the world off guard. Decision making in time requiring defensive measures or military crisis is guided by doctrine and rules of engagement, but in the case of cyber attacks and cyber warfare they do not currently exist. The complexities and unique characteristics of cyber warfare mandate establishing Cyber Attack and Warfare Rules of Engagement (CAWRoE).
Cyber warfare is different than the conventional war in many ways. It is this difference that will challenge the minds of experts around the world when they attempt to create cyber warfare doctrine and ROE. To frame this discussion, below you will find two definitions that put this challenge in context.
Definition - Cyber Warfare & Terrorism - "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." Source: This definition was published in the U.S. Army Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02. This definition was written by Kevin Coleman back in 2004 for an online article.
Definition - Rules of Engagement - Rules of engagement date at least to the Middle Ages in Europe. In military terms this refers to a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force, esp. specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat. The directive delineates the limitations and circumstances under which forces will initiate and prosecute combat engagement with other forces encountered. Source: This definition is based on multiple authorities' sources and combined to clearly articulate ROE.
NOTE-- After months of research, we will soon publish a paper that addresses the question: "What constitutes an act of cyber war?"
History has shown that ROE are often over controlled and regulated by politicians and military leaders. It is anticipated that this will also be the case as it relates to cyber attacks and warfare. In addition, commanders and government leaders at all levels must understand the situation, complexities and uncertainty they face.
The increase in complexity, technical aspects and difficulty in tracing the cyber attacks back to the aggressor will combine to increase the difficulty of creating the ROE for cyber. Careful crafting of cyber ROE is required to diminish ambiguities that could caused delays in actions when the use of force is required and will surely lead to increased implication on the United States.
Cyber attack and warfare rules of engagement will undoubtedly require hundreds of pages to establish a decision framework. That being said, there are a few critical areas that will pose the most significant challenge to policy makers. One of these areas will be the level of confidence in the identification of the entity behind an attack on a nation. Tracing and tracking cyber attacks back to those responsible is not an easy task. Usually this takes months or years not minutes and hours. Current intelligence and surveillance capabilities will provide only minimal assistance in this effort. Although promising research on tracking and tracing cyber attacks is currently underway and advances are occurring on a regular basis, we are far from being able to rapidly identify the party or parties behind the attack with the high degree of confidence and hard evidence necessary to launch an offensive cyber response. At the present time, the newness of cyber attacks and weapons coupled with their potential, but unproven power and the uncertainty about how they might be used, have pushed the decision around the response to cyber attacks all the way to the top and in the hands of the President of the United States.
Conclusion
Over 140 countries around the world have cyber weapons development efforts underway but lack a comprehensive doctrine and legal framework for responding to cyber attacks as well as using offensive cyber weapons against attackers and adversaries. President-elect Barack Obama's national security team will have to rapidly establish the rules of engagement as they relate to cyber attacks and all out cyber warfare. His national security team is said to include: Sarah Sewall, Tom Donilon, Wendy R. Sherman, Michèle A. Flournoy, John P. White, Robert R. Beers, Clark Kent Ervin, Gayle E. Smith, Aaron Williams, John O. Brennan and Judith A. ("Jami") Miscik.
The United States Military has an expansive arsenal of sophisticated cyber weapons at its disposal, policy makers have yet to define the rules of engagement that govern when and how to use them. In a briefing earlier this year I said: "This is totally uncharted territory for policy makers. The characteristics of cyber attacks coupled with the operational aspects of cyber weapons make this a unique challenge."
This remains the case and time is growing short before the next significant cyber attack is launched. Cyber warfare requires new rules of engagement.
A cool vid for a pre-Thanksgiving (for our U.S. readers) day...
(Gouge: militaryphotos.net)
-- Christian
Obama might have made his decision, but did he consult Defense Tech readers first?
For a jauntier and updated version of some of my F-22 coverage, you can tune into my latest podcast. I did the interview with Addison Schonland, president and founder of Innovation Analysis Group, a consulting firm based in San Diego.
We spoke about the Pentagons out-maneuvering Congress on the F-22 funding and John Youngs subsequent comments slamming the Raptors availability, maintenance and costs.
-- Colin Clark
BAE Mobility & Protection Systems Advanced Design Group has been pumping out some innovative load carrying solutions. In addition to recently capturing USSOCOMs armor carrier contract with the RBAV, the ECLiPSE line is beginning to hit the market. So whats next for BAE?
Poised to become a true leader in the Soldier Systems market, BAE has been working with new materials and there will be a few surprises in store at SHOT show. But for now, we can show you two products designed by Matt Campbell and Mike Walker. Both products are mounted on velcro backs and can be fitted directly to a low-viz armor carrier or to a MOLLE adapter panel.
The Elastic Ammo Pouch carries three M16-style magazines and wont lose its elasticity over time. Additionally, the fabric is durable and will resist abrasion.
The modular holster (not shown) is designed to carry a different pistol than the M9 but it will accommodate several models and specialized cuts will be available in the near future. Due to the velcro backing the holster can be carried vertically or turned 90 degrees for a horizontal carry. Additionally, the magazine can be inserted in either direction to the holsters orientation.
-- Christian
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. recently outlined three topics he believes are important for the Army to address with the incoming administration.
NATO commanders in Afghanistan need more troops and equipment to combat the Taliban, the alliance's top officer warned Monday, as insurgent attacks mount in southern and eastern regions.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Sunday he believed US president-elect Barack Obama could change Washington's position over a hotly contested plan for a US missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.
The National Intelligence Council (N.I.C) predicts that international tensions could increase in the coming years as world population growth puts pressure on energy, food and water resources.
Russian warships were to arrive in Venezuela Tuesday for joint maneuvers -- Moscow's first military presence in the region since the Cold War, as Washington closely monitored the situation.
The leader of Somali pirates holding a huge Saudi oil tanker denied Monday that the hijackers had lowered their ransom demand, insisting they still wanted 25 million dollars for the ship's release.
Saab has signed a contract worth approximately SEK 1.1 billion with Lockheed Martin Canada, for being a partner in the design and development of a command and control system to the Canadian Navy’s twelve Halifax Class frigates. Deliveries are planned for 2010-2017.
Digital networks are the nervous system of our civilization, essential to commerce and culture. The entire economy, from banking to utilities to manufacturing to healthcare, relies on internet-style communications.
Iran announced on Monday it had broken up a spy network linked to arch-enemy Israel's intelligence service Mossad, accusing it of gathering information on Iranian nuclear and military programmes.
To avoid unnecessary taxpayer spending, Defense Department officials here are only partially funding the expansion of F-22 Raptor aircraft production, leaving the decision for further expansion to the incoming presidential administration.
A coalition force comprising experts from the U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force deployed here recently to sustain operations for the world's most lethal unmanned aircraft system.
Poland’s first two C-130E Hercules aircrews recently completed 11 weeks of C-130E flight training in the United States, and will soon return to Poland.
Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center officials here successfully tested the Space-Based Infrared System Highly Elliptical Orbit payload and operations center and accelerated operational acceptance by six weeks.
When the US military began taking massive casaulties to IEDs in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the ever-and-always technologically minded DoD looked to procure the latest hot-topic (and expensive) anti-mine toys. The Air Force insisted that their sleek fighter jets could be used in a mine-detection role, while the Army and Marines ordered thousands of new MRAPs for mine detection, convoy duty, and road clearing.
Sometimes it helps to look backwards instead of forwards. Enter the Rhodesian Pookie, an ugly little contraption that helped clear roads and highways during the Rhodesian Bush War of the 1970s. The Pookie was invented as a response to the influx of Soviet mines, by way of ZANU and ZIPRA black liberation movements, into the Rhodesian theater. With it's light weight evenly distributed over wide Formula-1 racing tires, the Pookie carried nothing more than a slanted, v-shaped armored cab for a driver and a large mine-detector centered beneath the vehicle's undercarriage. Only five were ever constructed, but despite small numbers, Rhodesian Pookies cleared thousands of miles of deadly mines, saving untold civilian lives.
Of course the Pookie would have been decimated in modern Iraq or Afghanistan, where radio controlled IEDS -not mines- ruled the roads. But that's not the point. The Pookie, though inadequate for today's fight, was a fine example of an easy military solution to a complex military problem.
Such is the lesson inherent in its design and deployment, best illustrated by DaVinci's an old maxim: simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
--John Noonan
From the headlines at Military.com:
If only we could be a fly on the wall when our enemies are plotting to attack us. Better yet, what if that fly could record voices, transmit video and even fire tiny weapons?
That kind of James Bond-style fantasy is actually on the drawing board. U.S. military engineers are trying to design flying robots disguised as insects that could one day spy on enemies and conduct dangerous missions without risking lives.
"The way we envision it is, there would be a bunch of these sent out in a swarm," said Greg Parker, who helps lead the research project at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. "If we know there's a possibility of bad guys in a certain building, how do we find out? We think this would fill that void."
In essence, the research seeks to miniaturize the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle drones used in Iraq and Afghanistan for surveillance and reconnaissance.
The next generation of drones, called Micro Aerial Vehicles, or MAVs, could be as tiny as bumblebees and capable of flying undetected into buildings, where they could photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.
By identifying and assaulting adversaries more precisely, the robots would also help reduce or avoid civilian casualties, the military says.
Parker and his colleagues plan to start by developing a bird-sized robot as soon as 2015, followed by the insect-sized models by 2030.
The vehicles could be useful on battlefields where the biggest challenge is collecting reliable intelligence about enemies.
"If we could get inside the buildings and inside the rooms where their activities are unfolding, we would be able to get the kind of intelligence we need to shut them down," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
Philip Coyle, senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information in Washington D.C., said a major hurdle would be enabling the vehicles to carry the weight of cameras and microphones.
"If you make the robot so small that it's like a bumblebee and then you ask the bumblebee to carry a video camera and everything else, it may not be able to get off the ground," Coyle said.
Parker envisions the bird-sized vehicles as being able to spy on adversaries by flying into cities and perching on building ledges or power lines. The vehicles would have flappable wings as a disguise but use a separate propulsion system to fly.
"We think the flapping is more so people don't notice it," he said. "They think it's a bird."
Unlike the bird-sized vehicles, the insect-sized ones would actually use flappable wings to fly, Parker said.
He said engineers want to build a vehicle with a 1-inch wingspan, possibly made of an elastic material. The vehicle would have sensors to help avoid slamming into buildings or other objects.
Existing airborne robots are flown by a ground-based pilot, but the smaller versions would fly independently, relying on preprogrammed instructions.
Parker said the tiny vehicles should also be able to withstand bumps.
"If you look at insects, they can bounce off of walls and keep flying," he said. "You can't do that with a big airplane, but I don't see any reason we can't do that with a small one."
An Air Force video describing the vehicles said they could possibly carry chemicals or explosives for use in attacks.
Once prototypes are developed, they will be flight-tested in a new building at Wright-Patterson dubbed the "micro aviary" for Micro Air Vehicle Integration Application Research Institute.
"This type of technology is really the wave of the future," Thompson said. "More and more military research is going into things that are small, that are precise and that are extremely focused on particular types of missions or activities."
-- Christian
Blackwater USA, the private security and training company, has shut down a large part of its manufacturing subdivision after losing the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program and facing dwindling demand for its "Grizzly" Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle.
Reports had previously indicated that Blackwater would lay off its JLTV workers, some of whom were lured to the Moyock, N.C.-based company from Ford and Volvo. But according to sources the company is shutting down all vehicle manufacturing.
Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined to specify how many employees were laid off by the cut, but sources close to the company say about 50 workers will lose their jobs.
"Any time a specific business venture doesn't go as planned it is disappointing," Blackwater president Gary Jackson told Defense Tech. "After a detailed review of our vehicle manufacturing operation, we made the difficult decision to discontinue this particular business line."
The cuts do not affect Blackwater's manufacturing capability for firearms range systems, Tyrrell added.
Company sources also admit that the military's shift from purchasing new MRAP II vehicles to keeping current MRAPs and outfitting them with stronger armor contributed to Blackwater's business losses since demand for the Grizzly shrank with requirements. And industry watchers say the military will likely skip over the MRAP II design entirely and take a closer look at the MRAP Light, such as Navistar's Maxpro vehicle.
The Army recently released a solicitation that called for nearly 10,000 so-called MRAP-All Terrain Vehicles to add to their fleet of 12,000 heavy MRAPs.
Tyrrell said the vast hanger spaces previously used to build Grizzly's and to design their JLTV prototype will be converted into an aviation maintenance and repair center to build on the company's already expanding contract aviation support business.
Blackwater will also soon launch a new MRAP vehicle driver's training course at their sprawling North Carolina compound, using unsold Grizzlies to prepare troops for navigating the topheavy vehicles in tortuous terrain.
(Gouge=SS)
-- Christian
The answer is simple: Submarines cannot fly, but seaplanes can submerge -- if you build them properly.
That's what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is seeking to develop. A recent Request for Proposal (RFP) from DARPA calls for a submersible aircraft [that] would combine the key capabilities of three different platforms: (1) the speed and range of an aircraft; (2) the loiter capabilities of a boat; and (3) the stealth of a submarine. "By combining the beneficial characteristics the and operating modes of each platform, DARPA hopes to develop a craft that will significantly enhance the United States tactical advantage in coastal insertion missions," according to the RFP.
The irony of the RFP is that the U.S. Navy was developing such a craft some 45 years ago.
The objectives issued by DARPA are for a vehicle that would have an airborne tactical radius of 1,000 nautical miles, a low-level flight radius of 100 nautical miles (which may leverage surface effects), and a submerged tactical radius of 12 nautical miles. The sum of these must be achieved within eight hours. Endurance on the surface has to be 72 hours in sea states up to five between inserting and extracting personnel. The craft's payload objective is eight men and their equipment with a total cargo weight of 2,000 pounds.
DARPA has identified the major challenges to the project as (1) weight, (2) fluid flow regime, (3) structure, (4) lifting surface geometry, and (5) power and energy storage. These factors force the consideration of a seaplane that can submerge as opposed to a "submarine that can fly." The relatively light construction of an aircraft can be submerged to shallow depths, and to even great depths with internal pressurization. But submarine-like vehicles, built to withstand greater depths, are too heavy for consideration.
The U.S. Navy had begun contemplating the merger of aviation and submarine technologies into a single vehicle as early as 1946. By that time several Navy laboratories were looking into the required technologies. When asked by the press in 1946 whether such a vehicle could be produced, Vice Admiral Arthur W. Radford, at the time the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air, replied: "Nothing is impossible."
A decade later, in 1955, studies were being conducted under contract from the Department of Defense by the All American Engineering Company while aviation pioneer John K. (Jack) Northrop was designing such craft. The All American vehicle was to alight on and takeoff from the water on "hydro-skis"; once on the water the craft could be "sealed" and submerge.
Although nothing resulted from these studies, by the early 1960s the U.S. Navy was ready to invest in such a vehicle. A Navy engineer working on the project, Eugene H. Handler, explained, in a 1964 article in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, "there is... a tremendous amount of [Soviet] shipping in the Soviet-dominated Baltic Sea, the essentially land-locked Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the truly inland Caspian Sea. These waters are safe from the depredations of conventional surface ships and submarines."
The Navy's Bureau of Naval Weapons -- at the time responsible for aircraft development -- awarding a contract to Convair in 1964 to examine the feasibility of a "submersible flying boat," which was being called the "sub-plane" by those involved with the project. The Convair study determined that such a craft was "feasible, practical and well within the state of the art."
The Bureau of Naval Weapons specified a set of design goals:
air cruise speed 150 -- 225 mph
air cruise altitude 1,500 -- 2,500 feet
air cruise radius 300 -- 500 n.miles
maximum gross takeoff < 30,000 lb
submerged speed 5 -- 10 knots
submerged depth 25 -- 75 feet
submerged range 40 -- 50 n.miles
submerged endurance 4 -- 10 hours
payload 500 -- 1,500 lb
takeoff and land in State 2 seas
Several firms responded to a Navy request and a contract was awarded to Convair to develop the craft. The flying boat, which would alight and takeoff using retractable hydro-skis, would be propelled by three engines -- two turbojets and one turbofan, the former for use in takeoff and the latter for long-endurance cruise flight. Among the more difficult challenges of the design was the necessity of removing air from the engines and the partially full fuel tank to reduce buoyancy for submerging. Convair engineers proposed opening the bottom of the fuel tank to the sea, using a rubber diaphragm to separate the fluids and using the engines to hold the displaced fuel.
To submerge, the pilot would cut off fuel to the engines, spin them with their starter motors for a moment or two to cool the metal, close butterfly valves at each end of the nacelles, and open the sea valve at the bottom of the fuel tank. As the seaplane submerged, water would rise up into the fuel tank beneath the rubber membrane, pushing the fuel up into the engine nacelles. Upon surfacing, the fuel would flow back down into the tank. The only impact on the engines would be a cloud of soot when the engines were started.
When the engines were started their thrust would raise the plane up onto its skis, enabling the hull, wings, and tail surfaces to drain. The transition time from surfacing to takeoff was estimated to be two or three minutes, including extending the wings, which would fold or retract for submergence. Only the cockpit and avionics systems were to be enclosed in pressure-resistant structures. The rest of the aircraft would be "free-flooding." In an emergency the crew capsule would be ejected from the aircraft to descend by parachute when in flight, or released and float to the surface when underwater. In either situation the buoyant, enclosed capsule would serve as a life raft.
The craft would have a two-man crew and could carry mines, torpedoes or, under certain conditions, agents to be landed or taken off enemy territory.
The Navy Department approved development of the craft, with models subsequently being tested in towing tanks and wind tunnels. The results were most promising. But in 1966 Senator Allen Ellender, of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services, savagely attacked the project. His ridicule and sarcasm forced the Navy to cancel a project that held promise for a highly interesting "submarine." Although the utility of the craft was questioned, from a design viewpoint it was both challenging and highly innovative.
DARPA would do well to check the Navy's historical records as it embarks on the development of a flying submarine -- -oops, I mean submerging seaplane.
-- Norman Polmar
Okay, I'm going to use this edition of The Sunday Paper to make two predictions:
1. Robert Gates will not stay on as SecDef and will be replaced by Richard Danzig a few weeks into the Obama administration, if not immediately.2. Once the new administration gets into office, F-22 will be the first major program to be cut significantly or cancelled altogether followed shortly by Presidential Helo (VH-71). (JSF is also a target, especially if any more foreign partners balk.)
So what do you think, dear erudite-in-DoD-matters-type DT readers? Who's going to be SecDef? What programs are toast?
-- Ward
We had a couple great pieces up yesterday at Military.com on the Army's accelerating manpower issues.
One of the perspectives comes from that CSBA seminar I've been talking about here for the last couple of days. Basically, Andrew Krepinevich -- a former Army colonel and 10-pound brain on strategic issues -- made the case that the Army should curtail its plans to expand by 65,000 Soldiers over the next few years.
His justification is labor pool one: the Army's having too hard a time getting good recruits and the drain of senior NCOs and junior officers creates a leadership vacuum.
Here's part of Greg Grant's story on the issue and you can read the rest of it HERE:
His central message is alarming: the quality of the Armys soldiers is in sharp decline, from enlisted personnel to NCOs to officers. Its a particularly discouraging trend for the Army as it is happening despite the services increasingly aggressive use of financial incentives including bonuses and a salary increase of 33 percent between 1999 and 2005.
The Army has lowered standards to fill recruitment quotas, including weight and body fat restrictions, number of high school graduates and is allowing in more recruits with moral waivers. Krepinevich sees troubling signs of a repeat of the Vietnam era shake-and-bake sergeants, with the widespread promotion of inexperienced enlisted soldiers ill suited to the challenge of leading small units in combat.
The officer corps is also dropping in quality. Of the nearly 1,000 cadets from the West Point class of 2002, 58 percent are no longer on active duty. The Army is forced to pull soldiers from the ranks who have not graduated college and send them to OCS. Today, over 98 percent of eligible captains are promoted to major. The number of involuntary stop loss extensions has increased, by 43 percent between 2007 and 2008. Nearly half of those affected are NCOs.
This, at a time when the ongoing counterinsurgency wars demand much more intellectual horsepower in its soldiers. As the Armys new doctrine manual FM 3-0, states: current and future conflicts will be waged in an environment that is complex, multidimensional, and rooted in the human dimension.
He goes on to recommend that the Army should specialize by creating Security Cooperation BCTs that are trained in the hard work of nation building, foreign internal defense in a permissive environment and mil-to-mil relations. This idea has been tossed around a lot in Washington and has been summarily rejected by the Army at every turn. Krep argues that it takes too long to refocus a line unit to stability ops and risks losing the "Golden Hour" before insurgencies take root.
That's true, but my experience has been that aside from the numbers and stats and "big think," the Army has learned a heck of a lot in a very short time during the post 9/11 conflict environment. I tend to agree that a broadly trained force is a stronger one: "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" so to speak, so that when that third block of the "three block war" erupts, we've got guys who can close with and destroy when needed.
One thing that Krep does say that I think bears some thinking is that the Army needs to recognize that it can't do everything and shouldn't be postured thereto. I thought to myself that that's easy to say until you have Capitol Hill screaming about "why can't we solve this NOW!" It's one thing for the Army to say "sorry, not in our lane" and quite another to tell Congress and the President to call someone else.
We also ran a great story from our friends at Aviation Week looking at the flip side of the force sized coin. Bettina Chevanne wrote up a dispatch on Army Sec Pete Geren's justification for the continued Army buildup.
"We're growing the U.S. Army, but is it enough? If demand stays the same, the answer is no," Geren said. Determining the right end strength for the Army begins with a "realistic" Quadrennial Defense Review and a national security strategy, he added.
So to Krep's point...'if the demand stays the same...' I've never understood the justification for the demand and the Army has never really been publicly explicit about it. If the Iraq commitment shrinks by, say, 100,000 troops and the other 40,000 goes to Afghanistan (which would be a bad idea in my view given the Afghans fiercely anti-occupation streak) that leaves a 100,000 buffer. Now, don't come down on my too quickly there, dear readers, that's just back of the envelope math. But it seems to me the Army is arguing for a force increase during a time when the demand for a large occupying force is going to shrink.
And that doesn't even take into account budgetary pressure and rumblings from Congress that saving jobs on the F-22 production line might be more important to them than adding more personnel at Fort Hood.
Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see how reality collides with the shrinking momentum from an Iraq hangover over the next 12-to-18 months for the Army.
-- Christian