Just to clear up some confusion with some readers of yesterday's camo post ("forested vales of eastern Afghanistan.-- lost ma (sic) right here..").
OK, so, maybe the word "vales" wasn't technically right since Afghanistan might not have limestone cliffs. But according to the definition online: "a long depression in the surface of the land that usually contains a river"...and forested? Well, I've seen several in my travels there.
I don't do this that often, but I just thought I had to use my bully pulpit this time to answer my detractors. Let the picture do the talking...
(Photo cutline: Soldiers navigate across a creek during a dismounted patrol in the Nerkh Valley, Afghanistan, June 4, 2009.)
-- Christian
USAF Buys More JASSM-ERs for Flight-tests
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The U.S. Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin a $23 million contract for 12 extended-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM-ERs) despite ongoing questions about the reliability of the baseline model.
The contract includes the purchase of 12 JASSM-ERs, stealthy cruise missiles which are designed to travel up to 500 nautical miles to strike a ground target. Six will be used in developmental flight-tests and the remaining six are slated for operational testing, says Alan Jackson, JASSM program director for developer Lockheed Martin.
Meanwhile, the Air Force and Lockheed Martin are preparing for Lot 6 acceptance flight-tests; this will demonstrate the capability of the baseline JASSM, which is designed for a 200 nautical mile range. The tests are likely to take place in August. "If the next round of missiles do not perform well, then it will not be positive for the program," David Van Buren, acting assistant secretary of the Air Force, told reporters during a roundtable May 15.
Problems with missile reliability in previous lot acceptance tests have cast a pall over the program. Four of 10 missiles tested from Lot 5 in February failed to hit their targets. However, the problems with reliability began more than two years ago. Jackson says the company is committed to a 90 percent reliability rate no later than Lot 11.
The root cause of problems with Lot 5 missiles was found to be a cable harness, which has been redesigned. Jackson says the company is retrofitting the fix onto other Lot 5 missiles at Lockheed Martin's expense. This change was also built into the Lot 6 missiles on the production line.
We're running a story this afternoon on Military.com that talks about language inserted into the late 2009 war supplemental bill by Jack Murtha calling on the Army to study whether the current "ArPat" digital all-in-one camo pattern is the best option for troops in Afghanistan.
According our reporter Bryan Mitchell, Murtha was jaw boning with some Ranger types who complained about how the ArpPat camo stood out like a sore thumb in the craggy hills and forested vales of eastern Afghanistan.
The move in Congress was prompted by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), Chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, who said he was first made aware of the issue during a visit with a group of noncommissioned officer Rangers serving at Fort Benning, Ga.
Murtha queried Army leaders and learned the concern was not reserved to a handful of Georgia troops. Similar sentiments had been voiced throughout units with experience serving in Afghanistan.
"The reason is that the current uniform has been primarily designed for a desert combat, like in Iraq, and obviously the terrain is much different in Afghanistan," Murtha said in an e-mail to Military.com.
"I spoke to both General Casey and General Petraeus about the issue. They also have heard the same thing, said that the Army is looking into the situation, and that funding is available for new uniforms if the Army decides to go that route."
And I've heard the complaints as well. No one really understood why the Army picked the sort of old-school loden colored camo. Especially since the service had already developed the MultiCam pattern with Crye Precision and Natick.
And isn't that what it all boils down to? Everyone wants MultiCam. "Spec Ops guys get to wear it...why can't I?" I even scoped out some photos of Air Force PJs sporting MultiCam during a deployment to Djibouti. And practically every cover shot from our friends at Tactical-Life.com features a MultiCam clad "operator" firing the highest speed shorty carbine around.
Look, I like MultiCam like the rest of them. But I also understand why the Army did what it did. They spent millions of dollars and lots of time studying what would work best in a range of environments with an eye toward making the Soldier's loadout easier -- one functional combat uniform for a range of environments. MultiCam was tested alongside the current ArPat (I was at Army Times Co. when the service was deciding the pattern and was following it closely with my friend Matt Cox there) and several other options and the ArPat camo won out. It was new. It was revolutionary and it was unpopular. That's what makes me think it might have been the right choice.
But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Also, we don't have a ton of cash lying around, and some in the Army argue that the service has spent billions fielding the new uniforms and other gear in the pattern. Unless it sticks out like a sore thumb, why spend millions more to inject another version? And keep in mind the flaming hoops the Army is being forced to jump through as a line inserted by one congressman forces them to evaluate all these uniform alternatives. Nothing's going to come of it, I guarantee you that. But Petraeus, Casey and Stevenson will have to placate the Democratic bull by saying "that's a very good idea. we'll spend time, money and resources looking into it for you, but we're still going to come up with the same answer..."
I liked the congressional intervention on the M4 carbine issue, but I don't see the sense in this one.
-- Christian
Japan Considering THAAD Missile Defense
This article first appeared in AviationWeek.com.
Japan is considering adding the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system as a third layer to its ballistic-missile defenses, according to an official leak evidently prompted by North Korea's July 4 tests of R-17 and Rodong rockets.
Three or four installations of the Lockheed Martin THAAD system could cover all of Japan, says the Mainichi newspaper in an unattributed report presumed to be based on government-leaked information.
THAAD's range is secret, but the Mainichi's sources say it can reach "more than 100 kilometers (60 miles)," compared with about 20 km for the Lockheed Martin PAC-3 system that Japan currently uses as the second of its two defense layers. The first is based on Raytheon SM-3 missiles loaded on four Kongou-class destroyers fitted with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system promulgated in the U.S. Navy.
North Korea tried a longer-ranged version of the old Soviet-era R-17 (Scud) missile on July 4, according to a South Korean report. The so-called Scud ER has a range of 1,000 km, enough to reach much of Japan, says the Chosun Ilbo newspaper, also close to government officials. That range is notably longer than the 750-800 km previously attributed to the Scud ER.
Three of the seven rockets that North Korea launched were Scud ERs, two were other R-17s and three were Rodongs, which are larger and longer-ranged than R-17s.
The importance of the 1,000-km range attributed to the Scud ER may be that such a rocket would be a much smaller and cheaper weapon with which to menace Japan than the Rodong would be. Most North Korean ballistic missiles are R-17 derivatives, reflecting their cheapness and the country's familiarity with making them.
The launches violated U.N. Security Council resolutions.
They also showed greater accuracy, according to the South Korean defense ministry. "We are aware that accuracy has been improved," says the ministry.
Previous launches had shown large errors, but "much improvement has been made this time in that regard," the ministry says.
An apology and explanation to Defense Tech readers...
For the last 48 hours, we have been experiencing a network breakdown due to a major electrical fire in downtown San Francisco where our servers are based. The fiber optic line was severed and therefore we were unable to post and edit content for Defense Tech or Military.com.
This shutdown unfortunately coincided with the July 4th holiday so the gruel has been relatively thin around these parts. And for that, I sincerely apologize.
We're back up to 100 percent and we'll be posting compelling content at our normal -- if not enhanced -- rate. I hope you understand that sometimes these contingencies pop up and you'll bear with us as we spool back up.
Thanks,
-- Christian
Cyber Arms Talks in the Works?
President Obama was in Russia discussing arms control. Administration officials expect tentative agreements soon; however, they could be disappointed if the subject of cyber weapons becomes part of the discussions. Many cyber intelligence analysts have speculated that these talks will be the first discussions to include talks about limiting cyber weapons. Russia has attempted multiple time in the past to get the United Nations to examine the possibility of developing international legal regimes restricting the development, production, and use of especially dangerous types of information weapons. So far, however, their draft proposals have been tabled and replaced with resolutions that addressed only information security. The current U.S. position on cyber weapons is on fostering international cooperation rather than trying to limit cyber weapons proliferation that is estimated at already encompassing some 150 countries and multiple criminal organizations not to mention terrorist groups.
INTEL: Sources report that in May of this year the Finish military established a cyber warfare unit.
Given that cyber weapons require no special or restricted materials, no large or unique production facilities, no significant financial backing and skills that are taught in tens of thousands of programming classes available around the world, how would you ever enforce a cyber weapons ban? Just look at the challenges U.N. WMD inspectors have trying to do their job. WMD development requires more infrastructure, more highly skilled technicians that are not in an abundant supply and much money to fund.
Contrasting the two, it would be an impossible task to verify a cyber weapons ban. What would you do about all the offensive cyber weapons that already exist? Many believe that a treaty without a means of verification is less than useless, it is dangerous.
Band of the legendary Coldstream Guards plays Soldiers of the Queen, Men of Harlech, Corps of Drums, Thriller?(edit, too big)... Star Wars' Imperial March
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense company, may double sales of its new F-35 fighter jet in a surge of contracts that could squeeze competitors including Boeing Co. and Saab AB out of the market.
The U.S. and eight partner nations already plan to buy more than 3,000 of the warplanes, and with potential exports to countries including Israel, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Finland and Spain the total could “easily” reach 6,000, Brigadier General David Heinz, the top Pentagon official for the F-35, said today.
Boeing and Saab may come to view the Lockheed model as a “program killer,” said Douglas Royce, a market analyst at Forecast International in Newtown, Connecticut. The F-35 will control half the $17 billion warplane market by 2015, aviation consultants Teal Group estimate, bringing a level of dominance unmatched even by the company’s F-16 and threatening to eliminate other primary manufacturers from the industry.
Update: Chink in the armor? DoD Buzz reports that a major British think tank is urging the government to kill the program.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control has won one of two awards from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to study and design a Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).
DARPA received nine proposals, and one more award is expected in the next 60 days, according to an agency official. Boeing, Raytheon and ATK also submitted proposals.
LRASM is an unconventional DARPA effort; the agency typically focuses on technology that is not readily in hand. However, the Navy requested DARPA's help in fielding LRASM in response to a need to protect ships in the Pacific against a perceived threat from an exotic anti-ship system in development in China. The goal of the program is to develop a weapon that can quickly transition into operational use by the Navy. LRASM must be mated with the Navy's Vertical Launch System, which is already installed on cruisers and destroyers in the fleet.
LRASM's standoff range requirement is designed to allow U.S. Navy ships to engage targets well outside their striking range. The weapon must operate with reduced dependence on intelligence sources, datalinks and Global Positioning System guidance. The missile also must employ survivability techniques to penetrate air defenses once it is well into its flight.
"Once the missile flies that far, it has a requirement to be able to independently detect and validate the target that it was shot at," said Rob McHenry, program manager in DARPA's Tactical Technology Office. "Once it finds that target, then it has to be able to penetrate the air defenses. The standard of maritime integrated air defenses has risen dramatically over the past few years," he said via a June podcast on the agency's Web site.
The U.S. Navy is currently lacking a "credible" anti-ship capability. Today's weapons rely heavily on proper intelligence preparation for a mission and offboard sensors or communications. LRASM is a "new level of capability organic to the weapon itself," McHenry said.
To achieve survivability, the missile must also be capable of maneuvering; this could require some advances in propulsion technology.
Until recently, Afghanistan was called “The Forgotten War.” The dramatic domestic, regional, and international politics of the Iraq war largely eclipsed the fact that our people were fighting just as hard in Afghanistan. Although we’re paying attention to AfPak now, off the radar screen an important and related fight has been unfolding in the Philippines.
At the invitation of the Philippine government, the U.S. maintains about 600 troops, including Army Green Berets, Civil Affairs, and Military Information Support teams, Navy SEALS and Seabees, along with Air Force personnel and Marines. Our military forces are deployed in six locations: Zamboanga, Mindanao, Jolo, Basilan, Tawi Tawi, and a small number of liaison staff on Luzon. Their mission is to help the Armed Forces of the Philippines eliminate terrorist groups like Jemaah Islamiyah and the Abu Sayyaf Group and to prevent them from establishing safe havens from which to train other terrorists, both internal and external.
Read the whole thing, the details are fascinating. Open this up to a discussion on whether or not it was wise of the Philippine government to boot us from Subic Bay and Clark Air Base (keeping in mind that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front -at the time of our expulsion- was still relatively quiet and had yet to declare jihad on the local government).
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
This article first appeared in AviationWeek.com.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
