About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Archive for July, 2004

“HUNDREDS” OF PATRIOT FALSE ALARMS

Wednesday, July 7th, 2004

tn_patriot_02_jpg.jpgKilling two British pilots and shoot­ing down a U.S. Navy fighter was just the begin­ning. The Patriot mis­sile defense sys­tem had a slew of prob­lems dur­ing the Iraq inva­sion — prob­lems which are only now slowly com­ing to light.
“Spurious ‘ghost’ mis­sile tracks showed up on Patriot Missile bat­tery radars hun­dreds of times before and dur­ing the inva­sion, caus­ing chaos and con­fu­sion as sol­diers strug­gled to deter­mine the real from the false,” notes KTVT-​​TV reporter Robert Riggs, who’s been lead­ing the press’ investigation of the anti-​​missile sys­tem. “Soldiers oper­at­ing the multi-​​billion sys­tems had only mal­func­tion­ing cell phones with which to com­mu­ni­cate with other bat­ter­ies in often-​​futile efforts to learn whether tar­gets were real.“
All that con­trasts — big time — from offi­cial accounts of the Patriot’s per­for­mance. The U.S. Army, in a recent report, claimed the sys­tem had a “per­fect record.” The British Ministry of Defence, in its run-​​down of a Patriot “friendly fire” inci­dent, tried to pin the blame on poor American “fir­ing doc­trine and train­ing,” the Register notes. Human error, in other words.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, says Riggs.

Some 12 hours before the shoot down of the [British plane], accord­ing to logs of the air bat­tle, one bat­tery fired at a tar­get that did not exist. The records state that on the third day of the war a mis­sile bat­tery “auto engaged a spu­ri­ous track. Missile fired before they could over­ride. Space com­mand con­firmed spu­ri­ous…“
Victoria Samson, a spokes­woman for the Center For Defense Information, an inde­pen­dent defense depart­ment watch­dog group, said the Army is try­ing to blame the friendly fire inci­dents on any­thing but the Patriot mis­sile defense sys­tem.
“The tech­nol­ogy seems to be sacro­sanct. The peo­ple not so much,” she said. 

BLIMPBALL IN NAVY TESTS

Tuesday, July 6th, 2004

CyberAerospacePhotos781.jpgThey may look a litle silly — like giant vol­ley­balls, kinda. But the Navy thinks that big, round blimps may just be the key to spy­ing on ter­ror­ist camps, and com­mu­ni­cat­ing with its sailors.
As we’ve men­tioned before, the U.S. mil­i­tary has been on a bit of an air­ship kick, lately. That’s because the helium-​​filled, lighter-​​than-​​air craft can stay in the skies a whole lot longer than fuel-​​eating jets. And that means the blimps could work as float­ing cell tow­ers or obser­va­tion posts.
Round air­ships have some advan­tages over their cigar-​​shaped cousins, said Hokan Colting, who designed the SA-​​60 spher­i­cal blimp for the Navy.

“It’s more maneu­ver­able than a tra­di­tional air­ship,” Colting told Aerospace Daily. “It’s amphibi­ous, it can land and take off from water. And it can go to high alti­tudes. Traditional, cigar-​​shaped air­ships can go to 5,000–6,000 feet … We have been up to 22,000 feet with [a spher­i­cal] air­ship, and that’s the absolute world record in alti­tude for air­ships.“
The SA-​​60 can be trans­ported in a truck and set up by a small group of peo­ple in roughly 24 hours, accord­ing to the com­pa­nies. Although it requires a pilot, the com­pa­nies plan to make the air­ship unmanned to allow for longer flights…
The com­pa­nies are devel­op­ing a larger oper­a­tional ver­sion of the SA-​​60 that would have a diam­e­ter of 76 feet, an oper­a­tional ceil­ing of 16,000 feet, and a flight endurance of roughly two days. In 12 months, the com­pa­nies plan to build a 200-​​foot diam­e­ter ver­sion that would be capa­ble of wide-​​area sur­veil­lance or telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions relay at alti­tudes up to 65,000 feet.

But there are a whole lot of kinks to work out, first. When the SA-​​60 was tested recently by Naval Air Systems Command, the helium gas inside heated and expanded, mak­ing the vehi­cle extra buoy­ant and leav­ing it under­weight. That made it a bitch to bring the orb back to earth.
Aerospace Daily dryly noted, “During some aborted land­ing attempts, the air­ship briefly con­tacted the ground and bounced like an enor­mous beach ball.“
THERE’S MORE: “I know I’m nit­pick­ing here,” says Defense Tech reader GW, “but Hokan Colting needs to check his basic his­tory on air­ships. World War I German air­ships rou­tinely oper­ated at 22,000 ft, and that was in 1916.”

The only rea­son that American air­ships of the 20s and 30s oper­ated with lower max­i­mum ceil­ings was to con­serve helium, an extremely expen­sive gas back then. At one time the U.S. only had enough gas to oper­ate one of their 3 air­ships. German pas­sen­ger zep­pelins (which used cheap, plen­ti­ful hydro­gen) oper­ated at lower alti­tudes for the com­fort of their pas­sen­gers and for greater cargo lift capacity. 

AND MORE: GW “is flat-​​out wrong. According to the Balloon & Airship World Records Homepage, the alti­tude record for an air­ship is 6,234 m or 20,453 feet and was made in June of 2003,” says Defense Tech reader BP. “What GW may have been think­ing of was a bal­loon alti­tude. According to the same site, the cur­rent alti­tude record for a bal­loon is 34,668 m or 113,740 feet which was made in 1961.”

G.I.‘S GAME TO LEARN ARABIC

Tuesday, July 6th, 2004

20040706_LANG_GRAPHIC.jpgU.S. Special Forces have a new way of learn­ing Arabic — by play­ing a video game.
Arabic is one of those lan­guages that are par­tic­u­larly hard to mas­ter in a class­room. There’s a whole new alpha­bet to learn. A lot of the syl­la­bles seem the same to American ears. Unlike French or Spanish, there aren’t a whole bunch of words in com­mon with English. And there are a zil­lion dialects that sound a whole lot dif­fer­ent from the Arabic taught in school.
The idea behind the new sim­u­la­tor is to give G.I.s a more real­is­tic learn­ing envi­ron­ment — one in which they only have to learn the lim­ited, “tac­ti­cal” vocab­u­lary they need to oper­ate on the street.
This “Tactical Language Project” — co-​​developed by the University of Southern California and Darpa, the Pentagon’s mad sci­ence divi­sion — first teaches a sol­dier the basics of spo­ken Arabic. The grunt then tries out what he’s learned in a pix­i­lated Lebanese vil­lage. Wearing a head­set, the player talks to the game’s Arabic-​​speaking char­ac­ters. Using arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and speech recog­ni­tion soft­ware, these dig­i­tized Lebanese guide the G.I. through the lin­guis­tic labyrinth of their native tongue.
The game teaches non­ver­bal cues, too. “For exam­ple,” the New York Times notes, “when [game pro­tag­o­nist] Sergeant Smith starts or fin­ishes a con­ver­sa­tion with an impor­tant per­son, he can cross his right hand over his heart and bow slightly, a com­mon ges­ture of respect in the Arab world.“
Check out footage of the game here.

ROBO-​​GUARDS FOR AIR FORCE BASE

Friday, July 2nd, 2004

040628_robotProtection_hmed_8p.hmedium.jpgGuarding mil­i­tary bases can be a lousy job — long strec­thes of mind-​​numbing bore­dom, punc­tu­ated by flashes of intense dan­ger.
A per­fect gig for a robot, in other words.
So Eglin Air Force Base in Florida is try­ing out a set of drones to watch its perime­ter, the AP notes.
One robot being tested is a Jeep-​​size, four-​​wheeled vehi­cle that has been equipped with radar, tele­vi­sion cam­eras and an infrared scan to detect peo­ple, vehi­cles and other objects. It car­ries a breadbox-​​sized mini-​​robot that can be launched to search under vehi­cles, inside build­ings and other small places.
Another robot is fash­ioned from an off-​​the-​​shelf, four-​​wheeled all-​​terrain vehi­cle, giv­ing it added ver­sa­til­ity because a human also can ride it like a nor­mal ATV. Both vehi­cles can be remotely oper­ated from lap­top com­put­ers and can be equipped with remotely fired weapons, like an M-​​16 rifle or pep­per spray.…
The vehi­cles can be pro­grammed to patrol spe­cific areas and then alert an oper­a­tor by radio if they find some­thing sus­pi­cious. They have loud­speak­ers and micro­phones for ques­tion­ing intrud­ers and the oper­a­tor can pick from a vari­ety of lan­guages.
(via Gizmodo)
THERE’S MORE: Wanna talk about a really dan­ger­ous job? That’d the bat­tle­field medic. They’re plucked, usu­ally unarmed, into the mid­dle of a warzone’s hottest spots. Then they’re told to focus on the bleed­ing G.I. on the ground — not the guys shoot­ing at him.
Over at iRo­bot — the com­pany behind the drone vac­uum clean­ers and the PackBots that sol­diers are start­ing to carry around in their ruck­sacks — researchers are work­ing on a robot that could han­dle some of a medic’s duties.

If a sol­dier is wounded and under heavy fire, a medic may not be able to safely reach that sol­dier within the “golden hour” imme­di­ately fol­low­ing injury. This presents a stark choice between allow­ing the wounded soldier’s con­di­tion to worsen or plac­ing the medic in grave dan­ger to reach that casu­alty — poten­tially lead­ing to the death of both sol­dier and medic.
Bloodhound will save warfight­ers from this lethal dilemma. The Personal Status Monitors and smart uni­forms being devel­oped by the Army will detect when a sol­dier is wounded and alert a medic of the soldier’s GPS loca­tion. If the sol­dier is under fire, the medic will deploy a Bloodhound. Bloodhound will use directed frontier-​​based explo­ration to nav­i­gate autonomously across unknown ter­rain to the casu­alty. While the robot nav­i­gates to the sol­dier, the medic will be free to treat other casu­al­ties or dis­patch robots to other loca­tions.
When Bloodhound arrives at the wounded sol­dier, it will notify the medic, and the medic will exam­ine the casu­alty using the robot’s sen­sors. Bloodhound’s diag­nos­tic sen­sors include video cam­eras, an elec­tronic stetho­scope, and two-​​way audio to com­mu­ni­cate with a con­scious casu­alty.
After deter­min­ing the extent of the casualty’s injuries, the medic will be able to treat those injuries using Bloodhound’s med­ical pay­loads. Potential pay­loads include devices to stop bleed­ing (inflat­able ban­dages, fib­rin ban­dages, liq­uid fib­rin sealants, Factor VII), intra­mus­cu­lar auto-​​injectors (which can deliver mor­phine, adren­a­line, and nerve agent anti­dotes), and advanced diag­nos­tic devices. Using these pay­loads, the medic will be able to sta­bi­lize the casualty’s con­di­tion until a medic can arrive or the casu­alty can be evacuated. 
(via Engadget)

CONGRESS POKES ALL-​​SEEING EYE IN SKY

Thursday, July 1st, 2004

0802radar1.jpgIt’s a spook fan­tasy: an all-​​seeing, always-​​on, rain-​​or-​​shine con­stel­la­tion of satel­lites, able to keep track of every plane, truck, and per­son below.
We need to know some­thing about every­thing all the time,” under­sec­re­tary of defense for intel­li­gence Stephen Cambone told a con­fer­ence last year. “We need an illu­mi­na­tor, throw­ing into relief all the pic­tures and activ­i­ties on the Earth’s sur­face. And then we need to be able to switch on the spot­light, or alert other sys­tems, to dive deep.“
For years, U.S. intel­li­gence and defense offi­cials have been pour­ing money into such a sys­tem, the Space Based Radar, or SBR. The goal was to have the satel­lite array up and run­ning by 2012.
Now, Congress is telling the Pentagon to go back to the draw­ing board. The House Appropriations Committee has cut the Air Forces 2005 bud­get request for Space Based Radar from $327 mil­lion to $75 mil­lion, ISR Journal notes. Instead of being treated as a project that’s about to be built, the com­mit­tee added, SBR should be approached as a research and devel­op­ment effort.
“When weighed against mil­i­tary oper­a­tions in Iraq and the ongo­ing war against ter­ror­ism, the SBR pro­gram ‘sim­ply can­not be afforded,’” the mag­a­zine quote the com­mit­tee as say­ing.

The Air Force has yet to set­tle on many of the tech­ni­cal details of the pro­posed radar satel­lite con­stel­la­tion such as the size of the space­craft and the orbits they would use. Very pre­lim­i­nary esti­mates for bud­get plan­ning call for nine satel­lites in low Earth orbit.
Air Force offi­cials esti­mate that a con­stel­la­tion of that size could cost at least $30 bil­lion. That fig­ure is more than the Air Forces com­bined bud­get for nearly all of its other satel­lite efforts with the excep­tion of the devel­op­ment of the laser-​​linked Transformational Communications satel­lites
Even that fig­ure may not show the true price tag of the satel­lites, given the Air Forces dif­fi­culty in fore­cast­ing the cost of its space pro­grams, the com­mit­tee stated. One exam­ple is the trou­bled Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High mis­sile warn­ing pro­gram, which is now expected to cost 450 per­cent more than the Air Force esti­mated when it was at about the same point of devel­op­ment as the Space Based Radar sys­tem is now. 

TRAFFIC

Thursday, July 1st, 2004

Like last month — and the month before that — Defense Tech hit a new record for traf­fic in June: 116,000 vis­i­tors look­ing at 198,000 pages. Thanks so much to every­one who stopped by. I’m awed, and more than flattered.