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 January, 2006

Rapid Fire 01/​31/​06 PM

Tuesday, January 31st, 2006

* AT&T sued over domes­tic spy­ing
* Iran caught with nuke weapons plans
* Daley: Every biz must have spy­cams
(back­ground here)
* Panamanians “run black-​​ops in Haiti
* Are we at war,
really?
* Dead drops go high-​​tech
* Inside the Syrian blo­gos­phere
* US “unaware” of emerg­ing bio-​​threats
* Good luck detect­ing bor­der tunnels

(Big ups: Drudge, Kathryn, BC, Boing Boing)

Robo-​​Butterfly, Nuke Sniffer?

Tuesday, January 31st, 2006

awww_lookit_the_cute_little_b.jpgClark read the nuke-​​detection story in today’s Times, and spot­ted this lit­tle tidbit:

The experts dis­cussed a range of poten­tial tools, includ­ing… robotic but­ter­flies that can mon­i­tor an atomic site while appear­ing to flut­ter by innocuously.

So nat­u­rally, Clark wanted to know what was up with these mechan­i­cal insects. I haven’t heard of this project specif­i­cally. But I’m guess­ing that the Times’ lep­i­dopter­ans are metaphor­i­cal — fly­ing con­trap­tions about the size of a but­ter­fly (and yeah, before you ask, I looked up the word up).
Pentagon fringe sci­ence arm Darpa has a pro­gram, of course, for these “Nano Air Vehicles,” or NAVs. The idea is to make a drone smaller than a monarch but­ter­fly — 7.5 cen­time­ters and less than 10 grams — that can carry an itty-​​bitty sensor.

Monitoring… often requires that the sen­sors be placed in loca­tions that are not read­ily acces­si­ble: on build­ings, walls (exte­rior or inte­rior, e.g., in tun­nels), win­dows, bridges, caves, tun­nels, tow­ers, rocks, and other ver­ti­cal or steeply angled sur­faces. Emplacing unob­tru­sive reconnaissance/​surveillance sen­sors in remote or spe­cial high-​​security areas also demands sophis­ti­cated means for deliv­ery. [NAVs] may pro­vide an effec­tive means for pre­ci­sion deliv­ery and emplace­ment of small, multi-​​element sen­sor pack­ages to loca­tions of interest.

Now, these drones don’t have to be insect-​​shaped to get the job done. “Monolithic 1 to 7.5 cm wings or rotors,” are okay too, Darpa says. But it is strongly sug­gested. “Fortunately, biol­ogy offers some hints, e.g., insects and hum­ming­birds have evolved the abil­ity to fly at this scale.” As the Red Herring notes, the pre­sen­ta­tion Darpa gave to indus­try on NAVs in late September “is full of images of drag­on­flies and cicadas.“
Flying ‘bots just a bit big­ger than NAVs are already being tested out. Earlier this year, sailors aboard the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group start­ing using a bunch of 7-​​ounce, 13-​​inch planes to act as teen-​​tiny eyes in the sky.
Now, the Times arti­cle talks about a whole bunch of other nuke-​​detection tech­nolo­gies, too — things that can pick up every­thing from cen­trifuges’ acoustic sig­nals to the power surges needed for ura­nium enrich­ment. I’ll leave it to the Arms Control Wonk to explain those gad­gets. But I know the Wonk hasn’t been happy with the reporters, David Sanger and Bill Broad. Not too long ago, he basi­cally accused the pair of blow­ing big parts of both the Iranian and the North Korean nuke sto­ries.
UPDATE 12:48 PM: “Look closely, and you still can’t see it. But it can see you. Cameras with lenses as small as the point of a pen have put video sur­veil­lance at the fin­ger­tips of just about any­one,” Knight-​​Ridder notes.

Cheaper and smaller than ever, the cam­eras increas­ingly are being used to mon­i­tor prop­erty, watch wildlife, keep an eye on baby sit­ters or chil­dren — and spy on peo­ple, rais­ing pri­vacy issues.
“A few years ago all this wire­less stuff was pretty much reserved for gov­ern­ment or covert agen­cies,” said Stephen Barnhart, owner of Barnhart Security & Alarm in Grandview, Mo. “Now any­one can buy a wire­less, they can pop it some­where and put it any­where from 50 feet to 50 miles away and they’ve got transmission.”

(Big ups: JQP)

Rapid Fire 01/​31/​06 AM

Tuesday, January 31st, 2006

* NSA’s revolv­ing door
* Army’s civil war over troop cuts
* New sub’s 1st mis­sion: spy on cell phones
* Psyops show­ing up in US?
* DoD’s laser-​​sats: every­thing you wanted to know
* Captains’ 97% pro­mo­tion rate
* Mine buster tar­gets can­cer
(back­ground here)
* Chris is back in Iraq… and he ain’t happy
* NMS + IED = CSM

(Big ups: JQP, RC)

Airplanes are People, Too

Tuesday, January 31st, 2006

It’s funny the way avi­a­tors talk about their air­planes. Every flier’s got his favorite jet, the one he’s most com­fort­able in and which behaves best for him. “Every air­plane is dif­fer­ent,” explains one main­te­nance sergeant here at Al Asad air base in west­ern Iraq.
Marine_air_2_1.jpgEach of Marine All Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332s dozen F/​A-​​18D Hornets has a slightly dif­fer­ent com­bi­na­tion of sen­sors and sys­tems, which par­tially explains their unique per­son­al­i­ties. But even jets with the same equip­ment tend to have dif­fer­ent tem­pera­ments.
In any squadron, the main­tain­ers know the air­planes in ways the fliers don’t. After all, they’re the ones turn­ing wrenches, pump­ing lubes and bang­ing their shins on pan­els 12 hours at a time to keep the birds in the air for three or four hours every other day. And main­tain­ers will tell you: some­times there are jets that just refuse to coop­er­ate. “Hangar queens”, they’re called.
332 is lucky. It doesn’t really have any hangar queens. And the hard work of suc­ces­sive gen­er­a­tions of main­tain­ers, plus a care­ful cadre of pilots, has achieved a notable dis­tinc­tion: in early 2005 the squadron marked 100,000 hours with­out crash­ing a jet, one of the best safety records of any Marine Corps jet squadron. This long streak of good for­tune has made every­one a lit­tle super­sti­tious, and the last jet that crashed, A-​​6E Intruder no. 05 back in 1978, haunts the ready room like a ghost. “Nobody talks about 05,” says one offi­cer.
Jets are like diesel engines: the more you work them, they more reli­able they are — to a point. 332 is wring­ing more flight hours out of its jets than ever, thanks to the relent­less pace of oper­a­tions in Al Anbar province. At some point in the near future, there will be a reck­on­ing. The fly­ing here is not ter­ri­bly tax­ing, just a lot of medium-​​altitude cruis­ing, but still… most fast jets are good for only around 8,000 hours, and the Hornets here have eaten up just under ten per­cent of that total in the past seven months alone. Worse, the Marine Corps’ single-​​seat birds will be swapped out for Joint Strike Fighters some­time after 2012, but no one’s pos­tu­lated a replace­ment for the hard­work­ing F/​A-​​18Ds.
–David Axe

Pain Ray, Sonic Blaster, Laser Dazzler — All in One

Monday, January 30th, 2006

For a while, now, I’ve been hear­ing about the Defense Department’s plans to out­fit a fight­ing vehi­cle with a pain ray, a sonic blaster, and a laser daz­zler, too. I never fig­ured they’d actu­ally send the thing to Iraq, though. Project Sheriff, I assumed, would just be the mil­i­tary equiv­a­lent of a con­cept car — a chance to see if some whiz-​​bang gear really worked together.
ADS_big.jpgBut the Pentagon may wind up deploy­ing this straight-​​outta-​​sci-​​fi jalopy, after all. The Army just got the OK to spend $31.3 mil­lion on three deploy­able Project Sheriff vehi­cles, Inside Defense is report­ing.
Right now, a “non-​​deployable Spiral 0 pro­to­type” [Sheriff] is “under­go­ing envi­ron­men­tal test­ing,” accord­ing to the newslet­ter — and wait­ing for one of the armed ser­vices to adopt the pro­gram as its own. That looks like it’s hap­pened, now. The “Spiral 1″ Sheriff will equip either a Stryker fight­ing vehi­cle or a Cougar mine-​​fighter with the daz­zler, the blaster, and the like. Oh, and it’ll still have guns, too.

By com­bin­ing the lethal and non­lethal tech­nolo­gies on a vehi­cle, [Marine Corps Col. Wade] Hall said a warfighter would be able to dis­crim­i­nate the non­com­bat­ants from insur­gents by first employ­ing the non­lethal capa­bil­i­ties and then pro­gress­ing to the use of lethal force.
For exam­ple, if a con­voy led by a Project Sheriff vehi­cle was mov­ing through an urban area, a crowd may form to divert the con­voy into an ambush zone, accord­ing to Hall.
If this were to hap­pen, the first thing the crowd would hear is the Long Range Acoustic Device either telling the crowd to move or giv­ing off a noise that would bother their hear­ing. Next, the Lazzer Dazzler would scan the crowd look­ing for a flicker from the scope of a pos­si­ble sniper.
If the crowd was still in place, troops would employ the active denial tech­nol­ogy [AKA the pain ray].
If they try and deflect beams then we will kill them because we know what their inten­tions are, Hall said. Now I know what your intent is. I just told you to move, I just flashed some light in you that said hey get away from me. I just put some effect on you that said please move or its going to get worse and you con­tinue to tell me that you have an ill intent for me and my fel­low Marines. So now I will bring some lethal force to bear if it sat­is­fies my [rules of engage­ment].
In an April 7, 2005, memo, Army Brig. Gen. James Huggings, the chief of staff for the Multi-​​National Corps-​​Iraq, asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to approve fund­ing for the time crit­i­cal mate­r­ial release, field­ing and sus­tain­ment of the Full-​​Spectrum Effects Weapon Systems, the tech­ni­cal name for Project Sheriff vehi­cles.
This will allow oper­at­ing forces to exploit the psy­cho­log­i­cal dilemma of adver­saries who are faced with advanced pre­ci­sion capa­bil­i­ties hav­ing mul­ti­ple effects mech­a­nism that are col­lec­tively more chal­leng­ing to pro­tect against, Huggins wrote. This will serve to trans­fer the dif­fi­cul­ties of oper­a­tional com­plex­ity to the enemy, help­ing to allow MNC-​​I forces to regain the ini­tia­tive in fourth gen­er­a­tion war­fare.
Huggins pro­poses the Army receive eight vehi­cles — four for the 18th Military Police Brigade and four for the 42nd Military Police Brigade — and the Marines receive six.
In an April 19, 2005, response to Huggins, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. John Castellaw, chief of staff for U.S. Central Command, said the request for 14 Project Sheriff vehi­cles was fully sup­ported by CENTCOM. 

Hercules’ Newest Labor

Monday, January 30th, 2006

The war in Iraq requires a lot of aer­ial refu­elling and mov­ing a lot of stuff between crappy lit­tle airstrips. No air­plane is bet­ter at both tasks than the ven­er­a­ble C-​​130.
Marine air_3.jpgAfter 40 years of build­ing first-​​generation Hercules for dozens of cus­tomers all over the world, in the mid-​​1990s, Lockheed Martin switched to the new J model, which was sup­posed to be faster, longer-​​ranged and capa­ble of car­ry­ing more cargo and fuel. But J cus­tomers have com­plained that new plane just isn’t as capa­ble or reli­able as the older mod­els. The Air Force took almost a decade get­ting its Js into bat­tle, and now the Marines are fol­low­ing suit. Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252 has deployed its KC-​​130J tanker-​​transports to Al Asad air­base in Iraq’s Al Anbar province, the type’s first for­eign mis­sion in Marine Corps ser­vice, and the news is good.
The fighter pilots of Marine All Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332 rely on the KC-​​130s to extend their legs over west­ern Iraq. So far, 332 has no com­plaints. The refu­el­ers has been on time with the gas, which is more com­pli­cated than it sounds. Tanker crews have to be flex­i­ble and effi­cient to meet the fast-​​movers when and where they can — and in unpre­dictable weather.
Still, the C-​​130J was threat­ened with shut­down when the Defense Department went cost-​​cutting last December. Congress came to the res­cue, but the Pentagon’s clas­si­fied Mobility Study might try again to can­cel future buys. Meanwhile, the mar­ket for second-​​hand first-​​gen Hercules is white hot, and the Lockheed Martin facil­ity in Greenville, S.C. is work­ing full-​​time to recon­di­tion retired C-​​130s for resale to cus­tomers like Poland and Pakistan. Only time will tell if the J model wins the same loy­alty.
–David Axe

Stealth Ship Chief Speaks

Monday, January 30th, 2006

On Thursday, we took a look at the Stiletto, a wild new stealth ship that the Defense Department has built to sneak spe­cial forces onto shore.
stiletto3a.jpgOn Sunday night, Stiletto pro­gram man­ager Greg Glaros paid us a visit, answer­ing some reader com­ments and ques­tions about the ship.
Thanks for your com­ments — Stiletto was con­structed in 15 months start­ing Oct 04. She is made com­pletely out of car­bon fiber. Her pur­pose is to insert emerg­ing tech­nol­ogy at lit­tle cost […] and to pro­vide a venue for oper­a­tional exper­i­men­ta­tion. It is not per­fect, nor is she designed to solve everyone’s needs (no she does not sub­merge — we left that to the bil­lion $ club). What she is designed to do is expand our tech­ni­cal com­pe­tence against an elu­sive adver­sary and learn oper­a­tionally in a very short period of time.
With regards to its sur­viv­abil­ity or oper­a­tional rel­e­vancy we will all learn by her mere exis­tence. [One reader said the ship might be “easy to kill.”] Easy to kill We seem to eas­ily lose sight that most mil­i­tary sys­tems are all easy to destroy by a will­ing enemy. Our objec­tives should be focused on match­ing our adver­saries at scale with an abil­ity to cope and adapt surely the Stark, Cole, M-​​1 Abrams, and Hummers have taught us how easy it is to kill sys­tems designed to sur­vive every­thing our engi­neer­ing imag­ined unfor­tu­nately what our engi­neer imag­ine often do not align with what our enemy intends
During the last two weeks Stiletto out per­formed our expec­ta­tions with advanced speeds in calm waters and not so calm…and out per­form­ing in other areas in a time frame and within a cost that seems to be out of the reach of our require­ments procss and acqui­si­tion sys­tem.
Time to oper­a­tional mar­ket matters…

Rapid Fire 01/​29/​06

Sunday, January 29th, 2006

* CIA pumps up killer drone ops
* NYT chan­nels Gore on wire­taps
* CSI: Murderers’ best friend?
* Anti-​​NSA “palace revolt
* Kids just wanna have fun (with guns)
* Spook stumps, eaves­drop­ping poo, and other spy gear
* Sea Kings’ final flight
* Peters: “There is, in short, not a sin­gle enemy in exis­tence or on the hori­zon will­ing to play the vic­tim to the mil­i­tary we con­tinue to build.”

(Big ups: NOSI)

Prowling Over Al Anbar

Saturday, January 28th, 2006

At noisy Al Asad air base, the nois­i­est jets belong to Marine Electronic Attack Squadron 1. It’s hard not to notice the squadron’s EA-​​6B Prowlers, but don’t get caught look­ing. While tour­ing the hangars of Marine All Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332, my escort and I walked past the Prowlers and caught the evil eye from some air­crew return­ing from a mis­sion.
Marine_air_2.jpgWhat exactly the Prowlers are doing in Iraq is clas­si­fied — and even 332’s fliers don’t know for sure. My feel­ing is that it’s got some­thing to do with impro­vised explo­sive devices or com­mu­ni­ca­tions intel­li­gence. The Prowlers are packed with sen­si­tive radio receivers and carry elec­tronic noise jam­mers under their wings.
If the EA-​​6Bs are indeed jam­ming IEDs, they wouldn’t be the only U.S. air­craft doing so. The EC-​​130 Compass Call has also been pressed into fight against IEDs. On one March patrol with the 25th Infantry Division in Qayyarah, I watched the Compass Call make a pass over­head, wip­ing out all radio recep­tion in its path.
Replacement of the 30-​​year-​​old Prowlers — the only fast EW plat­forms in the U.S. inven­tory — is a top pri­or­ity. The Navy has picked the EA-​​18G Growler, a devel­op­ment of the F/​A-​​18F Super Hornet to replace its EA-​​6Bs, but the Marines have yet to name a suc­ces­sor. There have been rumors [ con­firmed ed.] of an elec­tronic war­fare suite in the Marines’ ver­sion of the Joint Strike Fighter, the vertical-​​landing F-​​35B . But it might prove hard adapt­ing a single-​​seat jet to a mis­sion cur­rently per­formed by a jet seat­ing four.
– David Axe

IED Answer: Foot Patrols?

Friday, January 27th, 2006

Everybody seems to have an answer to the home­made bomb prob­lem: more cargo flights, more radio fre­quency jam­mers, even explosive-​​spotting lasers.
pi20051105a1.jpgThis story in the cur­rent Atlantic has a solu­tion I hadn’t seen before. The idea, from Gen. Joseph Votel, who headed the IED task force until recently, is to have troops stop rid­ing through Baghdad or Ramadi on Humvees, and start walk­ing the streets.

The grow­ing use of IEDs is forc­ing America’s mil­i­tary strate­gists to rethink cen­turies of mil­i­tary doc­trine hold­ing that in war­fare, mobil­ity equals dom­i­nance. Votel told me that given the suc­cess that IEDs have had against America’s fleet of motor vehi­cles, the Pentagon may need to switch to more foot patrols. An intel­li­gence ana­lyst work­ing on the IED prob­lem agreed, say­ing, “The answer to the IEDs is to leave the vehi­cles. It’s obvi­ous. It’s the only choice.”

Really? I don’t know much about infantry tac­tics. But I do know a sol­dier who was killed by a jury-​​rigged bomb. He was one his feet, not in a Humvee. Same goes for the British explo­sives spe­cial­ist who lost limbs to an IED.
But the vul­ner­a­bil­ity isn’t even the big issue. Coverage is. The Army equiv­a­lent on the cop walk­ing the beat works fine, if you’ve got lots and lots of cops in a very small area. In Iraq, there are 150,000 or so sol­diers and marines try­ing to con­trol a place the size of California. That means each patrol has to cover a really wide area — too wide, really, to walk. Driving is the only way.
Besides, as the Atlantic notes, more foot patrols “would expose U.S. sol­diers to other risks, includ­ing snipers. And the December det­o­na­tion of an IED in Fallujah, killing ten Marines on foot patrol, shows that sol­diers will remain vul­ner­a­ble to IEDs whether on foot or behind the wheel.“
Next…