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 May, 2007

Update: The Iranian Connection

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

Iranian-march-web.jpg

Okay folks, I know you miss this so much (try­ing a lit­tle irony here), but I feel like I have to turn your atten­tion to the lat­est update of Iranian activ­ity in Iraq. 

Just three days after the ground­break­ing talks between Iranian offi­cials and U.S. diplo­mats on Iraqi secu­rity, coali­tion forces (which is code for TF 145) and Iraqi troops nabbed a few more bad guys tied to the Iranian sup­port net­work for the insur­gen­cyand al Qaeda. 

I know there are a lot of read­ers here who strongly dis­pute the Iranian con­nec­tion with Iraq and see it as impos­si­ble for a Shiite gov­ern­ment to col­lab­o­rate with the Sunni AQ move­ment. But at the very least, when more smok­ing gun evi­dence does present itself, the U.S. cant be accused of ignor­ing the threat. 

From MNFI:

Iraqi and Coalition Forces detained two indi­vid­u­als in Sadr City dur­ing the first raid. They are believed to be mem­bers of the secret cell ter­ror­ist net­work known for facil­i­tat­ing the trans­port of weapons and explo­sively formed pen­e­tra­tors, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bring­ing mil­i­tants from Iraq to Iran for ter­ror­ist training. 

Intelligence reports indi­cate one of the tar­geted indi­vid­u­als detained dur­ing the oper­a­tion is sus­pected of pro­vid­ing facil­i­ta­tion and logis­tic sup­port for traf­fick­ing weapons used in oper­a­tions against Coalition Forces. 

In a sep­a­rate raid in Khanaqin, Coalition Forces cap­tured a sus­pected liai­son to al-Qaeda in Iraq senior lead­ers, who assists in the move­ment of infor­ma­tion and doc­u­ments from al-Qaeda in Iraq lead­er­ship in Baghdad to al-Qaeda senior lead­ers in Iran. 

(more…)

Night Vision Blowback?

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

Afghan-soldier-web.jpg

Part of Americas coun­terin­sur­gency strat­egy is the whole­sale rebuild­ing of native armed forces. Some have argued that sup­ply­ing the new armies with anti­quated weapons such as the AK-47 demeans them that instead they should be sup­plied with mod­ern weaponry, such as the M4, to take advan­tage of both its increased accu­racy and its west­ern appearance.

Better to make them feel like a mod­ern mil­i­tary in hopes that theyll act like one.

But a new con­tract solic­i­ta­tion takes this phi­los­o­phy a step fur­ther. According to FedBizOps, the Pentagon is seek­ing ven­dors to sat­isfy a require­ment to sup­ply the Afghan army com­mando force with night vision equipment.

The solic­i­ta­tion calls for Generation II gog­gles. Most US spe­cial oper­a­tors and pilots wear the most advanced GenIV and even some com­bined IR/I2 NODs.

While it seems like a good idea to equip Americas new allies with the most mod­ern equip­ment avail­able to make them more effec­tive in our absence and to help forge a Western esprit dol­ing out NVGs to Afghan sol­diers, no mat­ter how down-market they are, risks some blowback.

How much blood and trea­sure have been spent to locate all the old Stinger mis­siles sup­plied by the CIA to the Soviet-fighting Mujahaddin in the 1980s? And what will hap­pen when a take-down raid on Taliban or AQ hold­outs nets some of those NODs we just sup­plied to the Afghan spe­cial forces?

One of the American mil­i­tarys strongest advan­tages in ground com­bat is its own­er­ship of the night. IR mark­ers, glint tape and IR illu­mi­na­tors are key to night­time fight­ing for US forces. If the NVG tech­nol­ogy intended for our Afghan allies falls into the wrong hands, that advan­tage will quickly turn into a major vulnerability.

(Gouge: ST)

Christian

Drone Wars Moving Closer to Reality

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

UCAV-web.jpg

Heating up the UAV debate again, a mid-April exper­i­ment demon­strated that a battle-damaged com­bat drone could deal with the sim­u­lated hit and land autonomously within a few feet of its intended touch-down point.

Defense Tech read­ers will remem­ber the argu­ment made by retired Air Force colonel Tom Ehrhard a cou­ple weeks ago that the Navy should be con­cen­trat­ing more on devel­op­ing com­bat UAVs in order to main­tain the per­sis­tence over the bat­tle­field that every ground com­man­der is ask­ing for.

Ironically, the flight test spon­sored by the Defense Advanced Research Agency and con­ducted at Aberdeen prov­ing ground on April 19 used a scaled down ver­sion of an F/A-18. Engineers cre­ated the in-flight dam­age by eject­ing an aileron from the drones wing. The nav­i­ga­tion sys­tems and in-flight con­trols adjusted, bring­ing the pilot­less plane safely back to Earth.

A release from the flight con­trol sys­tems devel­oper, Athena Technologies Inc., stated:

Damage tol­er­ance is an enabling capa­bil­ity for increas­ing the mis­sion reli­a­bil­ity of UAVs and Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) oper­at­ing in haz­ardous and high-threat envi­ron­ments. The tech­nol­ogy pro­vides for real-time autonomous accom­mo­da­tion of dam­age, fol­lowed by an adap­ta­tion process that alters the flight con­trol sys­tem to com­pen­sate for the effects of the damage.

Watch the in-flight videos of the exper­i­ment HERE and HERE.

Admittedly, this is a small step with a lim­ited impact on just one area of con­cern over the UCAV con­cept. But its steps like these that could bring aer­ial robot wars to our ene­mys skies sooner than one might imagine.

(Gouge: NC)

Christian

Fire for a ‘Precise’ Effect

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

155-web.jpg

Mike Goldfarb over at the Worldwide Standard blog banged out an inter­est­ing piece today on the lat­est test in Iraq of an Excalibur 155mm artillery round.

Inside Defense reported the shot yes­ter­day, though it occurred ear­lier in the month against an al Qaeda safe house.

The WWS quotes a few defense experts cri­tiquing the oper­a­tional test, some call­ing it a stunt and say­ing the precision-guided artillery round isnt much use when the U.S. has total air superiority.

This morn­ing I spoke with Stuart Koehl, a mil­i­tary ana­lyst at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, who called the strike “a stunt, because they didn’t have to use an artillery round, they could have used an airplane–it would have been a lot cheaper.
In coun­terin­sur­gency this kind of thing is mainly irrel­e­vant. If I really need the long-range indi­rect fires, I’ve got total air supremacy, I’ve got all-weather capa­bil­ity, I really don’t need an artillery round when I could drop it from an air­plane. It just makes a lot more sense to have some­thing right there on the scene shoot­ing from a much shorter range…a JDAM dropped from over­head is going to go right down the pipe, no mat­ter what.” 

Except thats not exactly true. Aircraft are not always on sta­tion and some­times if there are planes aloft, there arent enough of them or theyre tasked out to do other things, like search for IEDs.

But every for­ward oper­at­ing base has an artillery bat­tery and that bat­tery has guys ready to pull the fir­ing cord at a moments notice. The artillery fires are much more respon­sive and a precision-guided 155 round packs just enough punch to knock out what you need, leav­ing the rest largely undamaged.

As John Pike at Globalsecurity.org points out correctly

“If all I want to do is blow up one build­ing, JDAM’s just too much of a good thing.” 

Critics say the Army should be spend­ing more time look­ing into a precision-guided mor­tar. But, thing is, they already are.

Infantry mor­tars are good for sup­pres­sion and fix­ing the enemy. The 120mm mor­tar fits the bill for an infantry vehicle-portable pre­ci­sion fire plat­form for medium dis­tances. If a sol­dier or Marine needs to knock out a spe­cific room in the short range, he can use an AT4 or LAW.

Programs like Excalibur, how­ever, could suf­fer from the time worn Pentagon prac­tice of adding capa­bil­i­ties that boost the cost and make the thing more com­pli­cated and expen­sive that it needs to be. Army, Marine and Navy, for that mat­ter can­non cock­ers need pre­ci­sion rounds just as much as the jet jocks do. And in a coun­terin­sur­gency, pre­ci­sion is everything.

– Christian

Walling Out the Bad Guys

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

troops-wall.jpg

Walling off vul­ner­a­ble Baghdad neigh­bor­hoods is crit­i­cal to break­ing the cycle of revenge killings in Iraq, accord­ing to U.S. Army General David Petraeus’ counter-insurgency advisor. 

Portable bar­ri­ers installed between neigh­bor­hoods enable U.S. and Iraqi forces to limit the night­time move­ments of death squads and insur­gents, says Dr. David Kilcullen, a lieu­tenant colonel in the Australian army reserve who has spent years study­ing ter­ror groups and meth­ods for defeat­ing them. 

“What we’ve tried to do is put in a series of blocks to stop that cycle [of vio­lence] from run­ning, and if it does run, to reduce the num­ber of peo­ple killed in attacks” by lim­it­ing the scale and fre­quency of attacks, Kilcullen explains. 

He uses the term “gated com­mu­nity” to describe the walled-off neigh­bor­hoods. The first to be enclosed was Sunni com­mu­nity of Adhamiyah in April. The deci­sion to wall of a par­tic­u­lar area is made by the U.S. bat­tal­ions on the ground.

(more…)

Bashar Bashes the Competition

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Assad-web.jpg

Defense Tech would like to be the first in the blo­gos­phere to con­grat­u­late Syrian pres­i­dent Bashar Assad on his stun­ning land­slide vic­tory for another seven years as ruler of Syria.

How he eeked out a 97 per­cent vic­tory in an elec­toral field devoid of com­pe­ti­tion is the biggest mys­tery. Maybe it was his four-point health­care plan or the Baath party’s green energy agenda?

Nearly 12 mil­lion Syrians voted in the ref­er­en­dum a whop­ping 19,000 voted against Assad. What were they thinking?

As AFP points out: “With par­lia­ment hav­ing unan­i­mously approved Assad’s can­di­da­ture and with vocal oppo­nents of the regime locked up, the result was never in doubt.”

…Kinda takes all the fun out of the whole elec­tion thing, though, doesn’t it.

Christian

The Rising Dragon

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

chinese-parade.jpg

Just in case you didnt see it already, the Pentagon released its annual Chinese Military Power report Friday.

One of the best China reporters in the coun­try, Bill Gertz, wrote in the Washington Times that the report shows a robust effort by the PRC to develop anti-satellite weapons that can deliver a knock­out blow to many U.S. mil­i­tary satellites.

Gertz writes:

According to defense offi­cials famil­iar with the report, it also high­lights new strate­gic mis­sile devel­op­ments, includ­ing China’s five new Jin-class sub­marines, and states that Beijing con­tin­ues to hide the true level of its mil­i­tary spending.

The offi­cials also said that the report will detail how China is devel­op­ing two new types of strate­gic forces that go beyond what nations have done tra­di­tion­ally using air, sea and land forces by aim­ing to knock out mod­ern com­mu­ni­ca­tions meth­ods on which the U.S. mil­i­tary relies for advanced warfight­ing techniques.

China also is train­ing large num­bers of mil­i­tary com­puter hack­ers to deliver crip­pling elec­tronic attacks on U.S. mil­i­tary and civil­ian com­puter networks. 

Christian

The Sunday Paper

Sunday, May 27th, 2007

Remember those who died for our free­dom …

(Cross-posted here.)

Ward

The REAL Dragon Skin Alternative

Friday, May 25th, 2007

First of all, I want to thank all you DT read­ers for your incred­i­bly insight­ful dis­cus­sions regard­ing the lat­est spat over Dragon Skin. Its such a plea­sure to edit a site that draws such informed con­ver­sa­tions that actu­ally help drive the story forward. 

So a big pat on the back to our read­ers, we appre­ci­ate it. 

In fact, one of our savvy read­ers helped push the debate even fur­ther by tip­ping DT off on a whole new class of body armor that sim­ply puts Dragon Skin and, frankly, all oth­ers to shame. 

Foreign.Boy won­dered why in the heck DT read­ers wer­ent dis­cussing the Trojan Armor sys­tem, invented by armor expert extra­or­di­naire Troy Hurtubise. With all this hoopla about how Dragon Skin is the new won­der armor, how could such well-informed read­ers ignore the cutting-edge per­for­mance of this as yet unno­ticed system? 

After view­ing the scientifically-precise lab­o­ra­tory field tests for myself, I can­not help but agree whole heart­edly with (may I go so far as to call him my col­league?) Foreign.Boy. 

Watch a report on the new suit below (and dont mind the weird cover shot on the video screen). 

(Be sure to read the con­tin­ued entry, you won’t be disappointed.)

(more…)

Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang

Friday, May 25th, 2007

M4-web.jpg

Nearly 80 per­cent of Soldiers said in a recent sur­vey they are sat­is­fied with their weapons, though almost half rec­om­mended a replace­ment for the standard-issued M9 pis­tol or ammu­ni­tion with more stop­ping power. 

Additionally, nearly 30 per­cent of Soldiers in the December 2006 sur­vey, con­ducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 car­bine should be replaced or more deadly ammu­ni­tion fielded. 

“Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammu­ni­tion with more stop­ping power/lethality,” the report said. 

The study was com­mis­sioned by the Army’s Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address con­cerns raised by Soldiers return­ing from com­bat about the depend­abil­ity and effec­tive­ness of their small arms. 

Download the entire CNA report here (2MB pdf).

“This study assessed Soldier per­spec­tives on the reli­a­bil­ity and dura­bil­ity of their weapons sys­tems in com­bat to aid in deci­sions regard­ing cur­rent and future small arms needs of the Army,” said the study, which was obtained by Military.com. 

CNA sur­vey­ors con­ducted over 2,600 inter­views with Soldiers return­ing from com­bat duty, ask­ing them a vari­ety of ques­tions about acces­sories, weapons train­ing, main­te­nance and rec­om­mended changes to their small arms. 

“The U.S. Army Infantry Center is con­duct­ing a study to refine the Army’s Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employ­ment of rifles, car­bines, ammu­ni­tion cal­iber, and future tech­nolo­gies,” said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a state­ment. “All Services are par­tic­i­pat­ing in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe.”

(more…)