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 April, 2008

Hypersonic Test Flights Set

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

hypersonic.jpg

I’m just fas­ci­nated by this stuff According to a report today, DARPA plans to flight test two hyper­sonic demon­stra­tor vehi­cles begin­ning in 2009. 

There’s been a lot of talk about hyper­son­ics and what the flight regime can and can’t do for civil­ian and mil­i­tary appli­ca­tions. And finally there’s going to be some proof in the putting. It’ll be inter­est­ing to see the dynamic effects of such speeds and whether the sci­ence is there to build hyper­sonic planes and missiles. 

From Flight Daily News:

Details have emerged of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) plans to test fly its two expend­able dart-​​shaped Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV)-2 demonstrators. 

To be launched by Orbital Sciences Minotaur solid-​​fuel rock­ets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, HTV-​​2a will fly in May 2009 and HTV-​​2b will fol­low in the October of that year. 

While the two flights have sep­a­rate tra­jec­to­ries they will both impact near the Kwajalein Atoll test site in the Pacific Ocean. HTV-​​1 was a ground test demonstrator. 

The first flight will demon­strate per­for­mance char­ac­ter­is­tics, and the sec­ond cross-​​range manoeu­vring as well as ther­mal pro­tec­tion sys­tem performance. 

The two HTVs will use iner­tial nav­i­ga­tional mea­sure­ment units and global posi­tion­ing sys­tem (GPS) for guid­ance, while test­ing satel­lite com­mu­ni­ca­tions and GPS recep­tion through the plasma that will sur­round the vehi­cles dur­ing their flight. 

“The HTV-​​2 will have a plasma probe onboard [to exam­ine the hot gases] and we are expect­ing it to have good lift-​​over-​​drag per­for­mance,” said DARPA’s tac­ti­cal tech­nol­ogy office deputy direc­tor Steve Walker, speak­ing at the 15th AIAA International space planes, hyper­sonic sys­tems and tech­nolo­gies con­fer­ence in Dayton, Ohio on 28 April.

(more…)

It’s not $640 toilet seats, but…

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

EFV-disembark.jpg

Most of the Pentagon’s weapon sys­tems cost much more than they should, are built much more slowly than they could be and the entire sys­tem needs fun­da­men­tal reform. 

Those were the con­clu­sions of most law­mak­ers and one senior defense acqui­si­tion expert at a hear­ing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington ear­lier this week. 

Perhaps most damn­ing, senior staff mem­ber Michael Sullivan from the Government Accountability Office told law­mak­ers that the sys­tem had not really been any bet­ter or worse when he started inves­ti­gat­ing defense pro­cure­ment in 1986, though he con­ceded there were some recent small signs of improvement. 

The hearing’s poster child for botched Pentagon buy­ing was a $13.2 bil­lion Marine Corps pro­gram called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The pro­gram for the updated AAV started in 1996 when the Marines issued a con­tract to General Dynamics. Initially, the pro­gram won plau­dits for its inno­v­a­tive man­age­ment and it passed through the pro­gram def­i­n­i­tion and risk reduc­tion phase in mid-​​2001. Then things began to fall apart. The Marines issued a con­tract for the next phase of the pro­gram which was sup­posed to cost $712 mil­lion but quickly rose by the end of 2006 to an esti­mated $1.2 billion. 

The mod­ern­ized amtrac, accord­ing to a report pre­pared for the Oversight Committee’s chair­man, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-​​Calif.), weighed too much to carry combat-​​ready Marines and still go as fast as it should. It oper­ated only four-​​and-​​half hours before requir­ing major main­te­nance instead of the planned 47 hours. It was so loud that Marines could not speak to each other and had to wear ear plugs.

(more…)

U.S. Swaps AKs for M16s for Afghan Army

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

FL_afghanm16_043008.jpg

In a sharp break for a mil­i­tary with long expe­ri­ence wield­ing the battle-​​tested AK-​​47, the Afghan national army is set to replace its entire inven­tory of Kalashnikov rifles with the American-​​made M-​​16.

By the end of the year, the U.S. mil­i­tary plans to ship about 55,000 used Marine Corps M-​​16A2 rifles to Afghanistan with the intent of out­fit­ting every sol­dier in the Afghan army with one by the late spring of 2009. So far about 6,000 M16s, includ­ing Canadian C-​​7 vari­ants, have been fielded to Afghan units and about 6,000 M-​​4 car­bines have been in the hands of Afghan com­man­dos since May 2007. 

Officials in charge of the $44 mil­lion mod­ern­iza­tion effort rec­og­nize the dif­fi­cultly in tran­si­tion­ing a largely illit­er­ate force from a weapon designed for the third world to one that requires inten­sive main­te­nance and marks­man­ship. But the new, more accu­rate weapons are already prov­ing their worth on the battlefield. 

“When the com­man­dos go into a fight against an enemy that’s armed with AKs, it’s not a fair fight. And even fire against ‘spray and slay,’ it’s not a fair fight at all,” said Army Col. Mike McMahon, who heads up the mod­ern­iza­tion pro­gram for the Afghan army. 

“The com­pe­tence you get [from the M-​​16] and the con­fi­dence is just incredible.“ 

The effort to aban­don decades of expe­ri­ence with the ven­er­a­ble Kalashnikov is in part an attempt by Kabul to make a sym­bolic break from its insur­gent past, where geno­ci­dal bat­tles with AK-​​47-​​toting Soviets and Taliban reli­gious zealots weigh heav­ily on the mem­ory of Afghanistan’s post-​​September 11 gov­ern­ment, McMahon said.

(more…)

Boeing and Air Force In Lovers Spat

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

kc-45-b1.jpg

A great analy­sis on the tanker deal from my old friend Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute who’s name is “Mud” to pro-​​Boeing lawmakers… 

If you want to under­stand how for­mer allies end up going to war — or for­mer lovers end up get­ting divorced — take a look at how Boeing and the Air Force are treat­ing each other in their angry con­fronta­tion over the award of a next-​​generation tanker pro­gram to Northrop Grumman. Boeing expected to win the con­tract, and now finds itself fac­ing the prospect of los­ing a 50-​​year aer­ial refu­el­ing fran­chise (and $100 bil­lion in sales) while its main rival in the com­mer­cial air­liner busi­ness sets up shop on Boeing’s home turf. Boeing is con­vinced it should have won, and is spend­ing mil­lions of dol­lars on lawyers and adver­tis­ing to press its case in a for­mal com­plaint to the Government Accountability Office.

Air Force lead­ers, on the other hand, believe that Boeing is will­fully mis-​​stating the facts in a bid to obscure the infe­rior per­for­mance of the plane it pro­posed. A marathon ses­sion of Air Force acqui­si­tion experts two weeks ago con­cluded that none of the 200 issues raised by Boeing in its com­plaint to GAO was likely to be upheld, and that what­ever minor prob­lems the account­abil­ity office might uncover would be far from suf­fi­cient to over­turn a com­pet­i­tive out­come the ser­vice says was not close. Beyond the mer­its of Boeing’s case, Air Force offi­cials are insulted by the tone of the company’s pub­lic state­ments, which have used phrases such as “deeply flawed” and “severely prej­u­diced” to describe the tanker selec­tion process. 

The dete­ri­o­ra­tion of Boeing’s rela­tion­ship with its biggest gov­ern­ment cus­tomer hit a new low last week, when Air Force insid­ers began hint­ing darkly that the com­pany had encour­aged Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill to ques­tion the ethics of the service’s chief of staff in a let­ter con­cern­ing an unre­lated con­tract­ing mat­ter. The notion that Boeing would do such a thing seems exceed­ingly unlikely, since the chief was widely believed to favor Boeing’s tanker bid and the company’s rela­tion­ship with McCaskill is luke­warm at best (even though its defense unit is head­quar­tered in her state). But the tone of Boeing’s tanker cam­paign has led at least some ser­vice offi­cials to believe the worst about the com­pany, a feel­ing that is spread­ing far beyond tankers. For instance, the ser­vice has prob­a­bly delayed announc­ing award of the GPS III satel­lite con­tract in part because it fears another Boeing protest.

(more…)

More UAVs Taking Off

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

vulture-uav.jpg

Two highly sig­nif­i­cant con­tracts that were awarded by the Department of Defense last week will have great impact on the rapidly increas­ing role of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in the U.S. armed forces. The first, on 21 April, was for phase one of the Vulture pro­gram intended to pro­vide an unmanned air­craft with an endurance of five years. The sec­ond con­tract, announced a day later, was to acquire the RQ-​​4N vari­ant of the Global Hawk for the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program. 

The Vulture pro­gram — under the aegis of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — envi­sions a vehi­cle car­ry­ing a 1,000-pound pay­load draw­ing five kilo­watts of power that is able to remain aloft for an unin­ter­rupted period of at least five years while remain­ing in the required mis­sion air­space 99 per­cent of the time. 

The Vulture phase one con­tracts were awarded to Aurora Flight Sciences, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. According to DARPA, the Vulture pro­gram will focus on devel­op­ing inno­v­a­tive tech­nolo­gies and approaches for in-​​flight energy col­lec­tion (e.g., from solar pan­els) or refu­el­ing in flight and ultra-​​reliable sys­tems or sys­tems that could be repaired in flight. Other tech­nolo­gies that will be devel­oped include multi-​​junction pho­to­voltaic cells, high spe­cific energy fuel cells, extremely effi­cient propul­sion sys­tems, advanced struc­tural designs. 

In the sec­ond phase of Vulture the con­trac­tors will refine demon­stra­tor designs, con­tinue tech­nol­ogy devel­op­ment, and con­duct an unin­ter­rupted three-​​month flight of a sub-​​scale demon­stra­tor. Phase three will con­sist of a con­tin­u­ous 12-​​month flight of a full-​​scale demonstrator. 

In some respects the Vulture will be a corol­lary to the Helios UAV pro­gram. That vehi­cle was a long, thin, fly­ing wing intended to fly higher than any unmanned air­craft ever. It passed an alti­tude of 76,000 feet on its first solar-​​powered test flight on 14 July 2001. Operating from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai, Hawaii, no prob­lems were encoun­tered dur­ing the 10-​​hour, 17-​​minute flight. A flight the fol­low­ing 13 August took the UAV to 96,863 feet. 

The Helios crashed two years later. A 247-​​foot-​​long fly­ing wing that mea­sured only eight feet front to back, Helios was a $15 mil­lion air­craft con­trolled from the ground by pilots using desk­top com­put­ers. Its 14 pro­pellers were dri­ven by small elec­tric motors pow­ered by solar cells built into the wing. Helios was built by a part­ner­ship of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and AeroVironment Inc. of Monrovia, California.

(more…)

What About this Army Satellite Business?

Monday, April 28th, 2008

Army to Launch Sats After 50 Year Lull

Monday, April 28th, 2008

FL_minotaur_042808.jpg

The U.S. Army plans to build and launch into orbit a con­stel­la­tion of satel­lites for the first time in roughly 50 years. And it plans to build the clus­ter of eight minia­ture com­mu­ni­ca­tions satel­lites within as lit­tle as nine months, defense offi­cials told Military​.com.

The roughly $5 mil­lion effort is part of the Army’s com­mit­ment to what is known as Operationally Responsive Space. The joint pro­gram, based at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., was cre­ated in May 2007 after years of vig­or­ous prod­ding by Congress to get the U.S. mil­i­tary to change how it con­ceives of, builds and flies satellites. 

For the Army, this is “a pathfinder project to ful­fill an urgent need for beyond line of sight com­mu­ni­ca­tions capa­bil­ity,” said James Lee, chief of strat­egy and pol­icy for Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala. 

Lee’s office set up a task force in March to decide how the Army should tackle the deploy­ment of space assets. And the money for the service’s satel­lite effort is com­ing from Army cof­fers, Lee added. 

The require­ment for the bantam-​​weight sats — which mea­sure about 30 inches square and weigh around five pounds — was gen­er­ated by a com­bat­ant com­man­der whom Lee declined to iden­tify. But you can get some idea who it is by the mis­sion he described for the so-​​called “cubesats.“ 

The satel­lites should pro­vide com­mu­ni­ca­tions for Army units below the brigade level oper­at­ing in parts of the world where the mil­i­tary has no cur­rent secure satel­lite com­mu­ni­ca­tions, such as Africa, Lee explained.

(more…)

MEDIA WARFARE — Hacking Live Television

Monday, April 28th, 2008

nukeblast.jpg

Last week while work­ing on cyber attacks against media web sites I dis­cov­ered some infor­ma­tion I thought you might ben­e­fit from reading. 

One of the more sig­nif­i­cant con­cerns with cyber war­fare is a tar­geted attack against the news media. There are two dif­fer­ent strate­gies that play here. The first pos­si­bil­ity is a dis­rup­tive strat­egy — where the cyber attack dis­ables the media from report­ing on activ­i­ties and dis­rupt­ing their abil­ity to inform the pub­lic about events that are or have just taken place. The sec­ond strat­egy addresses the use of the media as a source of mis­in­for­ma­tion. Misinformation and dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paigns are eas­ily mounted and you can even find this tac­tic addressed in the well known work “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu. We have assessed the impli­ca­tion of both of these sce­nar­ios using the Scenario Based Intelligence Analysis Tool cre­ated by Spy-​​Ops. The result of that analy­sis is below. 

Scenario 1 — Media Disruption
An attack against the entire media sec­tor in an attempt to dis­rupt its abil­ity to com­mu­ni­cate with and inform the pub­lic is rated a 2.3 on our risk scale. 

MEASUREMENT SCORE
Cost = 4.3
Complexity = 4.7
Difficulty = 4.4
Discovery Probability = 3.8
Success Probability = 2.0
Impact = 4.7
Current Defense = 2.5
_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​
Overall Risk = 2.3 

Scenario 2 — Dis or mis Information
An attack against a pri­mary new source with the intent to inject mis-​​information for pub­lic dis­sem­i­na­tion is rated a 4.1 on our risk scale. 

MEASUREMENT SCORE
Cost = 1.3
Complexity = 1.6
Difficulty = 2.2
Discovery Probability = 2.0
Success Probability = 4.0
Impact = 4.7
Current Defense = 2.5
_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​
Overall Risk = 4.1 

In sup­port of the higher risk and increased like­li­hood of suc­cess in this type of attack is the fol­low­ing account of events that took place on June 17, 2007. The view­ers of a Czech tele­vi­sion chan­nel watch­ing a Web cam pro­gram mon­i­tor­ing weather in var­i­ous Czech moun­tain resorts saw a nuclear explo­sion tak­ing place in the Krkonose or Giant Mountains in the north­ern Czech Republic. CNN Europe reported that mem­bers of a Czech art group were respon­si­ble and got in trou­ble for hack­ing a tele­vi­sion broad­cast and insert­ing the phony video of the nuclear explosion. 

One can only imag­ine the psy­cho­log­i­cal impact on the view­ers that wit­nessed this prank. The TV chan­nel CT2 said that they received fran­tic phone calls from view­ers who thought a nuclear war had started. By the way, just recently the artists were acquit­ted of the charges stem­ming from the fake nuclear blast on TV.

(more…)

“We Will Bury You” South American Style

Friday, April 25th, 2008

chavez.jpg

As if on cue, my boy Chavez comes through again!

From today’s Pravda:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez harshly crit­i­cized the US admin­is­tra­tion again after the unau­tho­rized pass­ing of the USS George Washington along the coast of the Latin American coun­try. Chavez promised to bury the USA in the 21st century.

When Americans appear near our shores with their navy, the George Washington air­craft car­rier, one should not for­get that it hap­pens at the time when we together with Brazil are cre­at­ing the Defense Council of South America, Chavez said in a speech that was broad­cast by all TV and radio chan­nels of Venezuela.

In this cen­tury we will bury the old empire of the USA and will live with the American nation like with a broth­erly nation, because over 40 mil­lion of its cit­i­zens live below the poverty line, the Venezuelan leader said. 

I’m begin­ning to get a kick out of that guy…

(Gouge: NC)

– Christian

Crash-​​Proof UAVs Fly Blind at MIT

Friday, April 25th, 2008

Here’s another great story from our friends at Popular Mechanics that looks at cut­ting edge research into drones that fly autonomously inside struc­tures. That’s some­thing that until now could only be done (barely) by wheeled mini-​​bots. But as you can see from this report, engi­neers still have a long way to go.

It’s not the most attrac­tive spy bot, but the unmanned aer­ial vehi­cle hov­er­ing some 20 ft. away is doing its job. For now, that means stay­ing right where it is, weav­ing ever so slightly under the weight of the web­cam strapped to its back. There’s noth­ing par­tic­u­larly inter­est­ing to look at with this UAV, a com­mer­cial four-​​rotor model that any RC hob­by­ist could put together. But no one is pilot­ing this mod­i­fied drone — it’s fly­ing autonomously, sta­bi­lized a few feet above the floor of MIT’s RAVEN lab. Like most of the air­craft tested here, this model is a pup­pet, receiv­ing input not from onboard proces­sors, but from a nearby computer. 

As it con­tin­ues to buzz in place, an array of 18 motion-​​capture cam­eras tracks the UAV, pro­vid­ing 3D posi­tion­ing data to deter­mine just how sta­ble it is. Specifically, those bale­ful red cam­eras — the same kind Hollywood visual effects teams use to trans­pose an actor’s move­ments to a computer-​​generated coun­ter­part — are track­ing the tiny Styrofoam balls attached to the drone. On the com­puter mon­i­tor, these balls show up in real time, map­ping the UAV as a clus­ter of dots, sway­ing in midair. I’m some­where between impressed and bored when the drone begins to drift. A sec­ond later and it slams into a plex­i­glass divider, as hard as a hockey player. 

It will take some time to fig­ure out why this lit­tle craft sud­denly lost con­trol. But that’s the point of RAVEN, or Real-​​Time Indoor Autonomous Vehicle Test Environment, where geeks cap­ture every flight — and col­li­sion — in painstak­ing detail. There are no acci­dents here, just prob­lems that haven’t been suf­fi­ciently ana­lyzed. “RAVEN gives us the free­dom to test what­ever we can build,” says Jonathan How, direc­tor of MIT’s Aerospace Controls Lab. “And we can build won­der­ful things, even in 24 hours.“ 

One of the researchers has done just that, and is now prepar­ing to fly a drone that was redesigned, then cob­bled together out of light­weight foam core. Of course, this isn’t exactly the next gen­er­a­tion of missile-​​packing Predators; the toy­like cre­ation in front of me, with its cir­cu­lar wing and minia­ture nose-​​mounted pro­peller, is more of a test­bed than a pro­to­type. All of the UAVs cov­er­ing nearly every sur­face of this lab, from high-​​end RC planes the size of a small child to a store-​​bought fly­ing insect pro­duced by WowWee, are just tools to develop flight con­trol algo­rithms for indoor robots. 

As chal­leng­ing as it is to make some­thing fly itself, design­ing a drone that can func­tion indoors is even harder. For an indoor UAV to meet all of the military’s expec­ta­tions, it would need to be able to fly into a build­ing and find a suit­able spot to perch and observe, all with­out rely­ing on GPS con­tact. “The ulti­mate vehi­cle is a bat that you can down­load data from,” How says. Bats have the abil­ity to perch, plus echo loca­tion to detect obsta­cles, and the agility to keep from slam­ming into them. 

(more…)