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 September, 2008

Iraq’s Slippery Slope…to Peace?

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

iraq-report.jpg

The Pentagon just released the lat­est Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq report. Here are some pull-​​outs from the Executive Summary. You can read the entire doc­u­ment HERE.

My ques­tion is how will the MSM por­tray this report and what neg­a­tives will they focus on? It will also be inter­est­ing to see if the major papers and net­works ignore the update. We’ll see… 

…The over­all secu­rity sit­u­a­tion in Iraq has greatly improved this report­ing period. Security inci­dents have remained at lev­els last seen in early 2004 for nearly three con­sec­u­tive months, while civil­ian deaths across Iraq have declined to a level 77% lower than the same period in 2007. The surge in Coalition forces, the growth of more capa­ble Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the con­tri­bu­tions of the Sons of Iraq (SoI), the abil­ity of forces to secure the pop­u­la­tion, oper­a­tions against Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and other extrem­ist ele­ments, and the increased will­ing­ness of the peo­ple and the Government of Iraq (GoI) to con­front extrem­ists are impor­tant fac­tors that have con­tributed to the improved secu­rity envi­ron­ment. Periodic high-​​profile car and sui­cide vest bomb­ings have occurred, but the num­ber of these attacks and the result­ing casu­al­ties have decreased dra­mat­i­cally. Moreover, these attacks have not rekin­dled the self-​​perpetuating cycle of ethno-​​sectarian vio­lence that plagued Iraq in late 2006 and the first half of 2007.

…The emer­gence of the SoI remains one of the major devel­op­ments of the past 18 months; how­ever, the inte­gra­tion and employ­ment of SoI remain a sig­nif­i­cant chal­lenge. The SoI pro­vide sig­nif­i­cant secu­rity ben­e­fits to their local com­mu­ni­ties by pro­tect­ing September 26, 2008 neigh­bor­hoods, secur­ing key infra­struc­ture and roads, and iden­ti­fy­ing malign activ­ity.

…The slow pace of tran­si­tion is a con­cern. Continued GoI com­mit­ment is required to ensure SoI are fully tran­si­tioned to per­ma­nent employ­ment. Recent alle­ga­tions of GoI tar­get­ing SoI lead­ers in Diyala Province are of con­cern if they are indi­ca­tors of GoI reluc­tance to inte­grate SoI into the ISF or, more broadly, to rec­on­cile a diverse province. Prime Minister Maliki has recently signed an order reflect­ing his com­mit­ment that stip­u­lates the GoI will assume respon­si­bil­ity for SoI in Baghdad and its envi­rons (over 50,000) begin­ning in October 2008, but Coalition forces con­tinue to pay the salaries of SoI per­son­nel. Prime Minister Malikis order would move more than half of the SoIs to the GoI payroll.

(more…)

Find the Cyberweapons Complex

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

overhead.jpg

Many coun­tries have now assessed their vul­ner­a­bil­ity and over­all risk of being the tar­get of a cyber attack. Inside sources have leaked infor­ma­tion to the media stat­ing the height­ened state of con­cern they now have after being briefed on the results of the vul­ner­a­bil­ity and risk assess­ments. These results have put pres­sure on the mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence lead­ers to address the grow­ing threat. Military and intel­li­gence lead­ers around the world are strug­gling with the new real­ity of cyber war­fare. While there are a few hot spots where con­ven­tional con­flict might erupt, there is grow­ing con­cern among this group about the new real­ity of cyber war. 

One for­eign Intelligence ana­lyst told me that “we face only a remote chance of major con­ven­tional mil­i­tary threat involv­ing his coun­try through 2025.” She went on to say “Asymmetric capa­bil­i­ties like cyber war­fare might threaten the secu­rity we have gained over the past two decades.“ 

The cyber intel­li­gence chal­lenge for Intel agen­cies man­i­fests them­selves in the fun­da­men­tal char­ac­ter­is­tics of cyber weapons. A cruise mis­sile costs between $1 and $2 mil­lion and requires a large man­u­fac­tur­ing facil­ity and a sub­stan­tial amount of infra­struc­ture. A cyber weapon on the other hand costs between a few hun­dred dol­lars up to $50,000 and next to no infra­struc­ture. The only infra­struc­ture is a com­puter and an Internet con­nec­tion. A cyber weapons man­u­fac­tur­ing facil­ity can be located in a sin­gle fam­ily home.

(more…)

Potential Russian Launch Base in Cuba

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

cuban-missile-crisis.jpg

Even as a Russian naval task force enters the Caribbean for joint exer­cises with Venezuelan forces, and a pair of Russian Tu-​​160 Blackjack strate­gic bombers fly from a base in the Kola Peninsula to Venezuela, the Russian gov­ern­ment is dis­cussing the pos­si­bil­ity of a satel­lite launch facil­ity in Cuba. 

Revelation of the inter­est in Cuba came from Anatoly Perminov, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, in a September state­ment. This may be the lat­est move by Russian prime min­is­ter (and for­mer pres­i­dent) Vladimir Putin to reestab­lish Russia as a key “player” on the world political-​​military scene. 

The Russian inter­est in the Caribbean-​​South America region is reflected in the high-​​level Russian del­e­ga­tion vis­it­ing the area, led by Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. Perminov is part of the Sechin delegation. 

(Sechin had vis­ited Cuba on 30–31 July of this year for talks with Raul Castro and, pos­si­bly, the ail­ing Fidel Castro.Putin fol­lowed up Sechin’s visit with a 5 August announce­ment that Russia should “restore [its] posi­tion in Cuba and other countries.”) 

The Soviet Union-​​Russia was the prin­ci­pal polit­i­cal and eco­nomic sup­porter of Cuba from the early 1960s through the demise of the USSR in December 1991. Indeed, Soviet attempts to estab­lish Cuba as a strate­gic mis­sile and mil­i­tary base led to the Cuban mis­sile cri­sis of 1962 when the United States and Soviet union came closer to a nuclear exchange than at any other time dur­ing the 45-​​year Cold War. After the demise of the USSR sup­port for Cuba ended, caus­ing con­sid­er­able eco­nomic hard­ship in Cuba. 

A major satel­lite launch facil­ity in Cuba would per­mit plac­ing satel­lites in cer­tain orbits that can­not be done from Russian launch sites: Easterly launches close to the equa­tor are the most effi­cient because of the earth’s rota­tion, max­i­miz­ing the pay­load that a launch vehi­cle can boost into orbit. Such a launch facil­ity and its sup­port infra­struc­ture would be a major source of employ­ment and for­eign invest­ment for the Cuban economy.

(more…)

Developing: Hydraulic Failure Caused Nov. Osprey Fire

Monday, September 29th, 2008

osprey-fire-blog.jpg

I’ve got­ten my hands on an inves­ti­ga­tion report into the fire that nearly destroyed an MV-​​22 back in November dur­ing an NVG train­ing flight near New River, N.C.

[NOTE: Picture is a scan from one pro­vided in the inves­ti­ga­tion report]

Turns out, the fire sparked after the #3 hydraulic sys­tem rup­tured due to pres­sure spikes from the engine air par­ti­cle sep­a­ra­tor which fil­ters inlet air before it is ingested by the engine. The hydraulic fluid spilled all over the IR sup­pres­sion sys­tem, ignit­ing the left nacelle into a ball of flame. The pilots and crew landed safely but the nacelle was a melted, twisted hulk. It caused $16 mil­lion in damages.

The crazy part is that this is a known prob­lem. Our friend Bob Cox of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram has reported this same rup­ture before and his sources in the main­te­nance com­mu­nity indi­cate to him the prob­lem is much worse than the Corps admits. In fact, the report shows a Airframe Change notice (#88) that calls for the instal­la­tion of thicker hydraulic tub­ing in the EAPS sys­tem because of known pres­sure spikes that can cause a “cat­a­strophic fail­ure.” That notice came out in August, three months before the November incident.

The Corps (an Navy) told us not to worry, this was a prob­lem on the Block A air­craft and the retro­fits would go on those. Problem is, the November fire hap­pened on a Block B Osprey [CORRECTION: Corps PA says the mishap air­craft was indeed a Block A bird].

I’m work­ing more sources on this and giv­ing the Corps a chance to respond, so you won’t see the final ver­sion of the story for another 36 hours. But I’ll scan some of the docs and try to post them when I push this one live so you can deter­mine for your­selves what’s going on…

– Christian

The Next Generation of Drone Pilots

Monday, September 29th, 2008

I just couldn’t resist…

– Christian

Bring in the CPP

Monday, September 29th, 2008

cyber-protection.jpg

Multiple coun­tries are now dis­cussing the need to estab­lish a com­pre­hen­sive cyber pro­tec­tion pro­gram given the con­tin­ued increase in the threat of cyber attacks and cyber war­fare. The attack on Estonia and the more recent attack on Georgia are being viewed as the har­bin­ger of what is to come. I was recently asked what might a com­pre­hen­sive Cyber Protection Program (CPP) look like. So I thought I would put down my top ten areas that I think would be crit­i­cal to include in a CPP. 

1. Mandatory require­ment to have up-​​to-​​date pro­tec­tion soft­ware on any device con­nect­ing to the Internet that includes:

  • a. Anti-​​Virus
  • b. Anti-​​Spyware
  • c. Anti-​​Malwared.
  • d. Anti-​​Adware

This soft­ware will auto­mat­i­cally upload attack data to a cen­tral report­ing center. 

2. Mandatory iso­lat­ing capa­bil­ity on every sys­tem with high pro­cess­ing capa­bil­i­ties and a fire­wall on every device con­nect­ing to the Internet with the fol­low­ing functionality.

  • a. Cannot be dis­abled other than for a few seconds
  • b. Has pre-​​configuration for manda­tory protection
  • c. Automatically uploads attack data to a cen­tral report­ing center
  • d. Automatic dis­con­nec­tion when mas­sive out­bound DDoS traf­fic from com­pro­mised com­puter sys­tems is detected

3. Legislation man­dat­ing soft­ware ven­dors com­ply with the following:

a. Report to author­i­ties within 24 hours of dis­cov­ery mal­ware soft­ware vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties
b. Minimum secu­rity test­ing require­ments that must be met prior to release of any soft­ware program. 

4. Criminal laws specif­i­cally address­ing the unique char­ac­ter­is­tics of cyber attacks, mali­cious code and sys­tem com­pro­mise includ­ing lan­guage that addresses the threat of DDos attacks. 

5. Criminal laws specif­i­cally address­ing the devel­op­ment and sale of cyber weapons. 

6. Criminal and civil laws that address orga­ni­za­tions who fail to imme­di­ately report cyber attacks or data breaches that include those who destroy evi­dence of cyber attacks, sys­tems com­pro­mise and data theft. 

7. Establishment of a quasi government/​business entity that coor­di­nates defen­sive and pro­tec­tive capa­bil­i­ties of the infor­ma­tion infra­struc­ture. This would also include a cyber attack and threat alert­ing system. 

8. Establishing an Intelligence Center that is charged with cyber intel­li­gence col­lec­tion, analy­sis, trend report­ing as well as col­lab­o­ra­tion across the other intel­li­gence agencies.

(more…)

Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe

Friday, September 26th, 2008

xm25.jpg

For once it seems the Army is actu­ally turn­ing fic­tion into science. 

After nearly a decade in the shad­ows — with bil­lions spent on ear­lier ver­sions long since aban­doned — the Army is mov­ing quickly to field a rev­o­lu­tion­ary new weapon to Joes a lot sooner than any­one had ever imagined. 

It’s a weapon that can take out a bad guy behind a wall, beyond a hill or below a trench, and do it more accu­rately and with less col­lat­eral dam­age than any­thing on the bat­tle­field today, offi­cials say. It’s called the XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapon, and by next month the ser­vice will have three pro­to­types of the precision-​​guided 25mm rifle ready for testing. 

“We’ve done a lot of test­ing with this, and what we’re see­ing is the esti­mated increase in effec­tive­ness is six times what we’d be get­ting with a 5.56mm car­bine or a grenade launcher,” said Rich Audette, Army Deputy Project Manager for Soldier weapons. 

“What we’re talk­ing about is a true ‘leap ahead’ in lethal­ity, here. This is a huge step,” Audette added dur­ing a phone inter­view with Military​.com from his office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. 

Born of the much-​​maligned and highly-​​controversial Objective Individual Combat Weapon — a 1990s pro­gram that sought a “leap ahead” bat­tle rifle that com­bined a counter-​​defilade weapon with a car­bine — the XM25 only recently gained new momen­tum after the Army for­mal­ized a require­ment and released a con­tract in June for a series of test weapons. 

Current infantry weapons can shoot at or through an obsta­cle con­ceal­ing enemy threats, but the Army has been try­ing for years to come up with a weapon for engag­ing tar­gets behind bar­ri­ers with­out resort­ing to mor­tars, rock­ets or grenades — all of which risk greater col­lat­eral dam­age. After fits and starts using a 20mm rifle housed in a bulky, over­weight, com­pli­cated shell, tech­nol­ogy finally caught up to shave the XM25 from 21 pounds to a lit­tle more than 12 pounds. 

If the XM25 does what its devel­op­ers hope, it will be able to fire an air-​​bursting round at a tar­get from 16 meters away out to 600 meters with a highly accu­rate, 360-​​degree explo­sive radius. 

(more…)

Read Ahead: Duck! It Won’t Do You Any Good…

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

FL_xm25_092608.jpg

I know you guys are prob­a­bly notic­ing that we’ve had a good amount of weapons con­tent on DT for the last few months.

Part of the rea­son is because after report­ing one gun story, you tend to get tid­bits of infor­ma­tion on another, then another from that, then another from that.

When I spoke with Rich Audette on the Army’s search for a new car­bine a cou­ple weeks ago, he men­tioned to me that the Army was ready to test shoot a new weapon that could rev­o­lu­tion­ize infantry com­bat as we know it (my words not his…but his were close).

I just wrapped up the story and put it to bed, and we’re going to post it tomor­row morn­ing at Military​.com, but I wanted to give you all a head’s up here.

Army to Test Air Burst Weapon for Joes

For once it seems the Army is actu­ally turn­ing fic­tion into science.

After nearly a decade in the shad­ows — with bil­lions spent on ear­lier ver­sions long since aban­doned — the Army is hurtling along to field a rev­o­lu­tion­ary new weapon to Joes a lot sooner than any­one had ever imagined.

It’s a weapon that can take out a bad guy behind a wall, beyond a hill or below a trench, more accu­rately and with less col­lat­eral dam­age than any­thing on the bat­tle­field today, offi­cials say. It’s called the XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapon, and by next month the ser­vice will have three pro­to­types of the precision-​​guided 25mm rifle ready for testing.

“We’ve done a lot of test­ing with this and what we’re see­ing is the esti­mated increase in effec­tive­ness is six times what we’d be get­ting with a 5.56mm car­bine or a grenade launcher,” said Rich Audette, Army Deputy Project Manager for Soldier weapons.

“What we’re talk­ing about is a true ‘leap ahead’ in lethal­ity, here. This is a huge step,” Audette added dur­ing a phone inter­view with Military​.com from his office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

Born of the much-​​maligned and highly-​​controversial Objective Individual Combat Weapon — a 1990s pro­gram that sought a “leap ahead” bat­tle rifle that com­bined a counter-​​defilade weapon with a car­bine — the XM25 has only recently gained new momen­tum after the Army for­mal­ized a require­ment and released a con­tract in June for a series of test weapons. 

– Christian

Breaking: Names are Being Named

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

hamel.jpg

Lt. Gen. Michael A. Hamel, the for­mer com­man­der of the Air Forces Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is one of the gen­er­als who has been pun­ished in con­nec­tion with the ser­vices nuclear lapses. Hamel was rep­ri­manded, accord­ing to a source who asked not to be iden­ti­fied because of the sen­si­tiv­ity of the issue. He is retir­ing effec­tive Oct. 1, accord­ing to the offi­cial Air Force web site. Hamel was respon­si­ble for man­ag­ing the research, design, devel­op­ment, acqui­si­tion and sus­tain­ment of space and mis­sile sys­tems, launch, com­mand and con­trol, and oper­a­tional satel­lite sys­tems. The for­mal announce­ment of the pun­ish­ments will be made at 3 p.m. today by Acting Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.
[NOTE: Follow this minute-​​by-​​minute break­ing scan­dal at DoD Buzz. We’ll be tak­ing calls from sources and ask­ing the hard ques­tions at the Pentagon brief­ing in an hour.]

Colin Clark

Tarnished Brass in Nuke Scandal Climbs

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

nuke-fuses.jpg

[Editor’s Note: Colin broke this story last week and has a fol­low up that we posted last evening on the con­tin­u­ing fall­out from the Air Force (and DLA) nuke scandals.

A source tells me he’s upset by the dou­ble stan­dard of this pun­ish­ment ver­sus the one handed out from the Minot inci­dent. He won­ders whether there’s more to the after action report on the mis-​​shipped fuses than meets the eye.

Obviously, our sources would not give us any names — but we did con­firm this is going to be announced today at 4pm. The AP came out with a story on this issue about the same time we posted…but Colin got it first with his own sourcing…Great work…]

In fur­ther fall­out from the nuclear scan­dals that have plagued a belea­guered Air Force, the Pentagon is set to announce Thursday after­noon that at least seven gen­eral offi­cers — includ­ing at least one three-​​star gen­eral — and five to seven colonels have been dis­ci­plined in con­nec­tion with nuclear lapses, accord­ing to two sources famil­iar with the issue.

The gen­er­als are expected to be named; the colonels will remain anonymous.

A con­gres­sional aide con­firmed the tim­ing of the announce­ment but did not know how many offi­cers were to be dis­ci­plined or what their pun­ish­ments might be.

“They are hold­ing this extra­or­di­nar­ily close,” the aide said of Air Force and Pentagon officials.

Earlier sources — who sought anonymity because of the sen­si­tiv­ity of the mat­ter — had indi­cated the num­ber of gen­eral offi­cers to be rep­ri­manded stood at five, but that num­ber has climbed since last week.

The Pentagon is expected to announce the names of the gen­eral offi­cers and their pun­ish­ments at 4 p.m. on Thursday, fol­low­ing a long meet­ing on Monday dur­ing which sev­eral of the pun­ish­ments were reconsidered.

Sources declined to spec­ify whether pun­ish­ments were changed, nor would they name those to be dis­ci­plined. But there is clearly con­cern that the Air Force has rushed to judg­ment in an effort to put the nuclear mess behind it.

One source said he is not “con­vinced the Air Force did its own thor­ough inves­ti­ga­tion,” adding the ser­vice accepted the Schlesinger and Donald reports about the nuclear lapses at face value “so they could make the ‘sac­ri­fi­cial offer­ing’ and move on quickly.”

A sec­ond source voiced sim­i­lar concerns.

A report by Navy Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, direc­tor of naval nuclear propul­sion, into the nuclear enter­prise detailed a loss of over­sight from senior Air Force lead­ers and low­ered per­for­mance related to the nuclear mission.

Read the rest of this story and other kick-​​butt news breaks at DoD Buzz.

– Colin Clark