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 October, 2008

A (potentially) Disgraced Angel (Updated)

Friday, October 31st, 2008

blue-angels.jpg

The Blue Angels will fly the bal­ance of their 2008 sea­son with five jets instead of six because of pend­ing admin­is­tra­tive action against one of the team’s pilots. Marine Corps Capt. Tyson Dunkelberger, the Blue Angel’s spokesman, allowed that the pilot had been removed from fly­ing duties for an “inap­pro­pri­ate rela­tion­ship” with a female mem­ber of the demon­stra­tion team. Dunkelberger would not, how­ever, iden­tify the rank or squadron bil­let of either party involved, cit­ing legal reasons.

The five-​​plane demon­stra­tion will employ a dia­mond for­ma­tion with­out the “slot” posi­tion, but Dunkelberger was quick to point out that the loss of Blue Angel No. 4 in the show did not nec­es­sar­ily mean that the pilot has flown in that posi­tion dur­ing this sea­son is involved in the inap­pro­pri­ate rela­tion­ship. The mys­tery will be short-​​lived, how­ever, as the Blue’s are sched­uled to per­form a prac­tice show today in San Antonio minus the flyer in ques­tion and his absence will be obvi­ous to any­one in atten­dance hold­ing a show program.

The Blue Angels have dealt with other per­son­nel issues in recent years. In 2000 Blue Angel No. 2, a Marine Corps offi­cer, was removed from the team for hav­ing another “inap­pro­pri­ate rela­tion­ship” with the team’s female pub­lic affairs offi­cer. And last year, Lcdr. Kevin Davis, Blue Angel No. 6, flew his F/​A-​​18 into the ground and was killed dur­ing a show near Beaufort, South Carolina. In each of these cases a pilot who had been on the team the year prior was pulled out of a fleet squadron and returned to the Blue Angels so that the team could fly the bal­ance of the sea­son with a full six-​​jet com­ple­ment. Dunkelberger stated that there weren’t enough shows left to jus­tify that sort of effort in the cur­rent case. After the San Antonio shows this week­end, the Blue Angels will per­form at the Kennedy Space Center and then close their sea­son with two shows at their home base in Pensacola, Florida.

Updated Nov. 1: This from a dis­cus­sion thread at the Blue Angel’s home­town paper, The Pensacola News Journal:

“cal­fan wrote: It was two officers…#4 Maj. Clint Harris and Lt. Gretchen Doan. They are both officers…they both know bet­ter. Clint flew back Sunday in his jet, minus the #4. Didn’t fly in the air­show or prac­tice. He’s mar­ried with kids. She’s not. Bottom line is these are two adults who made a huge mistake/​decision, broke a major rule, ruined their careers, humil­i­ated their fam­i­lies, got kicked off the team…they will have this hang­ing over their heads and fol­low­ing them around for­ever. Boss did the right thing…”

The alle­ga­tions in this post are uncon­firmed but the tenor of it makes me think this per­son knows what he or she is talk­ing about, includ­ing the use of the term “Boss” to refer to the Blue Angel’s com­mand­ing offi­cer. And if the IDs are cor­rect, then in fact (and in spite of Capt. Dunkelberger’s insis­tence to the con­trary) it was the slot pilot who’s been removed, which makes things much eas­ier in terms of work­ing the five-​​plane show in that all the remain­ing pilots are fly­ing in the same posi­tions they’ve flown all year.

And mak­ing Maj. Harris fly back from his final show with­out the num­ber on his jet his some­thing right out of King Arthur’s Court or a Hollywood scriptwriter’s fan­tasy. (Remember the open­ing of the TV series “Branded” back in the day?) Who said the spirit of Naval Aviation is dead?

Ward

DoD Gear Chief Speaks Out

Friday, October 31st, 2008

f22.jpg

The Air Force gen­er­ally does a rot­ten job of man­ag­ing and bud­get­ing for space pro­grams. That was the strongest mes­sage sent today by John Young, under­sec­re­tary of defense for acqui­si­tion, tech­nol­ogy and logis­tics, as he dis­cussed the 2010 bud­get and acqui­si­tion in gen­eral dur­ing a wide-​​ranging dis­cus­sion with reporters yesterday.

Although Young said he didnt want to sin­gle out the ser­vice, thats just what he did repeat­edly dur­ing the almost two-​​hour session.

Based on the 2010 POM they are not per­form­ing well, Young said, who sep­a­rately described the inter­fer­ence and gam­ing of the ser­vices dur­ing the bud­get as a can­cer. It began with a dis­cus­sion of the Transformational Satellite pro­gram, T-​​Sat. Young said there are camps in the Pentagon that have con­sis­tently wanted to club the T-​​Sat for more rea­son than its a very expen­sive pro­gram. The camps iden­tity became clear a few sec­ond later when Young noted that the Air Force under­funded T-​​Sat in the 2009 budget.

Then Young listed a litany of space pro­grams the Air Force had either mis­man­aged or under­funded. Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) is still emerg­ing from a Nunn-​​McCurdy breach and appar­ently has not solved a soft­ware prob­lem that has bedev­iled it for more than a year. Ground ter­mi­nals needed for the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) wer­ent built in time to receive data from the satel­lites. And the Air Force goofed and didnt bud­get to ensure the Wideband Gapfiller System would con­tinue to pro­vide data to 27 weapon sys­tems. Its beyond me, Young said in exas­per­a­tion with the MUOS over­sight, adding that the Pentagon had found money to keep the data flowing.

I asked Young if he would move the exec­u­tive agent for space, cur­rently vested in Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, to a joint or OSD perch. The exec­u­tive agent over­sees all mil­i­tary space pro­grams. Young made clear he did not think the Air Force was the right place: I would never put it there. He indi­cated that Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is being given ana­lytic data to move the exec­u­tive agent to a joint perch. One likely can­di­date for the job: Josh Hartman, cur­rently direc­tor for space and intel­li­gence capa­bil­i­ties in Youngs office.

In other acqui­si­tion news:

MRAP Light: Young said the Pentagon is mov­ing ahead on just how to meet the need for well pro­tected vehi­cles that can han­dle the rugged ter­rain of Afghanistan, say­ing the upcom­ing sup­ple­men­tal may have room for addi­tional vehi­cles for Afghanistan. Young was very care­ful to avoid say­ing there is an actual pro­gram here yet, but they are clearly headed that way. One of the pos­si­bil­i­ties being dis­cussed is grab­bing the nascent Joint Light Tactical Vehicle pro­gram and get­ting it to Afghanistan as quickly as pos­si­ble. Young was very cau­tious not to say that JLTV was the solu­tion, but he did say it was being dis­cussed as a pos­si­ble part of the solution.

In a con­fer­ence call with reporters this morn­ing, the BAE Systems JLTV pro­gram lead told me that most of the sub­sys­tems on the JLTV pro­to­type are at TRL 7 (Technology Readiness Level), the first level at which a sys­tem could be con­sid­ered ready to undergo oper­a­tional test and eval­u­a­tion. When I told Young this, he laughed and said he bet that BAE Systems would sell their sys­tem for $1.98 a copy. Then he added, with a very big smile, that he appre­ci­ated BAEs input.

Read the rest of this exclu­sive story and other break­ing acqui­si­tion news at DoD Buzz.

Colin Clark

ARH Death Hits Bell Hard

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

bread-linezs.jpg

Our boy Bob Cox at the Fort Worth Star-​​Telegram alerted DT to his story on the down­stream effects of the ARH kill.

Bell Helicopter cuts 500 jobs, mostly in Fort Worth

Faced with the loss of a big defense con­tract and an impa­tient cor­po­rate par­ent with a sag­ging stock price, Bell Helicopter announced Wednesday that it was cut­ting 500 jobs, mostly from its Fort Worth operations. 

The job cuts, which began Tuesday, fol­low in the wake of the Pentagons Oct. 16 deci­sion to can­cel the Armys $5 billion-​​plus con­tract with Bell to develop the ARH-​​70A Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter. 

All but about 30 of the lay­offs will come from per­son­nel at Bells Fort Worth-​​area facil­i­ties, with the rest from the ranks of its Amarillo work force. 

Bell spokesman Joseph LaMarca Jr. said senior Bell exec­u­tives had been eval­u­at­ing the com­pa­nys per­son­nel require­ments since the ARH can­cel­la­tion and con­cluded that more cuts were needed beyond the 280 peo­ple directly assigned to the program. 

“It allows us to shape our orga­ni­za­tion in such a way as to make it a more com­pet­i­tive, very stream­lined, lean orga­ni­za­tion,” LaMarca said. 

The lay­offs and ter­mi­na­tions were being made at all lev­els, includ­ing 40 out of about 200 upper-​​management posi­tions, which LaMarca described as vice pres­i­dents and directors. 

Significant num­bers of engi­neers, mar­ket­ing and other white-​​collar per­son­nel were included in the cuts, but LaMarca said only about 20 man­u­fac­tur­ing workers. 

Several dozen man­agers were noti­fied Tuesday that they were being dis­missed, and the rest of those laid off were told Wednesday. 

The laid-​​off Bell employ­ees will receive 60 days of pay and ben­e­fits in accor­dance with fed­eral law, sev­er­ance pay and out­place­ment services. 

(more…)

The Enemy Among Us

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

cybersecutiry.jpg

In the past few months, orga­ni­za­tion after orga­ni­za­tion and expert after expert have come out and warned of the immi­nent threat posed by cyber attacks. There can be lit­tle doubt left about the increas­ing threat of cyber attacks on busi­nesses, gov­ern­ment and crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture. At this point cyber attacks pose an unprece­dented threat to the com­puter sys­tems and net­works that have become so inte­gral to vir­tu­ally every aspect of our live. The top two ques­tions that are on many peo­ples’ minds are — where are these attacks com­ing from and how are these attacks done? Well, to answer these two ques­tions we must first exam­ine one of the most com­mon types of attack and the com­po­nents that make up the cyber weapon that is used in the attack. 

Zombies

A Zombie refers to any com­puter that has been com­pro­mised and has mali­cious code installed that puts it under the con­trol of hack­ers with­out the knowl­edge of the com­puter owner. Zombies are widely used as the weapon of choice when launch­ing DoS attacks. 

INTEL: Research has indi­cated that an improp­erly pro­tected com­puter con­nected to the inter­net is com­pro­mised and turned into a zom­bie in about one minute. 

BotNets

Criminal ele­ments and rogue nation states have cre­ated more active zom­bie net­works in the last month than ever before. At any given moment there are approx­i­mately 1,000 active bot­nets. In total, experts esti­mate that there are nearly 300,000 bot­nets in place today. The largest bot­net is thought to con­trol between 150 and 180 mil­lion com­put­ers and is oper­ated by the Russian Business Network (RBN). Detecting and dis­rupt­ing bot­nets is a par­tic­u­larly dif­fi­cult chal­lenge. An already bad sit­u­a­tion is get­ting worse! 

A study using Scenario-​​Based Intelligence Analysis (SBIA), a strate­gic threat mod­el­ing method­ol­ogy by Technolytics, deter­mined that we can expect to see hack­ers attempt­ing to inject mal­ware into cell phones to turn them into remote-​​controlled bots as well. These Cellbots can then be used much in the same way as com­put­ers. This includes their use in launch­ing dis­trib­uted denial-​​of-​​service attacks that can crip­ple cell phone net­works in addi­tion to com­puter net­works and sys­tems that they target. 

INTEL: Tools are already avail­able for craft­ing exploits for the mul­ti­ple smart phones.

(more…)

Army Awards JLTV Contracts

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

jltv.jpg

The Army announced yes­ter­day that it had awarded con­tracts worth $166 mil­lion to three indus­try teams to develop the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, also var­i­ously known as the Humvee replace­ment, although this vehi­cle will be much more than the ubiq­ui­tous Humvee. The win­ners are Lockheed Martin; General Tactical Vehicles (a joint ven­ture between General Dynamics Land Systems and AM General, man­u­fac­turer of the Humvee); and BAE Systems. 

The con­tracts are for the tech­nol­ogy devel­op­ment phase of the pro­tracted DOD pro­duc­tion process, expected to take 27 months, when each team will pro­duce at least seven pro­to­types. The idea is to build a fam­ily of JLTVs shar­ing com­mon parts but avail­able in dif­fer­ent con­fig­u­ra­tions such as a six seat infantry car­rier, a four seat recon, com­mand and con­trol, heavy weapons car­rier and ambu­lance. Once the pro­to­types are tested, the Army will hold yet another com­pe­ti­tion to down select one or more win­ners for the System Development and Demonstration phase. Full scale pro­duc­tion is expected in 2013. 

The Army and Marines have not final­ized the total num­ber of JLTVs they ulti­mately want to buy, but an Army press release said the request for pro­pos­als included a pro­jected pro­duc­tion quan­tity of 60,000 over eight years. The ulti­mate pro­duc­tion num­ber will almost cer­tainly be much higher. Former Army Vice Chief Gen. Richard Cody, in an appear­ance before a House appro­pri­a­tions sub­com­mit­tee last year, said the Army intends for the JLTV to replace 130,000 of the ser­vices Humvees. Australia decided this week to join the JLTV pro­gram and might buy up to 4,200 vehicles. 

The joint Army-​​Marine Corps JLTV will strike a bal­ance between per­for­mance, pay­load and pro­tec­tion, said Col. John Myers, Project Manager with the Armys Joint Combat Support Services, in the Army press release. Unlike the Humvee, which was orig­i­nally designed as a rear area and gar­ri­son vehi­cle and was con­verted into a pass­able fight­ing vehi­cle by slap­ping armor and weapons onto it, the JLTV will be designed from the ground up as a fight­ing vehi­cle incor­po­rat­ing lessons learned from the fight­ing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(more…)

So Where’s all that DoD Money Gonna Go?

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

Butter Not Guns for the Next Four Years?

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

butter.jpg

The Wall Street Journal had an inter­est­ing OpEd yes­ter­day sort of dove tail­ing with Colin’s story from Friday that broke the news of Democratic party Brahman Barney Frank’s call for a 25 per­cent cut in defense spending. 

Now, Frank is not a DoD bud­get deci­sion­maker, but his views tend to jibe closely with the lib­eral lead­er­ship of the House and even some in the Senate. 

The Journal ana­lyzed what Obama and his sup­port­ers have said about what they’d do with defense bud­gets, so it’s worth a close read for a worst case scenario.

We’ve been fight­ing two wars, strain­ing peo­ple and equip­ment. Weapons have gen­er­ally become more com­plex and expen­sive. President Clinton’s “pro­cure­ment hol­i­day” punted the mod­ern­iza­tion prob­lems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spend­ing amounts to just 4% of gross domes­tic prod­uct. By con­trast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spend­ing under Jimmy Carter, the fig­ure was 4.7%.

All this should argue for at least a mod­est recap­i­tal­iza­tion effort by an Obama admin­is­tra­tion, assum­ing it really believes a strong mil­i­tary is “nec­es­sary to sus­tain peace.” A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spend­ing should rise to close to $800 bil­lion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP bench­mark. That’s unre­al­is­tic in light of the finan­cial cri­sis. But hold­ing the line at cur­rent lev­els is doable — and nec­es­sary.

But what if a President Obama doesn’t actu­ally believe in the impor­tance of a strong mil­i­tary to keep the peace? Or has an atten­u­ated idea of what qual­i­fies as a “strong” mil­i­tary? Or con­sid­ers mil­i­tary strength a lux­ury at a moment of finan­cial cri­sis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a sec­ond Great Society?

Does any­one really know where Mr. Obama’s instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited for­mer Marine Gen. James Jones as a mem­ber of his wise man’s cir­cle — which was reas­sur­ing but odd, given that the gen­eral made a point of appear­ing at a McCain cam­paign event sim­ply to dis­tance him­self from the Democratic can­di­date.

The Obama cam­paign has also pro­duced a lengthy defense blue­print on its Web site. It reads more like a social man­i­festo, promis­ing to “improve tran­si­tion ser­vices,” “make men­tal health a pri­or­ity,” and end “don’t-ask, don’t-tell.” All very well, except the doc­u­ment is notably vague on nam­ing the kinds of weapons sys­tems Mr. Obama would actu­ally sup­port.

And so the ques­tion remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced cen­trist or the man from Ben and Jerry’s?

From the writ­ing I’m see­ing on the wall, we can basi­cally for­get end-​​strength increases. There’s no polit­i­cal cap­i­tal in increas­ing the size of the mil­i­tary, but there’s plenty of bacon in hardware.

(more…)

The Blood Stopper System

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

Some of you won­dered what this Integrated Tourniquet System Blackhawk designed was all about. So in the inter­est of full dis­clo­sure, I’ve posted their video demo on how it works.

Now, some of you won­dered about the con­struc­tion of the ITS into the gar­ments. Basically, the Nylon strap that makes up the bulk of the tourni­quet is pre­tected behind a light, soft mesh reten­tion pouch that keeps the strap from rub­bing up against the wearer’s skin. This also helps keep toes and fin­gers from catch­ing on the ITS straps as the oper­a­tor dons the garments.

Also, keep an eye on the HPFU entry. I need to rem­for­mat some of the pro­mo­tional pics that I have from my trip to Blackhawk and I’ll post them once they’re done.

– Christian

Raytheon to Launch UAV from Submarine

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

This arti­cle first appeared at AviationWeek​.com.

Raytheon plans to launch a small unmanned air vehi­cle from a sub­merged U.S. Navy sub­ma­rine early next year to demon­strate its con­cept for extend­ing the boat’s sen­sor range in lit­toral oper­a­tions.

Last month the com­pany demon­strated its UAV launch con­cept under Phase 1 of the Submarine Over the Horizon Organic Capabilities (Sothoc) pro­gram funded by the Office of Naval Research and the Submarine Force.

The con­cept uses a sub­ma­rine launch vehi­cle (SLV) con­tain­ing the elec­tri­cally pow­ered UAV and stored on board as an all-​​up round. Ejected from the sub­merged submarine’s trash dis­posal unit, the SLV is weighted to descend to a safe dis­tance from the boat, then shed the weight and inflate a float col­lar.

The col­lar is pulsed to con­trol the rate of ascent. As it approaches the sur­face, the SLV deploys a water drogue to pro­vide sta­bi­liza­tion and a vane to align it into the wind. The tube then piv­ots to a 35-​​degree angle and ejects the UAV.

“The SLV is a method of get­ting a UAS to the sur­face dry, then tran­si­tion­ing it to the air,” says Jeffrey Zerbe, Raytheon’s Sothoc pro­gram direc­tor.

The deploy­ment con­cept was demon­strated in September at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center’s shal­low water test range at Narragansett Bay, R.I., where two SLVs were deployed over the side of a sur­face ship.

“The vehi­cles descended to 80 feet reverted to pos­i­tive buoy­ancy, floated to the sur­face, sta­bi­lized in vari­able sea states, aligned into the wind, and then launched an inert rep­re­sen­ta­tive UAS at pre­cise ori­en­ta­tion and veloc­ity,” accord­ing to Raytheon.

In early November, Zerbe says, the com­pany plans to con­duct a sec­ond “over-​​the-​​side” demon­stra­tion from a ship off Point Mugu, Calif. This time the SLV will deploy an actual UAV, which will then con­duct a full mar­itime inter­dic­tion mis­sion pro­file.

This will be fol­lowed early next year by a launch from a sub­merged sub­ma­rine, prob­a­bly a Los Angeles-​​class boat off Hawaii, under Phase 2 of the pro­gram, says Zerbe. Raytheon has already demon­strated inte­gra­tion of its multi-​​vehicle con­trol soft­ware into the submarine’s BYG-​​1 com­bat sys­tem, he says.

Read the rest of this story, see how LMCo is push­ing an LCS for allies, read why our broth­ers Down Under want lighter tac­ti­cal vehi­cles and dis­cuss whether AFRICOM is a good idea from our friends at Aviation Week exclu­sively on Military​.com.

– Christian

UPDATED: SEALs Wearing New High-​​Speed Fighting Threads

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

hpfu-blackhawk.jpg

With extended deploy­ments to tough com­bat zones like Afghanistan and Iraq, the Marine Corps — and more recently the Army — (and the Navy and Air Force, though those are not as “com­bat” dri­ven as the oth­ers) have revamped their uni­forms used in every­day operations. 

The rugged ter­rain, urban oper­a­tions, weather extremes and aus­tere con­di­tions of cur­rent com­bat zones have prompted uni­form design­ers to take a much closer look at other indus­tries to find user-​​friendly options, mate­ri­als and design inno­va­tions for their forces. Love it or hate it, the cam­ou­flage of the Army’s ACU might be off track, but it would be hard to argue that the uni­form isn’t packed with use­ful fea­tures that help a Soldier get at stuff he needs to do his job. Sure, there have been some dura­bil­ity issues with the stitch­ing, but when’s the last time the Army went as far as to put gus­seted crotches in their BDUs? 

Well, there’s also another mar­ket for this tech­nol­ogy that’s bub­bling up from the same folks who helped put more mod­ern gear in the hands of spe­cial­ized forces like SEALs, SF troops, Delta guys and Recon Marines — among oth­ers. As the reg­u­lar forces adopt shoul­der pock­ets and chest rigs, for exam­ple, the spec ops com­mu­nity is push­ing the enve­lope even fur­ther with new designs that will grad­u­ally trickle down to the reg­u­lar Joes as the tech­nol­ogy becomes more available. 

One of the prod­ucts I was intro­duced to at Blackhawk last week was their High Performance Fighting Uniform, or HPFU. They’re pretty proud of this new prod­uct and it basi­cally takes all the best whis­tles and bells, pock­ets and pouches, low-​​drag designs and mod­ern mate­ri­als avail­able in the indus­try and packs them into a pretty inno­v­a­tive set of duds. Gusseted crotch, dual cargo pock­ets, artic­u­lated knees, a high-​​backed waist, padding pock­ets — and that’s just the pants. The HPFU also has a just-​​as-​​feature-​​packed jacket, and comes with a com­bat shirt that com­bines an FR-​​material in the chest and func­tional sleeves like the jacket. And there’s even a nifty vest that can go over the com­bat shirt so it looks like you’ve got a full-​​on cam­mie jacket on when you go to the chow hall after a patrol — it’s Blackhawk’s way of keep­ing gunny, first sergeant or mas­ter chief off your back. 

But the high tech is more than skin deep. 

Embedded within the uni­form is Blackhawk’s pro­pri­etary “Integrated Tourniquet System” — a series of blood stanch­ing bands that can lock off arte­r­ial bleed­ing in the arms, legs and ankles. It’s a bit creepy, to be sure, but Blackhawk’s clearly try­ing to put hard­ware into their soft­ware to save lives.

Company offi­cials say the SEALs, with whom Blackhawk shares a close rela­tion­ship, are wear­ing about 1,100 of the over $500 ensem­bles in com­bat right now. It’s unclear what their feed­back has been, but I’ll throw in my $.02. 

First, I pressed Blackhawk design­ers about the incor­po­ra­tion of fire resis­tant mate­ri­als — or lack thereof — into the HPFU. Though their pro­mo­tional mate­ri­als state the uni­form is made from “no-​​drip, no-​​melt” fibers –the arms and legs of the uni­form are 70% cot­ton, 30% Nylon which they claim are woven in such a way as to make them flame resis­tant — com­pany offi­cials were at pains to say whether their pricey HPFU was made with flame resis­tance in mind. Ironically, they touted the torso of the com­bat shirt’s FR qual­i­ties, but that’s going to be under body armor which incor­po­rates its own flame and flash resistance.

(more…)