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, 2009

Close Encounters of the Pirate Kind

Thursday, April 30th, 2009

This arti­cle first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.

The U.S. is explor­ing the use of com­mer­cial satel­lites to enhance ship iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion for the bat­tle against piracy.

Long before the U.S.-flagged con­tainer ship Maersk Alabama was attacked by Somali pirates this month, a sis­ter ves­sel, the Maersk Iowa, was ply­ing the sea lanes between the U.S. East Coast and the Indian Ocean, test­ing a device that com­bines the infor­ma­tion obtained from ship­board radar and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion transpon­ders to give author­i­ties a bet­ter overview of who is on the water and what they are up to.

Now, the U.S. Office of Global Maritime Situational Awareness wants to lever­age that data fusion tech­nol­ogy to cre­ate a spaced-​​based col­lab­o­ra­tion for International Global Maritime Awareness. Guy Thomas, the office’s sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy adviser, envi­sions a net­worked infor­ma­tion sys­tem using com­mer­cial satel­lites to trans­mit a com­mon oper­at­ing pic­ture to author­i­ties, allow­ing them to mon­i­tor large ocean areas.

Thomas, a for­mer Navy sig­nals intel­li­gence offi­cer work­ing for the inter­a­gency mar­itime sit­u­a­tional aware­ness office, thinks nav­i­ga­tional radar and other sen­sor data from thou­sands of mer­chant ships — enhanced by com­mer­cial satel­lites rapidly relay­ing the infor­ma­tion to author­i­ties — could help over­come the chal­lenge of mon­i­tor­ing the vast mar­itime domain.

Using exist­ing com­mer­cial satel­lite tech­nol­ogy, such as syn­thetic aper­ture radar (SAR) and electro-​​optical and infrared imag­ing, could pro­vide all-​​weather night-​​and-​​day sur­veil­lance, even in heavy cloud cover. The satel­lites and ship­board sen­sors would com­ple­ment each other, either call­ing atten­tion to anom­alies or check­ing and ver­i­fy­ing them. The time it takes to down­load infor­ma­tion from a satel­lite could be as lit­tle as 5 min., says Thomas. The infor­ma­tion would be made avail­able to author­i­ties in an unclas­si­fied for­mat. L-​​band radar, less detailed but also less expen­sive, would be ade­quate to detect the wake of ships at sea from space, he asserts.

Probably the great­est obsta­cle fac­ing the war­ships from more than a dozen nations patrolling the pirate-​​infested waters between the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea is that the area “is just vast, more than a mil­lion square miles,” says Gordan Van Hook, the direc­tor of inno­va­tion and con­cept devel­op­ment for the U.S.-based Maersk Line Ltd. According to U.S. Central Command, 33,000 ships passed through the Gulf of Aden in 2008. The same year, 122 piracy events occurred, with 42 suc­cess­ful and 80 unsuc­cess­ful.

International mar­itime reg­u­la­tions require com­mer­cial ships weigh­ing more than 300 tons to carry an Automated Information System. Initially intended as an anti-​​collision device, the AIS is sim­i­lar to the transpon­ders that FAA reg­u­la­tions require on civil air­craft. Broadcasting on VHF radio, it divulges a ship’s iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­ber, nav­i­ga­tion sta­tus, speed and course head­ing every 2–10 sec. Name, cargo, size, des­ti­na­tion and esti­mated time of arrival are broad­cast about every 6 min. Other ves­sels with AIS in range con­stantly receive those data. However, each ves­sel is its own infor­ma­tion bub­ble, says Van Hook, and can­not share data about other ships it encoun­ters with author­i­ties when more than 50 mi. from shore.

In a test project funded by the Transportation Dept., Lockheed Martin put a pro­to­type data fusion sys­tem, known as Neptune, on Maersk cargo ves­sels, start­ing with the Maersk Iowa in 2006. Neptune took the infor­ma­tion obtained by the ship’s radar, which has a radius of about 20 mi., and com­bined it with data from pass­ing ships received through its AIS. The infor­ma­tion was sent via an Inmarsat satel­lite to a Lockheed Martin fusion cen­ter in Eagan, Minn., says Van Hook.

Read the rest of this story, give your guess on how many tac­ti­cal vehi­cles are needed, pon­der the pos­si­bil­i­ties of the split tanker buy and see where Paris is look­ing to gas up from our friends at Aviation Week, exclu­sively on Military​.com.

– Christian

Picture of the Day: Canada Invades

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

Canucks in Florida.jpg

04/​25/​2009 — Canadian sol­diers storm a beach in Mayport, Fla., April 25, 2009, dur­ing an amphibi­ous assault demon­stra­tion. The ser­vice mem­bers are par­tic­i­pat­ing in the 50th annual multi­na­tional exer­cise UNITAS Gold, which involves par­tic­i­pa­tion from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and the United States. The two-​​week long exer­cise includes real­is­tic scenario-​​driven train­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties such as live-​​fire exer­cises, ship­board oper­a­tions, mar­itime inter­dic­tion oper­a­tions and spe­cial war­fare. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alan Gragg, U.S. Navy/​Released)

Courtesy my friend John Donovan, who writes: [Dammit!] We demand the imme­di­ate with­drawal of your forces!
–John Noonan

Combat Advising (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Counterinsurgency)

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

LoA.jpg
Damn good col­umn here from Small Wars Journal (pdf). A taste:

Combat advis­ing is cen­tral to suc­cess­ful coun­terin­sur­gency oper­a­tions in exist­ing U.S. con­flicts around the world. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed, The most impor­tant com­po­nent in the War on Terror is not the fight­ing we do our­selves, but how well we enable and empower our part­ners to defend and gov­ern their own countries.1 Similarly, in 2006 the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Field Manual (FM) 3–24, Counterinsurgency, iden­ti­fied the most crit­i­cal task required to con­duct effec­tive coun­terin­sur­gency oper­a­tions as, devel­op­ing an effec­tive host-​​nation secu­rity force.2 The impor­tance of com­bat advis­ing is not a new real­iza­tion. In fact, major U.S. efforts in this area began in the early 1950s when U.S. forces pro­vided train­ing and assis­tance to Greece, the Philippines, China (Taiwan), Iran, and Japan. Since that time, pro­tracted com­bat advis­ing oper­a­tions have occurred in Korea, Vietnam, and El Salvador. 

The tra­di­tional arm of America’s com­bat advis­ing force, Special Forces A-​​Teams, are way over­tasked at the moment. To com­pen­sate, we’ve been stick­ing offi­cers in a com­bat advi­sor role that –hon­estly– have no busi­ness being there in the first place. The solu­tion, to cre­ate a com­bat advi­sor com­mand, pains me due to my severe bureau­cracy aver­sion, but does make some sense from a train­ing and sus­tain­ment point of view.
Still, it seems as if com­bat advis­ing is some­thing that could be rolled into our Joint Special Operations Command. The initiative-​​fostering cul­ture of our boys in black, as well as their equal aver­sion to chick­en­shit reg­u­la­tion and bloated com­mand infra­struc­ture, is pre­cisely the right envi­ron­ment for this style of soft oper­a­tions (think Lawerence of Arabia for the 21st cen­tury).
–John Noonan

We Report, You Decide

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

Obama’s 100 Days Report Card

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

FL_100daysLARGE_042909.jpg

EDITOR’S NOTE: The com­bined report­ing and brain power of the entire Military​.com/​Defense Tech/​DoD Buzz team was brought to bear last week to com­pile a report card for President Barack Obama’s first 100 days as it related to the mil­i­tary and national secu­rity. I invite you to read the excerpt here and con­tinue with the com­pre­hen­sive story on Military​.com. And I’d also be inter­ested to read your opin­ion on his per­for­mance so far.

In his cam­paign for pres­i­dent, Barack Obama pledged a swift end to the war in Iraq, a new com­mit­ment to the defeat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strong empha­sis on vet­er­ans’ care and mil­i­tary fam­i­lies and a crit­i­cal look at Pentagon spend­ing, strat­egy and con­duct in the war on terrorism. 

Since his inau­gu­ra­tion 100 days ago, Obama has made good on his promise for sweep­ing change in the mil­i­tary, a new tone in the White House’s rela­tion­ship with troops and a per­sonal invest­ment in eas­ing the bur­den of mil­i­tary service. 

But so far his record has been met with con­tro­versy, both for its marked con­sis­tency with the poli­cies of George W. Bush and for its rad­i­cal break from the past that some see as reckless. 

Obama was quick to apol­o­gize for American con­duct in the war on ter­ror­ism and rela­tions with some of its allies dur­ing his trip to Europe in early April. He called for “mutual respect” toward Iran, which com­man­ders in Iraq say sup­plies deadly road­side bombs to insur­gents. And he has agreed to the release of report­edly grue­some pho­tos of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scan­dal, an action that some insid­ers claim will worsen morale in a mil­i­tary ser­vice only now recov­er­ing from the tar­nished pub­lic per­cep­tion stem­ming from that ter­ri­ble chapter.

(more…)

No Robot in the Loop Here!

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

predator-balad.jpg

Just when you didn’t think things could get any more non­sen­si­cal, here’s a story that makes you just shake your head with frustration.

Now, I’ll caveat this by say­ing I’m wel­come to be con­vinced oth­er­wise, but it strikes me as down­right stu­pid that the Air Force insists on hav­ing Airmen pilot their Predators all the way to touchdown.

Now, I can under­stand hav­ing a close-​​tethered “man-​​in-​​the-​​loop” for weapons releases or snap recon taskers, but my report­ing on auto­matic land­ing sys­tems leads me to believe that there’s no rea­son what­so­ever to have pilots land­ing drones from Nevada (or wher­ever else they’re remotely pilot­ing those drones) every time.

Colin reports in his inter­view with out­go­ing AT&L chief John Young that the Pentagon pur­chas­ing czar was miffed that the Air Force declined to retro­fit their Predators with autonomous land­ing sys­tems. He cites dozens of crashes that might have been avoided had the ser­vice embraced the system.

Youngs spokesman, Chris Isleib, later sent an email to reporters slightly chang­ing the num­bers. “Since 1994 the Air Force has pro­cured 195 Predators. 65 have been lost due to Class A mishaps,” he said. Isleib added that of the 65 mishaps, 36 per­cent are laid at the door of human error and “many of those attrib­ut­able to ground sta­tion prob­lems.” About 15 per­cent of the total was destroyed dur­ing the land­ing phase, Isleib clar­i­fied in his email. 

The Army, on the other hand, typ­i­cally uses ALS for their Warrior drones and has a lower casu­alty rate, Colin reports.

Is this a direct causal rela­tion­ship? I’m sure there are mit­i­gat­ing cir­cum­stances and opin­ions on the mat­ter with some of the mishaps. But it seems to me a need­less attempt to cling to the Red Scarf men­tal­ity of a ser­vice that’s evolv­ing more and more into a dig­i­tal force of sys­tems oper­a­tors than the swash­buck­ling zoomies of yore — and that’s really not a bad thing at all.

Let’s hope there’s some other log­i­cal and prac­ti­cal rea­son than tra­di­tion here, but I’m wor­ried Occam’s Razor is at play.

– Christian

Chinese Navy Requires Supercruising Fighter

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

This arti­cle first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.

A super­cruis­ing com­bat air­craft is a high pri­or­ity of the Chinese navy, the country’s top admi­ral says in a reveal­ing offi­cial inter­view that gives strong clues of per­ceived short­com­ings and future direc­tions for the mar­itime force.

Adm. Wu Shengli also says China must step up work on pre­ci­sion mis­siles that can over­come enemy defenses, and the nation should move faster in devel­op­ing large com­bat sur­face ships — prob­a­bly mean­ing the air­craft car­rier pro­gram that looks increas­ingly immi­nent.

Wu’s demand for super­cruise — super­sonic flight with­out after­burner — hints that such per­for­mance will be avail­able from the next Chinese fighter, some­times called the J-​​XX.

“One pos­si­bil­ity is that the J-​​XX is being designed for super­cruise and that Wu is try­ing to build sup­port for a naval ver­sion of the air­craft,” says Richard Bitzinger, a senior fel­low at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

The design of the J-​​XX is unknown. It could be a new air­craft or quite pos­si­bly a devel­op­ment of the J-​​10, a fighter now enter­ing ser­vice.

The J-10’s con­fig­u­ra­tion is sim­i­lar to that of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which the man­u­fac­turer says can super­cruise at Mach 1.5, although it is likely to be some­what slower with a use­ful exter­nal load.

For the Chinese navy, one advan­tage of super­cruis­ing would be the abil­ity to cover a large defen­sive area in less time — quite use­ful if the imag­ined tar­get is a U.S. car­rier group at long range.

Importantly, Wu lists a super­cruis­ing fighter among a series of tech­no­log­i­cal demands that all look quite achiev­able for the Chinese navy over the next decade or so, sug­gest­ing that he does not regard such flight per­for­mance as a pie in the sky.

“Sophisticated equip­ment is the key mate­r­ial basis for win­ning a regional naval war,” says the admi­ral, evi­dently refer­ring to the pos­si­bil­ity of a con­fronta­tion in the Taiwan Strait. “We must accel­er­ate and pro­mote steps to work on key weapons.

Read the rest of this story, check out Turkey’s new AW149, see a Russian fighter go down and read about the Poseidon’s first flight from our friends at Aviation Week, exclu­sively on Military​.com.

– Christian

SCAR Sighting!

Monday, April 27th, 2009

A col­league of mine sent me this photo today and I thought I’d share it with DT readers…

Note the butt­stocks over these dudes’ shoul­ders. I think this is the first offi­cial SCAR sight­ing with troops other than testers…
SCAR-SEAL.jpg

(NAVY PHOTO) SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, Calif. (April 15, 2009) Special war­fare combatant-​​craft crew­men (SWCC) assigned to Special Boat Team (SBT) 12 con­duct an equip­ment check before get­ting under­way for a train­ing exer­cise at Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Joshua T. Rodriguez.

– Christian

China’s ‘Increasing Naval Threat’ Overstated

Monday, April 27th, 2009

PLAN-faces.jpg

China’s Navy — offi­cially the Peoples Liberation Army’s Navy — held an impres­sive naval review in the his­toric port city of Qingdao on 23 April, the 60th anniver­sary of the found­ing of the PLA Navy. By any cri­te­ria, the event was a great suc­cess. Beyond a Chinese con­tin­gent of 2 nuclear and 2 diesel-​​electric sub­marines, 5 mis­sile destroy­ers, and 6 frigates, there were 21 ships rep­re­sent­ing 14 other nations at the review. The U.S. Navy’s con­tri­bu­tion to the anniver­sary cel­e­bra­tion was the Aegis mis­sile destroyer Fitzgerald (DDG 62). 

By the cri­te­ria of many American news­pa­pers and, of course, blog­gers, the event revealed the increas­ing “threat” to Western inter­ests from China’s Navy. Indeed, a Time mag­a­zine blog showed an Associated Press (AP) photo of a Chinese war­ship with the cap­tion, “A Chinese navy sol­dier guards on a bat­tle­ship at Quingdao port…” The photo, how­ever, shows what is prob­a­bly a frigate. China does not have any bat­tle­ships; nor does any other nation. 

Other arti­cles — some cit­ing offi­cial Chinese state­ments indi­cat­ing that air­craft car­ri­ers will be con­structed “in the future” — tell how the Chinese Navy is about to over­take the U.S. Navy, although by which mea­sures is usu­ally ignored. Indeed, one AP arti­cle declares that Chinese nuclear-​​propelled sub­marines “are con­sid­ered just a notch below cutting-​​edge U.S. and Russian craft.“ 

Reality is quite dif­fer­ent. First, sim­plis­tic numer­i­cal com­par­isons are too often mis­lead­ing. But quan­tity does pro­vide a qual­ity. For example:

  • Nuclear air­craft car­ri­ers (CVN)
    U.S. = 11 China = 0
  • VSTOL/​helicopter car­ri­ers (LHA/​LHD)
    U.S. = 11 China = 0
  • Guided mis­sile cruis­ers (CG)
    U.S. = 22 China = 0
  • Destroyers (DDG/​DD)
    U.S. = 60 China = 27
  • Frigates (FF/​FFG)
    U.S. = 30 China = 48
  • Ballistic mis­sile sub­marines (nuclear)(SSBN)
    U.S. = 14 China = 3
  • Attack/​cruiser mis­sile sub­marines (nuclear)
    (SSN/​SSGN)
    U.S. = 57 China = 6
  • Attack sub­ma­rine (non-​​nuclear) (SS/​SSK)
    U.S. = 0 China = 55

Second, num­bers alone to not con­vey an ade­quate com­par­i­son. For exam­ple, each U.S. CVN-​​type car­rier can oper­ate 60 or more high-​​performance air­craft. All U.S. cruis­ers and destroy­ers have the Aegis advanced radar/​fire con­trol sys­tem; only a few Chinese ships have the equiv­a­lent. Similarly, all U.S. cruis­ers and destroy­ers have vertical-​​launch sys­tems for fir­ing long-​​range Tomahawk strike (land-​​attack) mis­siles as well as surface-​​to-​​air mis­siles. The Chinese have no ship-​​launched strike weapons and their surface-​​to-​​air mis­siles are inferior. 

Further, there is no pub­lic evi­dence that the Chinese SSBNs have an oper­a­tional mis­sile, and none is known to have under­taken a long-​​range patrol. No long-​​range patrols have been reported of nuclear torpedo-​​attack sub­marines (SSN), and rel­a­tively few are made by diesel-​​electric under­sea craft.

(more…)

MilBlog conference begins

Saturday, April 25th, 2009

The 4th annual MilBlog con­fer­ence kicked off April 24 with a bunch of bang-​​bang last night as Bouhammer intro­duced the first “world pre­mier” of the docu-​​film “At War.” For many of the 150 blog­gers and blog­ger­fans in atten­dance at the Westin Arlington Gateway hotel just out­side DC it was a bit of a time warp — remem­brances of deploy­ments or embeds past — and for oth­ers it was a vivid, vio­lent, frus­trat­ing, heart­warm­ing win­dow into the world of the troops these blog­gers write and care about.

As TSO from This Ain’t Hell said: “I thought I was hav­ing flash backs…”

Here’s a tid­bit of the well-​​done movie shot and directed by Scott Kesterson, a for­mer build­ing con­trac­tor who at 41 decided it was time to be a war correspondent/​blogger, which will have a lim­ited release across the United States.

– Christian