Some of the sharpest minds -- and least partisan -- on defense issues in Washington spoke during a conference with media and other military experts yesterday on where they believed the Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations forces should go in the coming years in terms of organization, equipment and strategy.
It was an incredibly interesting series of talks from the folks at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and brought up a number of key issues and recommendations that in some cases jibe with what those services/organizations are already doing and forged some new ground on how the key players in the GWOT should better shed the idea of "next war-itis."
We'll be rolling out their recommendations over the next couple days here and at DoD Buzz, but I wanted to throw this one out there at the outset to get the pot stirred a bit.
Both Dakota Wood and Robert Martinage -- who spoke about the Marine Corps force posture and that of the Spec Ops community, respectively -- called for a reduction of the MV-22 buy for the Marine Corps and a recognition that the Osprey couldn't satisfy the Spec Ops aviation shortfall.
Like the Air Force's F-22, the Osprey has become a bit of a raison d'etre for the Marine Corps, which staunchly supports the aircraft as a replacement for all of its CH-46 fleet. Wood argued that the cost was simply too much for the aircraft given other pressing, high-dollar Marine Corps programs coming in the future, reset, an expanded force and any number of contingencies the service will face. And, oh by the way, does anyone think the financial meltdown and the government's bailouts will slow down in the next couple of years?
If the Air Force is going to have to rethink its F-22 buy, why shouldn't the Marine Corps do the same thing with its MV-22 plans for similar reasons?
The British military continues development of its Personal Equipment and Common Operational Clothing (PECOC) program to serve as a bridge between Soldier 95 kit and the planned Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST). Press reporting continues and in addition to the previous piece on the BBC, on 3 November 2008, The Times published an article on PECOC.
In the photo you can see an example of the new Hybrid Cam Day Sack.
Examples of trials clothing that have been seen feature Napoleon pockets to maintain a low profile under armor, stand up collars and full bicep pockets with velcro. The Smock is expected to under go some changes from the current SF smock and a second insulated, waterproof jacket is planned. Interestingly, every time the UK issues a new Smock it is based on the current issue SF Smock, which naturally changes as well. Additionally, it looks as though Britain will adopt the MOLLE standard for attachment systems as they move closer and closer to purchasing new equipment.
Finally, amid concerns of third party kit of dubious quality, there are indications that the UK military may follow a plan similar to the “Certified Team Soldier Gear” initiative proposed by the US Army’s PEO-Soldier for distinctive markings or tags on issue equipment. This will be to educate Soldiers and leaders on whether equipment has been vetted for issue by MOD.
The other day I got an email from a source of mine who claimed some of his buddies working in the private security industry in Pakistan and Afghanistan told him Pakistani intelligence officers have been found in "non life-supporting postures" after skirmishes or air strikes on insurgents in Afghanistan.
In other words, elements within Pakistan's ISI are directly aiding anti-coalition forces in Afghanistan -- sometimes engaging in combat operations with them.
I asked Edelman what the deal was...here's a brief transcript of how that conversation went:
Defense Tech: In Afghanistan, have you seen any evidence of Pakistani agencies' involvement in assisting the Taliban and other parties within Afghanistan against US troops and also within the [federally administered tribal areas]?
Edelman: I think that, you know, there's a long history here. The Pakistan government for a very long time has regarded Afghanistan as its 'strategic depth' and clearly there have been relationships that go back to the Mujahaddin era that have persisted. We've had some concerns about it, we've expressed those concerns. We had a meeting with the head of ISI, general Pasha ... my view is we ought to give him a chance to see how he can handle his new responsibilities and go from there.
Defense Tech: So is that a 'yes?'
Edelman: You'll have to make a judgment on whether that was a yes or not.
Defense Tech: So you have seen involvement...?
Edelman: As I said there have been persistent ties that have withstood over a long period of time and we've expressed concerns over those ties.
Sounds to me like a yes...What do you all think?
-- Christian
Legal Risk of Cyber Outage
New analysis indicates that critical infrastructure operators are ill prepared to deal with cyber attacks. That reinforced the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report earlier this year that found Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's largest public power company serving over 8.7 million people, is vulnerable to cyber attacks. One just released study asked respondents to indicate the state of readiness to defend against IT threats in eight different industries. The results showed that 50 percent of respondents said that utilities, oil and gas, transportation, telecommunications, chemical, emergency services and postal/shipping industries were not prepared. The energy sector emerged as the most vulnerable target. So it is no wonder the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is once again moving to address the threat to our nation's critical infrastructure.
DHS is looking for public input as it prepares for next year's release of a revised version of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), thus updating the 2006 version of the plan. The federal government has sought to actively engage the private sector in a number of industries to address the threat of cyber attacks. Originally, the federal government identified seventeen critical infrastructure areas and designated federal agencies to be in charge of creating plans as well as overseeing collaborative efforts to protect those areas. It should be noted that earlier this year DHS announced that it also had designated critical manufacturing as an additional sector.
One industry insider speaking to me on the promise of anonymity said: "Utility executives are not going to spend money on defending their systems against cyber attacks. When they do, they decrease the financial performance of the company and that subtracts from the executives bonuses." So is this yet another group of businesses that are going to the Federal Government looking for a hand out?
Cyber attacks against utilities are just not theoretical, they are real. Earlier this year there were dozens of reports that stated CIA senior analyst Tom Donohue told a gathering of 300 US, UK, Swedish and Dutch government officials, engineers and security managers from electric, water, oil & gas and other critical industry asset owners that "Cyber Attack Caused Multi-City Power Outage." Cyber attacks against utilities are now a foreseeable risk.
Blast from the past part II: Freaky deaky airmobile ICBM test
Project Valour-IT
I hope you all don't mind, but I've got to hit the pause button for a moment and knock out a little public service announcement.
I've been involved with Project Valour-IT for several years now and I can honestly say that the annual fall charity drive is one of my favorite times to be a blogger. The blogosphere-driven fundraising drive raises all kinds of dosh to purchase voice-activated laptops for soldiers who have lost limbs in combat. Those specially modded lappies make it possible for wounded troops to write and answer emails, update friends and family on their progress, and otherwise make them feel human and functional again.
Major Chuck Ziegenfuss, who was seriously injured by an IED blast in 2005 and was one of the first recipients of a Valour-IT laptop sends (with some selective edits) the rundown:
Valour-IT is completely out of money, and it's really going to be a shitty Christmas for wounded service members waiting for laptops. And yes Virginia, there is a waiting list.
So we begin the Valour-IT veteran's day fundraising project. Our goal is $250000, and that means each of the five branches are racing to the $50,000 finish line. Team ArmyAir Force, will, of course, win, because all of you WILL contribute. You will get your friends, family, and coworkers to contribute. You will get acquaintances to contribute.
Look, you don't have to donate your life savings. Just figure out how much you spend on mini-luxuries for a week. Five trips to starbux is $30. Drink coffee at work instead, and you've sacrificed little, but you can now contribute three percent of a laptop. Think about your weekly luxuries. What can you do without, so that you can give the gift of modern functionality to someone who needs it?
We've made sure the fund raiser will cover the mid-month pay period, too. So put back that can of creamed corn (really who eats that?) when you are doing your turkey day shopping. That's a dollar right there. Put back the second can of purple jelly too. Learn to make gravy instead of buying a jar.
It's important. It's something you can do to give, really give, someone such a great gift this holiday season. While we focus on being thankful for what we have , take a little time to remember what others have recently lost, and know that the only thing stopping them from regaining a piece of what they've lost--is you.
Please click the Team Air Force donation button below if you'd like to help out. Thanks so much to all who gave back to those who gave all.
John Noonan
Resolving the Next-Gen Armor Muddle
[From our friends at Breach-Bang-Clear on the Woroner armor debate.]
All right boys and girls, there’s been a helluva lot of discussion here about Dave Woroner's armor design and whether it would work or not work or whatever. Honestly I think part of the problem is that first off it’s over most (not all) of our heads. Second off, Woroner doesn’t want to tell too much about the damned thing out of OPSEC or COMSEC concerns, which makes explanation difficult at best. Imagine trying to explain a lawnmower engine if you couldn't talk about internal combustion, or if pistons were classifed.
Lemme see what I can do to make it make a little sense.
Have you heard about the Boomerang System made by BBN Technologies in Boston? It’s an acoustical sensor system that uses "acoustical entrapment" to quickly and reliably identify the location of a sniper or other shooter that’s putting rounds downrange towards our grunts. It's been on Future Weapons and a couple other shows, has actually deployed to the AOR and apparently works.
Woroner’s system is kind of like that, but it uses light sensitivity to detect incoming projectiles. Sound won’t work, it’s too slow for a system to detect an EFP or whatever and mitigate the blast. You might be able to detect the blast, depending upon the strength of the device and the range, but you damn sure wouldn’t be able to detect it and then take steps to defeat it. Only light and electricity are fast enough to react to something moving at thousands of feet per second, which is why light and electricity are the basis of Woroner’s “barrier system”.
It’s in the high nanosecond, low microsecond range of response, putting a countermeasure out to intercept the incoming weapon and either destroy it or mitigate it by shearing the blast wave off with it’s own blast moving at a reciprocal speed. This is effectively a countermeasure system intended to be used in addition to next-gen armor to reduce or nullify the incoming blast and projectile(s). Let me put it to you the way I had to explain it to Slim, which I think you’ll find is a little simpler than Dave’s explanation.
Some delinquent little bastard in your neighborhood uses a potato gun to launch a spud at your car. You’ve got Woroner’s system mounted on the hood. It detects the incoming spud using light, not sound, and throws out some high tech shit you can’t pronounce let alone explain to intercept it. That stuff is moving at about the same speed as the spud. It hits the potato and slows it down, possibly deflecting it some so that while it still hits your fender, it only hits with the impact of a nerf dart.
Potato-gun launched spud to nerf dart. Makes sense to me. I’d rather get clocked in the head with an orange foam bullet than an Idaho baker any day.
One of the Pentagon’s top policymakers warned Thursday that a “surge” of U.S. troops to Afghanistan like the one executed in Iraq 18 months ago doesn’t recognize the complexities of the Taliban and al Qaeda-sponsored violence there and could backfire.
Eric Edelman, the Pentagon’s top civilian policy advisor to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the situation in Afghanistan is far different than the one faced by U.S. troops in Iraq during the darkest days of sectarian violence in 2006,
“We shouldn’t just focus on the numbers of forces,” Edelman told defense reporters at a Nov. 13 breakfast meeting in Washington. “The success of the surge in Iraq, in my view, was less a function of the increased numbers … it was what they were doing that mattered.”
“The single-minded focus on what’s the level of force is wrong headed because there are a lot of elements that go into it and there’s no magic number,” he added.
Edelman said the Pentagon had executed what he called a “silent surge” of about 30,000 U.S. and NATO troops into Afghanistan in 2006, “but the scale of the insurgency began to outpace even the steps that we had taken.”
While Iraq has a well educated population, an oil-based economy and is mainly urban, Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world, with illiteracy reaching close to 80 percent for males and per capita wages close to 50 percent of those in Haiti.
“There are very large differences between the circumstances in Afghanistan and the circumstances in Iraq,” Edelman said. “It’s very complicated and I don’t think it’s a ‘one size fits all’ there.”
Edelman blamed Pakistan’s previous regime, led by Pervez Musharraf, for negotiating a series of cease fires that allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers to regroup and pour militants into the anti-coalition fight across the Afghan border.
The counsel against launching a large troop buildup in Afghanistan to tame the violence comes as President-elect Barack Obama continues to call for a two brigade increase in forces to counter growing Taliban and al Qaeda-sponsored violence.
U.S. Army aviation accidents and incidents have cost the service about $16.2 billion over the past dozen years, according to an exclusive Aerospace DAILY analysis of data provided by the Army Combat Readiness/Safety Center (USACRC).
The average cost per an accident or incident for the more than 30,000 events was $539,281, the analysis shows, with a maximum single-event cost of about $62.4 million. The mishaps have lead to 2,856 deaths.
So far this fiscal year -- Oct. 1 through Nov. 10 -- the service seems to be off on solid footing as far as mishaps go, according to online statistics released through the USACRC.
The Army shows seven reported Class A-C aviation accidents in FY '09. There are three flight accidents resulting in an overall rate of 2.385 accidents per 100,000 hours flown within the Army flying hour program.
The current number of Class A-C accidents is 65 percent below last fiscal year, and 73 percent below a three-year average of the same periods. The Army has lost no soldiers this fiscal year in aviation mishaps.
Reducing fatalities and injuries has been a priority for Army safety leaders. "While I'm not a fan of statistics, it is evident soldiers and leaders ‘get it' by the 46 percent decrease in on-duty fatalities across our Army in fiscal 2008 (compared to fiscal 2007)," wrote Brig. Gen. William Wolf, new director of Army safety and commanding general of the USACRC, in a Nov. 3 letter posted on the center's Web site.
Since 1986, the Army aircraft with the most reported fatalities due to mishaps are UH-60 Black Hawks, with more than 880 events, the analysis shows.
Placing second are the old UH-1H Hueys, with more than 460.
Next come Chinook variants, with the CH-47D accounting for more than 250 fatalities, according to the analysis.
This article first appeared at Aviation Week.com. 
