US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Bleed the Machines
The Taliban just killed the humans who guide our drones.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Jan. 4, 2010, at 7:52 AM ET

In the war between humans and machines, the humans have found a new way to strike back.
I'm not talking about a science-fiction shootout between Hollywood heroes and rogue cyborgs, like The Terminator. I'm talking about the real-life battle going on today in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The unmanned aerial vehicles engaged in this battle—drones—aren't alien or autonomous. They're built, deployed, and controlled by the United States. In the last year, they've hit al-Qaida and the Taliban with more than 50 fatal missile strikes. By some accounts, the militants are so rattled that they're abandoning the mountains and moving to Pakistani cities, hoping the drones won't dare to strike there.

The drones have revolutionized warfare. They let us hunt and kill our enemies abroad without occupying foreign lands or risking our lives. We fire our weapons from the security of remote consoles.
How can our enemies fight back? By targeting the machines' weak link: us.
The drones depend on human input. They need human authorization to fire. And to find enemy honchos and hideouts, they need targeting intelligence from human informants on the ground. Two years ago, the insurgents took aim at both of these inputs. They accused local people of scouting targets for the drones and butchered them in public to deter such spying. They also set off bombs in Pakistan to intimidate the Pakistani government into demanding an end to the drone strikes. But Pakistan didn't buckle, and the drone strikes have increased in tempo and precision. Apparently, the drones' managers have found plenty of new spies to replace the dead ones.
Now the Taliban seem to have come up with a new strategy: using the drones' human intelligence networks to infiltrate the program and kill the people who run it.

Last week, a suicide bomber blew up seven CIA officers at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border. It looked like just another insurgent attack. But it was more than that. In separate interviews, representatives of two Taliban factions have claimed that the mission's target was the drone program. "We attacked this base because the team there was organizing drone strikes," a commander allied with the Afghan Taliban told the Wall Street Journal. He said the attack was timed to kill the woman who led the team, since the Taliban knew she would be there that day. A Pakistani Taliban commander told the AP a similar story and added that the bomber was recruited as a "CIA agent" but turned against the agency.
Well, the Taliban say a lot of things. But in interviews with the Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, current and former U.S. officers confirm the main elements of the story. U.S. personnel at the Afghan base were closely engaged in selecting drone targets in Pakistan. And they did this job, in part, by recruiting and interviewing informants on site. That would explain why the bomber targeted them and how he got in.
According to at least three reports, the bomber was recruited as an informant, invited to the base, and allowed past an initial checkpoint without being searched. Why wasn't he searched? One reason, the Journal reports, is that the base's CIA officers limit searches of such recruits "in the hopes of establishing trust." Another reason is speed. A former intelligence officer calls the incident an "asset meeting gone bad" and explains the lax search protocol as part of the CIA officers' strategy: "They felt the need to gather viable, time-sensitive intelligence was so pressing that it justified the trade-off."
Time-sensitive intelligence. That's the key phrase. The reason you don't make people go through a lot of screening to get into your facility is that their information might be hot. Who needs such hot information? The drones. Two minutes' delay can cost them a clean shot at a Taliban or al-Qaida commander.
Drone operators aren't the only ones who need such tips. U.S. special forces in Afghanistan rely on them, too. If drones weren't the bomber's target, he might have struck the CIA base because it was orchestrating a special-forces campaign against the Taliban-allied Haqqani network. One U.S. official told the Journal that CIA personnel thought the bomber had intel on the Haqqanis. We'll see how the evidence plays out.
Either way, it appears that the bomber used our intelligence-gathering system to slip into the base and kill the people who orchestrated the intelligence gathering. In so doing, he delivered the worst blow ever suffered by the drone program. He found the flesh in our unmanned air force, seduced it, and slaughtered it.

Click to expand...

Finn McCool said:

Fairly interesting article here on the recent bombing in Khowst province Afghanistan that killed several CIA employees, some of whom were apparently pretty important.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

All you hardware fanboys out there should read this. Real warfare is about the intangible things that are discussed here. Intelligence, luck, the human element. All are more important than hardware in many situations.

Click to expand...

pla101prc said:

that's the exact reaction the taliban wants from the americans, to begin doubting their afghan partners...not that there is anything you can do about it, its a war you cant expect the other side to just wave the white flag and let you off easy.

Click to expand...

From Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Two new Navy Working Uniforms (NWU) will hit the fleet in fiscal year 2011.

The first, NWU Type II, a desert digital camouflage uniform of four colors with the anchor, Constitution and eagle (ACE) logo embedded in the print, will be worn by special warfare operators and Sailors who support them during deployment and deployment training exercises.

"The desert camouflage uniform is not going away," said Capt. Vince Drouillard, branch head within Navy's personnel, plans and policy division. "Sailors, other than Navy special warfare operators and supporting Sailors, will continue to wear the current tricolor desert camouflage utility uniform in desert environments when issued by authorizing commands."

The second, NWU Type III, is a woodland digital camouflage uniform which also has four colors and the ACE logo embedded in the print. It will be the standard camouflage uniform worn in non-desert environments and stateside.

Both uniforms, announced in NAVADMIN 374/09, are organizational clothing provided to Sailors by commands authorized to issue them.

The unisex uniforms will begin conformance testing to validate design, fit and wear later in fiscal year 2010. Fleet implementation is expected to begin in late 2011 with deploying combat and direct command support commands and units receiving priority in the distribution process.

Both new uniforms have an authorized matching pattern Gortex parka with a removable fleece liner. Sailors can get complete information on the new NWU Type II and Type III uniforms in NAVADMIN 374/09 available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

For more information on Navy uniforms visit

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

For more information from the Chief of Naval Personnel, visit

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

For more news from Chief of Naval Personnel, visit

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

‘Sub gap’ will lead to longer deployments" said:

By Lance M. Bacon - Staff writer Navy times
Posted : Saturday Jan 9, 2010 8:36:01 EST

Sailors aboard attack submarines can expect longer deployments and service-life extensions of their boats to compensate for an expected “submarine gap” in the years to come, according to Navy documents and congressional analysts.

Under the current 30-year procurement plan, the number of attack subs will fall below the required 48 boats in 2022 and will bottom out six years later at 41 boats. The shortfall will continue until 2034.

“[The Navy] doesn’t have a lot of choice in this gap,” said one congressional analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is the result of decisions made in the past 20 years that are coming home to roost.”

The Navy plans to meet typical requirements with longer deployments and older boats. The service lives of 16 Los Angeles-class subs will be lengthened by as much as 24 months, and at least one month will be added to 40 deployments — about 25 percent of total deployments — over an eight-year period to provide the roughly 10 subs combatant commanders need on any given day. The typical attack sub deployment is six months; it was unclear when the longer deployments are expected to begin.

“There are concerns with this, such as how fast they use up the [nuclear] cores and the burden [longer deployments] will place on crews and families,” the congressional analyst said. “This is not palatable, politically or in the Pentagon. But there’s really no way around it.”

Even with those changes, the Navy will not be able to meet the peak projected wartime demand of about 35 deployed SSNs, according to a July 2009 Congressional Research Service report. This would require the purchase of at least four additional attack subs, and the Navy has no such plans.

The pending 12-ship ballistic-missile submarine replacement adds to the dilemma. If the Navy doesn’t get an additional $80 billion from Congress, a request expected to be presented in the coming months, SSBN procurement could eat up to half of the annual shipbuilding budget for 14 years, according to the CRS report. This would result in even fewer attack subs being built, bringing the force to a low of 40 in 2028 and rising by only four boats through 2040.

A replacement for the Ohio-class SSBN is very likely. Though lawmakers, presidential advisers and former four-stars want to eliminate one leg of the nuclear arms “triad” in the Nuclear Posture Review, most analysts feel the cuts will come from land or air, not from the SSBN force. The review is expected to be released in early February.
No wiggle room

Given the time required for concept, design and construction, procurement of a new SSBN must happen now to ensure the mission is covered when Ohio-class subs start retiring in fiscal 2027. The Navy admits there’s no wiggle room, and it already has completed an analysis of alternatives and is expected to seek $500 million in fiscal 2011 for research and development.

“This is the Navy’s major cost issue of the 2020s,” the congressional analyst said.

While the Navy prepares to fight for funding in the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review, its best chance to gain support is in Groton, Conn., and Newport News, Va. There, the Virginia class has become a study in building subs better, faster and cheaper.

The Navy is poised to trim sub production to 60 months, thanks largely to significant changes in the ship’s design and shipyard production process. For example, the Block II boats now in production are built in four sections instead of 10, and they are the first to be delivered with the hull coating installed. Such changes will enable delivery of two subs per year starting in 2011 and will cut the cost of each sub to $2 billion in fiscal 2005 dollars, said Capt. Michael Jabaley, Virginia-class program manager.

Two subs a year is not unprecedented. Three Los Angeles-class subs were produced annually during the Cold War, and some years saw twice that. But as that class is decommissioned over the next 15 years, the Navy will “have to ramp up to keep up,” Jabaley said.

Cutting cost does not always mean cutting capabilities. Block III subs — the final eight boats of the 18 approved in the Virginia class — will replace spherical array sonar with less expensive but equally capable large aperture bow array sonar.

Because the spherical array access trunk is no longer required, two large payload tubes similar to those found on cruise missile subs will replace 12 individual vertical launch tubes with all their electrical and hydraulic support apparatus.

“We still can shoot 12 missiles, but instead of 12 tubes, we have two larger tubes,” Jabaley said. “This means we also can pull canisters out and have large payloads such as [unmanned underwater vehicles] or additional kinetic payloads such as special operations gear or underwater launched anti-air weapons against [anti-submarine warfare] helos.”

The career submariner said he is keeping a watchful eye to ensure necessary bow modifications do not push the Block IIIs past the 60-month window. And he’s not the only one watching.
What’s at stake

Because the Block IV contract will come up in three years, lawmakers are closely monitoring the Virginia class to see whether the Navy can build subs as cheaply and quickly as it claims. The answer will have significant weight on future production.

“Achieving the goal of building subs that fast and at that cost may not give the Navy all the benefits it wants, but the sub force will be in great jeopardy if the Navy doesn’t pull it off,” the congressional analyst said.

But if the Navy can do it, future contracts are likely as Congress, and especially the House Armed Services Committee, has been supportive of procuring two attack subs annually. That would keep the sub gap contained in the 12-year window.

Jabaley is confident the Navy can meet that goal, pointing out that they will meet the 60-month window well ahead of schedule in the Block II contract. However, he does admit a slight increase to 66 months is likely during the transition into Block III.

“We knew this was probable, and we planned for it,” he said.

Quality control is essential to keeping a grip on unforeseen problems that could throw the 60-month build window out of whack.

New Mexico, the sixth Virginia-class sub, was delivered in December after 70 months. The good news: It was delivered four months early. The bad news: It was delayed five weeks — a delay that could be crippling in a 60-month window. It was caused by workmanship problems discovered in the weapons room handling system. Similar problems also were found on at least three other Virginia-class submarines.

“You don’t know the weakest link until it snaps,” Jabaley said. “But we have added and continue to add a myriad of reviews and supervisory oversights to ensure deliveries are not delayed.”

Click to expand...

Army vague on new ground combat vehicle said:

By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jan 9, 2010 9:05:41 EST

By next fall, Army officials intend to award up to three competitive contracts for the service’s new ground combat vehicle, slated to debut in 2017.

But in the spirit of keeping the concept wide open — and not be locked into a vehicle “family” as in the defunct Future Combat Systems — the Army has given industry scant guidelines.

“We’re not even sure this is going to be a family,” said Paul Mehney, spokesman for the Program Executive Office for Integration. “Right now, the requirement is for an infantry fighting vehicle — an IFV. We have not looked beyond that.”

The highly mobile vehicle must have room for nine infantrymen and three crew; be transportable by C-17 cargo aircraft, rail and ship; and be as safe from blasts as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected truck. It must also be able to carry nonlethal weapons.

Requests for proposal go out in February, but no requirements for either tracks or wheels are expected.

“We haven’t even told them a weight classification,” Mehney said.

The new vehicle will begin to take shape as the service absorbs new ideas about combat from “The Army’s Future Force Capstone Concept,” which made the rounds in final draft form at the end of 2009.

The capstone document, the service’s first since 2005, underlines the changes that eight years of ground combat have wrought in the Army’s views about what kind of fleet, armaments and technologies it needs — as well as whom it will fight and how.

The 52-page Training and Doctrine Command document foresees an “Era of Persistent Conflict” through 2028. It says tomorrow’s chaotic battlefields will require flexibility. It draws from the Israeli Defense Force’s humbling experience in the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

“It’s the pinnacle document for all Army concepts and doctrine,” said Maj. Joe Gelineau, Capstone Concept project lead at TRADOC’s Joint Army Concepts Division.

Click to expand...

Corps official: Avatar ‘sophomoric’ said:

Staff report Marines Corps times
Posted : Friday Jan 8, 2010 14:03:42 EST

Avatar, the highly anticipated 3-D movie by director James Cameron, was met with enthusiasm by audiences across the globe and has grossed more than $1 billion worldwide as of Jan. 6. Talks of a sequel are already underway.

But despite commercial success, Avatar has been the target of anger and backlash from some who see it as an affront to the Marine Corps and a negative allegory for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the movie, a paraplegic Marine veteran named Jake agrees to travel to the distant, resource-rich planet Pandora where he works with the military and private mercenaries to displace a humanoid race called the Na’vi so that their land can be mined for precious minerals. In return for his service, Jake is to receive a surgery that will allow him to walk again, but after infiltrating the Na-vi with an avatar identity, he falls in love with one of the locals and decides to take a stand against the money-hungry corporation that seeks to eradicate them.

Chief among critics of the movie is the Marine Corps’ own director of public affairs, Col. Bryan Salas. In a recent letter to the Marine Corps Times (see below) he said the film, “takes sophomoric shots at our military culture.”

———

Have you seen Avatar? Do you think it portrays the Marine Corps or military at large in a negative light?

Speak your mind on our message board

Col. Bryan Salas’ letter:

Lost amid the staggering commercial success of “Avatar” and obscured by the punditry of the left and right as they debate James Cameron’s social and historical commentary are the real warriors whose heroism, valor and selfless service has allowed the U.S. to leave a war in Iraq that many in 2006 thought was unwinnable and indeed salvage success from the jaws of calamity.

“Avatar” takes sophomoric shots at our military culture and uses the lore of the Marine Corps and over-the-top stereotyping of Marine warriors to set the context for the screenplay. This does a disservice to our Corps of Marines and the publics’ understanding of their Corps.

The Marine Corps embraces a warrior-scholar mentality and prides itself on understanding host country narratives and sensitivities in complex climes and places. Gen. James Mattis, whose catch-phrase is “no better friend, no worse enemy,” better captures the essence of Marines who helped usher in the Sunni Awakening in Anbar province than the cinemagraphically convenient colonel-turned-mercenary antagonist in “Avatar.”

Let’s view “Avatar” for what it is, a leap in the wizardry of cinema, a digital fantasy and a vehicle for a film-maker to make a statement, but not emblematic of the Marines who honorably fight and fall to win our nation’s real battles today.

Col. Bryan Salas director of public affairs

Headquarters Marine Corps

Click to expand...

JSF passes another key test said:

By Amy McCullough - Staff writer Marine corps times
Posted : Saturday Jan 9, 2010 9:17:04 EST

The F-35B Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter is one step closer to accomplishing its first short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) flight after a successful test Thursday at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

The F-35B is a fifth-generation fighter jet and the first aircraft in history to combine “stealth with short takeoff/vertical landing capability and supersonic speed,” allowing it take off and land on small ships.

When regular airplanes fly, lift is created from the wing, but for hovering jets like the F-35B, it’s created from the jet itself.

Test pilot Graham Tomlinson successfully engaged the lift propulsion system for 14 minutes during a test sortie. Tomlinson, a test pilot with BAE Systems — a Lockheed partner on the project — initiated the system and practiced slowing the aircraft down from 288 mph as if it were getting ready to hover and then once again increasing the speed.

The first full STOVL flight is expected to take place this spring, but contractors first have to conduct a series of tests that involve progressively slowing the aircraft down while in flight, allowing it to reach a hovering position and ultimately landing vertically.

“The joint F-35 industry and government team has already shown during extended ground tests that the STOVL propulsion system performs well, and thousands of hours of component testing has validated its durability. Now we are seeing early proof that the system operates in flight as our team predicted,” said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager, in a statement.

Despite several delays in the program, Commandant Gen. James Conway told reporters in December that he is confident the first operational squadron will stand up in 2012 as promised. The F-35B, which will replace the AV-8B Harrier, EA-6B Prowler and the F/A-18 Hornet, is the first of three variants to be introduced in the U.S. The Navy’s carrier variant is expected to enter the fleet in 2015.

“We have accepted risk now for a number of years by not buying fourth-generation airplanes, such as the Navy has done, to await the arrival of this aircraft,” Conway said during the briefing

Click to expand...

Sidewinder to take aim at ground targets said:

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer air force times
Posted : Saturday Jan 9, 2010 8:41:24 EST

A software tweak will transform the venerable Sidewinder missile, known for its air-to-air precision, into a weapon that can strike rapidly moving targets on the ground.

With three tests already proving that the AIM-9X Sidewinder can zero in on a boat or armored personnel carrier, the next step is to refine the way pilots aim and launch them, said Jeffrey White, AIM-9X program manager at Raytheon Co., which developed the missiles. Those tests begin this year.

Versions of the supersonic Sidewinder have flown on Air Force fighters since the mid-1950s as a missile intended to shoot down aircraft. The Air Force pays about $84,000 apiece for the AIM-9X, the latest Sidewinder variant, but the cost of the additional air-to-ground capability has not been determined.

Air Combat Command requested the upgrade because it wants one missile capable of attacking air and ground targets. This would allow the same fighter to fly air patrols and ground combat missions without having to land and change the mix of weapons onboard. “This capability could prove useful in limited air-to-surface scenarios if time is critical and a more suitable air-to-ground weapon is not available,” said Col. Eric Theisen, chief of ACC’s Advanced Programs Division.

The air-to-ground capability would be a first for the F-15C Eagle, which flies only air-to-air combat patrols. The missile also is standard gear for F-16 Fighting Falcons, A-10 Thunderbolts, F-22 Raptors, Navy F/A-18s and joint F-35 Lightning IIs.

Just like in air-to-air combat, the pilot points the missile’s infrared sensor at a ground target, waits for the missile to lock on to its target, and fires. The AIM-9X then chases down its prey with its heat-seeking guidance system. The capability of shooting targets on the ground would not require a change to the hardware, but new software would have to be downloaded into each missile’s guidance system.

In September, a Sidewinder launched from an F-16C destroyed a rapidly moving boat in the Gulf of Mexico. Another F-16 fired an AIM-9X that sank a boat in April 2008, and in 2007 a missile fired from an F-15C destroyed a fast-moving armored personnel carrier, Raytheon officials said. Raytheon would not disclose the altitude from which the missiles were launched.

Click to expand...

Pentagon wants more F-35s for testing said:

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer air force times
Posted : Saturday Jan 9, 2010 8:41:37 EST

Aircraft programs are bumping up and down as the Pentagon reviews the Air Force’s proposed fiscal 2011 budget before its expected release in February, according to a defense analyst.

Air Force spokesman Vincent King would not discuss the 2011 budget until it is presented to Congress.

More F-35 Lightning II jets could be set aside for testing and fewer for training and operational squadrons.

One proposal for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would cut 10 jets in 2011 and cut another 110 planes through 2015. The $2.8 billion not spent on operational jets would go to testing.

The proposal puts the JSF program more in line with what the Defense Department’s weapons evaluators and the Government Accountability Office have asked for — more upfront testing and fewer aircraft and until the test results are in, according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank.
Second life for C-130?

The C-130 Aircraft Modernization Program, an upgrade to the transport’s cockpit and avionics, may have a second life after being all but declared dead in September by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.

The E-8C J-STARS program could see new engines on all 17 reconnaissance aircraft.

Outfitting about 220 C-130Hs with the new avionics would cost about $4.5 billion. The program has been in trouble since 2007, when the Defense Department announced the project’s price tag had increased 22 percent that year.

Test flights of an E-8C equipped with new engines began in December 2008. The new Pratt & Whitney JT8D-219 engines allow the E-8C to take off from shorter runways, use 17 percent less fuel, require less maintenance and generate more power to run electronics than the old Pratt & Whitney TF33-102-C engines

Click to expand...

MC-12 squadron stands up in Afghanistan said:

By Michelle Tan - Staff writer Air force times
Posted : Saturday Jan 9, 2010 8:40:22 EST

The Air Force’s newest manned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft has arrived in Afghanistan, the first of up to 23 more headed there this year.

The MC-12 Liberty touched down at Bagram Airfield on Dec. 27, triggering the activation of the new 4th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron led by Lt. Col. Douglas Lee.

The plane’s deployment to Afghanistan follows a successful stint in Iraq, where it was unveiled in combat for the first time in June. Two months later, the six MC-12s based there had surpassed 300 combat missions.

The turboprop aircraft is a product of Project Liberty, a $461 million program launched in July 2008 to deploy 37 MC-12s and about 1,000 airmen by 2010 to provide more ISR aircraft over troops in combat.

The Air Force decided to ramp up MC-12 operations before establishing a U.S. home for the planes because most of the aircraft, aircrews and maintainers would be deployed. A recommendation on where to base the MC-12s could be announced in the spring, said Elaine Belcher, spokeswoman for Air Combat Command.

In June, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ripped the program for falling as much as four months behind. He has pressed the Air Force to move faster in getting more ISR capabilities to the war zones.

The MC-12 is capable of providing real-time ISR to troops fighting in theater. It is a complete collection, processing, analysis and dissemination system, according to Air Force officials.

The plane is flown by four airmen — two pilots, one sensor operator and one signals intelligence specialist, all trained at the Mississippi Air National Guard’s Key Field in Meridian.

The sensor operator controls the full-motion video camera, and the SIGINT specialist operates “Pennant Race,” an advanced version of the SIGINT package found on unmanned MQ-9 Reapers.

“The MC-12 is much more than just a fleet of aircraft, its pilots and maintainers,” Col. Patrick McKenzie, commander of the 455th Expeditionary Operations Group, said in a statement. “It also consists of equipment and personnel that collect and broadcast full-motion video and signals intelligence, as well as crews that process, exploit and disseminate the information.”

——

Staff writer Air force times Bruce Rolfsen contributed to this report.

Click to expand...

Well poppeye looks like the but... err Navy work uniform jokes are now dated the navy just announced that they are final getting there Sailors in the field cover other then grease stains

Click to expand...

actually they are,

Click to expand...