Live Interview with Colin Clark
Don't Miss Today's Interview with Colin Clark
Yeah, I know...it's the day before the July 4th holiday. A three-day weekend is just one whistle blow away.
But when you're killing time waiting for the 5 o'clock release, be sure to join us for a Defense Tech first: a live online interview with DoD Buzz Editor Colin Clark.
|
|
Snake Eaters Get New Toy Plane
Just got a note that the innovative UAV design company Aerovironment has won a contract to provide a hand-held UAV for the special operations forces. The AE Puma is an upgrade from the RQ-11 Raven and sports IR and electro-optical cameras (spec sheet). It's got a range of 10 miles and an eight-foot wingspan.
According to a release on the contract:
The hand-launched Puma AE lands near-vertically on both land and water and is equipped with a day- and night-capable, waterproof sensor package that provides image tracking, image stabilization and high-image quality. Puma AE systems incorporate the same hand-held Ground Control Unit used by U.S. Department of Defense and allied military customers to control Raven and Wasp systems. Ship-based use of Puma AE requires no modification to naval vessels, enabling easy integration into maritime operations. The AECV program represents the fourth U.S. Department of Defense full and open competition for a small UAS program of record, and the fourth such competition won by AV.
I'm a fan of hand-held UAVs in priniciple but I'm worried that requirements folks can load too much stuff on the things, making them less efficient to operate and thus less attractive to troops who just want something that works and gives them the images they need to get the bad guys (see a video of the Puma in action).
U.S. armed forces including the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and USSOCOM, as well as international forces such as those of Italy, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands, use AV's hand-launched UAS for missions that include base security, route reconnaissance, mission planning, battle damage assessment and force protection. The U.S. Army has reported that Army Raven UAS were flown for approximately 150,000 combat hours in 2007. AV has delivered more than 10,000 small unmanned aircraft to date, including Raven, Wasp and Puma.
Tune in for a Defense Tech First
Okay folks, I have an idea...
In a first for Defense Tech, I'd like to set up an online, virtual interview with the new editor of our recently-launched sister site: DoD Buzz.
For 30 minutes, beginning at 1500 EDT July 3 we'll have a moderated chat session with Colin. He'll be able to answer your questions in real time and give you some deeper insight into his recent scoops, including the botched tanker deal, the flap over Wynne/Moseley/Gates and Schwartz, satellite launches and intelligence community intrigue.
Now, I know all you DT readers will be on your best behavior, but in case you're not, I'll be able to nix any inappropriate questions or comments. Seriously, I thought this would be a cool opportunity for you all to meet Colin and ping him on what's "Buzz"ing around DC in the defense and acquisition biz...And if this works well, I'll set up some more like it with defense officials, industry types and analysts.
So be sure to tune in here at 1500 (that's 3:00pm for you civilian types) tomorrow to chat with Colin catch the DoD Buzz live!
-- Christian
US Army Extends JHL Concept Studies
 This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Work to refine concepts for a large cargo rotorcraft is moving ahead under the U.S. Army-led Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) technology effort.
JHL is the vertical take-off and landing candidate for the U.S. Air Force/Army Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) requirement.The first of three contracts to extend previous concept definition and analysis (CDA) work for another two years has been awarded, with the others to follow over the next week or two, says the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD).
Contracts are being awarded to Bell-Boeing for the Quad Tilt Rotor, Karem Aircraft/Lockheed Martin for the Optimum Speed Tilt Rotor and Sikorsky for the coaxial-rotor X2 High Speed Lifter. The teams will update their designs to meet the new JHL model performance specification (MPS), which includes several new mission profiles that drive different aspects of the design.
The contractors ''have a requirement to provide an immediate assessment of the impact of the new MPS within 30 days of contract award," says Bruce Tenney, AATD associate director for technology. ''The government is going to do a gut check on the MPS changes and decide if a near-term update is needed for completion of the CDA."
Previous CDA studies assumed a payload of 20 tons and a C-130-size cargo box, but growth in the weight of Army Future Combat Systems vehicles has pushed the requirement closer to 30 tons and an A400M-size cargo box. The merger of JHL with the Air Force's Advanced Joint Air Combat System requirement under JFTL has also placed a greater emphasis on speed.
Gates Opposed AF Plans to Deploy F-22 to Iraq
The Air Force wanted to send the F-22 to the Middle East and Defense Secretary Robert Gates nixed the plans, citing the strategic danger from the deployment if it were misread by Iran, among other factors. This comes from a single usually reliable source with knowledge of Air Force policy and operations.
Then-Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne sent a memo to Gates last December in which he made the recommendation, as well as laying out several major arguments for Air Force budget requests for the F-22 and bomber research and development, according to our source.
Central Command had approved the deployment request and we understand several Arab governments were also supportive of the Air Force effort. The main opposition to the request, we hear, came from Ryan Henry, principal deputy to the undersecretary of Defense for policy, who worried that Iran would interpret the deployment of the country’s most capable fighter as a regional escalation at a time when rumors were sweeping the region that the US was planning strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Brit S-92s Falling Short on Range
An alert DT reader forwarded this article to me from a British news service.
New search-and-rescue helicopters serving remote parts of the Highlands have yet to carry out a long-range rescue - eight months after being brought into service.
There have been problems with the multimillion-pound aircraft over the use of long-distance fuel-tanks.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has insisted the problems have all been resolved, saying the tanks are now fully operational.
But crews are understood to be unhappy about the loss of seating for casualties on the aircraft in order to accommodate the tanks.
Problems surrounding the fitting of the tanks have meant the four Sikorsky S92s based at Stornoway on Lewis and Sumburgh on Shetland have been unable to carry out non-stop rescues to the range which was originally heralded.
They are, in fact, covering half the distance.
The two helicopters at Sumburgh do not have the tanks - which double their range to 400 nautical miles - fitted, while those at Stornoway, where the extra distance is most needed, are yet to carry out a rescue using them.
The MCA confirmed there had been issues over fitting the tanks.
Crewmen and spokesmen at both Stornoway and Shetland Coastguard have confirmed the tanks are "not operational" yet, despite the MCA's insistence that they are.
An interesting development for sure, but hardly an indictment on the aircraft itself. Problem is, when Sikorsky is fighting tooth and nail to get back in the running on the CSAR-X contract, news like this can't help.
More...
Pinnacle Claims Forgery in Fight
There's a behind the scenes battle going on between Pinnacle Armor, the Air Force, the National Institutes for Justice and the Army.
You'll remember that a year ago the Air Force debarred Pinnacle after it found that the company had pumped up the ballistic capabilities of its SOV 2000 armor claiming it was Level III compliant when it wasn't. This ban of Pinnacle products came on the heels of the Army's very public outing of Dragon Skin test results conducted by Army ballistics experts and witnessed by Pinnacle president Murray Neal himself.
But after the dust cleared, the tenacious Neal waged his own battle against the debarment, filing suit and compiling evidence that he claims shows Army testers forging test result documents and intentionally painting Dragon Skin in a bad light to the Air Force.
I spoke with Neal about this at length, and while I'm skeptical that the Army is resorting to lying and forging documents, there are some things that definitely look fishy about this case.
Development For B-52 Jammer Continues
 This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Boeing and several system suppliers have been awarded U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory contracts to mature technology for an airborne electronic attack (AEA) pod that could be flight tested on the B-52 in fiscal 2012, giving the venerable bomber another shot at one day providing stand-off jamming for early-warning radars.
The five-year AEA Tech Mat effort is a prelude to the planned Core Component Jammer (CCJ) program, a lower-cost replacement for the B-52 Stand-Off Jammer System (SOJS) that was cancelled in 2006 when estimated costs soared above $7 billion.
Boeing has been awarded a three-year, $15 million contract to study the integration of the jammer system on the B-52 and provide support to subsystem suppliers such as EDO and ITT, which have contracts to mature technology for the receiver, exciter and phased-array jammers.
Under a planned two-year extension to the program, not yet funded but expected to cost $300-350 million, two jammer pods would be built and flight-tested on a B-52H in 2012, says Boeing program manager Jeff Weis. This would set the stage for system development and demonstration of the CCJ for service entry around 2018.
To reduce cost, Weis says, the pods are planned to have the same size, weight and center of gravity as underwing fuel tanks carried by the earlier B-52D. The pods would house high-power phased arrays providing jamming in two low bands and one mid band, principally to counter early-warning radars.
Covering Up Cyber Assaults
Cyber attacks from individuals, organized crime, extremist groups, terrorists as well as nation states pose a significant threat to the national security of the United States. While many believe that this is a government issue, closer analysis of the problem suggests otherwise. Any computer that is not properly protected can be compromised and used as a weapon against the system owner, businesses and our economy, the nation's infrastructure or in some rare cases our defenses. Personal, business and government systems are constantly under attack and the frequency and sophistication of the attacks is rapidly increasing.
The number of new computer systems threat skyrocketed nearly 570 percent from those identified in 2006. According to one 2007 computer security study, the average annual loss reported by U.S. companies increased by nearly 210 percent to $350,424 (per occurence) in 2007. The top three primary sources of loss were financial fraud, losses due to computer virus and system penetration by outsiders. About 20 percent of the companies reporting security incidents said they have fallen victim to targeted malware attacks. Nearly 1.2 million different pieces of malware have been identified and reside in the malware repository. Malware is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner's informed consent. The term is a combination of the words malicious and software. The expression is a general term used by computer professionals to mean a variety of forms of hostile, destructive, intrusive, or annoying software. The bad news is malware is just one of the many threats to computers, systems and networks.
A reader of the blog asked me "Why with all the U.S. technological expertise are we so vulnerable to these threats?" That is a great question. Considering a recent report suggested that around 90 percent of breaches could have been prevented, why are our computer systems so at risk?
After giving this a fair amount of thought I came to the following realization. It is our attitude! For some reason there is an abundance of "I know more than they do" types in information security. If that is not bad enough, the second most prominent attitude is "It can't happen here" followed closely by "I will address it when it happens to me."
Example 1 - A $13 billion publically traded corporation has five full time staff assigned to information security. When I asked the Director how he spent his time he said by far most was in the Human Resources Department and with corporate lawyers.
|
