A tipster told me this morning and I have confirmed with the Army that Brig. Gen. Mark Brown will soon be leaving as the commanding general of PEO Soldier to be replaced by Brig. Gen. Nelson Fuller.
[Brown is pictured left]
Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie told me Brown will soon become Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) in Washington, though Downie wasn't able to tell me when this would all go down.
Fuller, currently the Deputy Commander for Systems of Systems Integration, United States Army Research, Development and Engineering Command at Fort Belvoir, will take Brown's place.
I don't know Fuller, but I've chatting with Brig. Gen. Brown a bit over the short time he's been PEO Soldier and he seems like a technically proficient acquisition officer who's a straight shooter. He told me during an interview about the Dragon Skin testing that he wanted his relations with the media to be "open kimono" -- a far stretch from the edicts of his predecessors who kept information about programs that effect almost every Joe to themselves.
I wish BGN Brown the best of luck and look forward to keeping the spirit of openness going when Fuller takes the helm as PEO Soldier. He's going to have tighter budgets, a changing administration and lots of recapitalization issues hitting him full force when he arrives, and we'll look forward to talking with him as he decides how to re-equip the force for a new paradigm.
-- Christian
At Least Someone Gets to be Camouflaged
Calling the Army's new "universal" digital camouflage scheme for its field uniforms controversial is an understatement. People tend to fall into two camps: some grudgingly tolerate it, particularly in an urban, desert or urban/desert environment and others (most) just flat out hate it and can't understand why the Army went the way of loden greens and grays.
Why not Multi-cam (which almost everyone likes)? That's a whole 'nother subject...
No matter how you feel about it, sure seems like Joes are going to be stuck with the new pattern for a while since the Army spent gobs of money replacing its classic woodland scheme only within the last few years. But it turns out not everybody in the Army has to stick with the unpopular mandate.
According to the "Soldier Systems" blog, the Army G1 recently sent out guidance that allows special operations troops the option of wearing the old-school woodland cammies in jungle environments. The message states that USASOC troops can wear the old BDUs in the Pacific theater, Southern command area and Africa Command while "conducting operational training and contingency missions" there.
The order calls for logistics to keep the woodland items in the supply system for the snake eaters until otherwise notified.
Here's the message Soldier Systems pasted on its site:
SUBJECT: EXCEPTION TO POLICY FOR WEAR OF THE ENHANCED HOT WEATHER BATTLE DRESS UNIFORM (EHWBDU), AVIATION BATTLE DRESS UNIFORM (ABDU), AVIATION FLIGHT SUIT, AND ACCESSORY ITEMS
1. THIS MESSAGE SERVES AS AUTHORIZATION FOR WEAR OF THE EHWBDU, ABDU, AND ACCESSORY ITEMS AFTER THE MANDATORY WEAR OUT DATES FOR SOLDIERS ASSIGNED TO UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND (USASOC) CONDUCTING OPERATIONAL TRAINING AND CONTINGECY MISSIONS IN THE FOLLOWING OCONUS THEATERS:
One of the most interesting undercurrents at last week’s Association of the US Army conference was worried talk about whether the recession or downturn or whatever we’re calling it will affect defense spending.
Army Secretary Pete Geren was relatively hopeful. Congress, he told reporters, understands what the Army is trying to do and largely supports it. FCS, the Army’s premier modernization effort, is in good shape and has strong congressional support. As you can tell, Geren was all about Congress and declined to talk about the larger economic issues.
As I went from display to display on the floor I spoke with about a dozen industry sources about the economy and the budget. Most were gravely concerned about their 401Ks and a bit less worried about the budget. Still, they all expressed concern that the Army will have to begin choosing between so-called reset choices and those of modernization. This is one of several major friction points in the coming budget. First, the services have all made noises about how they are going to build the spending that has been in supplementals into their regular budget baselines. That’s one place for tradeoffs. Then there is the squeeze that will probably result from lower government revenue figures. There will be political pressure to withdraw from Iraq and thus lower operational costs. Operational and maintenance money has been very important to the Army, in particular. And then there is the normal budget wrangling. That offers an awful lot of places where Army — or any other service’s — spending can be whittled away.
One of the most impressive products I ran across at the Modern Day Marine expo was this material called Outlast. It's almost too good to be true, and for the last week I've been testing a few products made with Outlast and I'm pretty impressed.
So here's the deal. Under Armour made a big splash in the military community a few years ago with their moisture wicking fabrics -- particularly their t-shirts that in the extreme heat of an Afghan or Iraqi summer, kept troops relatively cool compared to straight cotton. My experience (I wore the same material from Patagonia back in the summer of 2003) was that the shirts didn't do much better than cotton for keeping you cool until you took off your body armor, when the moisture was able to evaporate and cooled your body much quicker. I had boxer shorts made out of the same material and hated them. It's commando all the way for me from now on, baby.
Sure, the Under Armour-like material (Patagonia calls it Capilene, UA calls it HeatGear) worked great if you weren't wearing anything over it -- walking to the chow hall or working in the hooch -- but its strength came when you doffed your gear and let the sweat melt away.
Then an IED hit...literally.
Because of the risk burns from the melted synthetic material in the flame flash of an IED blast, the Army and Marines Corps banned Under Armour base layers on patrol. The troops still love them and that hasn't stopped the services from using them. Problem is, the Nomex or Nomex-like materials in the combat shirts now are still a little on the hot side.
That's where Outlast comes in. The material is impregnated with "micro-encapsulated Thermocules" that actually absorb body heat and feel cool to the touch. It's what's called a "phase change" substance that goes from a solid to a liquid as it's warmed. Thing is, it's so small in the fabric that you don't even notice it. And it really works.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The Blackswift reusable hypersonic testbed has been canceled by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) after Congress slashed the program's fiscal 2009 budget to $10 million, from $120 million.
Blackswift was to demonstrate an unmanned hypersonic vehicle able to take off, accelerate to a Mach 6 cruise and return to a runway landing.
"Congress made significant reductions in the amount of funds available to DARPA and the Air Force for the Blackswift testbed," the agency said in a statement. "Based on this, DARPA determined that it would not be possible to proceed with the solicitation for the effort."
DARPA had hoped to award a contract for the demonstrator later this year, and was believed to be negotiating with a Lockheed Martin Skunk Works-led team that included Boeing. The Blackswift was expected to fly in 2012. Meanwhile, DARPA says it will continue with the Falcon program to fly unpowered hypersonic test vehicles in 2009.
Congress was skeptical of Blackswift's technical achievability and operational utility, cutting DARPA FY '09 funding from the requested $70 million to $10 million and eliminating the Air Force's requested $50 million for the joint program.
"Obviously we are disappointed that we will not have the appropriated funds to move forward with the Blackswift flight test," DARPA program manager Steven Walker said. He said a significant effort had been made to develop the propulsion technology and build a national government and industry team capable of developing and flying a reusable hypersonic testbed.
"The Blackswift testbed would have been able to take off under its own power, cruise at Mach 6, maneuver at hypersonic speeds and land, and then do it again," Walker said. "Blackswift, or something very much like it, will be a required step prior to the U.S. developing an operational, reusable air-breathing hypersonic airplane."
p>Other people can debate whether the JSF is a waste of money, as vulnerable as a clay pigeon at a trap range or the best thing since the A-10.
Our good friend and contributor Steve Trimble has been getting the goods on the program for a long time and continues his good work over at the DEW Line blog on Flight International's Web site.
I covered the program back during the concept demonstrator phase and was always a bit personally partial to the Boeing version because I liked the idea of a lifting body concept and the scoop air intake (perfect for shark's teeth -- it just looked more intimidating). I did get a chance to see the Lockheed version of the STOVL JSF sitting on the hover stand at that company's Skunk Works facility in Palmdale and have always been intrigued by the lift fan engineering.
Unfortunately, as our boy Steve has reported, it's going to be a while before the STOVL plane flies in real life. So for now, this YouTube video will have to suffice.
(Gouge: ST)
-- Christian
A Cyber Attack on the Poor's Wallet
Last week's blog posting "Offshore and Cyber Security" rang true as cyber security and financial security were rudely awakened by word of what was being dubbed the largest security breach in history. This incident began over a year ago, but federal authorities and bank officials were able to keep this under wraps until Thursday October 9th. The data breach at the World Bank (WB) was discovered in mid 2007. After receiving a tip from the FBI, the World Bank moved quickly to investigate. This investigation continues today and like the vast majority of cyber events I have been involved with, it is highly dynamic and there is a great deal of contradictory information.
Here is what we know at this point. There were cyber security events at World Bank. I discussed the event with Carl Hanlon of World Bank and he stated that many of the news stories are fraught with errors and called some of the reporting out right irresponsible. Our discussion went on and he said, "Like other public and private institutions, the World Bank has repeatedly experienced cyber attacks." He emphatically stated that "At no point have we uncovered evidence the cyber attackers' accessed sensitive information in the World Bank's Treasury, procurement, anti-corruption or human resources departments."
World Bank issued the following statement: "TheFox News storyis wrong and is riddled with falsehoods and errors. The story cites misinformation from unattributed sources and leaked emails that are taken out of context."
In my conversation with Mr. Hanlon, a conversation I had just this past week at a U.S. StratCom meeting was repeated.
"We do not have the context framework necessary to intelligently discuss cyber attacks. We do not have a standard definition of what actually constitutes a breach, a cyber attack or an act of cyber war."
I have called for such a cyber attack framework and cyber warfare doctrine for some time now and this is clearly evidence that we need it now.
I also contacted Satyam (a company alleged to be involved with the attack) and this is what they sent me via email:
"There have been reports in a section of the press allegedly linking Satyam to possible security breaches at the World Bank (WB). These accounts are based on a single speculative story that appeared on Friday evening IST, in the US. Satyam is unaware of any facts that substantiate this allegation. ... Satyam takes this matter very seriously. We hold ourselves to the highest standards in the industry, and we take extraordinary care to develop secure networks and IT infrastructure for all our clients."
I posed the following question to Satyam: Was anyone associated with Satyam fired, asked to resign or put on leave pending an investigation of the security events that did occur at World Bank? Here is what I got as a reply: "As a matter of policy, Satyam does not comment on individual client contracts."
Like every other security breach it takes a long time to determine what the implications are and what the true impact is for a cyber event like this. In a piece by Fox News, they have a quote stating "They had the keys to every room at the bank. And we can't say whether they still do or don't until we fully and openly address what's happening here."
Look, I'm not a big fan of 60 Minutes, but for some reason they keep drawing me in.
Last week it was the Dalton Fury/Kill bin Laden furor (BTW, I got a review copy of the book and am having a hard time putting it down) and this week it's 60 Minutes' take on how technology provides a key enabler for counter insurgencies.
Here's the deal...
There are a lot of folks out there -- many who read this blog -- who say Rumsfeld and his ilk were wrong about emphasizing "transformation," the "RMA" and otherwise leaning on technological solutions to act as force multipliers that can justify "slimming down" the force. The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan show, these detractors say, that it's about low tech, human interaction, not wiz bang robots and electronic networks.
But, as in all things, you have to have both. And the 60 Minutes piece titled The Battle of Sadr City is a pretty good explanation of where high-tech is crucial to enabling a counterinsurgency strategy that saves lives.
Though the piece gives me that icky feeling of being played (a gooey argument for high defense budgets as Americans decide on a new president...Just look at how stiff Odierno looks during the "briefings") and I just want to puke when I see Lesley Stahl's open-toed shoes, red shirt and lack of PPE while on patrol in Sadr City (no wonder the military holds reporters in such high contempt. When you come to their home court and refuse to adapt to the realities of combat, safety and risk, it just reinforces the mentality that reporters are aloof and unable to comprehend the of the situation), it does present a strong case for continuing the drive to perfect the high-technology that has truly "transformed" how we fight.
And I do savor the juxtaposition of the old-school concrete wall with the Reaper drone cover -- so 10th Century meets 21st...
-- Christian
Stop Suicide Bombers in their Tracks
As the female suicide bombing in Diyala the other day demonstrates, the more Iraqi government and security forces take charge and the US takes a back seat to counterinsurgency, the emphasis on offense is going to increasingly shift to defense.
Some folks I met at the Modern Day Marine Expo last week have an interesting system called "Counter Bomber" that uses radar and some wiz bang algorithms to detect if someone is concealing a suicide vest under his clothing.
Here's a short video that explains how the system works...
Counter Bomber costs about $300K, and that includes a computer and software that gives a no-joke "Marine proof" indication of whether someone's hiding something or not. A chime sounds if the radar detects a signature (it basically can pick up metallic objects under clothing) and gives a green-for-safe or red-for-threat indicator as the person passes the Counter Bomber's radar. The system works up to about 150 meters and the designers say it's best to have a couple arrayed so security officers can get a 360-degree view of what the person might be hiding.
Company reps say there are 12 Counter Bombers fielded to Marines in combat: eight systems are fielded in Iraq, including al Asad air base and the busy entrance to Ramadi on route Michigan, and four are stationed in Afghanistan.
-- Christian
War Spurs Change in Sniper Gear, Tactics
From the headlines at Military.com...
The conflicts stemming from the attacks on 9/11 showed America's military snipers were badly in need of modernization. Their gear, operational doctrine and training needed an update -- and fast. As the war evolved, units with combat experience shared lessons learned, identifying new requirements for a unique conflict. Fortunately the services took notice and began to revamp the sniper community in numerous ways.
Problem: Inadequate/outdated doctrine.
Solution: Small-unit leaders began to develop employment strategies that earlier training never covered, based on the current situation and environment. This, coupled with after-action reports, lessons learned and the general sharing of information, led to comprehensive sniper planning, support and employment-things like providing security for the sniper team during movement and relying on the sniper to provide the real-time intelligence for on-the-spot combat decisions.
Probably the biggest change was when-and-how to bring the snipers to bear for the desired result. Unit leaders learned that snipers could control large areas, create enemy reluctance and force enemy movement in a desired direction. There was a gradual recognition of how valuable assets like snipers and designated marksmen could be when properly utilized.
Problem: Inadequate equipment.
Solution: A number of commercially procured items became popular, including the Eberlestock pack, which allows the sniper to carry his rifle on his back protected and concealed while he carries a battle rifle for his own protection during movement. Other items such as rests, tripods and various bipods were procured to meet the varied terrain and conditions.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
