Chinese UAVs Go To Sea

Chinese UAVs Go To Sea

July 14, 2011: Chinese warships were recently seen, for the first time, operating UAVs at sea (over a thousand kilometers south of Okinawa). Japanese P-3 maritime reconnaissance aircraft spotted a fixed wing UAV taking off, using rockets, from a destroyer , and landing in the water, being recovered via a net. This UAV appeared to be a navalized version of the most numerous model used by the Chinese army; the ASN-206. This is a 222 kg (488 pound) aircraft, with a 50 kg (110 pound) payload. It has a max endurance of eight hours, but more common is an endurance of four hours. Max range from the control equipment is 150 kilometers and cruising speed is about 180 kilometers an hour. This UAV uses a catapult to launch itself from the helicopter deck of a destroyer or frigate.  The UAV lands via parachute, so the aircraft get banged up a lot.

The U.S. Navy has been doing this for two decades, but is switching to helicopter UAVs, and is currently using the MQ-8B (formerly the RQ-8) Fire Scout. The first to carry this helicopter UAV was a Perry class frigate, the USS McInerney (FFG-8) two years ago. Assigned to the 4th Fleet, and this ship operates in the Caribbean, chasing drug smugglers. Prior to this assignment, the Fire Scout underwent 110 takeoffs and landings on the frigate, and 600 hours of flight testing.

The MQ-8B can stay in the air for up to eight hours at a time (five hour missions are more common), has a top speed of 230 kilometers an hour, and can operate up to 230 kilometers from its controller (on land, or a ship.) The MQ-8B is also being used on the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Chinese firms have also developed helicopter UAVs, but none have been seen on warships yet.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Real Time Armor Analysis

Real Time Armor Analysis

June 30, 2011: Having added more and more sensors to armored (and unarmored ) vehicles, to monitor electrical and mechanical systems, the U.S. Army is now going to do the same to the armor itself. Sensors to monitor engines and other systems have been in aircraft and ships for decades, and are now common in cars and trucks. The new armor sensors report on bullet or shell hits in real time, and also track damage. This sort of thing is useful because it's noisy in combat, and difficult to keep track on what part of the vehicle (like an armored hummer, MRAP or M-2 IFV) is getting hit by bullets. The new sensors will also report what type of fire (caliber, machine-gun or single shot) as well as where. This makes it much easier to decide where to take the vehicle, and where to return fire. And, it also keeps track of how "healthy" the vehicle armor is.

All this is part of an ongoing trend. For example, the U.S. Air Force is retrofitting sensor-type tech on older aircraft. With that done, you can plug the older aircraft into existing aircraft test systems. The older systems would just tell you if a component is working, or not. But the newer systems uses software, and a large database of information on how the aircraft works, or doesn't, to quickly resolve complex maintenance problems. Often, maintainers can spend hundreds of hours trying to figure out exactly what is wrong with an aircraft. The problem is that many OK, but slightly off, components can combine to create a failure. Such problems are very difficult to diagnose. This test system not only finds the problems much more quickly, but usually can provide step-by-step instructions on how to repair it. In the past, maintainers often replaced perfectly good, but suspect, parts in vain attempts to get $50 million aircraft flight ready.

Most recent aircraft, like recent automobiles, come with similar test systems. The automobile industry has been using similar systems for over a decade, but has not created such systems for older automobiles, because the older cars don't have the sensors and microprocessors built in for this sort of thing. But in the aviation industry, it pays to build computerized diagnostic systems for older aircraft if the current maintenance costs are high enough.

Now, new combat vehicles are not only getting access to the power diagnostic systems, but armor that is also monitored, and analyzed with all the other vehicle systems.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

It's Worse Than You Can Understand

It's Worse Than You Can Understand

June 19, 2011: The U.S. Department of Defense is trying to improve its network defenses, and those of companies that supply weapons and equipment. The new plan is to pool intelligence, and defensive techniques with the major defense companies. This is being done as a pilot project called DIB (Defense Industrial Base) Cyber Pilot. This is a long shot, as the organizations with the best Internet security are not inclined to share. That's because the most dangerous vulnerability is someone knowing how your defenses are organized, and what kind of intelligence you are collecting (and how you do it) on the hackers. When it comes to security, the net is a very paranoid place.

Firms with the most to lose, like financial institutions, guard their data most successfully. They do this the old-fashioned way, with layers and layers of security, implemented by the best (and most highly paid) people and pushed by senior managers who take the time to learn about what they are dealing with, and what it will take to stay on top of the problem.

It's different in the defense business. If the Chinese steal data on some new weapon, there might be a problem years down the road, when the Chinese offer a cheaper alternative to an American weapon, for the export market. But even that problem has a silver lining, in that you can get away with insisting that those clever Chinese developed your technology independently. Meanwhile, everyone insists that there was no espionage, cyber or traditional, involved. As a further benefit, the American firm will get more money from a terrified government, in order to maintain the American technical edge. It's the same general drill for military organizations. But for financial institutions, especially those that trade in fast moving currency, derivatives and bond markets, any information leaks can have immediate, and calamitous consequences. You must either protect your data, or die.

Because of the shortage of high-end Internet security people (it's complex stuff, and a lot of the best people are lured away to the dark side), there is not enough talent to go around. Then there's that disinclination to share. Sharing with the government or defense contractors is seen as a particular waste, as these organizations lack sufficient short term incentives to stay alert and reliable.

Meanwhile, Chinese Internet based espionage has been going on for years. Some of the attacks have been traced back to Chinese government computers. But how do you respond? It's possible that there has already been a response. Espionage is a two way street, and the United States certainly has the resources (in terms of talented Internet engineers and hackers) to do the same kind of snooping against Chinese computers. If so, like the Chinese, there would be no admission of such activities. That's how espionage is done, in the dark, with denials all around. Meanwhile, China has been making more desperate sounding exhortations for their own civilian firms to get stronger Internet defenses. But China has an even greater shortage of Internet security specialists, and is much more vulnerable than the government will allow anyone to admit (or go into detail about).

But the biggest problem, according to military Cyber War commanders, is the difficulty in making it clear to political leaders, and non-expert (in Internet matters) military commanders, what the cyber weapons are, and the ramifications of the attacks. Some types of attacks are accompanied by the risk of shutting down much, or all, of the Internet. Other types of operations can be traced back to the source. This could trigger a more conventional, even nuclear, response. Some attacks use worms (programs that, once unleashed, keep spreading by themselves.) You can program worms to shut down after a certain time (or when certain conditions are met). But these weapons are difficult, often impossible, to test "in the wild" (on the Internet). By comparison, nuclear weapons were a new, very high-tech, weapon in 1945. But nukes were easy to understand; it was a very powerful bomb. Cyber weapons are much less predictable, and that will make them more difficult for senior officials to order unleashed.

So the first order of business is to develop reliable techniques to quickly, and accurately, educate the senior decision makers about what they are about to unleash. This would begin with the simplest, and cheapest, weapons, which are botnets, used for DDOS attacks. In plain English, that means gaining (by purchase or otherwise) access to hundreds, or thousands, of home and business PCs that have had special software secretly installed. This allows whoever installed the software that turned these PCs into zombies, to do whatever they want with these machines. The most common thing done is to have those PCs, when hooked up to the Internet, to send as many emails, or other electronic messages, as it can, to a specified website. When this is done with lots of zombies (a botnet), the flood of messages becomes a DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack that shuts the target down. This happens because so much junk is coming in from the botnet, that no one else can use the web site.

But there are even more dangerous cyberwar weapons out there. You can unleash worm and virus software modified to take advantage of largely unknown Internet vulnerabilities, that allow the user access to many business, government and military computers. This sort of thing is called, "using high value exploits" (flaws in code that are not yet widely known). These exploits are a lot more expensive, and require more skill to use. Currently, a major source of exploits are hackers for hire. These are skilled hackers, who know they are working on the wrong side of the law, and know how to do the job, take the money, and run. This situation has developed because organized crime has discovered the Internet, and the relatively easy money to be made via Internet extortion and theft.

It is believed that those nations that have Cyber War organizations, maintain arsenals of exploits. But these have a short shelf-life. Nearly all exploits eventually come to the attention of the publisher that created the exploitable software, and gets fixed. Not every user applies the "patches", so there will always be some computers out there that are still vulnerable. But that makes "zero day exploits" (discovered and used for the first time) very valuable. That's because you can use these exploits on any computer with the flawed software on it. Thus it is expensive to maintain an exploits arsenal, as you must keep finding new exploits to replace those which are patched into ineffectiveness.

Most of the Internet combat so far has been done under peacetime conditions. In wartime, it's possible (especially for the United States) to cut off enemy countries from the Internet. Thus potential American foes want to maintain an official peacetime status, so the United States cannot use its ability to cut nations off (or nearly off) from the Internet, and remove easy access to American (and Western) targets. Thus the need to make attacks discreetly, so as to make it more difficult for an enemy to target stronger attacks against you, or threaten nuclear or conventional war.

Meanwhile, everyone (including the bad guys) seems to be concentrating on defense as the true extent of Internet vulnerability becomes known. So DIB Cyber Pilot might actually work, if the decision makers can be convinced of how vulnerable they are, and become truly and convincingly scared into action.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Turning The iPad Into A Weapon

Turning The iPad Into A Weapon

June 15, 2011: Combat pilots in Afghanistan have, like many businesses, discovered new and useful ways to use the iPad. U.S. Marine Corps helicopter pilots found the iPad a useful way to carry hundreds of military maps, rather than the hassle of using paper versions. Marine commanders quickly realized this "field expedient" (a military "hack" that adopts something for unofficial use while in the combat zone) worked, and made it official. That meant buying iPads for this and getting to work coming up with more uses.

This is nothing new. The U.S. Army has established an app store (the Army Marketplace) for military smart phone users. This includes the iPad, which soldiers are also big fans of. The army app store includes an "App Wanted" section where users can post descriptions of an app they need. If a developer (in uniform, or an army approved civilian with access to the Army Marketplace) is interested, a discussion can be started on an attached message board. The army hopes that the needed app will be quickly created and made available at the Army Marketplace. Developers can charge for their apps, although the army is also willing to pay developers to create needed apps that have been described by military smart phone users.

One of the more impressive apps was one that assisted troops calling in air and artillery fire. Specialized, and now portable, computers have been used in the military for decades, to help troops who call in artillery fire, or air strikes. But these "forward controllers" have to lug around a lot of gear, as they move, often on foot, with the infantry they support. Every bit of weight counts. The less you carry, the more energy you have for life-and-death tasks. Now, there is an app for that, and the forward controllers can leave behind gear that has now been replaced by an iPhone app.

The army and marines see these portable devices as key battlefield tools. Not just for communication, but for a wide range of data handling (computer) chores. Some of these apps turn the iPad or smart phone into part of a weapon. The military wants to work closely with Apple to ensure the troops get the software they need, as well as customized hardware. Details are largely kept secret. But now the military knows, for certain, that creating lots of these apps requires more time and effort than many troops can muster. Then there is the problem of maintenance (upgrading and fixing bugs). So the army is going to establish a team to take care of this, using some army personnel and contractors as part of a permanent organization.

This is all part of a trend. In the last decade, the U.S. military found the iPod music player an increasingly useful tool. This happened for two reasons. As time went on (the iPod was introduced just after September 11, 2001), more and more troops bought iPods. By 2005, most troops had them. The iPod was the perfect entertainment device for the battlefield. When you got a chance to take a break, you put in the ear buds, turned it on, and were in a different place for a few minutes. The iPod battery usually kept going until the next time you got a chance to recharge.

The second reason was that, from the beginning, the iPod could do other things (run software for things other than listening to music). That's because the iPod was, basically, a very small personal computer. In fact, the iPhone is basically an high end iPod (sold as such as the iPod Touch), with cell phone capability added.

At first, most of the other iPod software was games, but soon non-game applications were added. There was a problem for the military, however. Except for some skilled hackers, no one but Apple, or with the help of Apple, could create software for the iPod. Despite that, the U.S. Army had some military software written for the iPod. This worked well, but it took over a year to get new software for an iPod, a delay that did not encourage rapid development. That changed three years ago, when Apple opened its App Store, and released a tool kit (SDK) for programmers to develop software for the iPhone and iPod Touch. This meant that military programmers could create Touch software to suit their needs, and do it quickly. In less than a year, hundreds of military-specific Touch programs have been created. Many do not show up in the App Store, as they are only for military use.

The Touch, and now the $500 iPad, have become the new "most favorite gadgets" for the troops. The Touch is cheap (under $230), has the same interface as the iPhone, has several hundred thousand programs (and growing rapidly) available, and can also serve as an iPod (to listen to music or view vids). The Touch has caught on, and it does the job better than any earlier PDA. The Touch also has wi-fi built in, making it easier for the troops to get new software or data onto their Touch. The iPad is basically a larger Touch, and popular for reading magazines, and consulting technical manuals. Troops have long been reading books on the iPhone and Touch. Now, smart phones like the iPhone are becoming increasingly common, so much so that few troops will go off to war without one. And the smart phones get smarter every year. As of  2011, your average smart phone has the computing power of a ten year old laptop.

For use in the combat zone, troops usually put one of the many protective covers on their smart phone, Touch, or iPad and, so far, these devices have held up well under battlefield conditions. Meanwhile, some of the software written for earlier iPods, is now available for the Touch and iPhone. This includes the VCommunicator Mobile software and libraries. This system translates English phrases into many foreign languages. Each language takes up four gigabytes per language, so they easily fit on the Touch. The software displays graphics, showing either the phrase in Arabic, or a video of a soldier making the appropriate hand gesture (there are a lot of those in Arabic), and this looks great on the Touch. There are collections of phrases for specific situations, like checkpoint, raid or patrol. You can use any accessory made for the iPod, like larger displays or megaphones. Non-combat troops have found the Touch, and especially the iPad, as a useful way to carry hundreds of technical manuals around, for use while maintaining or repairing equipment. Some tech personnel have made videos of how to carry out particularly difficult repair or maintenance procedures, and passed these "show and tell" vids around.

All this is nothing new. When PCs first showed up in the late 1970s, younger troops were, as usual, early adopters. And many of them quickly found ways to create software that made their jobs easier. Databases and programs, created by the troops, that figured things out more quickly and effortlessly, kept showing up throughout the 1980s. It took about a decade for the brass to catch on, and another decade for the senior military people to embrace this flood of computerization. So when the iPod Touch came along, it was quickly adopted. And no one in uniform was surprised. This was in large part because so many of today's generals and admirals remember how programmable calculators were introduced when they were young, and how they and their troops adopted these devices for military use. This rapid adoption of technology has now become part of the military DNA, and it started at the bottom.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

THAAD Comes Off The Line

THAAD Comes Off The Line

June 6, 2011: The U.S. Army recently received its first two production model THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-missile missiles. Last year, the army conducted another successful test firing of THAAD, demonstrating the system's ability to hit targets closer to the ground, and to share data with Patriot anti-missile systems. This was the seventh (out of seven) successful test since 2005. There have been 20 tests since 1995, 14 of them successful. THAAD entered service in 2008, with pre-production missiles for use in further testing.

Two years ago, the army formed its second THAAD anti-ballistic missile (ABM) battery. The army will form two more THAAD batteries over the next year. Five years ago, there was a successful test of THAAD (a SCUD type target was destroyed in flight) using a crew of soldiers, and not manufacturer technicians, to operate the system.

Each THAAD battery has 24 missiles, three launchers and a fire control communications system. This includes an X-Band radar. The gear for each battery costs $310 million. The six meter (18 foot) long THAAD missiles weigh 837 kg (1,400 pounds). This is about the same size as the Patriot anti-aircraft missile, but twice the weight of the anti-missile version of the Patriot.

The range of THAAD is 200 kilometers, max altitude is 150 kilometers, and it is intended for short (like SCUD) or medium range (up to 2,000 kilometer) range ballistic missiles. THAAD has been in development for two decades. Ultimately, the army would like to buy at least 18 launchers, 1,400 missiles, and 18 radars. THAAD is a step up from the Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile (which is an anti-aircraft missile adapted to take out incoming missiles). The PAC-3 works, but it has limited (20 kilometers) range.

The navy has also modified its Standard anti-aircraft missile system to operate like the PAC-3. This system, the RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a longer range than THAAD (over 500 kilometers) and max altitude of 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the failed anti-missile version of the Standard 2, and costs over three million dollars each. The Standard 3 has four stages. The first two stages boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it.

Thus the U.S. has three anti-missile systems, although one of them currently only operates from warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles.) AEGIS can also be operated from land bases, and the manufacturer is offering such a system to export customers.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

The Cupcake Bombers

The Cupcake Bombers

June 8, 2011: British intelligence (MI6) recently hacked into al Qaeda's online magazine ("Inspire") and quietly replaced bomb making instructions with cupcake recipes, and removed or modified other information. While some intelligence officials prefer to hack hard and shut down these sites, outfits like MI6 and the CIA prefer to use sites like Inspire as a source of intelligence. This can be done by monitoring message boards, traffic to the site and other, more technical (but useful) information. The CIA has been suspected of doing what the MI6 did to Inspire, but using more subtle and lethal methods. For example, bomb making instructions can be changed in small ways, to make the bombs very dangerous to those making them. The same with other information on the site, making small changes that will create arguments or confusion among site users. These two techniques are ancient intelligence practices. Al Qaeda is particularly vulnerable to these kinds of attacks because Islamic terrorists have never become a threat via Internet based attacks and, in general, lack much knowledge of how the Internet is built and maintained.

For that reason, over a decade of warning about Islamic terrorists using the Internet to launch attacks has come to nothing. At most, there have been some defacing of web pages, often by hackers driven more by nationalism than religion. The Internet Jihad (struggle) has been mostly smoke, and very little fire.

Attempts by terrorists to recruit hackers have had very poor results.  The Moslem world has much lower levels of literacy, education and computer proficiency than the West. There are a growing number of programmers and Internet specialists in the Moslem world, but most of them have legitimate jobs in software firms, or maintaining software and Internet services for companies. Some are involved with Internet crime, and a very few are eager about helping carry out Internet based terrorism going. Nearly all the Moslem blackhats (criminal hackers) are reluctant to get on a terrorism watch list, or something worse if they join some terrorist outfit. Moreover, Islamic terrorists recruit mainly from the young and clueless (and angry and unemployed). Internet penetration in the Islamic world is very low, as is literacy itself. The Islamic cyber threat is largely fiction, because the potential pool of Islamic Internet Jihadis is so tiny.

This is somewhat surprising, as there are Cyber War tools available that even the poorly educated terrorist computer user could operate. For example, there's a software program that online gamers use to launch DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks on other players they are particularly angry with. DDOS is used to shut down a web site, or individual user's Internet access, with a flood of garbage messages, generated from as few as fifty "zombie PCs" (machines hackers have earlier seized control of). Some bot herders (those who control hundreds, or thousands, of zombies) will rent zombies for these small scale DDOS attacks. The going rate is a few dollars a day per zombie (fifty will usually do to shut down one person's Internet access). Several thousand zombies are needed to shut down a web site, and criminals use that many to blackmail online businesses. This sort of thing happens every day, but it is rarely used by Islamic terrorists.

Counter-terrorism organizations know why there have not been more of these attacks by al Qaeda, or any other self-proclaimed Islamic warriors. The fact is that the Islamic terrorists are not nearly as well organized or skilled as the mass media would lead you to believe. There are many types of attacks, not just those involving the Internet, that terrorists could carry out, but don't. It doesn't happen because the terrorists cannot get it together sufficiently to do it. That should tell you something. The potential is there, and that is scary. But the reality has to be recognized as well, and that's a lot less scary.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

The French Solution To Anti-Vehicle Mines

The French Solution To Anti-Vehicle Mines

May 26, 2011: France is sending its new SOUVIM 2 mine clearing system to Afghanistan, to give it a chance to succeed under combat conditions. This makes it much easier to sell to export customers. More importantly, France has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, and if SOUVIM 2 works as advertised, it will save French lives. It will may also generate some sales to other NATO nations with troops in Afghanistan. To that end, SOUVIM 2 was designed to work with current MRAP vehicles used for mine clearing. SOUVIM 2 can clear 150 kilometers of road a day, at the rate of 10 kilometers an hour. 

SOUVIM 2 consists of a tow vehicle, with a V shaped undercarriage and large, low pressure tires that impart too little pressure on dirt roads to trigger most anti-vehicle mines. The tow vehicle only carries one operator, whose cab is completely armored. This vehicle carries electronic mine detectors in front, and pulls two trailers that carry additional gear for detecting or triggering mines.

SOUVIM 2 is designed to detect or trigger a wide variety of mine designs, including some very old ones. A major source of sales is expected to be peacekeeping operations and civilian relief operations. Because of that, the equipment is designed for ease of use, and capable of being used by civilians after brief training.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

South Korea Tries Out Helicopter UAVs

South Korea Tries Out Helicopter UAVs

April 29, 2011: Austrian aircraft manufacturer Schiebel has sold two of its S-100 helicopter UAVs to South Korea. The S-100 weighs 200 kg (440 pounds), can stay aloft six hours per sortie and operates at a max altitude of 5,500 meters (18,000 feet). Max speed is 220 kilometers an hour. U.S. firm Boeing markets the S-100 in many parts of the world. Helicopter UAVs are considered superior in urban areas, or for operating off ships. South Korea wants to use the S-100s off its west coast, along the maritime border with North Korea.

While General Atomics has a lock on mid-size (1-5 ton) UAVs (Predator and Reaper), and AeroVironment has the bulk of the micro-UAV (two kg/4.4 pound) market with its Raven, the rest of the markets are up for grabs. Thus one of the traditional aviation companies, Boeing, is trying to grab market share via buying, or marketing, many promising UAV designs (A160T, ScanEagle, SolarEagle, Bat and the S-100 Camcopter). Boeing is hoping that one of these designs will catch on big.

Helicopter type UAVs are becoming more popular. The 1.5 ton A160T and .2 ton S-100 are helicopters, and able to hover. The A160T is also competing as a cargo carrier for the U.S. Marines. There are over 200 S-100s on order, mostly by armies and navies eager to try out a helicopter UAV under realistic conditions (including combat).
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Battlefield Smart Phones Being Tested

Battlefield Smart Phones Being Tested

April 28, 2011: After two years of intense effort, the U.S. Department of Defense has come up with a battlefield smart phone design. Sort of. Currently under development is the JBC-P (Joint Battle Command-Platform). Actually, it's called JBC-P Handheld, and it's a bit larger and heavier than your average cell phone (iPhone 4 is 137 grams/.3 pound.) The JBC-P runs Android software and needs a larger battery to handle the encryption requirements, and the need for more time between charges. Prototypes of the JBC-P are currently being tested by troops. Since JBC-P uses the Android operating system, it can use most existing Android apps, and will find lots of skilled Android programmers available to create military-specific apps. The military already knows of hundreds of useful military apps, because app developers, and the troops, have been turning them out already, for use on existing smart phones.

The current tests are partly to determine if a commercial Android smart phone, with a "tactical sleeve" (for protection from rough treatment and moisture) will be rugged enough. If not, a more expensive ruggedized version of a commercial phone will have to be built. This is not a problem, as ruggedized laptop computers have been around since the 1990s, and are common items on battlefields. The prototypes also are testing how robust battlefield adaptations of wi-fi and cell phone communications are, especially when encryption is added.

All this came out of a decade long U.S. Army effort to get the Internet onto the battlefield. This is really, really urgent because the troops continue to demonstrate how important Internet connectivity is to winning battles. There are so many useful tools on the Internet, that simply having access gives you an edge. This has already been demonstrated many times in the past seven years. It was in Iraq that combat troops were first able to obtain Internet access in a combat zone, and the troops quickly demonstrated how useful this was for maintaining morale, and getting the job done. The army hustled, and used commercial firms to quickly arrange access. But this was mainly wired access on bases. The troops want wi-fi while under fire.

This has been driven by a trend, in the last decade, for Internet access to become available on more powerful cell phones ("smart phones"). These devices are extremely popular with the troops, and this is the kind of device they feel comfortable using on the battlefield. So now the army is not only seeking to get Internet access to the battlefield, but to find a way that the troops can access it via a smart phone.

The military is experimenting with using commercial gear to create large wi-fi or cell phone coverage hot spots. This has already been tested, and actually deployed in support of disaster relief operations. There is also a lot of work underway to develop a cell phone that could survive battlefield use.

Two years ago, one defense supplier (Raytheon) responded to what the troops were calling for, and quickly put together RATS (Raytheon Android Tactical System). Taking advantage of the open source Android operating system (think of it as mobile Linux), and the thousands of applications already available for it, RATS combined this with increasingly powerful, and inexpensive smart phone hardware, to produce something the troops want. Actually, RATS isn't a phone, it's a wi-fi device that looks like one (as does the Ipod Touch). RATS has GPS, a compass, vidcam and software that enables users to connect, and show each other's location on the screen. It's also possible to operate robots with RATS, or receive video from a UAV overhead (like the five pound Raven the army uses thousands of.) RATS has mapping software, and the ability to download maps and use them with the wi-fi location system to provide a constantly updated view of where everyone is. Typically, gear like RATS is carried by officers and NCOs (down to team- groups of five troops- leaders or vehicle commanders). RATS can also send or receive video or pix. The touch screen makes RATS easy to use in combat. RATS was developed quickly, in part to demonstrate how quickly one can turn a commercial cell phone into a water and shock proof, encrypted device, ready for the battlefield.

Army brass quickly became aware of RATS, and now there's an effort to get something like it into the hands of the troops (like JBC-P). This speedy response is largely the result of American infantry officers, especially those with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, having become tech-heads. That was not hard to do, because of all the electronic gear combat troops now carry. Officers often have laptops with them in combat, to display maps, overhead UAV video, satellite photos and all manner of data needed for them to fight smarter and more effectively. The troops use night-vision gear, electronic rifle sights and much more. Some get to handle portable radars that can see through walls and binoculars that have laser range finders and electronic links to artillery units. Many of the troops have cell phones. Smart phones, like the iPhone and Android models, are popular. These smart phones can use thousands of programs, and some of these are very useful for military personnel. These gearhead troops understand how useful RATS or iPhone could be with software designed for military purposes.

Now the Department of Defense is trying to develop a smart phone for the combat troops. The biggest problem they will encounter will be the Department of Defense. It is believed that creating a militarized version of the smart phone should be quite possible, as the Department of Defense has been increasingly successful in "militarizing" (often with nothing more than a new coat of paint) superior civilian gear for military use. But the normal time it takes to develop new military tech is measured in years, often a decade or more. Commercial cell phones become obsolete in less than a year. The JBC-P effort is an attempt to show that the military can keep up.

Smart phones need a bit more customizing for military use. First, there is the problem of ruggedness. The battlefield is a hostile environment, and only the sturdy gear survives. The military has already coped with laptop computers and GPS devices. There are military/industrial versions available that survive harsh environments. No reason this cannot be done with smart phones. Actually, it's already been done, by improvising, with soft cases already sold for smart phones. There is always a commercial market for this sort of thing, to supply those who work on construction sites or other dangerous (for delicate gear) environments. This tends to suit troops out in the combat zone. But the other problem, data security, is a larger problem. Most cell phone messages are already encrypted, but not with a strong enough cipher to satisfy the military.

Stronger encryption for smart phones is not a huge problem, but how it is achieved is. That's because the smart phones are so useful and popular because they are rapidly evolving. Military research and development is the opposite of rapidly evolving. So is the Department of Defense procurement bureaucracy, which is infamous for taking decades to get new stuff developed and to the troops. So unless you adapt a system that can use the latest tech, and just add on the padding and military grade crypto, any military smart phones you develop will quickly become obsolete before it even reaches the troops. This has already happened with other electronic items, and the hope is that it won't happen with smart phones as well
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Taiwan's Secret Missiles

Taiwan's Secret Missiles

May 1, 2011: A government official revealed that Taiwan had developed a IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) with a range of 2,000 kilometers. The missile was successfully tested three years ago. Nothing was said about production. Seven years ago, Taiwanese officials discussed developing a 2,000 kilometer range IRBM, and manufacturing 30 of them, along with 120 with a range of 1,000 kilometers. Over the last decade, there have been reports of several different Taiwanese ballistic and cruise missiles developed for use against China. But few of these have been produced, or have been manufactured under great secrecy. Meanwhile, China has deployed about 1,500 ballistic missiles within range of Taiwan.

A decade ago, Taiwan apparently deployed 50 Tien Chi (Sky Spear) SRBM (Short Range Ballistic Missiles). Half were in silos on Tungyin Island, and the rest in some other location. Like most of Taiwan's Surface-to-surface missiles, it was based on a locally developed surface-to-air missile (in this case, Tien Kung 2/Sky Bow 2), with the addition of a booster to extend the range. The Tien Chi had a range of about 500 kilometers, but a small (100 kg/220 pound) warhead. The new IRBMs have a warhead of about half a ton.

Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons, although the nation possess the technical resources to develop such weapons, and perform the engineering work to make these nukes function in a ballistic missile. But Taiwan would be taking a big risk to attempt development of nukes. If China got word of the project, before useable warheads were in service (and thus able to dissuade China from attacking), the Chinese might well invade right away, or at least try to.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Indonesian Carrier Killer Comes Out Of Hiding

Indonesian Carrier Killer Comes Out Of Hiding

April 29, 2011: Indonesia recently test fired a Russian-made Yakhont anti-ship missile, launching it from one of its Van Speijk class frigates. Four years ago, Indonesia bough an undisclosed number of Yakhont missiles from Russia, but since then, nothing was heard about what was done with them. At the time, Indonesia said it wanted to use the Yakhonts to replace its U.S. Harpoon missiles. Both missiles cost about the same ($1.2 million each).

Yakhont (also known as Oniks, P-800 or 3M55) is a 8.9 meter (27.6 foot) long, three ton missile with a 300 kg (660 pound) warhead. Early ship launched versions had a range of 120 kilometers, but the Indonesians apparently have a more recent model, which has a range similar to the Harpoon. The big advantage of the Yakhont is its high speed (about 2,500 kilometers an hour). This makes it more difficult to defend against.

The 546 kg (1,200 pound) Harpoon is 4.6 meters (15 feet) long, has a 222 kg (487 pound) warhead and a range of 220 kilometers. It approaches the target low, at about 860 kilometers an hour. GPS gets the missile to the general vicinity of the target, then radar takes over to identify and hit the target. The Harpoon has successful combat experience going back two decades. Most corvettes and many frigates are small enough to be destroyed by one Harpoon. Yakhont does more damage because of the high speed, and greater weight. Yakhont was originally deployed as a "carrier killer"
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

An atom laser that behaves exactly like a light laser has opened up new possibilities in applications such as holograms

CANBERRA, Australia – An atom laser that behaves exactly like a light laser has opened up new possibilities in applications such as holograms.

A research team from The Australian National University ARC Centre of Excellence for Quantum-Atom Optics has shown that a beam of helium atoms can be made to have properties similar to a coherent laser light beam. The atom study confirms a theory first developed for light nearly 50 years ago by Roy Glauber, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in physics.

When scientists measure the time between the arrivals of the photons in laser beams, they find that the photons are randomly spaced, with all arrival times between photons equally probable. However, incoherent sources – such as lightbulbs – exhibit photon bunching, where it is more likely that photons will arrive within a short time of each other. The bunching is manifested by photons arriving in pairs (second order) or in triplets (third order).

The investigators realized that if they made the atoms extremely cold – within one-millionth of a degree of absolute zero – they could force them to march in step, creating an atom laser that behaves coherently exactly as a laser beam composed of photons. This showed, for the first time, that the same second- and third-order-coherence properties of lasers also apply to atoms. In addition, the cold atom laser demonstrated random distribution of arrival times with no bunching, indicating that it was perfectly coherent.

When the atoms were warmed back up, the group found that they no longer behaved coherently and once again exhibited bunching in pairs and triplets.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Night Vision For Pilots

Night Vision For Pilots

April 26, 2011: For over half a century, the U.S. Department of Defense has been seeking a better night vision system for their pilots, particularly those flying helicopters and low-flying fixed wing aircraft. Decade by decade, the devices have gotten better, but they all had some limitations which, in turn, restricted what pilots could do while flying at night. Now a U.S. firm is demonstrating their HRNVS (High Resolution Night Vision System), which will eliminate the "looking through a straw" problem and provide a much enhanced image. This is one step closer to the perfect night vision system.  It's been a long journey.

It was six years ago that the U.S. Air Force has received the first of a new generation of night vision goggles. The ANVG (Advanced Night Vision Goggles) had a 95 degree field of view, compared to 40 degrees for the old ones. The 40 degree field of view was described as looking through a straw and required the user to look around a lot. This got old real fast, caused fatigue, and was responsible for some accidents. The first ANVGs were given to the crew of AC-130 gunships and the MC-130 transports used by SOCOM (Special Operations Command). Both of these aircraft frequently operate at night. A-10 pilots received them next, along with crews on SOCOM helicopters. The initial order was for about 400. The ANVGs cost about $10,000 each and run for twenty hours on two AA batteries.

Five years ago, another improvement was introduced. This worked by projecting what night vision devices (attached to the pilots helmet) saw, right onto the head up display items already being projected onto the helmet visor used by pilots. But when U.S. Marine pilots began using their Top Owl helmet visors in this way, some of them encountered hyperstereopsis (an exaggerated depth perception view). This was not safe for pilots flying close to the ground, so marines went back to using the older night vision goggles. These, despite the "looking through straws" problem,  at least avoided any depth perception problems. The Top Owl manufacturer (Thales) developed training methods to overcome the effects of hyperstereopsis when flying under 60 meters altitude, and the marines eventually resumed using Top Owl.

If HRNVS survives testing and initial use by combat pilots, this will represent another major step forward in night vision gear for pilots
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Chinese Carrier Defenses Installed

Chinese Carrier Defenses Installed

April 18, 2011: The new Chinese aircraft carrier, the Shi Lang (formerly Varyag) has had its first weapons installed. These were easily identified as FL-3000N anti-missile systems. These are similar to the American RAM anti-missile missile system, except that they come in a 24 missile launcher and are less accurate. FL-3000N was only introduced three years ago, and uses smaller missiles than RAM. The two meter long FL-3000N missiles have a max range of nine kilometers (about half that for very fast incoming missiles). The 120mm, two meter long missiles now use a similar guidance system to RAM, but are not as agile in flight.

Over the last decade, the U.S. Navy Phalanx 20mm autocannon anti-missile system has been more frequently replaced by SeaRAM. What's interesting about this is that SeaRAM is basically the Phalanx system, with the 20mm gun replaced with a box of eleven RAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles. The Phalanx was developed in the 1970s, and entered service in 1977. RAM was developed in the 1980s, and didn't enter service until 1993. RAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (two kilometers) and was originally designed to be aimed using the ship's fire control systems. Phalanx, on the other hand, has its own radar and fire control system and, once turned on, will automatically fire at any incoming missiles. This was necessary, as some anti-ship missiles travel at over a 500 meters a second. With SeaRAM, you've got a little more time, and can knock down the incoming missile farther from the ship. This is important, because it was feared that a large, very fast anti-ship missile (which the Russians prefer, and sell to foreigners), even when shot up by Phalanx, might still end up having parts of it slam into the target ship. Since SeaRAM has eleven missiles ready to fire, it can also engage several targets at once, something the Phalanx could not do.

The RAM missiles are 127mm in diameter, three meters (9.3 feet) long and weigh 73.6 kg (162 pounds) each. The terminal guidance system is heat seeking. Basically, it uses the rocket motor and warhead from the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the guidance system from the Stinger shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. SeaRAM missiles cost about $450,000 each, which is probably at least 50 percent more than the FL-3000N missiles. SeaRAM is meant to provide protection for combat support ships that normally have no defenses, or at least no combat radars and fire control system. The new LCS will use the SeaRAM as well.

The Shi Lang/Varyag is one of the Kuznetsov class carriers that Russia began building in the 1980s. Originally the Kuznetsovs were to be 90,000 ton, nuclear powered ships, similar to American carriers (complete with steam catapults). Instead, because of the high cost, and the complexity of modern (American style) carriers, the Russians were forced to scale back their plans, and ended up with 65,000 ton (full load) ships that lacked steam catapults, and used a ski jump type flight deck instead. Nuclear power was dropped, but the Kuznetsov class was still a formidable design. The 323 meter (thousand foot) long ship normally carries a dozen navalized Su-27s (called Su-33s), 14 Ka-27PL anti-submarine helicopters, two electronic warfare helicopters and two search and rescue helicopters. But the ship was meant to regularly carry 36 Su-33s and sixteen helicopters. The ship carries 2,500 tons of aviation fuel, allowing it to generate 500-1,000 aircraft and helicopter sorties. Crew size is 2,500 (or 3,000 with a full aircraft load.) Only two ships of this class exist; the original Kuznetsov, which is in Russian service, and the Varyag. Like most modern carriers, the only weapons carried are anti-missile systems like Phalanx and FL-3000N, plus some heavy machine-guns (which are often kept inside the ship, and mounted outside only when needed.)
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Laser Measures Protein Interactions

From weblog: Photonics.com:News and Features

Laser Measures Protein Interactions - A laser technique that can measure interactions between proteins tangled in a cell's membrane is expected to help in the discovery of new drugs.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.