Sofcoast

Join Sofcoast at AFCEA West 2012

Join Sofcoast at AFCEA West 2012

We're making a presence at the first Federal show of the year, the West 2012 conference, which will take place January 24-26 at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, California. We'll be exhibiting our MAKO hybrid air system in the STAR-TIDES booth (#602) so be sure to stop by to learn about Hybrid Air Systems and Sofcoast's vision which is to enable more people to see and share more of their world more often and in more cost effective ways.

West 2012 is co-sponsored by AFCEA International and the U.S. Naval Institute, and is the largest defense technology event on the U.S. west coast for communications, electronics, intelligence, information systems and imaging. The theme of this year’s West 2012 conference is “America’s Military at the Crossroads: What’s Out and What’s In for 2012 and Beyond?” Defense and industry leaders will discuss and debate the technologies and approaches for successful military programs this year.

For more information on the West 2012 event, visit: http://www.afcea.org/events/west/12/introduction.asp.

Wavetops: Naval Specal Warfare: 50 years and counting

I thought alot about whether or not to post anything about SEAL Team One's 50'th birthday, which ostensibly is the birthplace and starting point for all SEAL Team's.   I think fellow SEAL and author Dick Couch say's it best, so I'm sharing his well written post on the 50th  birthday from a recent issue of Naval History Magazine.

Hoo-Yah!

////////////////////////////

SEALs: 50 Years and Counting
Issue: Naval History Magazine - February 2012 Volume 26, Number 1
By Dick Couch

 

In its first half century, a once little-known Navy unit has evolved into what is arguably the world’s most celebrated force of combat arms.

Shortly after he took office, President John F. Kennedy directed that all service components develop an expanded capacity for non-nuclear warfare. Specifically, he told Congress, “I am directing the Secretary of Defense to expand rapidly and substantially . . . the orientation of existing forces for the conduct of non-nuclear war, paramilitary operations, and sub-limited or unconventional wars.” As a result of that directive, two new Navy teams were commissioned in January 1962: SEAL Team One (West Coast) and SEAL Team Two (East Coast). The new teams took up residence at the naval amphibious bases in Coronado, California, and Little Creek, Virginia, respectively, where they both reside today.

The acronym SEAL came from a contraction of sea-air-land and was first used by the Navy’s Unconventional Activities Committee, whose recommendations led to the formation of the SEALs. The teams were drawn from underwater demolition team (UDT) veterans, but with mission responsibilities that included airborne and land operations as well as traditional maritime activities. Almost immediately the new teams began to train for direct action and reconnaissance missions on land, coming from or under the sea or from the air.

Early on, basic UDT training was the same as basic SEAL training, hence the name, Basic UDT/SEAL training, which was shortened to BUD/S training. The rigorous conditioning and the notorious Hell Week remained much the same as it had been during the time of UDT pioneer Draper Kauffman and the Navy frogmen of World War II. All graduates of the four-month BUD/S course were sent to Fort Benning, Georgia, for three weeks of Army airborne training. Most returned for duty in one of the UDTs, but a few went straight to a SEAL team. New men and those veterans coming from the UDTs underwent an additional six weeks of training to become operationally qualified SEALs. This new “SEAL training” was an evolutionary, dynamic process. There were no SEAL training manuals. These new SEALs trained their own. Once U.S. involvement in Vietnam was under way, SEALs fresh from combat deployment became cadre instructors and trained those SEALs headed for Vietnam. Today, basic and advanced training for a Navy SEAL takes close to a full a year. Another 18 months of training with a SEAL team is now normal before a new SEAL makes his first operational deployment. Of all special-operations ground-combat components, Navy SEAL training is the longest and arguably, the most difficult.

Perhaps the single most-enduring characteristic of BUD/S training is the high attrition rate. Historically, five good men have to begin the process in order to get one qualified, deployable Navy SEAL. A great deal of time, effort, study, and testing has been devoted to this subject, but little has been done over time to make it more efficient. The physical characteristics of those who make it and those who don’t are strikingly similar. But those who successfully complete BUD/S training seem to stand higher in terms of leadership, self-confidence, self-discipline, self-esteem, and intelligence. They also come from families that have high expectations of their sons. Training is long, rigorous, and painful. Recently, careful attention to recruiting the right men and more sophisticated conditioning methods have resulted in a higher percentage of candidates completing the difficult training. Yet until there is a test for “heart,” or some way to measure who will and will not quit under stress, there will always be a Hell Week and the physical, mental, and emotional crucible that is BUD/S training.

The new SEAL teams focused on commando-style raiding while coming from the sea or through the air. Their training in unconventional and paramilitary warfare involved small-unit tactics for direct-action missions and behind-the-lines reconnaissance. While Vietnam loomed large in their future, that conflict was not the first operational use of SEALs. In the spring of 1962 (a year after the Bay of Pigs disaster in Cuba), a small contingent of SEALs and UDT men locked out of a submarine off the coast of Cuba near Havana. Their mission was to conduct a beach reconnaissance in the event Marines should ever need to land near the Cuban capital. They were later recovered by submarine after successfully completing their mission.

Vietnam—A Defining Moment
While SEALs were created for Cold War–centric contingencies, it was Vietnam that was to define them. The first SEALs arrived in South Vietnam in late 1962 as advisers. SEAL Team One began regular deployments a year later. Early on, the SEALs worked closely with the CIA out of Da Nang, assisting the agency in preparing agents to slip into North Vietnam on covert missions. Specifically, the SEALs trained South Vietnamese commandos in maritime infiltration techniques so they could enter the North from the sea. So the first mission in Vietnam was a true unconventional-warfare activity—training locals to fight the enemy on his own ground. But those efforts were largely unsuccessful. It soon became apparent to the CIA that there was little hope in generating any meaningful local resistance in North Vietnam. Conversely, the North Vietnamese were highly successful in launching an insurgency in the South, which should have told us something. With the landing of the Marines in 1965 and the escalation that followed, the role of American combatants—and the SEALs—became more one of direct-action combat than of unconventional warfare.

With the exception of an ongoing advisory effort, the SEALs began operating in squads and platoons in a direct-action role in Rung Sat Special Zone—a Viet Cong–infested mangrove swamp between Saigon and the South China Sea. Fourteen- to sixteen-man SEAL platoons began combat rotations into the Rung Sat in 1965 and were soon operating from other riverine bases around the lower Mekong Delta. From 1965 through 1972, as platoons from SEAL Teams One and Two conducted direct-action operations against the Viet Cong, the combined strength of the teams grew to close to 400 active SEALs, but there were seldom more than 120 SEALs in Vietnam at any one time.

Most often, SEALs worked for a conventional Army, Navy, or Marine ground-force commander. Early on in the Mekong region, SEALs learned that the key to successful operations was good intelligence. Veteran SEAL petty officers became quite adept at ferreting out information from the local sources. They set up networks and paid informants. For the most part, they had not been trained for that; those intelligence-collection skills were learned on the job to better accomplish the mission. And good intelligence led to good missions. Operationally, SEALs were often assisted by Boat Support Unit One (West Coast) and Two (East Coast), the forerunners of today’s Special Boat Teams. On many a SEAL mission, the boat-support sailors would take SEAL elements close to the objective, whence the SEALs would make the final journey to the target in sampans—moving through the night as the Viet Cong did. These missions were developed and launched as unilateral direct-action operations, but SEALs seldom went on a mission without a local guide or a small contingent of Vietnamese scouts.

SEAL platoons often operated with a half dozen or more scouts called Kit Carsons—former Viet Cong who had defected under a sanctioned amnesty program. The scouts provided local knowledge—and local intelligence. They lived with the SEALs, and when in the field, they often walked on point or very close to the SEAL point man. When patrolling in hostile territory, SEALs were always concerned with booby traps—small IEDs before they were known as such. When a scout refused to walk down a trail and recommended an alternate route to the objective, the SEALs were only too glad to follow his advice.

Focused on Insurgents, Ready for AnythingMost SEAL operations in Vietnam, not unlike present-day SEAL operations in Afghanistan, targeted insurgents. Back then, it was the Viet Cong. The most successful operations were a result of locally developed intelligence on a specific target—an arms cache, an enemy base camp, or a senior Viet Cong leader. As with SEAL operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam-era SEALs operated from relatively secure bases that were under the control of a conventional sector commander. Most operations were conducted at night in enemy-controlled territory, but SEALs then, like now, stood ready for a quick-reaction mission to rescue a downed pilot or a POW.

In the final tally, 48 SEALs lost their lives in Vietnam and more than 200 were wounded. Estimates of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (NVA) soldiers killed by SEAL operations run as high a 2,000. (The UDTs also deployed to Vietnam but not in the numbers of SEALs. While their combat roles were mainly restricted to reconnaissance and demolition duties, they suffered12 killed and about 40 wounded.) Three SEALs were awarded the Medal of Honor in Vietnam. To date, two SEALs—one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan—have received the same honor, both posthumously.

There were, however, SEAL advisers who conducted business in classic Army Special Forces “by, with, and through” manner. One such enterprise was the Vietnamese SEAL program, the Lien Doc Nguoi Nhia (LDNNs), meaning, literally, “soldiers who fight under the sea.” Those brave South Vietnamese soldiers, when properly trained and led, could be very effective. LDNNs were involved in two of the actions where SEALs were awarded the Medal of Honor, and one LDNN was awarded the Navy Cross, the only non-American to receive our nation’s second-highest decoration in the Vietnam War. Today he lives in the United States and is treated as a respected alumnus of the SEAL community.

Perhaps the most successful SEAL operations in Vietnam were conducted by the SEALs who worked with the Provincial Reconnaissance Units, the PRUs. The PRU program was a CIA-sponsored effort that later became part of the secret Phoenix Program. The PRUs drew their fighters from Vietnamese rural villages and the Nung, tribesmen of Chinese origin who lived in Vietnam. The villagers and tribesmen agreed to fight on the side of the South Vietnamese government so long as they could fight as a unit and their pay was controlled by the CIA. The CIA paid and they fought. Navy SEALs, along with Army Special Forces soldiers and Marines, served as PRU advisers. In the case of the SEALs, there were anywhere from 60 to 120 Nungs for every SEAL adviser or pair of advisers. It was lonely duty for a SEAL, sometimes living day-in-day-out with those rough men in their home villages, with only an interpreter for communication.
PRU advisers were always chosen from among veteran SEALs. The PRUs operated in 14 of the 16 provinces in IV Corps—the southern military region of South Vietnam. After being formed in 1967, PRUs and their American advisers killed more than 20,000 Viet Cong and NVA and took thousands of prisoners. Postwar North Vietnamese records confirm that the PRUs were the deadliest and most effective force fielded in South Vietnam.

 

During the decade of SEAL deployment rotations to Vietnam, the operational focus and training within the SEAL teams was all about Southeast Asia. Tactics, weapons, and equipment were designed and developed around direct-action operations in a jungle environment. The SEALs’ mission-preparation and predeployment training was exclusively built around combat in Vietnam. Yet, within certain constraints, the SEALs had a free hand in choosing which missions they would undertake. With that latitude comes a great deal of responsibility. Today in Afghanistan, platoon officers, platoon chiefs, and task-unit commanders have that same latitude and responsibility. While it leads to operational success, it also means those combat leaders must make these life-and-death decisions on a daily basis. It means that they have to balance the importance of the mission against the risk to their men—not easy then and no easier now.

In its first ten years of existence, the life of a Navy SEAL was one of continuous combat rotations to Vietnam. Officers might get in two or three combat tours, but enlisted SEALs went back time and again. In spite of the broad unconventional-warfare portfolio handed the SEALs, their training and deployments were all about operations in Vietnam. In short, SEALs became very good jungle fighters and little else. They maintained minimum qualifications in diving and parachuting, but seldom practiced those in an operational scenario. During the late 1970s and early ’80s, operating budgets were tight. UDTs and SEAL teams shrank to pre-Vietnam levels in the number of personnel, if not the team structure; there remained four underwater demolition teams and two SEAL teams. A fifth UDT had been commissioned in the summer of 1968 for duty in Vietnam, but it was decommissioned in the summer of 1971. There was even talk of disbanding the SEALs and the UDTs altogether. Today there are more than 2,000 operational SEALs; at the height of the Vietnam War there were just under 450.

1984: Conversion of the UDTs
While the SEALs endured continuous deployment rotations to Vietnam—rotations similar to those experienced by SEALs in Iraq and Afghanistan—the UDTs continued to evolve underwater, focusing much of their time and energy on combat-swimmer operations and the complex business of operating wet mini-submersibles from parent nuclear submarines. Those operations became so specialized and all-encompassing that in 1984, two of the four remaining UDTs were converted to SEAL teams and the other two became SEAL delivery-vehicle teams or SDV Teams. The new SDV teams were manned by fully mission-capable SEALs, but they specialized in underwater and over-the-beach operations. With the conversion of the UDTs and the growth of the SEALs, the current disposition of SEAL/SDV teams is as follows: SEAL Teams One, Three, Five, and Seven are based in Coronado. SEAL Teams Two, Four, Eight, and Ten are located in the Norfolk, Virginia, area. SDV Team One is in Hawaii. There are two reserve SEAL teams, Seventeen and Eighteen.

There currently is no SEAL Team Six. The raid that killed Osama bin Laden was carried out by a SEAL-centric special missions unit of the Joint Special Operations Command. Those in the U.S. Special Operations Command, and the author, avoid discussing the unit and its current designation. Nonetheless, it has been identified in the news media as SEAL Team Six.

Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War all saw SEALs deployed in direct-action, special-reconnaissance, or search-and-rescue roles. In all of these conflicts, their work was maritime-related and in support of conventional battle plans or expeditionary warfare objectives. And in each of those conflicts, SEALs worked alone or as a diversion to main-force activity. Through the 1990s, there were isolated engagements with the emerging threat we now broadly categorize as terrorism. Perhaps the most engaging and sustained activities of that period were the operations mounted in support of the oil embargo imposed by the United Nations on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and enforced largely by the U.S. Navy. In an effort to deter the smuggling of oil out of Iraq, and the smuggling in of contraband, SEALs regularly boarded ships bound to and from Iraq. That activity came to be known as VBSS—visit, boarding, search, and seizure, a key element in maritime interdiction strategy. Saddam tried to sneak his oil to market in tankers. SEALs, fast-roping from helicopters, would board the tankers in international waters and detain them. It soon became a cat-and-mouse game, with SEALs swinging aboard at night as tankers made their runs for the territorial waters of friendly Arab states. That challenging and largely successful SEAL mission came to an end with 9/11.

Self-Contained Squadrons Evolve
The attacks of 9/11, operations in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq quickly drew the full attention and deployment commitments of our military to include Naval Special Warfare assets. For the SEALs, all deployments became combat deployments, and that’s the way it has been for ten years. There were maritime operations associated with the initial combat operations in Iraq, but for the most part, SEALs have taken their game inland, to the mountains in Afghanistan, then to the cities and villages of Iraq, and now, currently, back to Afghanistan.

Prior to 2000 and the war on terrorism, SEALs routinely deployed with units of the Fleet and to theater commanders such as the Pacific Command, European Command, Central Command (the Middle East), or Southern Command (Central/South America). While on those deployments, they were attached to a parent command—afloat or ashore—under a conventional-force command structure. SEAL platoons deployed with little command presence and limited logistic or operational support. On the West Coast, for example, Naval Special Warfare Group One kept two platoons with Central Command and four platoons with the Pacific Command.

Since 2000, SEALs have deployed with their own integral command, control, and support organizations—the SEAL squadron. A SEAL squadron has three to four standalone SEAL task units, each with two SEAL platoons and an integrated combat-support package. The task units, with their internal intelligence and targeting capability, have dramatically enhanced SEAL and Naval Special Warfare capabilities in the operational theaters. The deployment of SEALs with this expanded staffing and combat-support capability in self-contained squadrons was put in place just in time for the heavy combat rotations that followed 9/11.

Currently, a deployed SEAL squadron commander reports to his regional special-operations task-force commander. In that role, he becomes a task-group commander and directs the activities of his SEAL task units. And when his task-force commander also directs the activities of allied or coalition special-operations forces, he becomes a joint special-operations task-force commander. In addition to the deployed SEAL squadrons, there are deployed special-missions units that are a part of the Joint Special Operations Command. The activity of our special-missions units, who they are, and what they do, is classified. They include Army, Navy, and Air Force tier-one special operations force assets, and they are known to range all across Iraq and Afghanistan. It was an element of these “special” special operators who killed Osama bin Laden.
A final word on that special-operations ta

sk-force, task-group, task-unit breakdown: Those are lines of command, communication, and support, but at none of those levels do the commanders or commanding officers own battlespace; they control no territory. SEALs and other special operators live and work in an area or sector of a conventional area commander. That means they do their work and fight on turf that belongs to an Army or Marine Corps owner. Because they do not fall within that commander’s direct chain of command, they must work closely with the conventional-force command in the conduct of their special operations. On first pass, this might seem limiting or restrictive in the conduct of special operations or on the freedom of special-operations units. In some sectors that may have been true, and it is an ongoing concern for the conventional battlespace commanders. But for the most part, the SEALs assigned to those task groups and task units in Iraq and Afghanistan thrive in that environment. In fact, they have nothing but praise for their conventional Army or Marine battlespace landlords. And they reserve their highest praise for the soldiers and Marines with whom they share the battlespace.

* * * * * * *
*As a writer and former “team guy,” it has been my honor and privilege to be associated with the Navy Underwater Demolition and SEAL Teams for most of these past 50 years. As a young man growing up in Indiana in the 1950s, I eagerly read The Silent World by Jacques Cousteau, and of those intrepid frogmen who went ashore ahead of the Marines in World War II. I wanted to be one of them. After graduating from the Naval Academy in 1967, and a tour on board a destroyer, I found myself in BUD/S training, suffering alongside enlisted sailors who wanted to be frogmen as badly as I did. There were 79 of us in that BUD/S class; 13 of us graduated. I’m proud to have served in the UDTs as well as the SEAL teams. All of us who were in the teams in Vietnam are proud of our heritage. We are immensely proud of the current generation of Navy SEALs. We stand in the shadow of their accomplishments and professionalism. And we are very proud to have played a part in the development of what is now modern Naval Special Warfare. We have a saying in the teams: “The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday.” It may not have been easy, but it certainly was rewarding.

"Shifty" By Chuck Yeager

Sharing a story written by Chuck Yeager forwarded to me today.

This story resonates with me because when I was a teenager I was a busboy and waiter at a Holiday Inn hotel in my home town.  I worked with a man who looked like a pit bull but with the kindest eyes and warmest smile I've ever seen.  His name was "Pappy". One day "Pappy" showed me a Time Magazine and on the cover was The Supreme Allied Commander of European Allied Forces, General Dwight D. Eisenhower and standing around him was a grizzled group of 101st Airborne Paratroopers.  "Pappy" showed me the image and standing next to General Eisenhower was - you guessed it - a younger looking pitbull of a man - "Pappy".  You see, "Pappy" had jumped in to Normandy on D-Day.  Before he hit the ground he'd been shot three times.  Through neck, through his left wrist and through his calf.  Amazingly, his adrenaline was surging through him and he actually didn't know he'd been shot.  He landed and assembled with a couple of other paratroopers and they took the fight to the enemy and fought valiantly that day. Later a combat medic pulled him aside and told him he needed to be treated and was then taken to a field hospital and treated.  

The point here is that I'm thankful to have known "Pappy" and for the moments I spent with him washing dishes or cleaning up the kitchen.  I knew that I was in the presence of someone special -I just didn't realize how true that was until much later in my life.  

So that's my humble preface to a remarkable story told by a remarkable man about another remarkable man.

Enjoy your weekend and do yourself a favor, spend a minute to reflect on the individual sacrifices so many people have made to protect our country, freedoms and constitution.

For one weekend, please forget about politics and focus on individual courage, commitment, honor and sacrifice.

Go out of your way to find a veteran and just simply and humbly say thank you.

Thank you.

Cheers,

John

-------------------------------

"Shifty"

By Chuck Yeager 


Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy 

Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st 

Airborne Infantry. If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the 

History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 

episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them. 

I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't 

know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having 

trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was 

at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle," the symbol of 

the 101st Airborne, on his hat. 

Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne 

or if his son was serving. He said that he had been in the 

101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, 

and how many jumps he made. 

Quietly he said: "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, 

and was in until sometime in 1945 ..." 

At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training 

jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . do you know 

where Normandy is?" 

I told him "yes, I know exactly where Normandy is, and I know what 

D-Day was." At that point he said "I also made a second jump into 

Holland , into Arnhem ." I was standing with a genuine war hero ... 

and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of 

D-Day. 

I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France , and he said 

"Yes... And it 's real sad because, these days, so few of the guys are 

left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip." 

I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in 

coach while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to 

get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came 

forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have 

it, that I'd take his in coach. 

He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are 

still some who remember what we did and who still care is enough to 

make an old man very happy." His eyes were filling up as he said it. 

Shifty died on Jan. l7 after fighting cancer. 

There was no parade. 

No big event in Staples Center . 

No wall-to-wall, back-to-back 24x7 news coverage. 

No weeping fans on television. 

And that's not right! 

Let's give Shifty his own memorial service, online, in our own quiet way. 

Rest in peace, Shifty. 

Chuck Yeager, Maj. General [ret.]

-------------------------

Signals & Drumbeats: China Targets UAS As Growth Sector

China Targets UAS As Growth Sector
May 5, 2011

By Graham Warwick 

Washin <<image001.jpg>> gton

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/UAVs/WJ-600-RobertWall.jpgThe display of dozens of unmanned-aircraft models at last November’s Zhuhai air show made it clear that China, industrially and militarily, is moving rapidly to catch up—and perhaps ultimately overtake—the West in this burgeoning sector of aerospace.

In this defense-dominated field, China cannot look to the West for technical expertise and experienced suppliers, as it has done in the commercial airliner and helicopter sectors, but the uncanny familiarity of many of the aircraft on display at Zhuhai indicates the Chinese are openly copying successful designs to speed their development of unmanned systems.

Among aircraft presented in model form, or shown flying on videos, were Chinese analog of Israel’s Heron and the U.S. Raven, Shadow, Predator and Global Hawk. Together they cover the gamut of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) from hand-held short-range to medium-altitude and high-altitude long-endurance (MALE/HALE).

When all the videos and models are assessed, “it looks like the People’s Liberation Army is taking the best of the tactical, MALE/HALE designs and making them their own,” says Ron Stearns, research director and partner with market analysts G2 Solutions. “They are copying mature designs so they can get quickly to where they can work the command-and-control and operational concepts needed for real unmanned capability.”

The scope and speed of Chinese unmanned-aircraft development has both industrial and military implications, particularly for the U.S. Widespread use of UAS for surveillance and strike in Iraq and Afghanistan has generated strong interest from other countries, but U.S. exports are tightly constrained by guidelines intended to prevent the proliferation of cruise missiles. China, with no such constraints, has made UAS a new focus of military exports.

The military significance of China’s move into unmanned aircraft is harder to estimate because, despite the dozens of models at Zhuhai, only a handful are known to have flown based on photographs and videos. Unknown is how many, if any, have entered service. China has operated tactical UAS for more than two decades, but the more advanced designs may still be in development, or operational only in limited numbers.

“It is very difficult to drill down to the reality of what the Chinese are doing in remotely piloted aircraft, but they are clearly accelerating in their ability to develop and deliver leading-edge technology,” says David Deptula, CEO/managing director of system-integrator MAV6 and former U.S. Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. “We see it in the J-20 [stealth fighter]. It’s more than just a copy.”

China’s industry began by building copies of Russian and other aircraft before evolving an indigenous design capability; the unmanned sector is on a similar path. Although some of the UAS appear to be straight copies of Western design, others—such as the Heron-like BZK-005 and Predator-class Pterodactyl-1—adapt proven configurations to Chinese requirements.

“We see in the variety of designs that they are exploring the spectrum of potential remotely piloted aircraft,” says Deptula. The Chinese already have capabilities in certain areas, he says, pointing to their use of Israeli-supplied Harpy anti-radar drones and the conversion of hundreds of their older fighters like the F-6 to remotely piloted decoys. “Just as decoys they have the potential to make any engagement more complex, and we’ll continue to see them exploring the potential [of unmanned aircraft].”

Whether the Chinese military has the ability to make the best use of unmanned systems is unclear. “The answer is a qualified yes and no,” believes Deptula. “They have a lot of technology, but not a lot of experience.” But where the U.S. focus has been on surveillance and strike, China could gain an advantage by using unmanned aircraft in other roles.

Stearns expects China to use UAS for anti-access and area denial missions, as well as for persistent surveillance and strike. He points to the jet-powered WJ-600 unmanned combat aircraft shown at Zhuhai, which resembles the U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile but carries weapons and was portrayed operating against a carrier battle group. He calls the relatively unsophisticated WJ-600 a “nasty surprise,” and says Chinese unmanned aircraft “don’t have to be that good to do asymmetric things.”

But China could close a technology gap quickly, helped by the wealth of information on Western UAS available openly or acquired by cyber penetration. “The U.S. Defense Department is spending $5-6 billion a year on R&D and procurement of UAS. China could easily be spending $2-3 billion,” Stearns says.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/04/25/AW_04_25_2011_p62-312195.xml&headline=China%20Targets%20UAS%20As%20Growth%20Sector

Related articles

• Boeing's Next-Gen Drone 'Phantom Ray' Takes Maiden Flight (foxnews.com)
• World's first hummingbird-like unmanned aircraft system takes flight (gizmag.com)

Next Gen Lighter Than Air Systems

Loved this article from Popular Science...

The Next Generation of Dirigibles Takes Flight

By Barry Harbaugh Posted 04.20.2011 at 10:20 am

 

Electroactive Polymer (EAP)-Propelled Blimp EMPA

View Photo Gallery

A whirring comes across the sky. From 20,000 feet above the Mexican border or Afghanistan’s Korengal Valley, a vehicle as long as the Chrysler building is tall drifts into the stratosphere. It looms like a cloud and stays put for 21 days, scanning for body heat below. These blimps are lighter than air, fuel-efficient and quiet—which is why they could become the military’s go-to vehicles for surveillance and transport.

Related articles

• Spyeye sperm-blimp in US flight trials (go.theregister.com)

DoD to 'throw away' acquisition process

Image via Wikipedia

Posted on: Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:00 AM
Author: Defense.gov - Top DoD News

The Pentagon’s top acquisitions official yesterday asked Congress to help set up a funding system so the Defense Department can more quickly meet deployed warfighters’ most urgent requests.

Ashton B. Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics, thanked the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee for recently approving two department requests to reprogram appropriated funds so defense officials could quickly field requests from deployed units.

“I want you to know that I have been working hard to ensure that funds approved for transfer are being put to work immediately to get urgently needed equipment to the field,” Carter said in prepared testimony. “Upon your approval of the last reprogramming request, my team went to work to energize the entire acquisition system from contracting to training to fielding, getting the funds released promptly, [and] making these programs the highest priority.”

Carter said he meets almost daily with his team that coordinates urgent operational needs and ensures that every defense organization understands the urgency and the authorities provided to execute the response.

“As in any military operation, such unity of effort is a prerequisite for achieving the mission – in this case, the mission of rapid fielding,” he said.

The process of defense officials asking Congress to reprogram funds earmarked for other areas to pay for urgent operational needs is one of the department’s primary means of meeting urgent warfighter requests, Carter said. “But it is not ideal,” he added.

“We have largely succeeded in identifying and moving billions [of dollars] within acquisition and other accounts to respond to [urgent warfighter needs],” he said, “but significant delay can occur in identifying a source of funds.”

The tight fiscal climate and operating under continuing resolutions have made it increasingly difficult to find extra money, even for urgent needs, the undersecretary said.

“The department would like to work with you to identify better mechanisms,” he told the panel, noting that the fiscal 2012 budget request – as it has in previous years – included creation of a joint urgent operational needs response fund. The budget request included $200 million to start the fund, which would be equally divided between the department’s base and overseas contingency operations budgets, he said.

“Although this amount is small relative to what we have routinely expended responding to [urgent needs], the value of the fund is that execution can begin before the full reprogramming process is complete,” he said. “This can save months, and thus save lives and ensure mission success.”

Related articles

• It's about time... (sofcoast.com)
• DoD's Acquisition Chief Wants A FY2011 Appropriations Bill (nationalspacestudiescenter.wordpress.com)
• As Congress Stalls on Budget, Military Forced to Spend More (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• How To Fix the System (dodtech.wordpress.com)
• Defense acquisition chief foresees more industry mergers - Nextgov (nextgov.com)

Signals & Drumbeats: SEAL's use of Aerial Drones a mainstay

Image via Wikipedia

As one of the first if not the first Technical Special Reconnaissance (TSR) Officer's in Naval Special Warfare, I thought this was a good article for the average person to understand what's happening in SOF and in the SEAL Team's regarding use of drones and the overall theme that "ISR is critical".

Cheers,

J.Surmont

/////////////////

May 2011 

By Grace V. Jean 

To accommodate the growth of unmanned systems in the covert operations community, Naval Special Warfare Command this month will commission a new active-duty group that will concentrate the component’s remotely piloted aircraft, underwater systems and robotic programs and personnel under a single entity.   

The establishment of Naval Special Warfare Group 10 reflects the increasing importance of drones in the elite forces. 

“I can think of nowhere where SEALs are operating today where they’re devoid of UAS support,” said Cmdr. Robert Witzleb, the director of technical special reconnaissance at Naval Special Warfare Command.

Because frogmen are less likely to be swimming with fins than boating and ambling ashore, SEAL teams are relying heavily on unmanned aircraft more than underwater robots to accomplish their missions.

The Navy is developing a new robotic platform called small tactical unmanned aircraft system, or STUAS. The program intends to begin fielding the aircraft as early as next year.

The systems will complement the Insitu Inc.-made ScanEagle, a commercial technology that NSW procured as an interim solution for its intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance needs. Naval Special Warfare personnel who are not trained as SEALs fly that system.

STUAS, which is being developed by Insitu, will accommodate a 75-pound payload — a drastic improvement over its predecessor’s 5-pound limit. It is also a rail-launched system with greater endurance and higher altitude capability. 

“Acquiring STUAS allows us to fill a gap,” said Witzleb. “The only option we have right now is to request a Predator or Reaper.”

By design, the system will be operated by dedicated Naval Special Warfare personnel who are not SEALs, said Witzleb, who is also the commanding officer of the Naval Oceanography Special Warfare Center. He oversees about 100 personnel who provide meteorology and oceanography support to NSW. They also have a secondary function as unmanned systems operators.

“There’s just no time to take a SEAL who has all these other responsibilities — being able to jump out of airplanes, being able to combat dive, all these other skills and then heap on UAS operations,” explained Witzleb. “NSW has gotten smart over the past 10 years by bringing on folks who are not SEALs, not trained combat divers and parachutists, to do the work on behalf of SEALs.”

However, it is true that every SEAL is conceivably a pilot when it comes to the small, hand-launched systems such as the Raven or Puma, which are allocated much like other gear, whether it’s rifles or radios, he added.

”The ability of a SEAL to stand up from a fighting position and hand-launch a UAS that can then be used to do force protection over movements or locate an enemy’s firing position near instantaneously, is never going to go away,” Witzleb said.

For the larger systems, the UAS operators form detachments that marry up with SEALs on deployments. They can break down into smaller groups or aggregate into a larger element as necessary in the field.

“We have designed ourselves in such a way that the smallest conceivable subdivision of NSW operations would be able to have some UAS capability associated with it,” said Witzleb.

When STUAS comes online, it will not replace ScanEagle. “There was never an intention to procure STUAS and then allow ScanEagle to collect dust. With current budget pressures, ScanEagle is envisioned to continue to be part of our family of systems,” said Witzleb.

Underwater robotic systems are also a part of the family, but because of budgetary constraints and war priorities, the semi-autonomous hydrographic reconnaissance vehicle and others have not been maturing as quickly as the airborne platforms.

“I think everyone recognizes that on short notice, NSW could once again find themselves operating in the littorals and not landlocked, and those UUV programs could be every bit as important in that operating environment as they have been in the past,” said Witzleb.

“If we were not resource-constrained, we would probably still be making large investments and continuing development of UUV systems. However tradeoffs have to be made. Right now, with most SEALS having two feet on the ground, bigger investments are being made in airborne systems.”

Related articles

• 41st Annual UDT-SEAL Reunion (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• U.S. flying drones over Mexico in drug war (cbsnews.com)
• Drones Over Upstate New York (timesunion.com)

Thinktank NAS Integration Primer

Thought this was a well written thinktank primer about NAS integration.

///////

Flying the Friendly Skies: Merging UAS into Civil Airspace
______________________________

_

March 2011


Flying the Friendly Skies: Merging UAS into Civil Airspace

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have transformed modern warfare and are expected to have a similar transformational impact as they are routinely integrated into our national airspace. A wide range of civilian applications are envisioned for UAS (also commonly referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles, remotely piloted aircraft, and other names), including border patrol, crop dusting, cargo delivery, traffic reports, weather forecasting, and a long list of other potential applications. Some of these UAS will be as big as a Boeing 737 and others will be launched by hand.

Several questions face the Federal Aviation Administration: How will UAS be integrated safely into our national airspace? How airworthy must the UAS be? How will the safety of people on the ground be ensured? What's the best way to provide air traffic control? And how can the risk of mid-air collisions be mitigated?

The introduction of UAS into the national airspace is part of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), which is a multi-agency government program tasked with transforming the U.S. National Airspace System to meet the nation's future aviation needs. In addition to the FAA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security play critical roles in NextGen. MITRE works closely with each of these government organizations.

Different Cultures

Since September 2009, a team of MITRE experts from across the company has been working under the auspices of a special corporate team to better align MITRE's work with sponsors to introduce UAS into civilian airspace.

"We have strong relationships with the FAA, DoD, and DHS," says Tim Szczerbinski, executive director of MITRE's Enterprise Integration division and member of the UAS Leadership Edge team. "If there's one area that requires you to be able to think 'big enterprise,' it's UAS."

In addition to Szczerbinski and others from MITRE's DoD FFRDC, the team includes members from our DHS and FAA FFRDCs as well. "We come from different sponsor bases, and we have different customer expectations, and clearly different organizational cultures," Szczerbinski says. "However, we all have the same desired outcome-to get UAS to fly safely and routinely in the national airspace."

Differences in Vocabulary

The UAS Leadership Edge team began by working with the DoD and the DHS to identify each agency's priority needs for routine operation of UAS in civilian airspace. Next, they approached the FAA to discuss the development of a roadmap for defining and achieving acceptable UAS capability.

"Our customers would often state the same issues and concerns, but they'd use different words, or use them only in the context of their environments," says John Kreger, chief systems engineer for the Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute, which MITRE operates on behalf of DHS. "We're trying to get over that- overcome the differences in vocabulary and start to identify the common issues and concerns people have about UAS operation."

"What we did, basically, was listen to what they were saying and then figure out a way forward incorporating their concerns," says Szczerbinski. "That diversity of thought and sponsor bases was initially perceived to be an impediment, but it actually was what made us successful."

Now, when Kreger speaks to his DHS customers about UAS, he doesn't come alone. If a DHS official has a question about the FAA views on UAS, Kreger can refer that query to Dave Hamrick, an executive director in MITRE's FAA FFRDC and a Leadership Edge team member.

Sense-and-Avoid Simulation

Last June, the team invited DoD and FAA officials to McLean to view a realistic simulation of the use of ground-based sense-and-avoid radar systems to manage UAS. This radar technology offers the potential of producing air traffic data that can be passed on to UAS pilots so they can avoid other aircraft.

"This simulation enabled these groups to start talking," says Chris Jella, a senior principal multi-discipline systems engineer. "It also enabled MITRE to be a focal point for folks to get together to start discussing the various issues."

Szczerbinski agrees. "The participants in the simulation were energized by it," he says. "I think they began to see what we were trying to do. People came to me after and said that if there was anything they could do to help us out, they would be honored to do it again."

After watching this demo, Air Force Major General Marke Gibson invited FAA and MITRE leaders to Creech Air Force Base in Nevada to see how the military manages UAS in the skies over Afghanistan. MITRE has worked closely with the Air Force at Creech to improve these operations.

Another experiment-the Limited Deployment-Cooperative Airspace Project (LD-CAP)-is scheduled for 2012. LD-CAP is a research initiative to create an experimental environment to evaluate the viability of a cooperative, autonomous sense-and-avoid capability for UAS. The project will focus on what could be done if all aircraft in a particular airspace can transmit their positions to UAS pilots, and what those pilots can do to fly UAS safely.

The goal of LD-CAP is to inform policy discussions by producing operational and technical data from evaluations in a live operational setting. The project will be capped with experiments in North Dakota to evaluate cooperative sense-and- avoid capabilities. "We've been on our internal roadmap for over a year, and so far, we've hit every mark," says Szczerbinski. "There's been many a speed bump, but we've been very focused on the overarching sponsor outcome, and we believe that it's in the nation's interest that we get this technology out there.

"People talk about MITRE speaking with one voice. We think it's even more important that MITRE listen with 'one ear'-to hear what our customers and sponsors are saying and drive toward a common outcome. Everything else becomes details and tactics."

-by Russell Woolard
http://www.mitre.org/news/digest/defense_intelligence/03_11/unmanned_systems.html

Related articles

• Thoughtstream: When "soon" really isn't so..."soon" (sofcoast.com)
• Air traffic overhaul hinges on 'human factor' (cnn.com)
• The future of NextGen (thehill.com)
• Will air traffic overhaul make us safer? (cnn.com)
• Can the FAA Get Rid of Air Traffic Controllers? (theatlantic.com)
• Airspace victory planned (magnoliavoice.com)
• FAA Issues New Rules For Air Traffic Controllers (wnyc.org)

Signals & Drumbeats: Delayed U.S. Budget a "Hidden Tax" on taxpayers

Thanks to David Place for forwarding this to me...

/////

Stalled U.S. Budget A 'Hidden Tax,' Pentagon's Carter Says
(BLOOMBERG NEWS 30 MAR 11) ... Michelle Jamrisko

The failure by Congress to pass a budget is a "hidden tax" costing the Pentagon millions of dollars, the Defense Department's top procurement official said. "It adds a dollop of cost overhead to everything we do," which hasn't been calculated, though it "certainly measures in the millions of dollars," Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told an industry conference yesterday in Miami. Congress must pass a budget or another continuing resolution by April 8 to avoid a government shutdown.

"It's inefficient and uneconomical to proceed in this kind of herky-jerky fashion," Carter said. "Each and every manager in the department is struggling with this reality, having to upset your carefully calibrated plans." Once a budget is approved, the Pentagon must focus on trimming costs in the $200 billion it spends on services, Carter said in the speech to the National Defense Industrial Association conference.
"What the public fixes on and what members of Congress fix on are big acquisition programs," he said at the annual meeting of hundreds of defense industry and government representatives. "It's really only one-seventh of the dough."

Of the $700 billion in the Defense Department's budget, about $400 billion is spent on private vendors for products and services, Carter said. Government and industry should also focus more on sustainment costs of programs, which make up as much as 70 percent of total program costs, instead of the initial phases of development and procurement that get more attention, he said.

Defense contractors shouldn't be concerned that department savings will mean a loss in profit, Carter said. "We are looking to eliminate unproductive costs," he said. "We aren't looking to save money by cutting profit."

A Pentagon effort to slash $100 billion in contracting costs will in part target food, translation and maintenance services, Carter said in testimony before the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Washington yesterday.

Carter said in November he was initiating a "Better Buying Power" project, which seeks more value from the $400 billion the Defense Department spends annually on contracting. The recommendations include an increased use of fixed-price contracts and better market research. A related memo found that the Pentagon's contracting capability for services is "much less mature" than its ability to buy weapons.

///////

Related articles

• As Congress Stalls on Budget, Military Forced to Spend More (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Defense acquisition chief foresees more industry mergers - Nextgov (nextgov.com)
• Letter: The Pentagon and Business (nytimes.com)

NPR Article about Drones

Here's an excellent NPR piece on Drones, National Airspace Access and a very large industry in it's infancy.

One of the most important comments made were the comment by Chris Anderson of DIY Drones that "we're at about the 1977 point in the birth of the unmanned systems industry compared to the birth of the computer industry"

Cheers!
John Surmont
Founding CEO
Sofcoast

//////////////////////////

NPR Transcript Below:

//////////////////////////

Heard on All Things Considered

March 14, 2011 - MICHELE NORRIS, host:

We're going to hear now about a new kind of drone. I'm talking about the unmanned remote-controlled aircraft the U.S. military has been using for years to conduct surveillance and launch attacks on isolated targets. Well, small homemade versions of these flying robots have become widely popular, first with hobbyists and now with entrepreneurs.

NPR's Carrie Kahn reports that the tiny civilian aircraft may have lots of potential, but the government isn't quite sure how to deal with them.

CARRIE KAHN: In a field west of Los Angeles, John Steiner(ph) throws a handheld drone into the air.

(Soundbite of field)

Mr. JOHN STEINER: OK. So, here we go. Clear prop.

Unidentified Man: It's clear.

KAHN: Within seconds, the four-pound plane rises so high, it's almost out of sight.

(Soundbite of drone)

Mr. STEINER: You can barely hear it when it's flying overhead.

KAHN: And that's the point. Equipped with a camera, the drone made by AeroVironment is used by the military. Small enough to fit in a soldier's backpack, it's easily assembled and launched to scout out potential enemies. The company makes three different sizes, all lightweight, even a radio reporter can launch one.

You got to have a good arm on you.

(Soundbite of drone)

KAHN: Oh, that was a wimpy throw.

(Soundbite of laughter)

KAHN: But not too wimpy. The drone flew and sent back pictures, including live video of the surrounding areas.

Steve Gitlin of AeroVironment thinks about the commercial applications for these small flying machines. Instead of launching expensive helicopters, for example, law enforcement can throw up a drone. Monitoring miles of oil pipelines would be easier with the auto-piloted aircraft. And they could be used in counting wildlife or even tracking movie stars.

Mr. STEVE GITLIN (AeroVironment): Paparazzi have been contacting us for years with an interest in using our systems for those kinds of missions. We can probably sell it to them. But that doesn't mean the FAA is going to let them use it.

KAHN: In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration does not allow small aircraft like these to be used commercially. The FAA declined repeated requests for an interview. But in an email, the agency said it's working on new rules governing use of some small unmanned aircraft.

Chris Anderson runs a website called DIY Drones. It's a clearinghouse for drone hobbyists around the world. He says like the Internet, drones got their start with the military. In the past few years, the technology has rapidly expanded and become widely available on the Internet. Anderson says it's time to let hobbyists and entrepreneurs discover the next great thing to be done with the flying robots.

Mr. CHRIS ANDERSON (DIY Drones): Entrepreneurs and little guys and amateurs figure out cool things, which then get scaled up into huge industries. And I think it's important in our regulatory process that we don't stifle the little guys.

KAHN: Rory Paul is one of those little guys.

(Soundbite of motor)

Mr. RORY PAUL: OK. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to start up the motor.

(Soundbite of motor)

KAHN: He's going to do a prop check of his drone, which is sitting on his dining room table in his home outside Los Angeles. It's equipped with a digital and infrared camera. Paul hopes to sell it to large-scale farmers so they can survey their crops and boost yields. Paul built his drone back in 2005 and has been waiting ever since for the FAA's okay.

Mr. PAUL: I got into this hoping that we would have policy in place that we could operate commercial business providing a service to farmers and it hasn't happened.

KAHN: Paul says he'll wait and hope that the FAA will be fair to small operators who want to exploit the technology for good. But what about those up to no good? That's what worries Jay Stanley of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Program.

Mr. JAY STANLEY (Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Program): The prospect of sort of small flying autonomous cameras everywhere in the skies raises the prospect of, you know, pervasive aerial surveillance in a way that we've never really seen before.

KAHN: Chris Anderson of DIY Drones says anything can be exploited for bad, but worries that such fears will limit drone technology, which he says is just in its infancy.

Mr. ANDERSON: To use the computer analogy, we're in about 1977.

KAHN: And he says the possibilities of what drones can do have yet to be discovered.

Carrie Kahn, NPR News.

(Soundbite of music)

 

Related articles

• This hummingbird is really a $4million spy drone (newslite.tv)
• Bird Bond: New 'Nano Hummingbird' Drone Takes Spying to the Sky (newsfeed.time.com)
• Coming Soon to a War Near You: Robo-Hummingbird Drones? | 80beats (blogs.discovermagazine.com)

US Small Businesses, Endangered Species?

You know with all the talk by all of the politicians I'm still confused as to why they can't agree to fund the defense spending bill. Boggles the mind. Not to mention small businesses who are waiting for the bill to pass so they can hire........kind of ironic to have to lay off staff and get a part time job to make ends meet while waiting for congress to pass the defense spending bill while we are still fighting the longest war in the history of our country on multiple fronts abroad. Gates may be frustrated - but he's not bleeding to death. Republican. Democrat. Tea-Party. Independent. = Who cares if you can't (or won't) fund your military to defend the nation which translates to the small businesses in defense (job creator's) who are offering product or services the military has requested / needs end up going out of business and military leaders / planners / operator's pay an even higher price while congress plays politics? 

I thought the politicians were going to get serious about leading the nation and not playing pin the tail on the political donkey.

I'm starting to feel like the Donkey.

////////////////////

Lack of FY11 Budget Ties Up Pentagon

New Programs Languish; Funds Flow to Axed Weapons

By KATE BRANNEN and CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 6 Feb 2011 17:00

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5636878&c=AME&s=TOP

One-third of the way through fiscal 2011, the Pentagon is still trapped in last year's spending plan, unable to launch new programs and running out of money to pay its troops.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, shown here Jan. 14 in Tokyo, recently expressed his frustration with the lack of a FY2011 budget for the Pentagon. (Larry Downing / Agence France-Presse)

Congress, having failed to pass any of the dozen annual budget bills, has instructed the military and the rest of the U.S. government to continue spending at 2010 levels at least through March 4.

That means, among other things, billions of dollars too little for the Air Force's tanker effort, which was supposed to get started in earnest this year, and billions too much for the Humvees that the Army wanted to stop buying.

The frustration finally spilled over for Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Jan. 26.

Continuing work under a continuing resolution (CR) would be "the worst of all possible reductions," Gates told reporters. "That's how you hollow out a military even in wartime."

Pentagon officials have some flexibility to move money around, but that margin is running out, said Stephen Daggett, a defense budget specialist at the Congressional Research Service. Under the current CR, there is not enough general transfer authority to shift the needed funds into must-pay accounts such as payroll and health care, Daggett said.

Meanwhile, the workload in military comptrollers' offices has gone up as Pentagon officials improvise in fiscal 2011, prepare to defend the fiscal 2010 budget on Capitol Hill and begin work on the fiscal 2013 spending plan.

"When you have so many tasks to do, you can't do any of them well," an Army official said. "In some respects, it's a cliff we're driving toward, but we still have time to turn around."

Lawmakers of the new Congress are only starting to grapple with the issue.

"The best case is: we're going to be six months into the fiscal year and we don't have a budget. It is not a good situation to be in," a senior Navy official said. "It forces you into stupid management decisions."

Several solutions are under discussion. One is to extend the continuing resolution to cover the rest of the year.

"That's the worst case," said the senior Navy official. "That would keep us at $23 billion below the Pentagon top line of $549 billion [requested for 2011]."

The official said that might threaten up to 7,300 civilian jobs, as new contracts fail to be issued and work slows on any number of projects.

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), a Washington-based lobby, is also pressing Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, to replace the CR with a full appropriations bill. In a Feb. 3 letter that was signed by 10 other associations, AIA officials said extending the CR would force companies to lay off employees and delay new hires.

Daggett said it was unlikely that lawmakers would simply extend the status quo.

"A yearlong CR at last year's levels would create so many problems that I don't think that's the worst that could happen; I don't think that could happen," Daggett said.

But he said a modified yearlong CR might be passed, with "legislative anomalies" or special conditions that allow quantity increases, new program starts and enough flexibility to cover must-pay personnel accounts.

Gordon Adams, who oversaw defense budgets at the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration, sees no problem with a reduced top line of roughly 3 percent under a yearlong CR.

"It might even help restore what Adm. [Michael] Mullen says was lost as the Pentagon budget doubled between FY 2001 and FY 2010: 'our ability to prioritize, to make hard decisions, to do tough analysis, to make trades,'" Adams wrote in a Jan. 28 blog entry on the Stimson Center's website.

But he agrees that DoD would need a higher level of general transfer authority to shift money toward its most important priorities.

"Right now, that flexibility is less than $10 billion," he said. "Congress could include a higher amount for this year, perhaps as much as the $19 billion of [General Transfer Authority] the House was prepared to provide in the CR that failed to pass in December, at the end of the lame-duck session."

A third option is passing an actual appropriations bill, perhaps an earmarkless version of the one that failed to pass in December, or a new one that also includes funding for the Department of Homeland Security and possibly other security entities.

From the Pentagon's point of view, the best-case scenario is an appropriations bill that reflects the fiscal 2011 request, with some congressional adjustments, Daggett said.

Also being discussed is another continuing resolution tied in some way to a deficit ceiling.

"That's the hardest to foresee," said the senior Navy official.

The lack of a 2011 budget may disrupt Pentagon efforts beyond the end of this fiscal year. Planners don't know how much money to properly construct the 2012 budget due to go to Congress on Feb. 14.

"There is going to be disruption," and the White House may have to go back and submit changes, said Todd Harrison, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "This [fiscal 2012] budget is already a week late coming out from what's usual, and so it could start cascading. If Congress is tied up for the next few months considering the FY11 budget, then they're going to be later starting work on the FY12 budget, which makes it less likely they will finish the FY12 budget on time. Then you start geting into the campaign season."

 

-- Dave Majumdar contributed to this report.

Related articles

• US CEOs urge passage of fiscal 2011 Pentagon budget (reuters.com)
• Pentagon War Request to be Lowest Since '05 (businessweek.com)
• Reagan model - or a disaster for defense | James Carafano ... (washingtonexaminer.com)
• UPDATE 2-US CEOs urge passage of fiscal 2011 Pentagon budget (reuters.com)
• Pentagon May See Modest Growth in Fiscal 2012 (businessweek.com)
• Defense Cuts We Can't Afford (bigpeace.com)
• A Peace Dividend from Troop Withdrawals (businessweek.com)
• The Project on Defense Alternatives Exposes Truth of Pentagon's ... (warisacrime.org)
• US House Budget Chief Wants to Cut $74B From Obama FY11 Budget (forexlive.com)
• UPDATE 1-US defense chief warns of "crisis" over budget (reuters.com)

Private Sector to Solve Border Problem? Really?

Image via Wikipedia

According to a recent blog posting at the aviation week website, the Department of Homeland Security is moving fast to get surveillance technologies down to the southwest border now that the controversial SBInet “virtual fence” has been capped to cover just 53 miles of border in Arizona—and it’s putting industry on notice that it wants ideas for replacement technologies, like now.

Additionally, the article pointed out that a couple of weeks ago there was a department issued Request for Information that canvassed industry for commercial-off-the-shelf “total solutions” for “automated, persistent wide area surveillance for the detection, tracking, identification, and classification of illegal entries."

According to the blog's author, "In other words, don’t bother submitting technologies that Secretary of Defense Gates might refer to as “exquisite.” Just stuff that works. 

"It also sounds like the government is taking the exact opposite approach to acquisitions than it has in recent decades, where unique solutions were eagerly sought. This time, it’s all about what works, and works now."

Founder's Note:

I'm trying to not be jaded about this so if I sound a little bit obtuse about it, please bear with me and hear me out.

For the past three years, we've privately funded the design and development of an affordable, lightweight and man portable tactical aerostat system that can provide individual border security officers with an aerial coverage system for communications relay, aerial imagery or other applications.

We have not received one penny from the federal government to design and build this device and to get this device to where it is today including the painful process of building and testing and iterating 18 differerent versions.

We've anticipated and have an answer to the problems with integrating Unmanned Aerial Systems into the national airspace. We've anticipated and have an answer to the SBINet failure.  We've anticipated and have an answer to issues with inflatable aerial devices. We've anticipated and are aligned with the shift toward pragmatic answers borne at the expense of the private sector.

We have an answer that makes sense and can change lives.

The question is this. 

With all of the noise about "creating jobs" and "investing in the future", is the Department of Homeland Security and the US Border Patrol going to pay any attention to Sofcoast, a Small Disadvantaged Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business with industry leading knowledge in the area of Unmanned Aerial Systems and tactical operations on the front-line?

Or is this simply more hype? And are we going to have more of the same old business as usual?

So far we haven't had much success in simply getting someone at the US Border Patrol or DHS to simply come and see a demonstration of our system and we're not sure why.

Maybe I'm simply too much of an optimist.

We shall see.

Related articles

• Signals & Drumbeats: DHS Chief says virtual fence not virtuous (sofcoast.com)
• Hold your horses Napolitano, where's the e-fence? (nowpublic.com)
• G.W. Schulz: SBInet Is Dead, But Don't Expect an End to Costly Border Surveillance (huffingtonpost.com)

Signals & Drumbeats: DHS Chief says virtual fence not virtuous

Image via Wikipedia

Homeland Security chief cancels costly virtual border fence

By the CNN Wire Staff

January 14, 2011 8:15 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday canceled the controversial virtual fence along the U.S. border with Mexico, citing technical problems, cost overruns and schedule delays since its inception in 2005.

The Secure Border Initiative-network, a high-tech surveillance system to reduce border smuggling, so far has cost taxpayers almost $1 billion for two regions in Arizona, covering just 53 miles overall on the 2,000-mile border, according to a homeland security report.

Napolitano announced "a new path forward for security technology" along the border that is tailored to the needs of each region and provides "faster deployment of technology, better coverage, and a more effective balance between cost and capability," she said in a prepared statement.

"There is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution to meet our border technology needs," Napolitano said about her decision to end the problem-plagued virtual fence.

Her new plan would use mobile surveillance systems, drones, thermal imaging devices, and tower-based remote video surveillance, she said.

"Where appropriate, this plan will also incorporate already existing elements of the former SBInet program that have proven successful, such as stationary radar, and infrared and optical sensor towers," Napolitano said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, lauded the decision.

"The secretary's decision to terminate SBInet ends a long-troubled program that spent far too much of the taxpayers' money for the results it delivered," Lieberman said in a written statement. "From the start, SBInet's one-size-fits-all approach was unrealistic. The department's decision to use technology based on the particular security needs of each segment of the border is a far wiser approach, and I hope it will be more cost effective."

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, D-Mississippi, ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the virtual fence "has been a grave and expensive disappointment since its inception."

Thompson said he is glad that homeland security officials are "finally listening to what we have been saying for years -- that the sheer size and variations of our borders show us a one-stop solution has never been best," he said in a prepared statement. "I applaud them for taking this critical step toward using a more tailored technologically based approach to securing our nation's borders."

The decision ends the work of federal contractor Boeing (NYSE:BA) to build the virtual fence, and the homeland security agency will conduct open bidding for the new border plan, agency officials said.

Boeing spokeswoman Jenna K. McMullin said in a statement that the firm remains "committed to providing valuable solutions and supporting" the federal agency.

"We appreciate that they recognize the value of the integrated fixed towers Boeing has built, tested, and delivered so far," McMullin said. "We are proud of the accomplishments of our team and of the unprecedented capabilities delivered in the last year that provide Border Patrol agents increased safety, situational awareness, and operational efficiency."

Napolitano said "unprecedented" manpower, infrastructure and resources along the border will complement her new border security plan.

The U.S. Border Patrol is better staffed than at any time in its 86-year history, having nearly doubled the number of agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,500 in 2010, according to a homeland security report.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has increased the number of federal agents deployed to the Southwest border, with a quarter of its personnel currently in the region.

President Obama has also deployed 1,200 National Guardsmen to the border.

In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, federal agents seized more than $282 million in illegal currency, more than 7 million pounds of drugs, and more than 6,800 weapons along the border -- increases of more than $73 million, more than 1 million pounds of drugs and more than 1,500 weapons compared with 2007-2008.

Also, the Border Patrol's nationwide apprehensions of undocumented immigrants decreased from nearly 724,000 in 2008 to about 463,000 in 2010, a 36 percent reduction, indicating that fewer people are attempting to illegally cross the border, a homeland security report said.

Related articles

• Homeland Security chief cancels costly virtual border fence (cnn.com)
• $1billion 'virtual fence' to keep Mexican immigrants and smugglers out of the US scrapped for being too expensive (dailymail.co.uk)
• Feds cancel Boeing virtual border fence (seattlepi.com)
• Obama Administration Scraps 'Virtual Border' (informationweek.com)
• US scraps 'virtual fence' along Mexico border (alternet.org)
• Napolitano Cancels Virtual Border Fence Project, Proposes Alternative (foxnews.com)
• UPDATE 3-US ends "virtual fence" project on Mexican border (reuters.com)

Signal & Drumbeats: Soldiers keep eye in the sky

Sunday, November 21, 2010

3rd STB Soldiers keep an eye in the sky

3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Public Affairs  

11.19.2010 By Staff Sgt. Nathaniel G. Johnson CAMP ADDER, Iraq – In response to threats against U.S. troops deployed to Iraq over the last eight years, the Army deploys small tethered blimps, or aerostats, equipped with surveillance equipment for force protection. As a result, the Army has had to train soldiers from a variety of military occupational specialties to operate this equipment.

Sgt. Anthony Palumbo, wheeled vehicle mechanic, of Sterling, Ill., 3rd STB, 3rd AAB, 4th Inf. Div., makes a minor repair to a bracket that is used to attach aircraft warning lights to the cable that anchors the aerostat.  Courtesy Photo

Today, six soldiers of 3rd Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Advise and Assist Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, operate the aerostat as it hovers over Camp Adder in support of base defense. They provide surveillance data, enabling the protection of the U.S. and Iraqi forces on Camp Adder and the surrounding Iraqi bases and local villages.

“It’s a great asset because it’s similar to

a guard tower with a huge advantage. It’s a few hundred feet in the air giving us a much better view,” said Sgt. Michael Milsap, Bradley mechanic, from Abilene, Texas.

Without a designated military occupation specialty to maintain and operate the aerostat, this group of mechanics, fire supporters and communications specialists had to learn an entirely new skill set to keep it flying.

“It’s a very useful skill because it’s also used in the civilian world,” said Spc. James Williams, of Virginia Beach, Va., a fiber optics specialist, “It’s a skill I may be able to use later on.”

Once selected to operate the aerostat, the team attended a 28-day training course to learn the theories of lift and how the system works, said Milsap.

“From helium operations to launching the blimp, soldiers are evaluated in the classroom and hands-on exercises, to operate the system proficiently,” he said.

After two-weeks of classroom instruction, they took a written exam and then moved on to two-weeks of hands-on training that required them to learn launch and recover techniques.

“The training was really good because you learn a lot more when you train hands-on like we did for more than 14 days,”

According to Williams, some of the soldiers do get the opportunity to apply the skills learned in their chosen military occupational specialty.

“There’re two of us fiber optics specialists here,” he said, “so we are able to take care of most of the problems with the cables without calling the field support representative.”

Designed to carry communications and surveillance equipment, operating at altitudes of several hundred feet, the aerostat provides a bird’s-eye view across the area of responsibility.

Sgt. Anthony Palumbo, wheeled vehicle mechanic, of Sterling, Ill., 3rd STB, 3rd AAB, 4th Inf. Div., inspects the cable as he reels down the aerostat that the cable anchors.  Courtesy Photo

“With the eye in the sky, we help deter the enemy,” said Williams.

To some, the aerostat is not only a great deterrent, but also a reassuring sight when it’s flying in the air. The team tries to keep it flying as often as possible, because it gives people on base a greater sense of security, said Sgt. Anthony Palumbo, wheeled vehicle mechanic, of Sterling, Ill.

The aerostat team has provided valuable data to the base defense operations center which uses the data to advise and assist Iraqi security forces in response to threats near Adder.

“The [base defense operations center] calls when they want us to look as something suspicious and we swing the camera in that direction. We provide a real-time surveillance feed so everyone sees what’s going on,” said Palumbo.

Spc. Trevor Holden, cannon crew member, of Columbus, Ohio, Battery A, 3rd Bn. 29th FA Reg., 3rd AAB, 4th Inf. Div., attaches aircraft warning lights to the cable that anchors the aerostat.  Courtesy Photo

Even though the aerostat has been a part of military operations for several years, few people know about the training and hard work that is required to operate it.

“To some people it’s just a blimp tied to a cable with a few gadgets,” said Williams. “But it’s important to force protection and I’m proud that I can contribute to troop safety.”

Posted by MsMarti - on Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 04:28 in Iraq News - Daily Report

Related articles

• 3rd STB Soldiers keep an eye in the sky (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Plods scrap crap stealth spy blimp (go.theregister.com)
• Aerostat stuck in Bangalore hangar for the last 24 months (militarystrat.wordpress.com)
• India's Chakshu aerostat has been stuck for two years in a hanger (rupeenews.com)
• Aerostat star attraction of CWG opening ceremony (ibnlive.in.com)
• Iraqi soldiers learn check-point operation skills (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Ghost Riders Defend Their Front Line (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Communicating through Waves of Radiation (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Kansas State Univ Gets 1st Hand View of Iraq (waronterrornews.typepad.com)

Signals & Drumbeats: The Past is The Future

Image via Wikipedia

Sharing a comment and article that was forwarded to me by a friend and partner.

"John,  Here is a very interesting article on airships. It’s nothing you don’t already preach, but it’s good to hear it being acknowledged by the defense media network."

-----------------

    Agree'd and thanks, Marc.

You can find the full article with pictures here.

Cheers,

John

///////////////////

Written by: J.R. Wilson on November 2, 2010

 

Airships, blimps, aerostats, balloons, dirigibles, zeppelins – once aloft, these very different lighter-than-air (LTA) platforms look very much alike. They also tend to get lumped together with the worst LTA disaster in history, the fiery destruction of the German zeppelin Hindenburg as it was preparing to land at Lakehurst, N.J., on May 6, 1937.

That accident – which the majority of the 97 passengers and crew aboard survived – effectively ended what had been a highly successful and comparatively safe two decades of passenger, mail, and cargo service. The airborne ships carried thousands of passengers across Europe and to the United States and South America. In its two years of operations, the Hindenburg alone made more than 40 transatlantic crossings. Overall, it was a far less disastrous record than the history of ocean-going ships.

Airships also are the oft-forgotten heroes of World War II, floating above the ocean, on the lookout for Nazi submarines and other threats to Allied convoys. According to the U.S. Navy, of some 89,000 ships escorted by military blimps during the war, not one was lost to enemy action.

The government commissioned more than 150 blimps during World War II, some of which remained in service for the first decade or so of the Cold War, helping keep track of Soviet operations as part of the U.S. anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission.

However, their inherent vulnerabilities and improving technologies on surface ships, submarines and ASW aircraft eventually led to the end of military airships, with the last retired from service by the U.S. Navy on Aug. 31, 1962. The Navy briefly considered bringing them back in the 1980s, but Congress canceled funding for the project in 1989. Several subsequent attempts to revive them also fell to the budget axe, including the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) High-Altitude Airship (HAA) as recently as 2007.

New technologies and materials appear to be giving LTA yet another chance to return to service as a viable platform for military and homeland security applications. Unlike many earlier versions, however, the 21st century vehicle – at least in the near term – is seen as an unmanned platform, with primary missions of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and communications relay.

And while the Navy was the primary operator of airships in the past, the Army seems to have taken the lead now, looking at a variety of concepts, from low (10,000 feet) tethered to high altitude (60,000 feet) free-flying platforms. Which is not to say the Army is alone. The Air Force, Navy, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and a wide range of companies, large and small, also have indicated interest and, in some cases, are actively pursuing research and development (R&D) programs.

When the subject of LTA arises, the general public tends to think of either the Goodyear blimp, floating a few hundred feet above an outdoor sporting event, or the Hindenburg in flames. Unlike the latter, which was filled with highly volatile hydrogen, nearly all subsequent airships instead use the inert gas helium to provide lighter-than-air buoyancy.

Ongoing U.S. R&D programs include DARPA’s Integrated Sensor IS Structure (ISIS); the Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command’s (SMDC/AFSC) HiSentinel, High Altitude/Long Endurance Demonstrator (HALE-D), Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV), and Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID); the Army Program Executive Office Missiles & Space Cruise Missile Defense Project Office’s Joint Land-attack cruise missile defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS). Some are follow-ons to previously canceled programs, such as HAA.

“From a DoD perspective, an airship can provide continuous communications on the battlefield and stare you don’t have today,” Rick Judy, a space systems analyst at SMDC/AFSC’s High Altitude Technology Division, said. “From a homeland security perspective, it could be used when communications are lost, as happened during Katrina, or on the border, for surveillance; so anywhere, CONUS or OCONUS, where there is a need for continuous stare or communications, designed for whatever the mission requirement and operating area may be.

“The first thing we have to do is show the technology is viable, which we have not yet done. We have systems ready to go, so we just need to launch those, show what they can do, and then see what happens. If we show the technology is something that can be used, I believe you will see airships capable of giving you quick reaction, carrying specific payloads, launch on the battlefield, and probably heavy lift in the near future, taking payload where you need it, quickly. And possibly even transporting troops around the battlefield – although not over the oceans.”

On June 15, 2010, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems sector won a competitive bid for a $517 million contract from SMDC/AFSC to develop three LEMV systems within 18 months. LEMV is intended to remain aloft at 20,000 feet for up to three weeks. In addition, company officials say their design provides a plug-and-play capability to readily integrate into the Army’s existing common ground station command centers for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

“It is critical that our warfighters are equipped with more enabling integrated ISR capability to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s conflicts,” Northrop Grumman Program Manager Alan Metzger said. “Our offering supports the Army’s Joint Military Utility Assessment that this disruptive innovation must meet the Army’s objective of a persistent unblinking stare while providing increased operational utility to battlefield commanders. Part of our innovative offering includes open architecture design in the payload bay to allow sensor changes by service personnel in the field.”

The Army’s HiSentinel program, meanwhile, is looking at a high-altitude, solar-powered stratospheric airship, operating unmanned at altitudes exceeding 60,000 feet for 30 days or more. It is intended as a spiral development effort, leading to a family of low-cost airships carrying small to medium payloads (20 to 200 pounds) that can be tactically launched from remote, austere sites. The primary objective is to provide warfighters with a rapid-response communications relay, netcentric communications, and persistent ISR capability.

JLENS, which comprises two tethered platforms working in tandem, shares some aspects with the High-Altitude Airship demonstrator Lockheed Martin was building for the MDA until the program was canceled due to “budgetary constraints” in 2007. The JLENS aerostats are being built by TCOM (Elizabeth City, N.C.), under contract to Raytheon, which is producing the system’s surveillance and fire-control radars.

The first of the 242-foot-long aerostats made its maiden flight 10,000 feet above the Air Force’s Utah Test and Training Range, north of the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground, in April.

“The JLENS aerostat is a derivative of other aerostats being flown,” according to Army Deputy Program Manager Jonathan Williams. “It originally began with a 71-meter platform, but we needed a little more lift because of our weight and so are the only ones currently using a 74-meter aerostat. And that 3-meter change gave us much more volume and lift advantage.”

The semi-rigid aerostat is filled with helium, balanced with outside air to handle ascent and descent. It is designed to operate in up to 60-knot winds and survive up to 100 knots and to take lightning strikes, passing those through the tether to the ground without damaging any on-board electronics. Another part of the system is a mini-weather station that monitors nearby lightning strikes, winds, and storms, allowing the operators time to lower the aerostats to the ground if a big storm is approaching.

A JLENS “orbit” comprises two aerostats, one carrying a surveillance radar providing 360-degree coverage over a large area beneath for initial target identification. That is then passed to the fire-control radar on the second aerostat, which develops a more refined target ID. If the target is confirmed as hostile, its location is then passed on to appropriate weapon systems to engage.

“This mission is designed to go after cruise missiles, although we can see a lot of other things that help provide the battlefield commander with situational awareness,” said Army JLENS Product Manager Dean Barten. “For the cruise missile mission, we use an orbital altitude of 10,000 feet. At that point, we run out of tether.

“The radars put out a lot of power, enabling us to see small things at large distances, but putting that power system on the aerostat would take a lot of weight and reduce the size of the radar, so the power goes up the tether. The data also comes down the tether, so we can pump out a lot of data compared to transmitting by radio waves.”

JLENS is designed to remain airborne for 30 days, be brought down for about 8 hours of maintenance, then raised back to operational altitude for another 30 days. While the operation sounds relatively simple, it actually involves a large number of personnel and equipment.

As currently configured, a JLENS orbit or battery comprises 128 soldiers, two aerostats, three different surveillance radar ground control stations, and two fire-control ground stations – both using supercomputers – communications stations, a 110,000-pound mobile mooring station, a 70-foot tower for each aerostat, tractor-trailers to haul the mooring stations, and a power station with two diesel turbines per system.

Even so, Barten said, JLENS is a bargain compared to alternative ways to provide persistent, over-the-horizon surveillance and fire control defense against cruise missiles, UAVs, tactical ballistic missiles, large-caliber rockets, surface-moving targets, and enemy aircraft.

“Compared to something like an AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System], which requires a huge runway, five aircraft, full crews, and maintenance, we’re probably about one-tenth the cost. And at that altitude, we’re also more capable than an AWAC,” he said.

Proponents of airships for persistent surveillance applications – in combat theaters, over national borders, as part of anti-smuggling and anti-piracy efforts, etc. – claim those increased capabilities at lower cost also apply when compared to the use of UAVs, satellites, and other manned aircraft, such as J-STARS. Indeed, some go so far as to claim the Navy and Air Force have deliberately thwarted airship programs that appeared to be succeeding to protect funding for those “sexier” and more expensive programs.

“Whether or not the people who control the expenditure of funds in the DoD or investment capital in the commercial sector are smart enough to pick up on this is something we can only speculate about, but the need is so obvious and the application so straightforward, it is almost pathetic it has not already been done,” said former Pentagon Director of Air Warfare Chuck Myers, a retired combat/test pilot who now runs a Virginia-based mini-think tank called AeroCounsel Inc.

Former Air Force Lt. Col. Ed Herlik, who worked on high altitude airship survivability issues at the USAF Space Command until 2006, agrees, but also believes those programs that are still under way are not likely to succeed.

“Mid-level and extremely high altitude are very different animals,” he said. “The mid-altitude cannot survive the environment. LEMV is designed to fly between 15,000 and 25,000 feet above sea level; ground levels in the operating areas of Afghanistan are equivalent to the Rocky Mountains – 15,000 feet – and have the worst weather in the world, which would destroy it even before the enemy could get a shot. It might have worked in Iraq, but it’s too late for that. So I would say the mid-altitude stuff is dead.

“Extremely heavy lift hybrid ocean-going ships have some potential, but will have to be hardened against weather. However, the extreme endurance ones that fly above the jet stream – about 65,000 feet – and operate like satellites have some potential because most of the problems there have been solved. The weather at those altitudes is very benign, especially at mid latitudes. You are above the jet stream, so wind is very predictable, steady state and slow. And if you control the air, there is no military threat, either.

“Radiation is really only UV, which is a fabric issue. It does create a problem for the payload bays, however, because you are not low enough for the air to insulate, but also not high enough for space to be an insulator. You are in the middle, where your biggest problem is arcing within the payload. So you really don’t want to be miniaturized, because that makes it easier for arcing to destroy your electronics. Or you need to be pressurized, which screws up the weight. That’s really not a bad problem, though, because you just use larger, easier-to-make circuit boards without going to extreme mini or rad-hard.”

Dr. Bob Boyd, advanced development projects program manager at the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, has been working on a hybrid airship design that blends an aerodynamic shape with the buoyancy of a helium-filled envelope.

“We learned, surprisingly, these technologies all work pretty well and are as cost-effective as expected, with a lot of interesting applications. We’re trying to find the right avenues to employ the technology, but a lot of people think airships are old technology that we went away from because they didn’t work or couldn’t do the job,” he said. “It turns out some of the challenges that were difficult for the buoyant technologies to overcome 30 to 50 years ago have now been dealt with by today’s technology.

“For example, one of the biggest challenges in the ’20s and ’30s was flying over the ocean into weather they didn’t know was there because there was no way to see weather out there. Almost all airship accidents were due to that. In the modern era, you really do know what weather is out there, around the globe, all the time, so you can keep your buoyant system out of trouble. That technology wasn’t developed for airships, but it benefits the airship application.”

Lockheed Martin’s P-791 hybrid prototype also was used, midway through the decade, to validate a new air-cushion landing and ground-handling system.

“The mooring system was another challenge, with people going out and grabbing ropes. Even today, large vehicles require a truck. But our system allows the airship to self-moor, so you don’t require a ground system or giant mooring tower, which makes them far more practical,” Boyd explained. “It is much like a hovercraft. What looks like suction cups under the vehicle allow that, but also perform a gripping function that allow the vehicle to grip the ground in a parking mode.

“With a hybrid, we don’t have the same amount of helium lift as the weight of the system – perhaps 10 to 20 percent is aerodynamic, so when you slow down, the vehicle descends. As a result, you don’t have to release helium, which is a logistics nightmare. Helium is not really a lifting gas here, but a structural element designed to keep air out. The lift is actually a lack of air rather than a presence of helium.”

While LTA vehicles have been around for more than a century, in one form or another, and the only change in lifting gas has been from volatile hydrogen to inert helium, Boyd said there are four areas in which enabling technologies have enhanced their potential to return to military – and expanded commercial – service.

“Materials is No. 1. Airships are made of fabrics and the strengths of those fabrics now are many orders of magnitude higher per pound than in the ’20s and ’30s. And much, much lighter and more durable, enabling a lighter and smaller airship to carry the same payload for a significant improvement in efficiency,” he said. “Situational awareness is another, from understanding what weather you have to deal with now and two days from now to knowing where you are down to tens of feet, where you are flying and being able to control and handle that – and, in the case of unmanned, control from a long distance.

“Modern flight control systems are another. Airships are relatively easy to fly when the weather is nice, but a lot trickier when it’s not. Bringing modern flight technology to an airship enables a lot more capability than in the past, from flying in a lot more challenging conditions to taking off and landing in more difficult terrain. Fourth are subsystems technologies, such as our air-cushion landing system, modern air pressurization systems, helium detection – a variety of small-scale but helpful technologies that make the overall system more reliable, safer, and easier to maintain in the long term. And that robustness is really important for the military user.”

Not all LTA efforts are still in the lab or undergoing field tests. Since 2003, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems has delivered more than 500 Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID) systems to the Army for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“RAID systems are comprised of a sensor suite elevated on aerostats or towers. These are flexible, modular systems tailored to the customer’s situational awareness needs, provide force protection and serve as a force multiplier, allowing forces to focus on mission objectives,” said Raytheon’s RAID program manager, Peter Choate.

“The RAID program has established a level of credibility within the customer community which has enabled them to recognize and appreciate the value that elevated persistent surveillance systems provide the combatant. Based on this success, the demand continues to grow and the technology continues to improve.”

Power is a major challenge for long endurance LTA platforms, for both payloads and propulsion. Florida-based Sanswire Corp., working with Tao Technologies GmbH (Germany) and the University of Stuttgart, is proposing some new approaches to both.

Sanswire’s SAS-51, for example, is the world’s first solar-powered airship, according to the company’s vice president for operations, Dan Erdberg. Sanswire also is working with L-3 Corp. to incorporate ISR sensors on board its STS-111 Mid-Altitude/Long Endurance blimp, which they hope to begin flight testing by year’s end.

“Power is provided by a vectoring thrust internal combustion engine in the head segment, running on a fuel gas mixture that is compressed and fed into the engine. It is similar to natural gas cars, except ours are not carried in a liquid state but as a gas under pressure,” Erdberg said. “The entire tail section is filled with the fuel gas [an ethane mixture], which is neutrally buoyant, so you don’t change the dynamics of the airship as you burn fuel. We pump air into the tail to keep its shape.

“The inner bag contains fuel gas, the outer bag contains air. As fuel gas depletes, more air is pumped into the outer envelope to retain shape. Small winglets on each segment act as stabilizers and provide additional lift. We’re currently testing handling of the gas, which is combustible under pressure, and how to safely transport it. It’s not like hydrogen – there has to be some sort of ignition source beyond what happened with the Hindenburg, for example. There also is an opportunity to have it filled with helium and use solar and hydrogen fuel cells instead of the compressed gas.”

As with UAVs, which appeared and disappeared from military planning and R&D budgets for decades before finally gaining a solid foothold during the first Gulf War, lighter-than-air vehicles have gone from a highly successful record during World War II to occasional, short-lived efforts during the past half-century. But improved technologies, increasing demand from combat theaters in Southwest Asia to counter-piracy efforts off the coast of Africa to U.S. border patrol requirements have opened another opportunity for their return, especially when potential commercial applications are included.

“I would guess, if all the efforts are successful, within the next 10 years or so you would see some pretty sizable airships flying, hopefully with the heavy-lift capability to carry large amounts of payload – whether cargo, disaster relief, or even people – into whatever area it is needed,” predicted I. Steve Smith, HiSentinel program manager at Southwest Research Institute. “Like a lot of things, if you build it, they will come. I really believe, if you get something flying, people will come out of the woodwork with all sorts of applications, including flying small systems within the atmospheres of Venus and Titan, on which some studies already have been done.

“It’s hard to imagine what may be available 10 or more years from now in terms of sensors, although I would expect to see much lower power, weight, volume. Look at what we had only five years ago compared to sensor technology now; they’ve probably come down in all those by an order of magnitude. So you will see a lot more stuff and more frequencies, better able to sense what is going on, whether for military use, disaster relief, or research on other planets. Which means you can put a lot more stuff on a large airship or make a smaller airship. It all comes down to mass.”

This article was first published in The Year in Defense: Aerospace Edition, Summer 2010.

Related articles

• US Army's new $0.5bn British airship will fly 'mid-next summer' (go.theregister.com)
• The future of zeppelin travel - an airship that can move houses [Futurism] (io9.com)
• E-Green Technologies - 21st Century Airships, Inc. Successfully Completes Inflation of the World's Largest Airship (eon.businesswire.com)

Signals & Drumbeats: Predicting Innovations

Innovation Perspectives – Predicting Innovations

Submitted by Blogging Innovation on October 27, 2010 – 12:02 amOne Comment

This is the third of several ‘Innovation Perspectives‘ articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on ‘Thinking about the future: what big innovation do you expect within 10 years?’. Here is the next perspective in the series:

by Drew Boyd

My crystal ball is no better than others. Rather than predict innovations, I predict what characteristics they will have and how they might be invented.

1. Mobility: Future products will incorporate some degree of mobility and integration into the mobile lifestyle. Smart phones fuel this. But mobility is not all about communications. Future products will take advantage of the data created by people as they move through their day. The innovation templates, Task Unification and Attribute Dependency, are excellent tools for identifying these opportunities.
   
   An MIT team is researching the feasibility of using cell phones as a unique tool to identify any emerging disease outbreaks. The team, led by Anmol Madan, said that a disease changes the mobility pattern of a cell phone user and by developing a software that tracked movements, phone calls and text messages of 70 students who were also daily surveyed for their health, the software was able to identify those suffering from an ailment. Students who came down with a fever or full-blown flu tended to move around less and make fewer calls late at night and early in the morning. When Madan trained software to hunt for this signature in the cellphone data, a daily check correctly identified flu victims 90 per cent of the time. Public health officials could also use the technique to spot emerging outbreaks of illness ahead of conventional detection systems, which today rely on reports from doctors and virus-testing labs. Similar experiments in larger groups and in different communities will have to be done first though.
2. Adaptiveness: Future products will adapt and morph depending on the situation of its use. They become “smart” by changing their characteristics in a way that is most beneficial to the user at that moment. The templates, Multiplication and Attribute Dependency, are useful for creating adaptive products.
   
   The Cybertecture mirror has an infographic display, measures 800 x 500 x 50mm, has stereo speakers, a WiFi connection and even fog-resistant glass. The mirror will connect with a cloud based digital profile so it can relate contextual information such as the local weather before you leave in the morning – or readings presented from a scale will help you monitor how your weight watching program is doing (via a display on the mirror or a web-based portal).
3. Simplicity: People value simplicity. Products and services of the future will attract “more with less.” Simple means simply this: Would a child understand it and be able to explain it back to you? The innovation templates, Division and Subtraction, are great for simplifying products and services.
   
   Australian student designer Robert Dumaresq recently took Gold at the Australian International Design Awards, Dyson Student Category for his ‘Switch Commuter Bike‘. The bike which folds up to the size of a wheel in “one smooth motion,” was designed in response to the Victorian government’s move to ban bikes on public transport. Claiming to be one of the fastest folding bikes around, the Switch Commuter is both durable and light-weight, manufactured using carbon fibre and aluminum.
4. Specificity: The most innovative products are those that look into the “Closed World” of the problem and take unique aspects of it to use as the basis for the solution. Parts of the problem become the solution. All five templates of the S.I.T. method can uncover these opportunities.
   
   Researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Media Technology in Germany are creating a vehicle-based system called Eyetracker that monitors a drivers face for signs of drowsiness. When certain patterns in eye and facial movements that indicate a lack of awareness are detected, the system triggers warnings to keep the driver alert. Debuting at the VISON trade fair in Stuttgart next month, the system is driven by two separate, small cameras mounted in the car, linked to a small matchbook-sized processor.
5. Ideality: Future products will be unique because their solution to a problem only appears when needed. When the problem arises, the solution is also there. Again, all five templates of the S.I.T. method can lead to products with this characteristic.
   
   Using a unique blend of augmented reality, app technology, and social media, Macy’s and LBi have re-invented the dressing room experience for New Yorkers visiting Macy’s Herald Square store through November of this year. Customers enter a dressing booth outfitted with with a 72-inch multi-touch mirror and an iPad. The customer then selects clothing from the iPad application and transfers the items on their body’s image on the mirror with a flick of the wrist. Naturally, photos of customers in various outfits can be shared on their social network using emails or SMS (with the purpose of getting live feedback from their friends). This innovation demonstrates how retail can be a primary driver in furthering the integration between digital and physical space.

Related articles

• The 'i' is on Design -- Hyundai i45 Wins at the Australian International Design Awards (prweb.com)
• Innovate To Thrive! (customerthink.com)
• Interview: Mark Surman (Mozilla Foundation) (thewavingcat.com)
• What's Your Innovation (web2.sys-con.com)
• Innovation Made Simple (blogs.constantcontact.com)
• The four pillars of O'Reilly's IT strategy (radar.oreilly.com)
• Intel and Newsweek Survey in U.S., Germany, U.K., and China on Innovation (kauffman.org)
• Making information on the go useful (impact.webershandwick.com)
• IDC Names 2010 Innovative Software Companies Under $100M to Watch, as Application Software Responds to the Social Web, Cloud Delivery Models, and Increased Use of Mobile Applications (eon.businesswire.com)
• Innovation Mullet: Simple in the Front, Complex in the Back (cloudave.com)

Signals & Drumbeats: SDVOSB Set-Asides

One of the most important and impactful developments for federal contracting and small businesses who are classified as HUB Zone and Service Disabled Veteran Owned small business's (SDVOSB's) in years.  

This has not been widely covered and I'm not sure why but it unequivocally levels the playing field between HUB Zone, SDVOSB's and 8(a) businesses in their consideration for no-bid and sole source contracts and the pursuit of federal contracts with the United States Government.

http://blogs.cbh.com/govcon/?p=933

The FAR Revises Its Coverage of SDVOSB Set-Asides to Be Consistent with SBA Rules

In FAC 2005-43, the FAR Council amended the circumstances in which a sole source award could be made to an SDVOSB concern. FAR 19.1406(a) was amended, effective August 2, 2010, to state that a sole source award can be made to an SDVOSB concern if the “contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that offers would be received from two or more service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns.” This change was made to make the FAR consistent with the SBA regulations concerning sole source SDVOSB awards and followed a successful protest against a contracting officer’s actions that complied with the old FAR coverage.

In MCS Portable Restroom Service, B-299291, March 28, 2007, the GAO sustained a protest challenging an agency’s failure to make a sole source award to a SDVOSB. MCS, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern, protested the Air Force’s decision not to make a sole-source award to an SDVOSBC, for portable chemical toilet services at the United States Air Force Academy, and to instead obtain these services as a small business set-aside.

As part of the market research for this acquisition, the contracting officer searched the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database under the appropriate North American Industry Classification System code, and located 28 SDVOSBCs, 29 section 8(a) concerns, 10 Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) concerns, and 28 other small business concerns that potentially could perform the work.

The agency sent e-mails to all of these firms in February 2006, and received responses from two SDVOSBCs (MCS and a Florida company that expressed interest in developing a joint venture to perform this work), one HUBZone concern, and four small businesses. The agency then posted a “sources sought” notice on FedBizOpps and three companies responded: one small business, one women-owned small business, and MCS.

After considering this market research, the contracting officer determined that she did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving two or more bids from HUBZone or SDVOSBC concerns. Based on this determination and after receiving approval from the Air Force small business specialist to set aside the procurement for small businesses, the agency posted a synopsis of the proposed solicitation for these services as a small business set‑aside on FedBizOpps.

MCS then filed an agency-level protest of this determination.

After receiving the protest, the contracting officer searched the CCR for all SDVOSBCs in Colorado and nationwide. This search revealed the existence of 2 SDVOSBCs in Colorado and 20 SDVOSBCs nationwide that could potentially perform the work. The agency determined that a sole‑source SDVOSBC award was prohibited by the FAR. The agency then affirmed its decision to set aside the procurement for small businesses and denied MCS’s agency-level protest.

When the IFB was posted on FedBizOpps as a small business set-aside, MCS then timely protested to the GAO, reasserting the grounds raised in its agency-level protest.

In processing this protest, the GAO sought the views of the SBA on the propriety of the contracting officer’s actions. In commenting on the protest, the SBA disagreed with the contracting officer’s actions.

MCS complained that, even if the agency were correct that there was insufficient interest from two or more SDVOSBCs to set aside the procurement for SDVOSBCs, the agency should have made a sole-source award to MCS.

The agency asserted that FAR 19.1406(a) precluded a sole-source award to an SDVOSBC where more than one SDVOSBC exists that can satisfy the requirement. FAR 19.1406(a) states in pertinent part:

A contracting officer may award contracts to [SDVOSBCs] on a sole source basis . . ., provided–

(1) Only one [SDVOSBC] can satisfy the requirement

The Air Force’s essential argument was that FAR 19.1406(a) precluded making a sole‑source award to an SDVOSBC if, as its later CCR review established, more than one SDVOSBC existed that could potentially perform the work. In other words, although an offer was expected from only one offeror, other firms existed that were capable of performing the work. Therefore, the Air Force believed the FAR provision did not authorize the award of a sole source contract.

MCS and the SBA asserted that the Air Force misinterpreted FAR 19.1406(a). The SBA argued that the FAR should be interpreted “logically and consistently” with the Small Business Act and the implementing SBA regulations, which provide that a contracting officer may consider making a sole-source award to an SDVOSBC unless more than one SDVOSBC is expected to submit a bid under the acquisition. Using this approach, it is irrelevant how many firms can perform the work. What is the determinative factor of whether a procurement should be awarded on a sole source basis is how many SBVOSBCs are expected to submit bids or offers.

In resolving this issue, the GAO began its analysis with the language of the Veterans Benefit Act of 2003, which provides for sole-source contract awards to SDVOSBCs and states in pertinent part:

(a) Sole source contracts — In accordance with this section, a contracting officer may award a sole-source contract to any [SDVOSBC] if –

(1) such concern is determined to be a responsible contractor with respect to performance of such contract opportunity and the contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that 2 or more [SDVOSBCs] will submit offers for the contracting opportunity; . . .

15 U.S.C. §657f

The GAO observed that both the Act and the implementing SBA regulations provide contracting officers with the discretion to make sole-source awards to SDVOSBCs where the prerequisites that would allow for an SDVOSBC set‑aside have not been met, i.e., offers will not be received from two SDVOSBs and award will be made at a fair market price. Neither the Act nor the SBA regulations make a sole source award dependent upon the number of firms capable of performing the work, only the number of bids or offers expected.

While the Air Force’s position would seem to be consistent with a literal reading of old FAR 19.1406(a), the GAO reiterated that “a regulation must be interpreted so as to harmonize with and further and not conflict with the objective of the statute it implements.” In this regard, the “plain meaning” and intent of the Veterans Benefit Act of 2003 is that a sole-source award to an SDVOSBC is permitted if the contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that two or more SDVOSBCs would submit bids.

Therefore, the GAO held that the FAR should be read consistent with the SBA statutory and regulatory language. In conclusion, the GAO said that it recognized that “the plain wording of FAR 19.1406 is potentially at odds with that of the Act and the SBA regulations. By letter dated today, we are advising the FAR Council of the possible inconsistency in language with the applicable statute so that the Council may review the matter.” Over three years later, action has been taken on this error in the FAR.

As an aside, FAC 2005-45 increased the ceiling for SDVOSB sole source awards to $6M for NAICS manufacturing codes and $3.5M for all other NAICS, effective August 30, 2010.

Related articles

• Milton Security Group LLC Certified to Participate in the "Veterans First Contracting Program" (prweb.com)
• Ice Industries Highlights U.S. Government SDVOSB Designation (eon.businesswire.com)
• SBA Takes Closer Look At Federal Contractors (online.wsj.com)
• New Investigation Uncovers More Fraud in SBA Managed Programs, According to the American Small Business League (eon.businesswire.com)
• You: EG Solutions and MultimaxArray suspended in SBA contracts probe (washingtonpost.com)
• CRS: Location-Based Preferences in Federal and Federally Funded Contracting: An Overview of the Law (bespacific.com)
• Money is available for small businesses, but it takes work (usatoday.com)
• Landing Government Contracts (inc.com)

Signals & Drumbeats: Portable Laser Backpack for 3D Mapping

From Slashdot...

//////////

-----------------------------------------------------------------+

| A Portable Laser Backpack For 3D Mapping                                                     |
|   from the overkill-for-osm dept.                                                            |
|   posted by timothy on Saturday September 18, @02:22 (Earth)                                 |
|   https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/09/18/0455202/A-Portable-Laser-Backpack-For-3D-Mappi|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[0]wooferhound writes "A portable laser [1]backpack for 3D mapping has
been developed at the University of California, Berkeley, where it is
being hailed as a breakthrough technology capable of producing fast,
automatic and realistic 3D mapping of difficult interior environments.
... The backpack is the first of a series of similar systems to work
without being strapped to a robot or attached to a cart. At the same
time, its data acquisition speed is very fast, as it collects the data
while the human operator is walking; this is in contrast with existing
systems in which the data is painstakingly collected in a stop-and-go
fashion, resulting in days and weeks of data acquisition time. It
utilizes novel sensor fusion algorithms that use cameras, lasers range
finders and inertial measurement units to generate a textured,
photo-realistic, 3D model that can operate without GPS input and that is
a big challenge."

Discuss this story at:
   http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10/09/18/0455202

Links:
   0. mailto:tim@woofCOLAerhound.comminuscaffeine

   1. http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Portable_Laser_Backpack_Revolutionizes_Interior_3D_Mapping_999.html

//////////

Signals & Drumbeats: MidAir Between Biplane and Giant RC Aircraft

Read the full article from Aero-news.net at this link.

In summary: 

ANN is looking into the details surrounding a truly bizarre incident that took place on August 14th during a small public event at the Brighton (CO) Van Aire Airpark (CO12) in which a full-scale biplane collided with a giant scale radio-controlled aircraft "hovering" over the active runway.

The raw video from youtube has been removed...but you can find the video at this liveleak here...

It's probably a good time to repost a previous blog that outlines safety of flight issues with unmanned systems in the national airspace.

Here's the summary of the blog:

In my professional assessment, the United States is at least five years (yes, I said FIVE years) away from any meaningful remedy that will enable rapid, ad-hoc, low altitude national airspace access for Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (SUAS).

Read why in a previous Sofcoast blog posting titled "Put it on a tether".

Cheers,

John Surmont

Founder/CEO

Sofcoast

Signals & Drumbeats: U.S. Mobile Market is changing

Recent article from Slashdot

-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Android Outsells iPhone In Last 6 Months                                                    
|   from the more-competing-please dept.                                                      
|   posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday August 03, @13:05 (Cellphones)                              
|   https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/08/03/1616218/Android-Outsells-iPhone-In-Last-6-Months|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[0]tomhudson writes "Despite all the hype about Apple's latest iPhone,
[1]Android has sold more in the last 6 months (27% of all smartphone
sales) than Apple (23%). The gains for Android are coming at the expense
of RIM (still #1 at 33%, down from 45% a year ago), Windows Mobile (11%,
down from 20%) and the iPhone (down from 34% at it's peak 6 months ago).
If the current trend continues, Android is expected to be #1 within the year.

Links:
   0. http://ac.nortoedivtanosduh/
   1. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/android-soars-but-iphone-still-most-desired-as-smartphones-grab-25-of-u-s-mobile-market

Thoughstream: Approachable aerial coverage kits

After spending some time with Stewart Long at Gonzoearth and learning more about what he's trying to do and learning a little bit about the grassroots mapping project, I decided to share a video about the backpackable system we're developing that we call the ASAP-SP (single panel).  I think this might fit some interesting usecases, especially for making approachable methods for aerial imaging.  In other words if there is a need for a kit that's still affordable but is just a little bit more robust, I think we might have something that can be immediately useable and wanted to share it.

Here are a few video's as an intro about some of our core innovations with asap and here's a photostream with some some more asap pics from CWID that might be of interest.

Cheers!

John Surmont

Founding CEO

Sofcoast

ASAP-SP in a backpack.

ASAP-XP in a dufflebag clip 1.

ASAP-XP in a dufflebag clip 2.

 

Signals & Drumbeats: Size does matter

In this article titled "US border drone patrols short staffed, accident prone", there is a quote by Federal Aviation Administration vice president for system operations Nancy Kalinowski, ""While many view UAVs as a promising new technology, the limited safety and operational data available does not support expedited or full integration into the national airspace system."

From where I stand, thinking of a Volkswagen sized Predator Drone falling out of the sky is quite alarming.  The irony is that this very fact should lend itself to the credible position by many in the unmanned systems industry (myself included) that small unmanned aerial systems (SUAS) can provide similar (if not identical) capabilities with exponentially less risk or at a minimum can bridge gaps either in the regulatory environment, safety of flight or operational costs while still providing some type of required coverage.

Payload sizes on small systems can range from 12 ounces to a 2+ pounds and if you think about the advancements in capabilities of very small computing devices such as the computing chips, sensors, transmitters and receivers, microcontrollers and mems technologies - making capable, albeit smaller payloads isn't an impossible technological accomplishment - it's already being done.  (Translation: it's not rocket science.)

This would translate into smaller payloads and smaller unmanned systems (drones).  By the way, in the budgetary and regulatory environment we find ourselves in today, does one really need to default to buying really really expensive and complex systems and changing archaic aviation regulations in order to facilitate flying unmanned volkswagons around in the sky?

The answer is that In some cases of course!  Yet, in other cases absolutely no!

Let's face it - the predator is essentially large enough to carry a person, but instead it's packed with alot of stuff.

What if the "stuff" could be made lighter and smaller and still deliver a similar capability at a much lower total cost with lower regulatory hurdles and much less overall risk to people in the air and on the ground?

Now it's good for the vendor of the predator drone but this is a very important distinction to make and it doesn't appear that the US Border Patrol and DHS folks are making this distinction.  Instead, they've  decided to deploy Volkswagen size drones without any other fallback plan, especially now that the FAA is beating the safety drum.  Additionally, smaller systems are less costly to maintain and train people on.

I'm not saying that the larger systems don't have a place, but I do believe that it's foolhardy not to consider safer and more affordable alternatives that are immediately fieldable - including small unmanned aerial systems.

It's simple physics - think about it.

Would you rather have a Volkswagen falling out of the sky or something the size of a grey goose falling out of the sky? (especially if one of your children were riding their bicycle home from baseball practice and it's over them...)

My short answer is - neither...but faced with having to choose, physics wins.

In my book size does matter and I'd suggest that the civil servants who are stewarding taxpayer dollars and ensuring safe airspace take a very very close look at specific requirements here and ensure that no stone is left unturned in resolving this - and not just waiting for the FAA to rewrite, repeal and update the United States archaic aviation regulations or leave it the unmanned systems industry or the DoD to iterate the technology to achieve the same flight safety performance as general aviation (which may be impossible to do without lighter payloads by the way).

Cheers,

John Surmont

Founding CEO

Sofcoast, Inc.

Signals & Drumbeats: Global Arms spending at record levels

Global arms spending hits record despite downturn

01 Jun 2010 22:00:05 GMT

Source: Reuters

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Global military spending hit $1.5 trillion in 2009  

* Spending rose 5.9 percent, despite global recession * U.S. military spending up 7.7 percent to $661 billion  

By Niklas Pollard STOCKHOLM, June 2 (Reuters)     Worldwide military spending surged to a record $1.5 trillion last year, defying an economic downturn caused by the global financial crisis, a leading think tank said on Wednesday. Military spending last year rose 5.9 percent in real terms compared to 2008 with the United States accounting for more than half of that increase, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said in its annual report on arms spending. "The far-reaching effects of the global financial crisis and economic recession appear to have had little impact on world military expenditure," the think tank said. "Although the USA led the rise, it was not alone. Of those countries for which data was available, 65 percent increased their military spending in real terms in 2009."   Global gross domestic product (GDP) suffered a rare contraction last year, shrinking 0.9 percent according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, as the financial crisis sent economies across the world into recession. SIPRI, which conducts independent research on international security, armaments and disarmament, said the rise in spending reflected the mild economic slowdown for some major purchasers, such as China, but also longer-term strategic aims. "Many countries were increasing public spending generally in 2009, as a way of boosting demand to combat the recession. Although military spending wasn't usually a major part of the economic stimulus packages, it wasn't cut either," said Sam Perlo-Freeman, head of SIPRI's Military Expenditure Project. "The figures also demonstrate that for major or intermediate powers such as the USA, China, Russia, India and Brazil, military spending represents a long-term strategic choice which they are willing to make even in hard economic times."   DEFICITS COULD WEIGH U.S. military spending, burdened by huge costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, rose 7.7 percent in real terms to hit $661 billion, more than six times as much as China, the second biggest spender ahead of France, Britain and Russia. But China's rise as a global military power becomes clearer when viewed over the past decade. During that period its military spending has surged 217 percent compared to a 76 percent rise for the United States and an increase of 49 percent globally.  

The economic crisis severely strained public finances in many countries, not least in southern Europe, and the daunting task of cutting gaping budget deficits might hold back arms spending in the coming years, the think tank said. "For many countries, the need to cut deficits will mean a reckoning in 2010 or 2011, in which military spending will likely be one area that comes under scrutiny for potential cuts," SIPRI said in the report. "For others, however, this reckoning may be delayed, or may not come at all. In the USA, the Obama administration's budgets for financial years 2010 and 2011 show U.S. military spending -- boosted by the escalating conflict in Afghanistan -- continuing its seemingly inexorable rise -- crisis or no." (Reporting by Niklas Pollard; Editing by Noah Barkin)

Signals & Drumbeats: Armed Unmanned Systems & Ethical delimma's

U.N. Report Highly Critical of U.S. Drone Attacks

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: June 2, 2010

 

WASHINGTON — A senior United Nations official said on Wednesday that the growing use of armed drones by the United States to kill terrorism suspects was undermining global constraints on the use of military force. He warned that the American example would lead to a chaotic world as the new weapons technology inevitably spread.

In a 29-page report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the official, Philip Alston, the United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions, called on the United States to exercise greater restraint in its use of drones in places like Pakistan and Yemen, outside the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The report — the most extensive effort by the United Nations to grapple with the legal implications of armed drones — also proposed a summit meeting of “key military powers” to clarify legal limits on such killings.

In an interview, Mr. Alston said the United States appeared to think that it was “facing a unique threat from transnational terrorist networks” that justified its effort to put forward legal justifications that would make the rules “as flexible as possible.”

But that example, he said, could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out “competing drone attacks” outside their borders against people “labeled as terrorists by one group or another.”

“I’m particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe,” Mr. Alston said in an accompanying statement. “But this strongly asserted but ill-defined license to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions.”

Mr. Alston is scheduled to present his findings to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Thursday. While not legally binding, his report escalates the volume of international concerns over a tactic that has become the Obama administration’s weapon of choice against Al Qaeda and its allies.

The New York Times reported last week that Mr. Alston’s report would call on the United States to stop using Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones and limit the technology to regular military forces because they are open and publicly accountable for their conduct — for example, by investigating missile strikes that kill civilians.

Days later, news emerged that a C.I.A. drone strike in Pakistan’s tribal areas was believed to have killed Al Qaeda’s third-ranking leader, apparently a major success. In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Alston acknowledged that the United States could make “a reasonable legal argument” that a strike against such a figure in those circumstances was lawful and appropriate, but he argued that the escalating number of drone strikes in Pakistan still raised concerns.

The recent strike “is a very convenient one because there you have got a very clearly acceptable target, but we’re not told who the other strikes are against and what efforts are being made to comply with the rules,” he said.

The report calls on nations like Pakistan to publicly disclose the scope and limits of any permission granted for drone strikes on their territories. It also calls on drone operators like the United States to disclose the legal justification for such killings, the criteria and safeguards used when selecting targets, and the process for investigating attacks that kill civilians.

A White House spokesman declined to comment on the report, but pointed to a speech in March by the State Department legal adviser, Harold Koh, that partly outlined the Obama administration’s legal rationale. Mr. Koh said the United States obeyed legal limits on the use of force when selecting targets, and he defended drone killings as lawful because of the armed conflict with Al Qaeda and because of the nation’s right to self-defense.

“A state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force,” he said. “Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise.”

The United Nations report agrees that drone killings can be lawful in battlefield combat. But it says that the United States is stretching the limits of who can be lawful targets.

For example, it criticized the United States for singling out drug lords in Afghanistan suspected of giving money to the Taliban, a policy it said was contrary to the traditional understanding of the laws of war. Similarly, it said, terrorism financiers, propagandists and others who are not fighters should face criminal prosecution, not summary killing.

 

It also said that a targeted killing outside of an armed conflict “is almost never likely to be legal.” In particular, it rejected “pre-emptive self-defense” as a justification for killing terrorism suspects far from combat zones.

 

“This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the U.N. Charter,” Mr. Alston said. “If invoked by other states, in pursuit of those they deem to be terrorists and to have attacked them, it would cause chaos.”

 

But a United States official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue, said drone attacks had been an “effective, exact and essential” tactic for reaching militants in inaccessible areas of Pakistan, whose government does not want the United States military fighting in its territory.

“The United States has an inherent right to protect itself and will not refrain from doing so based on someone else’s exceptionally narrow — if not faulty — definition of self-defense,” the official said. The report noted that Russia and Israel had also claimed a right in recent years to single out people they deemed terrorism suspects, and Mr. Alston said 40 other countries already had drone technology — with several already seeking armed versions.

Warning that the technology is making targeted killings much easier and more frequent, the report urged major military nations to meet with human rights specialists to work out agreements on murky legal issues, such as when a farmer who sets roadside bombs at night may be a target.

The report also raised concerns that drone operators might not have the same respect for the laws of war as soldiers in the field who have “been subjected to the risks and rigors of battle.”

“Because operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audio-feed, there is a risk of developing a ‘PlayStation’ mentality to killing,” it said.

 

Last week, the military released a report faulting military drone operators for “inaccurate and unprofessional” reporting that led to an airstrike in February that killed 23 Afghan civilians, including women and children.

Thoughtstream: Open Source and Low Friction Innovation

Todd Huffman, Chief Scientist for Sofcoast, is a big proponent and the driving force behind our company's efforts to embrace open source and creative openness.

Slashdot posted a great talk about IP Reform and some lessons that others can learn from the fashion industry about the value of open source development and the constraints to creativity and innovation of high IP industries.

After reflecting on Todd's guidance and position and watching this talk, I think there is a clear case for including and incorporating open source as a key strategy.  It just makes a ton of sense.

Especially when you look at the gross sales of goods for low ip industries and high ip industries. (12:20 into the talk..)

                                                     Courtesy YouTube

                                                               Courtesy YouTube

Signals & Drumbeats: 2010 National Security Strategy

Obama redefines national security strategy, looks beyond military might

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2010; 4:46 PM

 

In a broad redefinition of U.S. strategic priorities, President Obama has said that the United States must revitalize its economic, moral and innovative strength if it is to continue to lead the world.

Just as it did after World War II, the United States today must shape an international order and system of global institutions that reflect a 21st-century reality in which "America's greatness is not assured," Obama says in a 52-page "National Security Strategy" released Thursday morning.

"As we fight the wars in front of us, we must see the horizon beyond them," he writes in an introduction to the document. "To get there, we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership -- a strategy that rebuilds the foundation of American strength and influence."

The report is the first that Obama has prepared under a 1986 law requiring the president to present Congress with an annual strategic statement. Most administrations have only sporadically adhered to the requirement; George W. Bush issued two national security strategies during his presidency, in 2002 and 2006.

 

The document serves to set administration priorities inside the government and communicate them to Congress, the American people and the world. It also is intended as a framework for strategy documents produced by other parts of the government, including the Pentagon's national defense strategy.

Obama's new doctrine represents a clear break with the unilateral military approach advocated by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Bush tempered that guidance toward the end of his presidency, but the Obama strategy offers "a broad concept of what constitutes our national security," the document says.

 

Military superiority must be maintained and "the United States remains the only nation able to project and sustain large-scale military operations over extended distances," the document says. But "when we overuse our military might, or fail to invest in or deploy complementary tools, or act without partners," it says, "then our military is overstretched. Americans bear a greater burden, and our leadership around the world is too narrowly identified with military forces."

 

The strategy cites four "enduring national interests" that are "inextricably linked:" security, prosperity, values and international order.

 

"One of the things we really wanted to do is to have this document represent the appropriate context of our times," Benjamin Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said in an interview.

 

Reiterating international engagement and collaboration as first options against national security threats, themes that Obama has emphasized throughout his 16 months in office, the strategy emphasizes his commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and combating climate change. Obama previewed elements of the document Saturday, when he told the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., that "America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation."

 

In a choreographed series of events Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton discussed the diplomatic elements of the doctrine in a speech at the Brookings Institution, while James L. Jones, Obama's national security adviser, was to explain the strategy later at the Foreign Press Club.

 

 

"We are in a race between the forces of integration and the forces of disintegration, and we see that every day," Clinton said. "In a world like this, American leadership isn't needed less; it's actually needed more. And the simple fact is that no significant global challenge can be met without us."

At the same time, she added, the United States needs partners to help it tackle common problems. "Leadership means . . . building the coalitions that can produce results against those shared challenges. It means providing incentives for states who are part of the solution, whether they recognize it or not, enabling them and encouraging them to live up to responsibilities that even a decade ago they would never have thought were theirs, and disincentives for those who do not," she said.

 

On Wednesday, John O. Brennan, Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, discussed homeland security elements, saying the document "explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home."

 

 

In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan described a "new phase" in al-Qaeda tactics, one in which people who do not fit the "traditional profile" attempt to carry out relatively unsophisticated attacks. He cited the Nigerian suspect in the failed Christmas Day airliner bomb attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani American who allegedly parked a car bomb in Times Square this month.

 

 

"As our enemy adapts and evolves their tactics," Brennan said, "so must we constantly adapt and evolve ours, not in a mad rush driven by fear, but in a thoughtful and reasoned way that enhances our security and further delegitimizes the actions of our enemy."

Implicitly rejecting the antiterrorism rhetoric of the Bush administration, Brennan said that "our enemy is not terrorism, because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror, because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear."

"Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists," Brennan said, because use of these religious terms would "play into the false perception" that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are "religious leaders and defending a holy cause, when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers."

 

 

"The United States is at war," he said. "We are at war against al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates."

The administration "will take the fight" to the extremists "wherever they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond," Brennan said, but "will exercise force prudently, recognizing that we often need to use a scalpel and not a hammer."

"When we know of terrorists who are plotting against us, we have a responsibility to take action to defend ourselves, and we will do so," Brennan said. "At the same time, an action that eliminates a single terrorist but causes civilian casualties can, in fact, inflame local populations and create far more problems -- a tactical success but a strategic failure."

Even as the United States strengthens internal and international defenses, American values and resilience remain the primary U.S. weapons, he said.

"Terrorists may try to bring death to our cities, but it is our choice to either uphold the rule of law or chip away at it . . . to either respond wisely and effectively or lash out in ways that inflame entire regions and stoke the fires of violent extremism. That is our choice. And with the strategy . . . President Obama and the administration offers our answer."

 

 

The administration, the strategy document says, will "do everything in our power to prevent these dangers . . . [but] we also recognize that we will not be able to deter or prevent every single threat. That is why we must also enhance our resilience -- the ability to adapt to changing conditions and prepare for, withstand and rapidly recover from disruption."

The document repeats Obama's pledge to close the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo, Cuba, but offers no new details on how and when that will happen. It renews the administration's commitment to "bring terrorists to justice . . . in line with the rule of law and due process" and called for "durable legal approaches consistent with our security and our values."

The strategy restates familiar administration policy on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as Iran and North Korea, and reiterates that "our relationship with our European allies remains the cornerstone for U.S. engagement with the world." It nods to strong U.S. partnerships with Asian powers, including Japan and South Korea, and Canada and Mexico as hemispheric allies.

It briefly mentions Israel, citing the importance of maintaining a "strong partnership" and supporting Israel's "lasting integration" into the Middle East. But in the same paragraph, it says that the United States "also will continue to develop our key security relationships in the region" with Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states.

A central part of administration strategy, the document says, is expanding U.S. engagement with "other key centers of influence -- including China, India and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia." It notes a previously announced shift in U.S. focus from the Group of Eight industrialized nations to the Group of 20 as "the premier forum for international economic cooperation."

 

The strategy concludes on a somewhat wistful note, saying that both domestic and international progress will depend on "broad and bipartisan cooperation" whose absence "places the United States at a strategic disadvantage."

 

"Throughout the Cold War, even as there were intense disagreements about certain courses of action, there remained a belief that America's political leaders shared common goals, even if they differed about how to reach them," it says. "In today's political environment, due to the actions of both parties, that sense of common purpose is at times lacking in our national security dialogue."

 

Signals & Drumbeats: Private Wages fall in Historic Pay Shift

The May 25, 2010 issue of USA Today included an article about "Private Wages Fall in Historic Pay Shift".

The main point of the article is that the amount of compensation and employee benefits provided to government employees and the benefits provided by Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other social benefits was substantially greater than the wages and benefits paid to employees of private companies.

According to USA Today, "Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of (total) personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year. ... A record low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December, 2007". 

=====

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.

The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. Even before the downturn, private wages were eroding because of the substitution of health and pension benefits for taxable salaries.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that individuals received income from all sources — wages, investments, food stamps, etc. — at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter.

Key shifts in income this year:

• Private wages. A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.
• Government benefits. Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees.

The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.

Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.

Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says.

Thoughtstream: What a mess

As the founding CEO of Sofcoast, (which is a privately held, investor-backed, forward leaning technology startup, that designs and builds information infrastructure solutions for expeditionary enterprise users in public safety, defense and commercial markets), I am responsible for constituting the business, constituting and holding the vision, developing and executing effective strategies for producing structures for fulfillment to develop and ship product,  produce satisfied customers, investors, partners and other key stakeholders by achieving sustainable revenue growth through efficient operational performance.

As I watch the BP oil spill disaster unfold in the Gulf of Mexico, I simply can't fathom how such a large company with so much cash on-hand and operational expertise can't be better equipped and prepared to respond to this disaster.

As an entrepreneur and business owner, my heart goes out to all of those who's livelihood's depend on the gulf to feed their families and take care of their own concerns,  such as those fisherman in the marine industries or those who depend on recreation & leisure, travel & tourism dollars to provide for their families. 

I can't help but keep thinking about one thing....

British Petroleum's balance sheet - which shows how much cash (yes, it's billions) the company has on-hand (as of March 31st, 2010). (see below, courtesy Google Finance)

                                                Screenshot from Google Finance

For me, it's simply undignified to know that this company has so much money and capacity - while seeing such an ineffective response as we all watch this disaster unfold and harm so many people and living things.

What a mess.

Signals & Drumbeats: Push on to Protect new troops from IEDs

Push on to protect new troops from IEDs

4-19-2010

Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is scrambling to provide the latest handheld mine sweepers and observation balloons to detect makeshift bombs for the thousands of additional troops President Obama has ordered to Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates assigned Under Secretary Ashton Carter, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, and Marine Lt. Gen. John "Jay" Paxton to identify what troops need and get it to them by the peak of the summer fighting season. By June, the last of the 30,000 new troops Obama ordered will arrive and are expected to be part of an offensive to secure Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city.

"Jay and I are not focused on next year, long programs, finding the perfect technical solution," Carter said in an interview with USA TODAY. "We're focused on the here and now."

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) continue to be the No. 1 threat to kill or wound U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan.

Critical equipment being rushed to Afghanistan includes:

• Handheld mine and explosive detectors. Commanders in Afghanistan issued an urgent request for devices that can be used quickly and easily by troops who leave the protection of their armored vehicles. About 3,500 mine detectors are in the process of being shipped to Afghanistan..

Another device being fielded is the Sherlock, which helps troops detect explosives made from fertilizer, the primary component of bombs in Afghanistan.

• Balloon-mounted cameras, known as elevated line of sight surveillance. "These are large airships like the balloon that's over the ball game," Carter said. "The soldier that looks up there knows that that's protecting him, the townsman knows that that's protecting him, the Taliban knows that that might be looking at him. That's a way of providing eyes in the sky when we just don't have enough of the fancy (drones)."

The military is doubling the number of balloons by summer, said Navy Cmdr. Wendy Snyder, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

• Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles designed specifically for rugged terrain and poor roads in Afghanistan. The vehicle's raised chassis allows the blast to dissipate before hitting its V-shaped hull, which deflects the force.

There are about 1,000 all-terrain MRAPs in Afghanistan, and thousands more will be shipped there as quickly as possible, Carter said.

Another key to reducing bomb attacks is stemming the flow of fertilizer — the primary ingredient — from Pakistan, Paxton said.

"What we're expecting to do, particularly along the border is to make the transshipment of it more difficult, to make the detection of it more positive and earlier and to do all those things where we can to interdict or identify and narrow down and close the supply chain," he said.

The Counter-IED Senior Integration Group's mission is to accelerate the work of task forces and organizations also charged with a portion of the Pentagon's IED effort, Carter said. Task forces already exist for MRAPs and intelligence gathering and surveillance. JIEDDO, the principal counter-IED agency, will have a budget of $3.4 billion in 2011.

"We're not a new bureaucracy," Carter said.

Dakota Wood, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said Carter's group can help if it expedites critical equipment to Afghanistan, though he wondered if another task force was needed.

"I wouldn't want a gap to go unfilled, but this does seem a little late in the game," he said.