CLIMATE changelog » Technosphere » DARPArama
http://chem11.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&action=display&thread=2023

---

DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 10:57am

Russia approves mass production of cutting-edge Bulava missile

07/08/2007 18:47 MOSCOW. (Military commentator Viktor Yuzbashev for RIA Novosti)

Russia has moved to a higher level in the design of strategic sea-based nuclear systems.

Admiral Vladimir Masorin, commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, said the Bulava-M (SS-NX-30), a naval derivative of the land-based missile Topol (SS-27), had been approved for mass production.

It will be supplied to the new fourth-generation Project 955 Borey-class strategic submarines. Three such submarines, the Yury Dolgoruky, the Vladimir Monomakh and the Alexander Nevsky, are being built at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, Arkhangelsk Region (north of European Russia).

The Yury Dolgoruky, the first of the series, will have 12 Bulava missiles. It was commissioned in the presence of First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who is in charge of Russia's defense-related sectors, and other eminent guests in April 2007.

Development has not been smooth. At first, the Miass bureau designed the D-19M Bark (SS-NX-28) submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM), but it turned out to be too big for the subs, and flight tests later exposed other drawbacks. Russia cancelled the project in 1998, when the missile was almost ready, because of rising costs and technical difficulties.

The task was then sent to the Moscow-based Heat Technology Institute, which had developed the ground-based Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

Four of the first six flight tests of the Bulava-M (where "M" stands for morskoi, or naval) were a failure. Masorin said the recent test in late July was successful, but independent experts are not so sure. According to them, one of the three warheads of the missile did not reach its destination.

This did not deter the designers of the Bulava and their superiors. Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian Space Agency, which is responsible for designing and supplying strategic missiles to the armed forces, said the Bulava could be delivered to the navy after 12-14 tests.

He referred to the experience of the United States, where the Trident II naval missile was delivered to the navy after 19 ground tests and nine launches from a submarine.

Admiral Masorin said the trial period of the Bulava would end in 2008 after two more tests this year. One of the trials will determine the missile's maximum range. It is not clear where that particular missile will land, but it will clearly be beyond the Kura range on the Kamchatka Peninsular in Russia's Far East. On the other hand, it could be aimed at the range, but launched not from the White Sea, as usual, but from some other sea.

According to the Western press, the three-stage solid-fuel Bulava-M missile will be one of the lightest in its class. Weighing only 30 metric tons, it was initially named Bulava-30. It has an effective range of 8,000 kilometers (4,972 miles) and will carry four to ten warheads.

Some experts claim that such a light missile could not carry ten warheads. Others argue that modern nuclear technology and composite materials allow engineers to build smaller and lighter nuclear warheads that will be as effective as their larger counterparts.

The Bulava will most likely be built to carry ten warheads, as its combat effectiveness would not be sufficient otherwise. The Yury Dolgoruky, the first of the Borey-class submarines, will have 12 missile launchers, but the two later subs, the Vladimir Monomakh and the Alexander Nevsky, will have 16 launchers.

If the designers' plans materialize, the three new submarines will carry 44 Bulava missiles with 440 nuclear warheads, an impressive contribution to strategic nuclear deterrence stipulated in Russia's military doctrine.

The results of trials of the Bulava, as well as its parameters, flight telemetry, technical characteristics and the companies involved in its construction and production, are confidential information for everyone but the United States. Washington receives information on missile technology in accordance with the START-1 treaty on strategic reductions.

So, this information is secret only to the Russian military and its designers, as well as Russian taxpayers, who are paying for the missile designed to protect them. Why?

The Bulava, as well as the Yury Dolgoruky and other submarines of its class, has become hostage to the political ambitions of some high-ranking Russian officials. They promised that a cutting-edge submarine would be built and armed with the latest missiles capable of evading any air defense systems, both existing and future ones, by the end of 2008. They have repeated this promise often and loudly enough to give the Russian public and Western politicians hearing problems. Failure to keep their word could cost them their high positions and ruin their hopes of climbing to the country's top post. This is why the Bulava has been put into production before the design stage was completed, and this is why they have again promised that the new sub will be delivered to the navy already armed with the new SLBM.

However, Masorin also hinted that not all of the new missile would go into production now, but only its blocks and stages that have proved their reliability during tests. When the trials of the Bulava-M are over and the missile receives the certificate of the state acceptance committee, they will be assembled at the Votkinsk machine tool works and supplied to the three new subs, as well as to the Dmitry Donskoi, a Project 941 Akula-class (Typhoon-class) submarine, which has been upgraded to a fourth generation submarine.

It carries 20 missile launchers, and if it is armed with the Bulava-M SLBMs, this will increase Russia's naval nuclear deterrence potential by 200 warheads.

Only, that is, if the Bulava-M missile survives the political race.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070807/70536185.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 12:34pm

DARPA Chief: Titanium is the Next Internet
By Noah Shachtman August 08, 2007 | 8:44:12 AM

The Pentagon's way-out research arm has been responsible -- at least in part -- for everything from night vision to Predator drones to our favorite series of tubes. So what does DARPA chief Tony Tether see as the agency's next set of "game changers?" The answers he gave the three thousand military officers, Pentagon-funded scientists, and defense contractors gathered here at the DARPATech conference might surprise you:

* Military grade titanium at $3.50 a pound, instead of $35 a pound.

* High quality military jet fuel processed from crops grown in the U.S.

* A machine capable of rapidly translating foreign language speech and text as well, if not better than, experienced linguists

* Aircraft that can autonomously refuel and remain airborne for very long periods, perhaps as long as five years, or more.

* A prosthetic to replace an arm lost in combat, so capable, that the soldier could learn to play Dixieland on the piano.

* A computer that can process at a rate faster than one Billion Million Instructions per Second.

When I first started using computers, admittedly a very long time ago, the fastest computer could process at a rate of only one hundred thousand instructions per second. The new computers will be 10 billion times faster than what I had to work with. This new capability will dramatically reduce the time it takes to design, test, and bring an idea to reality, giving us a great strategic and tactical advantage over the rest of the world.

And it's not like Tether has given up on tying computers together. "The key to success in future military operations is the network," he said. "The network [will] become the most vital and critical capability for our forces, exceeding even that of the platforms it supports.I was with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan last year. From what I saw and heard, I believe even more in the power of networks."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/darpas-next-int.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 12:36pm

Ready-To-Order World for Battlefield Training
By Noah Shachtman August 08, 2007 | 11:00:00 AM

The military has been using games to get its troops ready for battle since World War II. But mostly, when the soldiers have plugged in to train up, they do so in generic simulated environments – “whereveristans,” if you will. And it takes forever to build those pixilated places.

But the folks at Total Immersion Software have a different approach in mind: digital battlefields that look just like the ones soldiers are about to hit, and can be whipped up in a few hours. They call it RealWorld.

John Main, a former DARPA program manager turned Total Immersion executive, paints a picture of a small special forces team, about to be dropped into Somalia -- to capture a terrorist leader, maybe. It takes just six hours to code a digital Mogadishu, down to the street, down to the building, down to the individual room where the target sleeps. On the plane ride over, the snake eaters rehearse their sntch-and-grab before they do it, for real.

At least, that's the idea. Some day. Maybe. For now, Main's new colleague, Mike Day, will settle for a 72-hour build time -- and only an simulated "target structure" that's heavily detailed. Even that three-day lead-time would be a pretty serious jump, though. And it definitely beats "whereveristan."

The way to pull it off, Day thinks, is to let the troops design their own pixilated rehearsal spaces. To give the soldiers a set of software tools to they can drag-and-drop together satellite images, ground photos, and drone footage to make a pixilated battlefield. Think of it like Second Life, but for war.

With a pair of hoops in his left earlobe and a graying goatee, Mark Day doesn’t look much like the corporate suits, scruffy-bearded professors, and crew-cut officers hanging around the DARPATech conference in Anaheim. That’s because he’s a game designer by trade, not a military scientist; he produced a couple of installments of the Wing Commander franchise for Electronic Arts, then started his own gaming company.

Today, he's still putting together games, But now, it's for the government. He's using a version of the Gamebryo engine -- which forms the heart of everything from Civ IV to Morrowind -- to put together Real World for DARPA. "I still treat it as a game -- otherwise it gets too scary-serious," he says. Still, "after being responsible for supposedly corrupting the youth of the world for so long, it's nice to do something with actual meaning."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/the-military-ha.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 12:39pm

Fishes' Fins for DARPA's Swimmers
By Sharon Weinberger August 08, 2007 | 3:02:56 PM



DARPA is trying out all kinds of tricks to give humans the powers of animals. Take this fin-like gadget, Powerswim. It's a "human-powered swimming device" that could be used by combat or reconnaissance divers:

This program explores a new concept in swimming propulsion that uses the same oscillating foil approach to swimming that is exhibited by many fish and aquatic birds. This propulsion approach is more than 85-percent efficient in conversion of human motions to forward propulsion. Typical recreational swim fins are no more than 10-percent efficient in their conversion of human exertion to propulsive power. This dramatic improvement in swimming efficiency will enable subsurface swimmers to move up to two-and-a-half times faster than is currently possible, thus improving swimmer performance, safety, and range.

Apparently, combat swimmers can only go about 4.5 miles before fatigue sets in; the biologically-inspired "oscillating foil" could double that distance. The company building the Powerswim, DEKA, is the same company that developed the Segway.

Writing over at Ares (and thanks for the photo, too!), Bill Sweetman notes that getting Navy SEALS to adopt this technology may not be that easy.

"They're used to working hard, and if it doesn't hurt they don't think they're doing the job - but then we say, 'when have you ever swum above two knots?'." Another defense source observes: "SEALs are like Catholic school - if it doesn't hurt it's not good for you."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/darpas-bionic-s.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 12:43pm

Natural Cures DARPA Doesn't Want You To Know About
By Sharon Weinberger August 08, 2007 | 3:12:32 PM

Can dietary supplements make you healthier? A lot of doctors are skeptical. But DARPA gave it a try with a product called Q-Chews, and DARPA Director Tony Tether even sent some to Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary. England held up the chewable supplements up during a live video telecon played today at DARPATech.



DARPA funded trials on Q-Chews, which are claimed to "reduce the risk of respiratory viral illness after extreme physical stress; help maintain mental focus; and increase muscle power." The DARPA-funded study was led by Dr. David Nieman, "a professor in Appalachian State University’s Department of Health, Leisure and Exercise Science."

According to a press release, this research was funded by a $1.1 million contract provided to Appalachian State University. This was apparently the largest contract in the university's history.

According to the company:

Prolonged physical exertion is known to damage muscles, weaken the immune system and reduce mental focus. Scientific tests funded by DARPA have shown that taking this patented formula daily for 3-6 weeks actually reduced the incidence of respiratory infections and mental fatigue. Other controlled clinical trials have shown that daily quercetin intake increase muscle power during high intensity exercise and stress. Q-Chews contain a patented formula of QU995 Quercetin (>99.5% pure) plus Vitamin C and Vitamin B3 to increase Quercetin absorption. Quercetin is a natural flavonoid extracted from plants, renowned for its ultra-concentrated antioxidant properties. Until recently, QU995 was reserved exclusively for testing by the US Military. Q-Chews are natural, delicious-tasting chews that are convenient to use and safe at the recommended dose.

What did DARPA conclude about Q-Chews? It's not clear, but the company notes their claims "have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration" and that their "product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/natural-cures-d.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 12:50pm

DARPA Vision: "Unblinking" Spy Drones, Veggie-Powered Killer Bots
By Noah Shachtman August 08, 2007 | 4:00:00 PM



The Pentagon's far-out science division wants an unmanned, "unblinking eye from above" to watch over an area for "weeks, months, even years." And if that doesn't do the surveillance trick, veggie-eating killer robots on the ground will pick up the slack. You may now break out the tinfoil hats.

Today's Global Hawk reconnaissance drones can stay in the air for up to 40 hours. DARPA program manager Wade Pulliam would like to increase that by 1,000 times, or more -- getting a robotic surveillance plan that can stay in the air for 5 years, or 44,000 hours, straight. The project is called "Vulture." And it won't be easy, Pulliam admits. After all, the Global Hawk goes through a "major service cycle" every 400 to 600 hours. How could Vulture stay in the air that long without that kind of maintenance? And while we're at it, what about the fuel that thing will need?

Maybe the thing will have to be built like a satellite, he mused -- with lots of redundant subsystems. Maybe there will be some sort of automatic, in-flight refueling and servicing. Maybe the "system [will] incorporat[e] modular pieces which fly home when a fault is detected," a Vulture briefing guesses. But it'll all be worth it, Pulliam promises, to have an "unblinking view circling indefinitely just 12 miles above [a] target." Not even a team of satellites could scope foes out so well, he insists. And unlike satellites, the Vulture might be able to "strike" targets, too, according to the briefing, which depicts the drone has a kind of modified version of AeroVironment's hydrogen-powered, long-loitering planes.



The Vulture won't be the only machine that stares at enemies, if Pulliam has his way. He's like to see teams of autonomous, camouflaged ground vehicles, "slowly working their way into position" and then "lying in wait to strike when ordered."

Of course, these killer 'bots can't exactly be refueled -- it'd blow their cover. So maybe the machine could power up by "consuming organic material from the surrounding environment." Or perhaps a drone overhead could beam some power down to the groundling.

Either way, the idea is to not allow potential foes "an inch of space, not allow them a moment's rest, not allow them to have an easy breath."

I have a feeling a few others may have respiratory troubles, if Pulliam's plans pan out.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/the-pentagons-f.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 12:55pm

Robo-Cars Picked for Pentagon Driving Test
By Noah Shachtman August 09, 2007 | 1:27:45 PM

36 teams are moving on to the semi-finals of the Urban Challenge, the Pentagon's contest to see if robotic cars can move their way through cities.

That includes all five teams that completed 2005's Grand Challenge driverless rally across the desert. But only one in the quintet is among the top five semi-finalists: New Orleans' Team Gray. The group of insurance company programmers shocked the robotics world -- and overcame the destruction of their workshop by Hurricance Katrina -- by beating out vehicles built by leading computer-science researchers and backed by defense contractors to complete the Grand Challenge's 150-mile course. Since then, the firm has pulled some employees from the insurance side of the business, allowing them to focus on the company's new venture: robotic cars.

The Urban Challenge is set for November 3, at an urban military training in Victorville, California. And it will be a different sort of contest than 2005's challenge. To qualify for winning, the robo-cars will have to complete a 60-mile fuel resupply mission in under six hours -- avoiding moving obstacles, merging into oncoming traffic, and obeying California's driving laws. But the eventual $2 million victor will be picked by a panel of judges -- not judged strictly on time.

At today's DARPATech conference, agency director Tony Tether said that prize is "in danger of being passed out." He recently saw a robot approach an intersection, he said. Then the driverless vehicle waited for other cars to pass, flipped on its turning signal, and drove away.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/36-teams-are-mo.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 12:58pm

Drone Dog's Big Walk
By Noah Shachtman August 09, 2007 | 2:30:00 PM



Getting a four-legged robot to haul 150 pounds, pick its way across rocky fields, and leap into the air like a steeplechasing show horse was just the start. The next step for BigDog, the alarming life-like robo-quadruped, is to follow a soldier on a five-mile hike across rough terrain.

The original idea behind BigDog was to have it tag along with a human master in any environment -- carrying the soldier's gear up mountains, down stairs, through forest trails. "To have the mobility to go where no existing vehicle could," Marc Raibert, the robot's chief designer, tells DANGER ROOM. But despite the machine's often-jaw-dropping ability to roam -- check out how it takes a kick to the flank -- that goal hasn't been met. "We're still not beating ATVs [all-terrain vehicles] yet."

But the hike Raibert has in mind, no ATV could handle. The slopes are too steep, too rocky. Then there are all of those trees to squeeze in between.

To get it done, though, the BigDog is going to have to be a whole lot more rugged than it is today. Raibert has a new contract from DARPA worth up to $40 million to get the robot ready.

He has other machines on display here at DARPATech, the conference thrown by the Pentagon's blue-sky research division arm, too. One 'bot, RISE, uses hundreds of tiny, spring-loaded metallic spines in each of its feet to stick to walls -- and climb up them. A tail allows RISE to press against the wall as it's moving up, and push over the ledge, when it's at the top. Another, Little Dog, picks its way across rocky fields, learning from experience.

The climb will be challenging for toy-sized 'bot. But it's nothing compared to what the bigger pick of the litter is going to face.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/getting-a-four-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 1:02pm

Ionatron: The Smackdown
By Sharon Weinberger August 09, 2007 | 4:20:06 PM

Can life get any worse for Ionatron, the cash-burning lightning-weapon maker that still enjoys a small, but determined band of hard-core groupies? There's been shady deals, canceled contracts, an investor lawsuit and alleged insider trading. Now, the Motley Fool is calling Ionatron a "$220 million-dollar pipe dream on a fast track to zero."



Their message to investors: "Get out while you still can." The Motley Fool also takes a deep swipe at the management:

To me, Ionatron's 8-K filings with the SEC read like a case study of management self-enrichment. While not bothering to place a copy of last quarter's earnings release in the files (perhaps management didn't consider an "earnings" release material because there were no earnings?), Ionatron did inform us of a pay raise for COO/CFO Kenneth Wallace (salary: $210,000 per year), and of executive VPs Joseph Hayden and Stephen McCahon's plans to sell stock under 10b-5-1 plans.

Well, today, Ionatron held its quarterly conference call, and the Motley Fool noted that the company had cut costs, which is sorta good news, but also bad news, because the costs it cut were from R&D, and that's not so hot: "With few sales, and no profits, Ionatron remains an R&D shop. Not just its future, but its very reason for existence, is tied to its research of directed energy weapons technology. As such, I consider cutting costs by cutting R&D spending nothing less than a mortgaging of Ionatron's future."

Hey, this is great news for DANGER ROOM, 'cause it means Ionatron will be around a bit longer, providing us with a never-ending source of entertaining material (and hate mail).

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/ionatron-the-sm.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 1:05pm


Stealth Goes to Sea
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 8/9/2007 9:15 AM

Northrop Grumman is starting to reveal details of its X-47B unmanned combat aircraft demonstrator. Despite protestations by company officials that they only wanted to talk about the $635.8 million, 6-year project to demonstrate launches and recoveries at sea, they soon turned to the operational potential of its X-47B unmanned combat aircraft design. However, negotiations on the funding profiles continue and could involve $1.2 billion in all, says Rick Ludwig, Northrop Grumman’s director of business development.



The flying wing design will offer “wide-band, low observable” protection against “all radar bands,” says Scott Winship, Northrop Grumman’s UCAS-D program manager. That means maintaining stealth in the presence of both high frequency (anti-aircraft radars and ground-to-air or air-to-air missiles) and low frequency (long-range search radars) emitters, a capability that earlier stealth designs didn’t have.

Because there is no man, mission endurance is expected to reach 50-100 hr. And since the UCAS is going to be up there so long, the company is adapting the two weapons bays to carry twelve precision-guided, 250-lb. small diameter bombs instead of two 2,000 lb. joint direct attack munitions. That way the aircraft can strike more targets during a mission and take advantage of its long-loiter capability. Bombs could be targeted by teams on the ground no matter how far the aircraft is from its launch site, Beard says.



As to new missions, company planners are looking at installing a 600-gal. fuel tank in each weapons bay so that it can serve as a tanker. That option has brought cheers from the F/A-18 Hornet community that since the retirement of the Navy’s S-3s has had to serve as aerial refuelers for the carrier-based community. See more details in Monday’s Aviation Week & Space Technology.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/def....a-983bc8 260bb5

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 10, 2007, 1:12pm

Exclusive: DARPA's New Tools for Net Defenders, Cyber-Snoops (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman August 10, 2007 | 9:41:00 AM

It’s getting harder and harder for the Pentagon’s cyber defenders to protect military networks – and for federal snoops to peek in on our e-mail. DARPA, the Pentagon’s way-out research arm, has an idea for how to keep up: use the laws of heat flow to monitor network traffic. It's part of a bigger push to make sure net protectors and digital surveillance type can keep up with the rising tide of e-mail, web-surfing, and other online activities.



We all know about Moore’s Law – that computer processors will double in strength and speed every 18 months. But network traffic is growing even faster, at nearly double the rate. Every decade, the amount of packets expands a thousand-fold.

That’s a major worry for the Pentagon, and its cybersecurity pros. All that increased traffic means more bits to scan for viruses and other malicious code. If today’s trends keep up, DARPA program manager Brian Hearing tells DANGER ROOM, “we’d use the majority of DOD [Department of Defense] computers to monitor network traffic. Which won’t happen, obviously. So our ability to detect will drop.”

So Hearing is launching a new program, "Scalable Network Monitoring," that aims to detect 99% of the bad code in a torrent of traffic, a hundred gigabits per second (GPS) -- with only a single false alarm per day. He's leading a meeting in Virginia next week, to kickstart the effort.

Old-school cyber-monitoring at the Pentagon meant comparing each packet to known viruses and the like as it passes from the Internet to the Defense Department’s classified networks. But that only works against known malicious code. And it is a bear to process.

But the Navy has been pioneering an approach, called "Therminator," which might be able to do the job a little better. It's one of a number of potential new net-defense tools that DARPA would like to see in action. The idea is to monitor the flow of traffic, rather than the individual packets. To treat it like to movement of temperature -- thermodynamics -- rather than the travels of ones and zeros. "If, all of a sudden, we see a big flow to China, we know there's a problem," Hearing says.

The approach could make it simpler to find a data leak, or a backdoor inserted into a Pentagon computer. And it'll invariably make it easier to monitor what the rest of us do online, too. Clearly, it's not a coincidence that NSA bigwigs will be speaking at Hearing's get-together next week.

Testing out these new network-monitoring tools will mean building all-new malicious code, too. Could those new cyber-attacks be turned over to the NSA, too -- maybe to cyber-bomb a foe? "No comment," says Hearing.

UPDATE: The Scalable Network Monitoring request for proposals in now online: http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/BAA07-52/Attachments.html

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/we-all-know-abo.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Aug 10, 2007, 11:08pm

Delightful thread.

I am deeply inspired by the marvelous accomplishments being documented herein and very impressed with the large sums of money involved.

We have cardboard boxes in bank lobbies here in Boston this week with signs on them asking for donations of school supplies for children whose parents can't afford to buy them.

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 17, 2007, 10:02am

HMS Daring eases through first sea trials

By Thomas Harding on HMS Daring
Last Updated: 10:58am BST 16/08/2007

A warship that can defend the entire city of London from missile and aircraft attack successfully completed its first Royal Navy sea trial yesterday.

HMS Daring: Type-45 destroyer


The £1 billion HMS Daring will become the most advanced warship in the world when it enters service with the Navy in 2009.

The Type-45 destroyer, which is already exceeding targets, will now start taking on board Aster missiles, which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.

It is also the most eco-friendly ship ever produced for the Royal Navy, with a unique electric propulsion system that can ferry it from New York and back without refuelling.

The most powerful front-line warship since the Second World War has missiles capable of striking the most advanced "intelligent" anti-ship missiles that can travel at Mach 4.

Daring is crowned by a huge 30-metre high Samson radar that can track more than 1,000 targets at once.

The system is so powerful it can monitor all take-offs and landings from every major European airport within 200 miles of Portsmouth.

The ship can engage 12 air targets and will carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames, its weapon system would be able to single-handedly destroy any incoming airborne attack on Greater London.
During four weeks of sea trials, Daring has achieved 31.5 knots - exceeding a target of 28 knots.

During final trials off the Western Isles yesterday Daring went through her paces smoothly, watched by the defence minister, Bob Ainsworth.

From a standing start she reached 29 knots in just 70 seconds and can come to a dead halt within 800 yards.

She can turn full circle within three ship lengths and has stealth technology that reduces the radar signature to that of a fishing boat.

"She's a beautiful ship to drive, like a souped-up Bentley with very smooth handling," said Lt-Cdr Phil Harper, the ship's navigator

It can also take 60 Special Forces troops, a large Chinook or Apache attack helicopters as well as Merlin anti-submarine helicopters.

The ship left American visitors to the yard on the Clyde "shaken and shocked", according to BAE Systems, its builders.

In the next 10 years, as many as eight T45s could be built, mainly to defend the two large aircraft carriers that were ordered last month.

T45 Destroyer factfile

Ordered: 2000

Cost: £1 billion.

Official launch: Feb 1, 2006, by the Countess of Wessex.

Expected in service: 2009.

Built by: BAE Systems, Scotstoun, River Clyde

Crew comforts: First warship to include email facilities and iPod charging points.

Size: The height of Nelson’s column. The ship’s 20,000 power cables stretch 400 miles.

Engine: unique eco-friendly electric propulsion system can accelerate ship to 29 knots in just 70 seconds.

Equipment: can take a large Chinook or Apache attack helicopters as well as Merlin anti-submarine helicopters.

Motto: Splendide audax (Finely daring).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/15/nwarship115.xml

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Aug 21, 2007, 12:48pm

The latest Soviet Air Defense system apparently:

S-400 SA-20 Triumf

The Triumf S-400 is a new generation of air defense and theater anti-missile weapon developed by the Almaz Central Design Bureau as an evolution of the S-300PMU [SA-10] family. This new system is intended to detect and destroy airborne targets at a distance of up to 400 km (2- 2.5 times greater than the previous S-300PMU system). The Triumf system includes radars capable of detecting low-signature targets. And the anti-missile capability of the system has been increased to the limits established by the ABM Treaty demarcation agreements -- it can intercept targets with velocities of up to 4.8 km/sec, corresponding to a ballistic missile range of 3,500 km.

The system was developed through the cooperation of the Almaz Central Design Bureau, Fakel Machine Building Design Bureau, Novosibirsk Scientific Research Institute of Instruments, St. Petersburg Design Bureau of Special Machine Building and other enterprises.

The Fakel Machine Building Design Bureau has developed two new missiles for Triumf.

* The "big" missile [designation otherwise unknown] has a range of up to 400 km and will be able to engage "over- the-horizon [OTH]" targets using a new seeker head developed by Almaz Central Design Bureau. This seeker can operate in both a semiactive and active mode, with the seeker switched to a search mode on ground command and homing on targets independently. Targets for this missile include airborne early warning and control aircraft as well as jammers.

* The 9M96 missile is designed to destroy aircraft and air- delivered weapons at ranges in excess of 120 km. The missile is small-- considerably lighter than the ZUR 48N6Ye used in the S-300PMU1 systems and the Favorit. The missile is equipped with an active homing head and has an estimated single shot kill probability of 0.9 for manned aircraft and 0.8 for unmanned maneuvering aircraft. a gas-dynamic control system enables the 9M96 missile to maneuver at altitudes of up to 35 km at forces of over 20g, which permits engagment of non- strategic ballistic missiles. A mockup of the missile was set up at an Athens arms exhibition in October 1998. One 9M96 modification will become the basic long-range weapon of Air Force combat aircraft, and may become the standardized missile for air defense SAM systems, ship-launched air defense missile systems, and fighter aircraft.

These new missiles can be accomodated on the existing SAM system launchers of the S-300PMU family. A container with four 9M96's can be installed in place of one container with the 5V55 or 48N6 missiles, and thus the the standard launcher intended for four 48N6Ye missiles can accommodate up to 16 9M96Ye missiles. Triumf provides for the greatest possible continuity with systems of the S-300PMU family (PMU1, PMU2), making it possible to smoothly change over to the production of the new generation system. It will include the previous control complex, though supporting not six but eight SAM systems, as well as multifunctional radar systems illumination and guidance, launchers, and associated autonomous detection and target indication systems.

The state tests of the S-400 system reportedly began in 1999, with the initial test on 12 February 1999. As of May 1999 the testing of S-400 air defense system was reportedly nearing completion at Kapustin Yar, with the first systems of this kind to be delivered to the Moscow Air Force and Air Defense District in the fourth quarter of 1999. However, as of August 1999 government testing of the S-400 was slated to begin at the end of 1999, with the first system complex slated for delivery in late 2000. The sources of the apparent one-year delay in the program are unclear, though they may involve some combination of technical and financial problems with this program. Russian air defense troops conducted a test of the new anti-aircraft missile system S-400 on 07 April 2000. At that time, Air Force Commander Anatoly Kornukov said that serial production of the new system would begin in June 2000. Kornukov said air defense troops would get one S-400 launcher system by the end of 2000, but it would be armed with missiles of the available S-300 system.

On condition of normal funding, radars with an acquisition range of 500-600 km should become operational by 2002-2003. However, other sources report that while it was ordered by the Defence Ministry, the military has nothing to pay for it with, so it is unclear when the Russian military will get this new weapon.

The Russian Air Force is studying a reduction in the number of types of air defense weapons, and it is possible that Triumf will become the only system being developed, providing defense both in the close-range and mid-range as well long-range zones.

Specifications
Contractor Almaz Central Design Bureau
Fakel Machine Building Design Bureau
Entered Service
Total length
Diameter
Wingspan
Weight
Warhead Weight
Propulsion
Maximum Speed
Maximum effective range 120 km 9M96 missile
400 km "big" missile
Guidance mode
Single-shot hit probability




Sources and Resources

* "Innovation: There Will Be No 'Desert Storm' Over Russia: 'Triumf' System Will Be a Worthy Response to Foreign Aircraft Development" by Sergey Sokut, Moscow Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye No 6 (129) 19-25 Feb 99 p 6 [Sokut: Implications of S-400 'Triumf' SAM : FBIS-SOV-1999-0305 : 05 Mar 1999]

* "Sensation: 'Almaz' Prepares 'Triumf': New Generation of Anti-Aircraft Missile System Created in Russia," by Andrey Viktorovich Fomin, editor in chief of the Russian-English journal Air Fleet, Moscow Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye 5-11 Feb 99 No 4 p 1 [New 'Triumf' Air Defense System Noted : FBIS-SOV-1999-0222 : 05 Feb 1999]

* "New Missile" By Yevgeniy Nikitin Moscow ITAR-TASS 1202 GMT 20 Aug 99 [Russia Boasts Most Sophisticated Anti-Aircraft System : FBIS-SOV-1999-0821 : 20 Aug 1999]

* Moscow NTV 1800 GMT 10 Apr 99 [Russian Missile Designers Laud Products : FBIS-SOV-1999-0410 : 10 Apr 1999]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 3, 2007, 8:44pm

Oops, another top secret exposed



A screen grab of Microsoft's Virtual Earth showing the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine in dry dock near Bangor in Washington state. Inset: 2003 photo of USS Virginia in contstruction showing the propellor covered.

More specifically:



Stephen Hutcheon
September 4, 2007 - 10:48AM

A man looking for a new home on an online mapping service has stumbled across an aerial image of a US nuclear-powered submarine in dry dock showing a part of the vessel that wasn't meant to be seen.

The image - which appears on Microsoft's Virtual Earth mapping service - is of the seven-bladed propeller used on an Ohio class ballistic missile submarine.

The vessel was being worked on at a dry dock at the Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor in Washington State, in the north-west of the United States. The base is part of Bangor's Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific which houses the largest nuclear weapons arsenal.

Propeller designs have been closely guarded secrets since the days of the Cold War. It is still common for them to be draped with tarps or removed and covered when a submarine is out of the water.

The propeller design is an integral part of a submarine's ability to remain undetected during operations, ensuring that it can patrol the seas in stealth without giving its position away to surface ships.

The find has triggered a debate over whether online mapping services offered by the likes of Google and Microsoft should be allowed to snap and publish images of sensitive US military installations.

Reporting the discovery, the Navy Times newspaper quoted military analyst Nathan Hughes as saying that exposing the propeller was a major blunder that had compromised "sensitive naval technology".

The paper quotes a Pentagon public affairs officer as saying that the Defence Department does not have a policy - or the legal authority - to demand the removal or blurring of commerical aerial or satellite photography.

The discovery was made by Dan Twohig, a deck officer on a ferry service in Washington State. He made the discovery in early July when he was looking at real estate near Seattle using Virtual Earth, a mapping service similar to Google Maps and Earth.

Twohig lives in North Bend in Washington State. Situated about 50km east of Seattle, it was the setting for David Lynch's landmark TV series Twin Peaks in the early 1990s. Twohig was looking for a place closer to his work.

He subsequently posted the find on his blog, MonsterMaritime, and the story found its way into mainstream media late last month.

"You can also use the zoom in and out keys and move around the Bangor Sub Base taking a close up look at the bunkers and magazines where they keep the nuclear weapons," he wrote in his blog. "You would think the US government would keep better tabs on this stuff."

Twohig's discovery was made around about the same time that Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons analyst for the Federation of American Scientists, spotted an aerial image of China's new Jin-class nuclear-powered submarine on Google Earth.

The Chinese sub, which is capable of firing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the US mainland, was snapped at the Xiaopingdao Submarine Base south of the city of Dalian - a facility named in honour of the late paramount Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping who died 10 years ago.

An article written by Paul Forsythe Johnston, Curator of Maritime History at the National Museum of American History, and posted on the museum's website, explains the significance of submarine propeller design and the "tip vortex flowfields" the propeller creates.

"Once [the propellers] reach a certain speed, the blades begin to create a partial vacuum, which results in air bubbles," he writes.

"This is a state known as cavitation. Bubbles are noisy, and submarine propellers are designed and shaped to reduce cavitation and exploit other relevant laws of physics as much as possible and still maintain useful speeds."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/oops-anot....8783202402.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 5, 2007, 2:48am

Tsar Bomba, nicknamed 'Big Ivan'
By
Feb 27, 2007, 09:56

Tsar Bomba, nicknamed 'Big Ivan' by its makers, was the largest nuclear bomb ever built. With a yield of 50 megatons, it was 4000 times more powerful then the bomb that devastated Hiroshima.

This video shows various important aspects of the bomb, including its development at Arzamas-16, the secret Soviet nuclear weapons research facility and its transportation to the Tu-95 bomber, which was painted white for the test to reflect the heat of the blast. Several different views of the explosion are also shown, including several filmed from the air and ground alike. The last few shots are of the ground zero several days after the test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiyUSv2Z07A

http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_131.php

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 5, 2007, 6:55am

China Developing Scramjet Propulsion

Sep 2, 2007

By Craig Covault

China is starting to ramp up its scramjet propulsion work—an initiative that will benefit high-speed missile programs while also helping the country to develop advanced aerospace materials, greater computational capabilities and a cadre of young engineers who have matured as a result of cutting-edge engine and aerodynamic challenges.

Building on its ramjet experience, China is embracing the much more difficult task of developing Mach 5 air vehicle concepts in which propulsion and aerodynamics are highly coupled.

As part of this effort, an integrated scramjet model is about to begin testing at up to Mach 5.6 in a new wind tunnel in Beijing.

In addition to the technology and engineering experience to be gained, the mid-term military payoff is likely to be more advanced high-speed tactical and medium-range Chinese missiles, especially for antiship warfare that could threaten U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific or operating in support of Taiwan.

“China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the U.S. and field disruptive military technologies that could, over time, offset traditional U.S. military advantages,” the 2006 Pentagon Quadrennial Review said about overall Chinese military technology initiatives.

And over the next several decades, the scramjet work could eventually provide China with a tactical hypersonic global-strike capability beyond the country’s strategic ballistic missile force. The U.S. has similar goals for its own growing scramjet program.

The Chinese allowed a peek into multiple aspects of their scramjet efforts at the recent American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conference in Cincinnati. Chinese engineers from several research facilities presented about a dozen papers on their scramjet developments, as well as details on the new wind tunnel.

At the same forum, their papers revealed new rocket propulsion research, including work on hybrid systems that use a combination of propellants easier to handle and store than most propellants in wider use today. New insight also was offered on Chinese solid rocket motor technology work, important for both missile and space launch applications.

The Cincinnati meeting differed from a traditional U.S. industry gathering, because nearly a dozen engineers from Iran also submitted papers on Iranian solid and liquid rocket technologies. The Iranian engineers are based at the Sharif University of Technology and the KNT Technical University, both in Tehran. They apparently did not deliver the papers in person. However, as participants, the Iranians have access to all of the highly detailed U.S. aircraft and rocket propulsion presentations made at the conference.

A scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) flies at Mach 5 or faster using hydrogen fuel and oxygen out of the air for oxidizer. The engine must combine an advanced ramjet that changes configuration to swallow supersonic flow above about Mach 4.

Advanced ramjet technologies are also important for scramjet development, and the Chinese have been active in this area for decades.

Ironically, one the more interesting historical papers presented at the forum was a detailed description of how the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed combined top-secret ramjet propulsion technologies with segmented solid rocket boosters for the Mach 3 D-21B reconnaissance drones that were launched by modified SR-71s and B-52Hs in the late 1960s (see center photo). The D-21B was specifically developed to gather intelligence over China.

This was the first time details on the segmented rocket booster portion of the D-21B program have been presented publicly, says Robert Geisler of Geisler Industries, who led the analysis with retired Pratt & Whitney and ATK Tactical Propulsion engineers. Segmented boosters use individual circular sections like space shuttle solid rocket motors.

China already has such segmented solid rocket motor and ramjet capabilities today, but scramjets are a much greater challenge.

Although nowhere nearly as advanced as U.S. scramjet work, Chinese activities in this discipline will give the Defense Dept. additional impetus to argue for strong, ongoing U.S. hypersonic propulsion funding. Diverse U.S. technology programs are already underway to support development of the X-51 scramjet test vehicle (AW&ST July 23, p. 23).

As part of the Chinese effort, the engineers say new analytical centers are also being developed. For example, a Hypersonic Propulsion Test Facility has been built to support the scramjet program, according to Xinyu Chang, a senior researcher at the Laboratory of High-Temperature Gas Dynamics in Beijing, where the HPTF is located. Gas Dynamics lab research is specifically oriented to “the development of hypersonic flight vehicles, both aeronautics-and space-related,” according to data from the facility.

Broad studies there are “devoted to the fundamentals of hypersonic and high-temperature gas dynamics including detonation phenomena, supersonic combustion, chemical reactions, shock-wave/vortex interactions and thermal-chemical flow characteristics.” The lab helps lead several Chinese technology programs for scramjet propulsion. This includes basic hypersonic vehicle designs that could mate with a scramjet engine, as well as computational fluid dynamics work to assess the challenge of coupled ramjet/scramjet inlet flow fields at the front of the vehicle.

Scramjet ignition technology and work on cooling the internal walls of a scramjet are also being assessed, the Chinese say. Computer modeling of scramjet combustion instability is also being modeled.

“At the present time, the emphasis on rocket-based combined cycle [RBCC] scramjet research has gradually transferred from research and performance studies to some ground experiments and structures design,” says Wang Houqing, a researcher at Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xian. NPU is one of China’s top aerospace research centers.

“A copper model scramjet is ready for testing” in the new Gas Dynamics Laboratory facility, says Xinyu.

“The facility is to provide high enthalpy [thermal dynamic] model scramjet testing,” he says.

The facility uses a hydrogen/air and oxygen replenishment combustion heater with a flow rate of 3.5 kg./sec., with temperature capabilities up to 2,000K. It can generate test velocities up to Mach 5.6, according to Xinyu.

Many different scramjet combustor configurations have been tested so far, he says. But the new facility will allow complete scramjet engine model configurations to be evaluated instead of just the combustor alone.

Other Chinese scramjet research presented at Cincinnati included:

•Aerodynamic performance of Chinese waverider designs integrated with an inlet. “Simulation studies were conducted to investigate forebody-inlet-isolator performance in an airframe-scramjet integrated hypersonic vehicle,” according to Liu Zhenxia, also at NPU.

•Multicode computational fluid dynamics runs for coupled ramjet/scramjet inlet flowfields. This work models the transition from “ram” to “scram” propulsion. The research is underway at the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

•Research of gas discharge coefficients. This work is being conducted at the College of Aerospace and Materials Engineering at the National University of Defense Technology in Changsha.

•Cross-section design of a controllable hypersonic inlet. The research is being done at the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

•Scramjet combustion mode translation studies. This work is also part of the scramjet effort at the National University of Defense Technology.

•Hydrogen injection and scramjet ignition testing. The research is being done in the Defense Technology university.

•Thermal and structures studies. NPU is performing heat transfer analysis and overall scramjet thermal structure design, including analysis of different materials used in the scramjet concepts.

•Numerical simulation of combustion instability. This work is also being pursued in Xian.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/s....et%20Propulsion

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 7, 2007, 2:13am

Psycho Paintballs & Drug Drones
By David Hambling August 23, 2007 | 7:32:00 AM



Paintballs laced with mind-altering drugs and drug-spraying robots sound like something for The Joker rather than the Marine Corps. But these are two of the more promising new methods for administering nonlethal chemical weapons (sorry, calmatives) being developed by the Pentagon, according to the latest report from the Bradford Nonlethal Weapons Research Project .

Initial experiments with the sort of darts used to tranquilise animals were unsuccessful. But it might be possible to get a drug through the skin via a more subtle approach, using the solvent DMSO:

They drew their inspiration from drug skin patches, for example nicotine patches for nicotine withdrawal, and Fentanyl patches for severe burns, where the drug is combined with a solvent for delivery through the skin (transdermal)...

Subsequently they tested a delivery system concept comprising a felt pad soaked with DMSO and fired from an air rifle. They found that a drug/DMSO mixture could be delivered in this way and that the material would penetrate thin clothing but thick clothing would be a sufficient countermeasure…. However they proposed that future developments should consider smaller fully encapsulated ‘paintball’ type projectiles containing the drug and solvent mixture.

There are already two nonlethal paintball weapons in use, Pepperball (which fires pepper spray in paintball form) and the FN303 or Individual Serviceman Non-Lethal System (pictured) used by the US Army, which could use this type of ammo. The report also mentions of the idea of a "drug filled rubber bullet" – much like the laughing bullets I described recently.

For larger targets such as a crowd, there are a number of new projectiles under development for carrying chemical agents (sorry, calmatives), including 81mm mortar and 155mm howitzer rounds. But if firing artillery into a city might be excessive, how about using an unmanned air vehicle:

a computer-controlled unmanned powered Para foil (UPP) equipped with a payload that dispenses liquid spray while in flight. Developed for the Marine Corps Non-Lethal Directorate, the system is intended to provide non-lethal crowd control options for the U.S. military.… Using computer-assisted flight modes and the camera image, a remote operator can direct the UPP over a target at low altitude and release the spray.

..a bit like Saddam's drone-based 'anthrax airforce' , but much it leaves you stoned rather than dying.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/psycho-paintbal.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 9, 2007, 10:18am

British Army deploys new weapon based on mass-killing technology
John Byrne
Published: Thursday August 23, 2007

A new 'super-weapon' being supplied to British soldiers in Afghanistan employs technology based on the "thermobaric" principle which uses heat and pressure to kill people targeted across a wide air by sucking the air out of lungs and rupturing internal organs.



The so-called "enhanced blast" weapon uses similar technology used in the US "bunker busting" bombs and the devastating bombs dropped by the Russians to destroy the Chechen capital, Grozny.

Such weapons are brutally effective because they first disperse a gas or chemical agent which is lit at a second stage, allowing the blast to fill the spaces of a building or the crevices of a cave. When the US military deployed a version of these weapons in 2005, DefenseTech wrote an article titled, "Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon."

According to the US Defense Intelligence Agency, which released a study on thermobaric weapons in 1993, "The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique--and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.… If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents."

A second DIA study said, "shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue... it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate."

"The effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense," said a CIA study of the weapons. "Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness."

British defense officials told the UK Guardian that British bombs were "different."

"They are optimized to create blast [rather than heat]", one said, speaking on the standard condition of anonymity in Britain. The official added that it would be misleading to call them "thermobaric."

Officials told the Guardian the new weapon was classified as a soldier launched "light anti-structure munition" and that the bombs would be more effective because "even when they hit the damage is limited to a confined area."

"The continuing issue of civilian casualties in Afghanistan has enormous importance in the battle for hearts and minds," said Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell in the article. "If these weapons contribute to the deaths of civilians then a primary purpose of the British deployment is going to be made yet more difficult."

According to Campbell, the deployment of the weapons was not announced to Parliament.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/British_Army_deploys_new_weapon_based_0823.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 10, 2007, 11:48pm

Source: Louisiana Tech University
Date: September 11, 2007

Recognition, Identification And Tracking Systems Under Development To Assist Air Force

Two Louisiana Tech faculty members, Dr. Sumeet Dua, an assistant professor of computer science, and Dr. Rastko Selmic, an assistant professor of electrical engineering, are using their skills and technical knowledge to help the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense with sensor networks and tracking capabilities.

Dua's project, called Automated Target Detection and Tracking, or ATR, involves the development of fast and accurate computer algorithms for the automated recognition, identification, classification and tracking of targets of interest.

"Algorithms can be applied to national defense in a variety of ways, including missions involving air-to-ground, ground-to-ground, surface-to-surface and air-to-air scenarios," Dua said. "The algorithm is unique in its ability to use a system-level approach to define both a target's signatures and movement. It uses sophisticated data-mining techniques, a class of computer science algorithms used to discover embedded, hidden patterns and anomalies in data which are previously unknown but very useful."

The targets are received using remote sensors such as cameras and radars. Software then determines their positions and features with rotational and translational variations. Dua said the algorithm uses patterns to get a unique target's signature information.

"The algorithm is novel in its ability to take a system-level approach to achieve reinforced concurrent learning of both the target's signatures and movement in a single run of the software program," he said.

The algorithms can be used in metropolitan areas to identify humans in irregular terrains and to identify and log the suspicious movement of vehicles of interest, Dua said.

"We give monthly reporting to the Air Force, which is different from regular projects," he said. "We usually report to them once every six weeks. It's very good feedback we get back from them."

Selmic's group study deals with research of deployment and control of wireless sensor networks. Supported by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Selmic and his group are trying to discover how to perfectly position and deploy a large number of sensors to cover one particular area while still providing extensive coverage of a specific target.

"The technology will help the Air Force to solve sensor network deployment problem -- where and how to deploy thousands of small wireless sensor nodes in order to cover the area of interest, and still being able to efficiently track targets of interest," Selmic said.

The results of the research will affect many applications such as chemical agent monitoring, weather and hurricanes tracking and monitoring and explosive detection at the battlefield, Selmic said. The project also aims to develop unmanned air vehicle sensor nodes and a wireless sensor network test bed for the Air Force.

"The sensor network test bed idea stems from an application in chemical agent monitoring," Selmic said. "Louisiana Tech's sensor network test bed currently includes static chemical sensor nodes and several mobile nodes flying on blimps. Blimp control will be implemented at the sensor network base station which will provide a feedback to the network based on a real-time simulation."

As part of this effort with the Air Force, Selmic and his undergraduate student, Thomas Goodwin, an electrical engineering student from Mexica, Texas, have been invited for a fellowship with the Air Force Research Lab in Dayton, Ohio, to work on computational fluid dynamic simulations and related sensor placements.

"In order to maximize detection of explosive, for instance, it is necessary to consider air flow in closed environment," Selmic said. "Small UAVs can provide additional air flow, thus increasing the chance of explosive or pollutant detection. The technology will be considered for future improvised explosive devices detection methods, but is also applicable to civilian application such as anthrax detection in indoor environments and others."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910152630.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 11, 2007, 7:32pm

Russia tests 'world's most powerful vacuum bomb'

September 12, 2007 - 6:13AM


The test of the huge vacuum bomb is shown in this undated television image shown by Russian Channel One. Inset, the bomb before the blast.

Russia said today it had tested the world's most powerful vacuum bomb.

"Test results of the new airborne weapon have shown that its efficiency and power is commensurate with a nuclear weapon," Alexander Rukshin, deputy head of Russia's armed force chief of staff, told Russia's ORT First Channel television.

"You will now see it in action, the bomb which has no match in the world is being tested at a military site," the report said. It showed a Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber dropping the bomb over a testing ground. A large explosion followed.

A vacuum bomb, or fuel-air explosive, causes widespread devastation.

A typical bomb of that type is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with oxygen.

A second charge ignites the cloud, which can engulf objects or buildings.

"At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/this-bi....9276752243.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Sept 11, 2007, 9:09pm


Quote:

Russia tests 'world's most powerful vacuum bomb' September 12, 2007 - 6:13AM The test of the huge vacuum bomb is shown in this undated television image shown by Russian Channel One. Inset, the bomb before the blast. television. Russia said today it had tested the world's most powerful vacuum bomb. "Test results of the new airborne weapon have shown that its efficiency and power is commensurate with a nuclear weapon," Alexander Rukshin, deputy head of Russia's armed force chief of staff, told Russia's ORT First Channel television. "You will now see it in action, the bomb which has no match in the world is being tested at a military site," the report said. It showed a Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber dropping the bomb over a testing ground. A large explosion followed. A vacuum bomb, or fuel-air explosive, causes widespread devastation. A typical bomb of that type is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with oxygen. A second charge ignites the cloud, which can engulf objects or buildings. "At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one." http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/this-bi....9276752243.html

An environmentally-friendly bomb!

Quelle Gloire!!

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 13, 2007, 5:23am

Weapons without barrels or bullets
By Tim Weber
Business editor, BBC News website

Make no mistake: Defence Systems & Equipment International (DSEI), held in the huge Excel Centre in London's docklands, is an arms fair.

Armoured fighting vehicles tower over visitors; most gleaming, some proudly muddy as if straight from the training range.

Stands are bristling with weapons - from lightweight submachine guns to long-barrelled sniper rifles.

And there are plenty of uniformed men (and a few women), some in combat gear, most in their parade-ground best with plenty of gold decorating their shoulders.

High-ranking Chinese officers crowd around the finest that UK arms firm BAE system has to offer, Sony camera at the ready.

Fewer weapons

But there are much fewer weapons on display than on previous shows - fewer guns and bombs, less military hardware.

It's not that DSEI - held every two years - has become smaller; indeed, the organisers say that it has grown by 20% and is the biggest show yet.

Rather, the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that most armies are not equipped to fight clever and ruthless insurgents that have little regard for civilian casualties.

The 'e-soldier'

There still is some old-style posturing. Italian gun make Beretta shows off a new assault rifle to the tune of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries - in best Apocalypse Now-style.

However, were it not for the camouflage decorations, many exhibition booths at DSEI would not look out of place at an electronics fair.

Communications equipment, sensors, microprocessors, software packages and rugged laptops are arrayed to help modern armies compensate for what they are least likely to get more of: manpower.

Visiting DSEI allows to catch glimpses of a new warrior in the making, the "e-soldier", as Matt Howchin of UK microtechnology firm C-Mac calls it.

E-soldiers still carry a gun, but their uniforms and helmets are laced with electronics, monitoring both their own vital signs and their environment, relaying the information up the chain of command.

Helmet cam

Some of this technology is battle-ready, but still looks a bit cumbersome.

French defence firm Thales shows a soldier's battle gear that is supposed to block some of the remote control signals that are used to set off insurgents' bombs.

And at the ITT stand, a soldier - thick wires protruding behind his neck - sports a helmet cam and headphone set wired up to a Spearnet data radio.

The set-up - effectively a high-resolution webcam - allows the commander back at headquarters to get a real-time look at the battlefield.

Software packages could integrate all this information from the battlefield with systems like General Dynamics' Urban Istar programme.

This combines a powerful scanning system with a database that would allow troops engaged in urban warfare not only to detect hidden insurgents, but to understand the structure and weak points of a building without entering it.

Ultimately, this is about smarter fighting, "not with the bullet, but with better command and control systems," says Peter Felstead, editor of Jane's Defence Weekly.

The suicide bomber belt

The new wars have brought new threats.

One stand at DSEI shows a mannequin kitted out with a suicide bomber's explosives belt.

The pyrotechnic belt is a training device for armies and police forces, developed by Isle of Man-based Milpolice Equipment.

The belt allows the wearer to mimic the triggers used by real suicide bombers - and helps soldiers prepare for the threat.

The firm also makes IED simulators - the notorious Improvised Explosive Devices, or roadside bombs, that have caused so many casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So how does the company keep up with the constantly changing techniques used by the insurgents?

"We have good contacts in the intelligence services," says managing director Stephen Blakely with a wry smile.

The race for better armour

While training is useful, protection is better.

"Force protection is where the big bucks are at the moment," says Jane's Peter Felstead.

John Rutledge at American Defense Systems Inc, a maker of heavy armour, speaks of full order books - and an arms race against the increasingly powerful devices used by Iraqi insurgents.

"We are using ever more exotic materials to protect the troops", he says; "getting real-time intelligence" helps the firm to stay ahead of the latest insurgent tactics.

At previous arms fairs, armies were looking to "up-armour" their existing vehicles, like light Land Rovers and Humvee trucks. Now the focus has shifted to new vehicles that are heavily armoured by design.

US firm International Truck and Engine is rushing out more than 1,900 Maxxpro trucks to the US Marine Corps, troop carriers that are designed to withstand mine blasts and roadside bombs on the Iraq battlefield.

Look, no driver

Oshkosh - which provides all the US army's heavy trucks - has put mirrors below a truck that show the heavy armour plating protecting the driver's cabin.

Everywhere there are stands displaying the latest in blast-proof glass or ceramics, so that vehicle makers can achieve the protection level armies are calling for.

After all, says German army Colonel Udo Kalbfleisch, "without giving soldiers proper protection you can't motivate them" and points to a video showing the heavily armoured Dingo that protects German soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan.

The more radical solution, however, is to take the driver out of the truck.

Oshkosh is working on control systems for unmanned vehicles.

Long supply convoys could have just a few real drivers. The other trucks would be steered by sophisticated electronics that work both in all-terrain and urban environments.

"I can easily foresee a future where we can achieve a 75% reduction of troops at risk," says Joaquin Salas at Oshkosh. "We are in discussions with the military to see when they might want to test this capability."

All this comes at a hefty cost. There is a trade-off between better armour and tight budgets, says John Rutledge, and it just "doesn't add up".

Already the cost of troop protection has started to cut into other procurement programmes, say industry insiders.

Lifesaver bottles

Battlefield innovation comes in many guises.

Pour dirty polluted water into the Lifesaver Systems bottle, pump a couple of times, and out comes perfectly drinkable water - without the use of chlorine or iodine. It's a solution that works not just for soldiers but disaster areas as well.

UK firm Chemviron Carbon tries to find customers for its ultra-lightweight chemical weapons protection fabric. Buyers so far have been the Swedish army and some special forces, and the company is now talking to police forces.

"When you think about it, the most likely [chemical] attack won't be on troops, but in a metropolitan environment," says Chemviron's Paul Graham.

C-Mac's stand doesn't sport any guns or camouflage at all.

The UK firm makes ceramic-based chip modules that work under extreme conditions - in fighter jets, tanks and rockets.



The tiny electronics components don't look much. But they can help win wars.

How Urban Istar scans and maps a building


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6990690.stm

Published: 2007/09/12 23:08:31 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 15, 2007, 12:07am

So much for Russian tech:

Advanced Russian Air Defense Missile Cannot Protect Syrian and Iranian Skies

DEBKAfile Exclusive Military Report

September 7, 2007, 1:16 PM (GMT+02:00)


Russian-made Pantsyr S1 fire control and radar systems


DEBKAfile’s military experts conclude from the way Damascus described the episode Wednesday, Sept. 6, that the Pantsyr-S1E missiles, purchased from Russia to repel air assailants, failed to down the Israeli jets accused of penetrating northern Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean the night before.

The new Pantsyr missiles therefore leave Syrian and Iranian airspace vulnerable to hostile intrusion.

The Israeli plane or planes were described by a Syrian military spokesman as “forced to leave by Syrian air defense fire after dropping ammunition over deserted areas without causing casualties.” He warned “the Israeli enemy against repeating its aggressive action” and said his government reserved the right to respond in an appropriate manner.

Western intelligence circles stress that information on Russian missile consignments to Syria or Iran is vital to any US calculation of whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. They assume that the “absolute jamming immunity” which the Russian manufactures promised for the improved Pantsyr missiles was immobilized by superior electronic capabilities exercised by the jets before they were “forced to leave.”

Syria took delivery in mid-August of 10 batteries of sophisticated Russian Pantsyr-S1E Air Defense Missile fire control systems with advanced radar, those sources report. They have just been installed in Syria.

Understanding that the Pantsyr-S1E had failed in its mission to bring down trespassing aircraft, Moscow hastened Thursday, Sept 6, to officially deny selling these systems to Syria or Iran and called on Israel to respect international law. This was diplomatic-speak for a warning against attacking the Russian-made missiles batteries stations where Russian instructors are working alongside Syrian teams.

Western intelligence circles maintain that it is vital for the US and Israel to establish the location and gauge the effectiveness of Pantsyr-S1E air defenses in Syrian and Iranian hands, as well as discovering how many each received.

They estimate that at least three or four batteries of the first batch of ten were shipped to Iran to boost its air defense arsenal; another 50 are thought to be on the way, of which Syria will keep 36.

The purported Israeli air force flights over the Pantsyr-S1E site established that the new Russian missiles, activated for the first time in the Middle East, are effective and dangerous but can be disarmed. Western military sources attribute to those Israeli or other air force planes superior electronics for jamming the Russian missile systems, but stress nonetheless that they were extremely lucky to get away unharmed, or at worst, with damage minor enough for a safe return to base.

The courage, daring and operational skills of the air crews must have been exceptional. They would have needed to spend enough time in hostile Syrian air space to execute several passes at varying altitudes under fire in order to test the Pantsyr-S1E responses. Their success demonstrated to Damascus and Tehran that their expensive new Russian anti-air system leaves them vulnerable.

Washington like Jerusalem withheld comment in the immediate aftermath of the episode. After its original disclosure, Damascus too is holding silent. Western intelligence sources believe the Syrians in consultation with the Russians and Tehran are weighing action to gain further media mileage from the incident. They may decide to exhibit some of the “ammunition” dropped by the Israeli aircraft as proof of Israel’s contempt for international law. A military response may come next.

Pantsir-S1 or Panzir (“Shell" in English) is a short-range, mobile air defense system, combining two 30mm anti-aircraft guns and 12 surface-to-air missiles which can fire on the move. It can simultaneously engage two separate targets at 12 targets per minute, ranging from fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, ballistic and cruise missiles, precision-guided munitions and unmanned air vehicles. It can also engage light-armored ground targets.

The Pantsyr S1 short-range air defense system is designed to provide point defense of key military and industrial facilities and air defense support for military units during air and ground operations.

The integrated missile and gun armament creates an uninterrupted engagement zone of 18 to 20 km in range and of up to 10 km in altitude. Immunity to jamming is promised via a common multimode and multi-spectral radar and optical control system. The combined missile and artillery capability makes the Russian system the most advanced air defense system in the world. Syria and Iran believe it provides the best possible protection against American or Israeli air and missile attack. Stationed in al Hamma, at the meeting point of the Syrian-Jordanian and Israeli borders, the missile’s detection range of 30 km takes in all of Israel’s northern air force bases.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1301

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 17, 2007, 11:19am

Air Force's Mini-Drone Swarm

By David Hambling September 17, 2007

The expansion of the US fleet of unmanned aircraft stepped up a gear with the delivery last month of the first batch of Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicles (BATMAV).


Wasp 2

The central piece of hardware for BATMAV is Aerovironment's WASP, a one-pound, hand-launched UAV already deployed by the US military. But instead of just being a means for ground troops to see what's on the other side of the hill, BATMAV is envisioned as a new 'node in the information network' providing real-time information which can be distributed over a tactical network.

According to Flight International,

The new capability is predicated on sensor imagery from Batmav aircraft being able to be forwarded to other assets via a tactical radio linked to the UAV ground control station. Batmav is the first major micro air vehicle acquisition competition run by a Western defence force, with its outcome expected to have a major influence on similar requirements being planned by other US service arms as well as among NATO forces.

Solicitation documents released on 31 July say data from the mini UAV will be able to be "injected into command and control centres, airborne mission aircraft or artillery via digital links in a special tactics machine-to-machine targeting process to greatly reduce the targeting time". Each individual system is to comprise two air vehicles, a ground control station, interchangeable payloads, a carry case and field operators support kit.

Key uses of BATMAV will include directing airstrikes and carrying out bomb damage assessment in the immediate aftermath of strikes.

Each system will comprise a control unit, communications system and two WASP UAVs –- the UAV element being described as 'expendable'. The cost is quoted as $49k per system, and with a total budget of up to $45m over five years, the BATMAV program will see vast numbers of micro-drones buzzing around the battlefield.

(Footnote: One thing these WASPs won't be doing just yet is actual swarming -- they will be acting as individuals. But stay tuned.)

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/air-force-buys-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 17, 2007, 11:58am

US Has 14 Ton Super Bomb - Bigger Than Russian V-Bomb
9-16-7

WASHINGTON (RIA Novosti) -- The U.S. has a 14-ton super bomb more destructive than the vacuum bomb just tested by Russia, a U.S. general said Wednesday.

The statement was made by retired Lt. General McInerney, chairman of the Iran Policy Committee, and former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

McInerney said the U.S. has "a new massive ordnance penetrator that's 30,000 pounds, that really penetrates ... Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate."

He also said the new Russian bomb was not a "penetrator."

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070913/78518873-print.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Sept 18, 2007, 9:02pm

September 15, 2007
Big Brother is watching us all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6995061.stm

The US and UK governments are developing increasingly sophisticated gadgets to keep individuals under their surveillance. When it comes to technology, the US is determined to stay ahead of the game.

"Five nine, five ten," said the research student, pushing down a laptop button to seal the measurement. "That's your height."

"Spot on," I said.

"OK, we're freezing you now," interjected another student, studying his computer screen. "So we have height and tracking and your gait DNA".

"Gait DNA?" I interrupted, raising my head, so inadvertently my full face was caught on a video camera.

"Have we got that?" asked their teacher Professor Rama Challapa. "We rely on just 30 frames - about one second - to get a picture we can work with," he explained.

Tracking individuals

I was at Maryland University just outside Washington DC, where Professor Challapa and his team are inventing the next generation of citizen surveillance.

They had pushed back furniture in the conference room for me to walk back and forth and set up cameras to feed my individual data back to their laptops.

Gait DNA, for example, is creating an individual code for the way I walk. Their goal is to invent a system whereby a facial image can be matched to your gait, your height, your weight and other elements, so a computer will be able to identify instantly who you are.

"As you walk through a crowd, we'll be able to track you," said Professor Challapa. "These are all things that don't need the cooperation of the individual."

Since 9/11, some of the best scientific minds in the defence industry have switched their concentration from tracking nuclear missiles to tracking individuals such as suicide bombers.

Surveillance society

My next stop was a Pentagon agency whose headquarters is a drab suburban building in Virginia. The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) had one specific mission - to ensure that when it comes to technology America is always ahead of the game.

Its track record is impressive. Back in the 70s, while we were working with typewriters and carbon paper, Darpa was developing the internet. In the 90s, while we pored over maps, Darpa invented satellite navigation that many of us now have in our cars.

"We ask the top people what keeps them awake at night," said its enthusiastic and forthright director Dr Tony Tether, "what problems they see long after they have left their posts."

"And what are they?" I asked.

He paused, hand on chin. "I'd prefer not to say. It's classified."

"All right then, can you say what you're actually working on now."

"Oh, language," he answered enthusiastically, clasping his fingers together. "Unless we're going to train every American citizen and soldier in 16 different languages we have to develop a technology that allows them to understand - whatever country they are in - what's going on around them.

"I hope in the future we'll be able to have conversations, if say you're speaking in French and I'm speaking in English, and it will be natural."

"And the computer will do the translation?"

"Yep. All by computer," he said.

"And this idea about a total surveillance society," I asked. "Is that science fiction?"

"No, that's not science fiction. We're developing an unmanned airplane - a UAV - which may be able to stay up five years with cameras on it, constantly being cued to look here and there. This is done today to a limited amount in Baghdad. But it's the way to go."

Smarter technology

Interestingly, we, the public, don't seem to mind. Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less, surveillance. Some American cities like New York and Chicago are thinking of taking a lead from Britain where our movements are monitored round the clock by four million CCTV cameras.

So far there is no gadget that can actually see inside our houses, but even that's about to change.

Ian Kitajima flew to Washington from his laboratories in Hawaii to show me sense-through-the-wall technology.

"Each individual has a characteristic profile," explained Ian, holding a green rectangular box that looked like a TV remote control.

Using radio waves, you point it a wall and it tells you if anyone is on the other side. His company, Oceanit, is due to test it with the Hawaiian National Guard in Iraq next year, and it turns out that the human body gives off such sensitive radio signals, that it can even pick up breathing and heart rates.

"First, you can tell whether someone is dead or alive on the battlefield," said Ian.

"But it will also show whether someone inside a house is looking to harm you, because if they are, their heart rate will be raised. And 10 years from now, the technology will be much smarter. We'll scan a person with one of these things and tell what they're actually thinking."

He glanced at me quizzically, noticing my apprehension.

"Yeah, I know," he said. "It sounds very Star Trekkish, but that's what's ahead."


Quote:

....."These are all things that don't need the cooperation of the individual.".....

Beautiful!


Quote:

.....Since 9/11, some of the best scientific minds in the defence industry have switched their concentration from tracking nuclear missiles to tracking individuals such as suicide bombers.....

This is very good news. As we know, the world is virtually CRAWLING with suicide bombers just waiting to LET IT RIP. I am ossified with fear every time I walk out my door, get on a bus, or even walk into my workplace. (Don't tell anyone this.) I am NOT paranoid but there's some things you just KNOW, if you get my drift. Like, I KNOW the Iranian guy behind the counter at the L'il Peach down the street from my house is definitely a suicide bomber, which is why I'm SUPER polite to him when I go in there for my cigarettes and Chicken Taquita Rolls. There's a fire station right across the street from that store or I wouldn't go in there at all.


Quote:

....."All right then, can you say what you're actually working on now." "Oh, language," he answered enthusiastically, clasping his fingers together. "Unless we're going to train every American citizen and soldier in 16 different languages we have to develop a technology that allows them to understand - whatever country they are in - what's going on around them.....

EXCELLENT! Because right now we clearly don't understand JACK about what's going on around us.


Quote:

....."And this idea about a total surveillance society," I asked. "Is that science fiction?" "No, that's not science fiction. We're developing an unmanned airplane - a UAV - which may be able to stay up five years with cameras on it, constantly being cued to look here and there. This is done today to a limited amount in Baghdad. But it's the way to go.".....

Oh my god, I KNEW it!! An unmanned airplane that can stay "up there" for five years with cameras on it! I remember reading in the news about seven years ago that they were going to be testing these planes "over selected cities in the U.S." I hope MY city is one of them!


Quote:

.....Interestingly, we, the public, don't seem to mind. Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less, surveillance. Some American cities like New York and Chicago are thinking of taking a lead from Britain where our movements are monitored round the clock by four million CCTV cameras.....

I must admit that I didn't know "75% of us" WANT more surveillance. This is very comforting. I really love it when so many people I don't even know are speaking for me. It makes me feel like - well - CONNECTED. But, even more importantly, it makes me feel SAFE.


Quote:

.....Using radio waves, you point it a wall and it tells you if anyone is on the other side. His company, Oceanit, is due to test it with the Hawaiian National Guard in Iraq next year, and it turns out that the human body gives off such sensitive radio signals, that it can even pick up breathing and heart rates. "First, you can tell whether someone is dead or alive on the battlefield," said Ian.....

Now THAT'S a major breakthrough - and in OUR lifetime! It's extremely difficult, as we know, to tell whether someone is dead or alive. I can't believe this is now going to be possible thanks to these incredible new surveillance devices. This capability is going to clear up so much confusion it isn't funny. God, I could just cry. This is SO amazing!

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 20, 2007, 12:02pm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 20, 2007, 12:04pm

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: September 20, 2007

New Backpack 'Exoskeleton' Lightens The Burden In An Unexpected Way

Researchers in the MIT Media Lab's Biomechatronics Group have created a device to lighten the burden for soldiers and others who carry heavy packs and equipment.


Graduate student Conor Walsh demonstrates a prototype of the 'exoskeleton' he and other MIT researchers have devised. The invention can successfully take on 80 percent of an 80-pound load carried on a person's back. (Credit: Photo by Samuel Au)

Their invention, known as an exoskeleton, can support much of the weight of a heavy backpack and transfer that weight directly to the ground, effectively taking a load off the back of the person wearing the device.

The researchers report that their prototype can successfully take on 80 percent of an 80-pound load carried on a person's back, but there's one catch: The current model impedes the natural walking gait of the person wearing it.

"You can definitely tell it's affecting your gait," said Conor Walsh, a graduate student who worked on the project, but "you do feel it taking the load off and you definitely feel less stress on your upper body."

The research team was led by Hugh Herr, principal investigator of the Biomechatronics Group and associate professor in the MIT Media Lab. Earlier this summer, Herr and his colleagues unveiled the world's first robotic ankle for lower-limb amputees.

Eventually Herr hopes to create assistive leg devices that can be useful for anyone. Herr said he envisions leg exoskeletons that could help people run without breathing hard, as well as help to carry heavy loads.

"Our dream is that 20 years from now, people won't go to bike racks--they'll go to leg racks," he said.

Exoskeleton devices could boost the weight that a person can carry, lessen the likelihood of leg or back injury and reduce the perceived level of difficulty of carrying a heavy load.

The person wearing the exoskeleton places his or her feet in boots attached to a series of tubes that run up the leg to the backpack, transferring the weight of the backpack to the ground. Springs at the ankle and hip and a damping device at the knee allow the device to approximate the walking motion of a human leg, with a very small external power input (one watt).

Other research teams have produced exoskeleton devices that can successfully carry a load but require a large power source (about 3,000 watts, supplied by a gasoline engine).

When the MIT researchers tested their device, they found that although the load borne by the wearer's back was lightened, the person carrying the load had to consume 10 percent more oxygen than normal, because of the extra effort to compensate for the gait interference.

The team hopes to revise the design so the exoskeleton more closely mimics the movement of a human leg, allowing for more normal walking motion. The most important result of this study, says Walsh, is that the team's spring-based, low-energy design shows promise.

"This is the first time that it has been tested," he said. "We didn't know what to expect."

This research is reported in the September issue of the International Journal of Humanoid Robotics.

The research was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919170025.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 20, 2007, 12:06pm

Source: National Aeronautics And Space Administration
Date: September 20, 2007

Skyray 48 Takes Flight

Calm excitement filled the ground control station. Engineers stared intently at their computer screens as the pilot, sitting next to them, flexed his fingers on the controls. Ground crew tending the aircraft finished putting away their equipment. Preparations for the first flight of the unmanned X-48B Blended Wing Body research aircraft were complete.


The X-48B Blended Wing Body aircraft in flight. (Credit: NASA photo by Carla Thomas)

Years of research, design, construction, wind tunnel and ground tests coalesced into this one moment of time.

Radios crackled. "Tower, Skyray 48 in position, lakebed runway 23, request clearance for takeoff..."

"Skyray 48 roger, main base winds 220 at 6, report airborne, lakebed 23..."

"Wilco"

"Five, four, three, two, one, brakes..."

Quickly, the manta ray-shaped aircraft rolled down the dry lakebed runway trailing a plume of dust as it picked up speed, its three small jet engines whining.

With an excitement that only comes with an aircraft's first flight, the triangular red, white and blue X-48B leapt into the air, obviously wanting to fly.

"Skyray 48's airborne," Boeing pilot Norm Howell called, matter-of-factly. And with that, years of toil blossomed into the sweet fruit of success on July 20, 2007 at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center on Edwards AFB, Calif.

One of the latest cutting-edge experimental aircraft, or X-Planes, the X-48B BWB is a collaborative effort of the Boeing Co., NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program, and the Air Force Research Laboratory. The 21-foot wingspan, 500-pound, remotely piloted plane is designed to demonstrate the viability of the blended wing shape. And demonstrate it has.

After completion of six flights, the X-48B team began a four-week maintenance and modification period during which removable leading edges with extended slats are being replaced with slatless leading edges in order to mimic a slats-retracted configuration. The change requires a software update to the flight control software. In addition, the team is removing and replacing all of the aircraft's flight control actuators for maintenance purposes.

NASA is interested in the potential benefits of the aircraft - increased volume for carrying capacity, efficient aerodynamics for reduced fuel burn, and, possibly, significant reductions in noise due to propulsion integration options. In these initial flights, the principal focus is to validate prior research on the aerodynamic performance and controllability of the shape, including comparisons of flight test data with the extensive database gathered in the wind tunnels at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia.

The Subsonic Fixed-Wing Project, part of NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program, has long supported the development of the blended wing body concept. It has participated in numerous collaborations with Boeing, as well as several wind tunnel tests for different speed regimes. The team is focused on researching the low-speed characteristics of the design and expanding its flight envelope beyond the limits of current capabilities.

In addition to hosting the X-48B flight test and research activities, NASA Dryden is providing engineering and technical support -- expertise garnered from years of operating cutting-edge air vehicles. NASA assists with the hardware and software validation and verification process, the integration and testing of the aircraft systems, and the pilot's ground control station. NASA's range group provides critical telemetry and command and control communications during the flight, while the flight operations group provides a T-34 chase aircraft and essential flight scheduling. Photo and video support complete the effort.

The composite-skinned, 8.5 percent scale vehicle can to fly up to 10,000 feet and 120 knots in its low-speed configuration. The aircraft is flown remotely from a ground control station by a pilot using conventional aircraft controls and instrumentation, while looking at a monitor fed by a forward-looking camera on the aircraft.

Up to 25 flights are planned to gather data in these low-speed flight regimes. Then, the X-48B may be used to test the aircraft's low-noise and handling characteristics at transonic speeds.

Two X-48B research vehicles were built by Cranfield Aerospace Ltd., in England, in accordance with Boeing specifications. The vehicle that flew on July 20, known as Ship 2, was also used for ground and taxi testing. Ship 1, a duplicate, was used for the wind tunnel tests. Ship 1 is available for use as a backup during the flight test program.

So far, so good as the Skyray 48 team works through the late summer heat of the Mojave Desert as they continue blazing a trail with this futuristic aircraft design.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919174711.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 12:42am

Red Tape Grounds Iraq's Robo-Planes
By Noah Shachtman September 20, 2007 | 12:34:00 PM



The Defense Department's unmanned air force has grown exponentially; there are now more than 3200 mil-drones in the fleet, up from about 200 in 2002. But after spending some time in Iraq, I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of those robo-planes are sitting on the shelves, barely used.

Here's why. The military's big unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are controlled by colonels and generals. The local commanders on the ground basically have no say where the things fly. For example, a company commander, recently returned from Anbar province, said his area got a grand total of eight minutes of coverage from the Predator spy drone per day.

But wait, you say. The vast majority of America's UAVs are little, hand-launched drones, like the four-and-a-half pound Ravens and the five-pound Dragon Eyes. The local captain has control over those, right? Well, theoretically, yeah.

But there are so many bureaucratic hoops to jump through to get those tiny UAVs in the air that many captains have stopped bothering to try. Air clearance is the hoops that comes up most. Although the drones are small, they can get up pretty high -- 1000 feet, or more. Which means there's a concern about the UAVs getting tangled up with helicopters. Setting aside space for the drones can take 24 to 48 hours -- and insurgents don't usually stay in one place that long.

A few weeks ago in Anbar, I spoke to local Marine commander who had basically given up on using his Dragon Eye, for this reason. The same thing happened in Tarmiyah, north of Baghdad, where Captain Pat Roddy told me, "the Raven? Never fly it." Which is particularly frustrating. Because Roddy regularly gets airspace for himself, to fire mortars. But his higher-ups won't let him launch his drone during that time, because the computer program that tracks airspace says its a no-aircraft zone. Roddy has been told that he can make an emergency switch from mortar to Raven airspace -- and it'll only take an hour to make the switch in the computer. But he can only do so if his troops are in a firefight. And firefights in Iraq almost never take more than a few minutes. An hour later, the Raven is all-but-useless.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/the-american-mi.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 1:15am

British Police's New Spy Drone
By David Hambling September 20, 2007 | 7:37:20 AM

In my 2005 book Weapons Grade I predicted that police would soon be using micro air vehicles developed for the military. I didn’t realize it would happen quite so soon.


The Microdrone MD4-200

British police are now using the Microdrone from German company Microdrones GmbH in trials. According to The Times it was used to police a rock festival this summer, and there has also been interest from "MI5, the Metropolitan police, and Soca, the Serious Organised Crime Agency ".

As the video below shows, its something of a contrast to the Honeywell craft we looked at earlier on in the week. It's battery powered, so it's quieter -- apparently at 350 feet it is rarely noticed from the ground -- but more limited in terms of performance. Although it might seem flimsy, the video shows how stable it is in flight. It is said to be quite rugged and can return to base even if it loses two of its four rotor blades. One unusual feature is a speaker so that police can give instructions to those on the ground.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4jtguSF0n4

The video style is also a contrast. It contains some footage shot from a Microdrone, which gives an impressive display of its powers. Zooming in on a sunbather in a bikini as a demonstration is not likely to allay fears about how intrusive this technology might be. And the ability to hover outside a window and peer in is one which is equally open to use and abuse.

Using these devices for military purposes is one thing, but when the police have them the discussion is completely different. Although in principle it won't allow them to spy on anything that couldn't already be seen from a helicopter, small and cheap MAVs are likely to be much more common. And, crucially, unlike a helicopter you will not be able to tell when one is watching you.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/british-polices.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 1:39am

The Weird Russian Mind-Control Research Behind a DHS Contract
By Sharon Weinberger 09.20.07 | 2:00 AM

MOSCOW -- The future of U.S. anti-terrorism technology could lie near the end of a Moscow subway line in a circular dungeon-like room with a single door and no windows. Here, at the Psychotechnology Research Institute, human subjects submit to experiments aimed at manipulating their subconscious minds.

Elena Rusalkina, the silver-haired woman who runs the institute, gestured to the center of the claustrophobic room, where what looked like a dentist's chair sits in front of a glowing computer monitor. "We've had volunteers, a lot of them," she said, the thick concrete walls muffling the noise from the college campus outside. "We worked out a program with (a psychiatric facility) to study criminals. There's no way to falsify the results. There's no subjectivism."


A dungeon-like room in the Psychotechnology Research Institute in Moscow is used for human testing. The institute claims its technology can read the subconscious mind and alter behavior.

Photo: Nathan Hodge

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has gone to many strange places in its search for ways to identify terrorists before they attack, but perhaps none stranger than this lab on the outskirts of Russia's capital. The institute has for years served as the center of an obscure field of human behavior study -- dubbed psychoecology -- that traces it roots back to Soviet-era mind control research.

What's gotten DHS' attention is the institute's work on a system called Semantic Stimuli Response Measurements Technology, or SSRM Tek, a software-based mind reader that supposedly tests a subject's involuntary response to subliminal messages.

SSRM Tek is presented to a subject as an innocent computer game that flashes subliminal images across the screen -- like pictures of Osama bin Laden or the World Trade Center. The "player" -- a traveler at an airport screening line, for example -- presses a button in response to the images, without consciously registering what he or she is looking at. The terrorist's response to the scrambled image involuntarily differs from the innocent person's, according to the theory.


Gear for testing MindReader 2.0 software hangs on a wall at the Psychotechnology Research Institute in Moscow. Marketed in North America as SSRM Tek, the technology will soon be tested for airport screening by a U.S. company under contract to the Department of Homeland Security.
Photo: Nathan Hodge

"If it's a clean result, the passengers are allowed through," said Rusalkina, during a reporter's visit last year. "If there's something there, that person will need to go through extra checks."

Rusalkina markets the technology as a program called Mindreader 2.0. To sell Mindreader to the West, she's teamed up with a Canadian firm, which is now working with a U.S. defense contractor called SRS Technologies. This May, DHS announced plans to award a sole-source contract to conduct the first U.S.-government sponsored testing of SSRM Tek.

The contract is a small victory for the Psychotechnology Research Institute and its leaders, who have struggled for years to be accepted in the West. It also illustrates how the search for counter-terrorism technology has led the U.S. government into unconventional -- and some would say unsound -- science.

All of the technology at the institute is based on the work of Rusalkina's late husband, Igor Smirnov, a controversial Russian scientist whose incredible tales of mind control attracted frequent press attention before his death several years ago.

Smirnov was a Rasputin-like character often portrayed in the media as having almost mystical powers of persuasion. Today, first-time visitors to the institute -- housed in a drab concrete building at the Peoples Friendship University of Russia -- are asked to watch a half-hour television program dedicated to Smirnov, who is called the father of "psychotronic weapons," the Russian term for mind control weapons. Bearded and confident, Smirnov in the video explains how subliminal sounds could alter a person's behavior. To the untrained ear, the demonstration sounds like squealing pigs.


Elena Rusalkina demonstrates the terrorist-screening tool. She says it works faster than a polygraph and can be used at airports.
Photo: Nathan Hodge

According to Rusalkina, the Soviet military enlisted Smirnov's psychotechnology during the Soviet Union's bloody war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "It was used for combating the Mujahideen, and also for treating post-traumatic stress syndrome" in Russian soldiers, she says.

In the United States, talk of mind control typically evokes visions of tinfoil hats. But the idea of psychotronic weapons enjoys some respectability in Russia. In the late 1990s, Vladimir Lopatin, then a member of the Duma, Russia's parliament, pushed to restrict mind control weapons, a move that was taken seriously in Russia but elicited some curious mentions in the Western press. In an interview in Moscow, Lopatin, who has since left the Duma, cited Smirnov's work as proof that such weaponry is real.

"It's financed and used not only by the medical community, but also by individual and criminal groups," Lopatin said. Terrorists might also get hold of such weapons, he added.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Smirnov moved from military research into treating patients with mental problems and drug addiction, setting up shop at the college. Most of the lab's research is focused on what it calls "psychocorrection" -- the use of subliminal messages to bend a subject's will, and even modify a person's personality without their knowledge.

The slow migration of Smirnov's technology to the United States began in 1991, at a KGB-sponsored conference in Moscow intended to market once-secret Soviet technology to the world. Smirnov's claims of mind control piqued the interest of Chris and Janet Morris -- former science-fiction writers turned Pentagon consultants who are now widely credited as founders of the Pentagon's "non-lethal" weapons concept.

In an interview last year, Chris Morris recalled being intrigued by Smirnov -- so much so that he accompanied the researcher to his lab and allowed Smirnov to wire his head up to an electroencephalograph, or EEG. Normally used by scientists to measure brain states, Smirnov peered into Morris's EEG tracings and divined the secrets of his subconscious, right down to intimate details like Morris' dislike of his own first name.


The underlying premise of the technology is that terrorists would recognize a scrambled terrorist image like this one without even realizing it, and would be betrayed by their subconscious reaction to the picture.
Photo: Nathan Hodge

"I said, 'gee, the guys back at home have got to see this,'" Morris recalled.

The Morrises shopped the technology around to a few military agencies, but found no one willing to put money into it. However, in 1993 Smirnov rose to brief fame in the United States when the FBI consulted with him in hope of ending the standoff in Waco with cult leader David Koresh. Smirnov proposed blasting scrambled sound -- the pig squeals again -- over loudspeakers to persuade Koresh to surrender.

But the FBI was put off by Smirnov's cavalier response to questions. When officials asked what would happen if the subliminal signals didn't work, Smirnov replied that Koresh's followers might slit each other's throats, Morris recounted. The FBI took a pass, and Smirnov returned to Moscow with his mind control technology.

"With Smirnov, the FBI was either demanding a yes or a no, and therefore our methods weren't put to use, unfortunately," Rusalkina said, taking a drag on her cigarette.


Igor Smirnov, founder of the Psychotechnology Research Institute, died of a heart attack in 2005. Smirnov is best known in the United States for consulting with the FBI during the 1993 Waco siege.
Photo: Nathan Hodge

Smirnov died in November 2004, leaving the widowed Rusalkina -- his long-time collaborator -- to run the institute. Portraits of Smirnov cover Rusalkina's desk, and his former office is like a shrine, the walls lined with his once-secret patents, his awards from the Soviet government, and a calendar from the KGB's cryptographic section.

Despite Smirnov's death, Rusalkina predicts an "arms race" in psychotronic weapons. Such weapons, she asserts, are far more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

She pointed, for example, to a spate of Russian news reports about "zombies" -- innocent people whose memories had been allegedly wiped out by mind control weapons. She also claimed that Russian special forces contacted the institute during the 2003 Moscow theater siege, in which several hundred people were held hostage by Chechen militants.

"We could have stabilized the situation in the concert hall, and the terrorists would have called the whole thing off," she said. "And naturally, you could have avoided all the casualties, and you could have put the terrorists on trial. But the Alfa Group" -- the Russian equivalent of Delta Force -- "decided to go with an old method that had already been tested before."

The Russians used a narcotic gas to subdue the attackers and their captives, which led to the asphyxiation death of many of the hostages.

These days, Rusalkina explained, the institute uses its psychotechnology to treat alcoholics and drug addicts. During the interview, several patients -- gaunt young men who appeared wasted from illness -- waited in the hallway.

But the U.S. war on terror and the millions of dollars set aside for homeland security research is offering Smirnov a chance at posthumous respectability in the West.

Smirnov's technology reappeared on the U.S. government's radar screen through Northam Psychotechnologies, a Canadian company that serves as North American distributor for the Psychotechnology Research Institute. About three years ago, Northam Psychotechnologies began seeking out U.S. partners to help it crack the DHS market. For companies claiming innovative technologies, the past few years have provided bountiful opportunities. In fiscal year 2007, DHS allocated $973 million for science and technology and recently announced Project Hostile Intent, which is designed to develop technologies to detect people with malicious intentions.

One California-based defense contractor, DownRange G2 Solutions, expressed interest in SSRM Tek, but became skeptical when Northam Psychotechnologies declined to make the software available for testing.

"That raised our suspicion right away," Scott Conn, CEO and president of DownRange, told Wired News. "We weren't prepared to put our good names on the line without due diligence." (When a reporter visited last year, Rusalkina also declined to demonstrate the software, saying it wasn't working that day.)

While Conn said the lack of testing bothered him, the relationship ended when he found out Northam Psychotechnologies went to SRS Technologies, now part of ManTech International Corp.

Semyon Ioffe, the head of Northam Psychotechnologies, who identifies himself as a "brain scientist," declined a phone interview, but answered questions over e-mail. Ioffe said he signed a nondisclosure agreement with Conn, and had "a few informal discussions, after which he disappeared to a different assignment and reappeared after (the) DHS announcement."

As for the science, Ioffe says he has a Ph.D in neurophysiology, and cited Smirnov's Russian-language publications as the basis for SSRM Tek.

However, not everyone is as impressed with Smirnov's technology, including John Alexander, a well-known expert on non-lethal weapons. Alexander was familiar with Smirnov's meetings in Washington during the Waco crisis, and said in an interview last year that there were serious doubts then as now.

"It was the height of the Waco problem, they were grasping at straws," he said of the FBI's fleeting interest. "From what I understand from people who were there, it didn't work very well."

Geoff Schoenbaum, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland's School of Medicine, said that he was unaware of any scientific work specifically underpinning the technology described in SSRM Tek.

"There's no question your brain is able to perceive things below your ability to consciously express or identify," Schoenbaum said. He noted for example, studies showing that images displayed for milliseconds -- too short for people to perceive consciously -- may influence someone's mood. "That kind of thing is reasonable, and there's good experimental evidence behind it."

The problem, he said, is that there is no science he is aware of that can produce the specificity or sensitivity to pick out a terrorist, let alone influence behavior. "We're still working at the level of how rats learn that light predicts food," he explained. "That's the level of modern neuroscience."

Developments in neuroscience, he noted, are followed closely. "If we could do (what they're talking about), you would know about it," Schoenbaum said. "It wouldn't be a handful of Russian folks in a basement."

In the meantime, the DHS contract is still imminent, according to those involved, although all parties declined to comment on the details, or the size of the award. Rusalkina did not respond to a recent e-mail, but in the interview last year, she confirmed the institute was marketing the technology to the United States for airport screening.

Larry Orloskie, a spokesman for DHS, declined to comment on the contract announcement. "It has not been awarded yet," he replied in an e-mail.

"It would be premature to discuss any details about the pending contract with DHS and I will be happy to do an interview once the contract is in place," Ioffe, of Northam Psychotechnologies, wrote in an e-mail. Mark Root, a spokesman for ManTech, deferred questions to DHS, noting, "They are the customer."

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/09/mind_reading?currentPage=all

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 1:59am

Remember the Stealthy Land-Attack Destroyer? Not So Much ...
By David Axe August 28, 2007 | 1:17:56 PM

Back in the '90s the Navy planned to fight off massive cross-border armored attacks like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. For that, it needed a stealthy ship that could sit unnoticed off the coast and unleash barrages of missiles and shells to take out entire tank battalions. Thus was born the $4-billion Zumwalt-class destroyer [formerly DD(X)], which boasts a slanted "tumblehome" hull for deflecting radar. (At 14,000 tons, the Zumwalt is really a cruiser, but who's counting?) Noah had one of the best profiles of the vessel's capabilities in an issue of Popular Mechanics a while back:



The attack would come quickly, and it would be awful. Cruising far offshore, the U.S. Navy's DD(X) destroyer launches 20 artillery shells in less than a minute. As the satellite-guided weapons fall back to Earth at 830 mph, computer algorithms alter their flight paths so that the 250-pound projectiles all strike the same patch of ground at the same time, reducing everything in the vicinity to rubble and dust. If more firepower is needed, the destroyer can unleash another 580 artillery rounds, as well as 80 Tomahawk missiles. And when the attack is over, the ship simply vanishes. On a radar screen, the DD(X)'s stealthy hull makes the 14,000-ton vessel look like just another fishing boat, casting its nets into the sea.

Problem is, the world has changed since the Zumwalt's first blueprints were inked. "Nobody's building massive tank armies any more," explains Bob Work from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. So the Navy has quiety shifted the new destroyer's mission. What was once touted as a shore-bombardment platform is now an air defender for aircraft carriers, intended to protect against new cruise and ballistic missiles that are emerging as the preferred anti-ship weapons of our rivals. But there's a catch: the Zumwalt's specialized hull shape.



"The tumblehome hull -- the only reason you want that is for stealth close to shore," Work says. The tumblehome lacks stability, sacrifices internal volume for stealth and is poorly understood by engineers. "The Navy has all its money sunk into a design that may not be optimal any more.”

Simply put, the world is changing faster than ship design can keep up. “But that's not a new problem," Work says, citing the early 20th century and the post-Cold War period as similarly rapidly evolving eras. "When you keep a ship between strategic eras, you almost always have to goon it up.” That means kluging together all sorts of weapons and sensors you never anticipated during the design phase, and making do with less-than-perfect hull forms.

Making do is nothing new for the U.S. Navy, but making do with a $4-billion warship, one of the most expensive in history, is something new. We'll see what happens if and when the first vessel enters service in five years.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/remember-the-st.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 2:05am

China's Casino -- I Mean, Carrier -- Ambitions
By David Axe August 21, 2007 | 11:36:10 PM

So China's rapidly developing military, like its entire economy and society, is a teetering house of cards. But you gotta admire the spunk. One fine example? In 2000, a Chinese front company purchased an incomplete Russian aircraft carrier, the Varyag, from Ukraine with the expressed intent of turning it into a floating casino. That was a lie, of course, and over the last seven years, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy has been working hard to finish the bare-bones carrier while also assembling the many technologies and skills necessary to fly high-performance jets off of a ship. BEWARE SPOILERS BELOW!



It ain't going well.

First off, Varyag was little more than a hollow hull when China bought her. She reportedly had no engines, rudders or electronics. And as designed she was meant to support only small Yakovlev jump jets and helicopters. Since the only jump jets left in the world are American- and British-built Harriers and the forthcoming American F-35B, China has to modify Varyag to launch modified Russian-made Flankers. (A reported direct purchase of carrier-capable jets apparently never materialized.) The airplanes, too, need modification. All that rework requires extensive help from Russia. But Russia only this summer got her sole carrier back to sea after two years undergoing repairs. And the major Russian shipyard has proved incapable of modernizing one of Varyag's sister ships for India, as Reuters reports:

Russia's main military shipyard is at least three years behind schedule on a $1.5 billion contract to modernise an aircraft carrier sold to India in 2004, Interfax news agency reported on Wednesday. ... Interfax quoted an unnamed "high-ranking Sevmash source" as saying that the shipyard's Director General Vladimir Pastukhov had been fired after failing to meet deadlines. "The contract is delayed for three years," the source said. "The realistic date ... is now 2011."

Bottom line, according to The Jakarta Post: "Just getting the Varyag, or some other carrier design, to sea as an operational warship could cost [China] at least several billion U.S. dollars and take until 2015 or longer."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/chinas-casino--.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 2:08am

China = Q.C. Disaster
By David Axe August 19, 2007 | 8:17:52 PM

You think the U.S. has problems with trapped miners, collapsing bridges and extreme weather? Well, check out this round-up of headlines from China this weekend:

"Typhoon Sepat hits China after mass evacuation"
"Hopes dim for over 180 trapped miners in China"
"Death toll in China bridge collapse climbs to 64"



Wait a minute! you’re thinking. This is a military blog! Why do we even care about China’s safety and quality-control crisis? Because Pentagon brass tout China as the next Soviet Union in a future Cold War. But China’s fast-expanding military has many of the same problems as its quality-impaired civil sector. Take submarines, for example. Four years ago, mechanical failures aboard an outdated Chinese submarine resulted in the deaths of 70 sailors. This was no isolated incident, as U.S. Navy Captain Brad Kaplan, the U.S. Naval Attaché to China, explained in a recent issue of Sea Power:

Although it deploys a force of more than 60 submarines, [People’s Liberation Army Navy] units lag behind Western standards, and most weapons and sensor systems are based on older Russian technology. … The PLAN’s four Kilo units remain the submarine force’s most capable boats, although the capability of their crews to operate them effectively in a tactical environment is suspect. … Progress in replacing aging Han-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) with the new generation Type 093 SSN has been slow. The Type 093 SSNs have been compared in capability to the Russian Victor III SSN class [from the 1970s].

Liselotte Odgaard from the MIT Center for International Studies, drew the bottom line in a piece for AlterNet:

Chinese dependency on Russian arms deliveries and its arduous efforts to catch up with the Revolution in Military Affairs imply that China is far from the U.S. level of military prowess, especially in naval and aerial capabilities. A well-equipped and well-trained navy and air force is a necessary condition for exercising strategic influence in large parts of China’s Asian home region, such as the Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, the Taiwan Strait and the Japanese isles. This goal remains out of China’s reach for several decades.

In related news, Beijing is finally opening up its once entirely state-owned defense industry to private investment, only a couple centuries behind the U.S.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/china-qc-disast.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 2:18am

Taming The Information Torrent
By David Hambling September 19, 2007 | 5:56:00 AM

You can put hundreds of drones into the air over the battlefield, but it won't necesarily give troops the data they need. Soldiers can end up getting too focused on their displays trying to get their remote-controlled craft into pisition, while bad guys unencumbered by advanced technology draw a bead on them. And that's with just one machine; with dozens you have to have a way of co-ordinating the mass of video feeds and other data coming back, you're just going to get information overload.

DARPA's program for dealing with the chaos is called HURT, for Heterogeneous Urban RSTA Team ...which makes more sense when you know that RSTA stands for Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition .



The idea is that instead of having to control a particular drone and steer it around the area of interest, the troops on the ground just issue a request for what they want to see. The system then automatically arranges its collection of reconnaissance craft which might be BATMAVs, Predators, OAVs or whatever else is in the area to provide coverage. A complete 3-D picture of the scene is provided seamlessly to the footsoldier via a device live a tablet PC:

The unique feature of HURT is the real-time delivery of sensor data directly to frontline fighters. Warfighters can use an intuitive handheld interface to send their RSTA requests directly to a multi-platform, system of systems. These requests are consolidated, prioritized, and expedited through a formal service taxonomy and information management service that tasks the appropriate platform or platforms to execute the collections, while freeing warfighters from any piloting or airspace coordination concerns.

Goals:

Quickly induct new platforms and capabilities to create a RSTA force without making changes to either the platforms themselves or their ground stations.

Control heterogeneous mixtures of manned and unmanned platforms in order to provide a shared information service with archiving and replay capabilities.

Directly accept frontline fighter RSTA requests, and deliver the raw video or - within seconds of collection – precisely georegistered and mosaiced products for situation awareness, targeting or playback.

It's an ambitious scheme, but the progress so far has been encouraging - see their demo videos here:
http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixo/ixo_galleryVideoPopup.asp?ID=76

http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixo/ixo_galleryVideoPopup.asp?ID=94

http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixo/ixo_galleryVideoPopup.asp?ID=95

Some years back, DARPA gave us the Internet, which allows you to seamlessly access files without even knowing which computer they are on. HURT should give the same sort of seamless access to data from UAVs - and perhaps open up new possibilities in the civilian sector as well.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/hurt.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 21, 2007, 2:24am

HardSTOP: Selective Urban Lethality
By David Hambling September 07, 2007 | 3:45:00 PM

How can you use airpower effectively without causing civilian casualties? It's been a puzzle even since the military started using aircraft; now that precision guided munitions have turned bombing from a blunt instrument into a sharp one, there is still the issue collateral damage. The BBC reported yesterday that airstrikes in West of Baghdad killed 14 people and that "several houses were destroyed in the attack."



In an article in this months Defense Technology International I look at a whole variety of new low collateral damage munitions which are intended to destroy "the target, the whole target – and nothing but the target". One of the new weapons is HardSTOP:

The Hardened Surface Target Ordnance Package or HardSTOP is an Air Force Research Laboratory program to neutralize targets inside buildings without collateral damage. Terrorist leaders might be meeting on the fourth floor while there are civilians three floors below. The size of the target building may dictate a 2,000 lb bomb, which will not only destroy the structure but may bring down adjacent buildings.

HardSTOP is a munitions dispenser filled with fifty-four penetrators of two different sizes. INS/GPS guidance gives precise placement, and a few seconds before impact the penetrators are released in a pattern which can be varied from twenty to a hundred feet in diameter as required. This means an entire building or just a section can be targeted.

"The large penetrators can penetrate through more levels of the target than the small penetrators," says Ken West, AFRL Munitions Directorate Engineer. "By using two different sizes, you get the optimum combination of penetration capability and pattern density, such that you can saturate the entire structure."

Each penetrator has a special fuze and a small explosive charge. Electronic time delay allows each penetrator to attack a specific floor. This means that they can be set to target every floor of a multi-storey structure, or all can be concentrated on one level, but without damaging the building.

"Each penetrator fuze has a slightly different detonation time, which produces a different blast effect," says West. "This, in combination with the fact that the detonations are distributed throughout the structure, greatly reduces the potential for major structural damage both within and beyond the confines of the target."

HardSTOP has similar externally to existing munitions dispensers, and is compatible with current launch systems. Perhaps the biggest hurdle will be public relations: HardSTOP may be seen as a cluster bomb and therefore unacceptable to use in built-up areas. Even though the sub-munitions have two separate fail-safes and are unlikely to leave hazardous duds, prejudice against cluster weapons may be difficult to overcome.

Read the full article here:
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0907/index.php?startpage=54

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/how-can-you-use.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 30, 2007, 11:48pm

Soldier of the Future Gets His Gear On
By Noah Shachtman September 26, 2007



TARMIYAH, Iraq -- They were supposed to be wearing the high-tech soldier suits of the future. But when the grunts of the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment first started running around with a pile of gadgets on their backs and their helmets, they absolutely hated the gear.

Oh, maybe the Land Warrior gizmo suite -- complete with digital maps, wearable computers and new radios -- might do the bosses some good, the troops told me. And yeah, the equipment was about as close as troops today were going to get to the kind of tricked-out, sci-fi ensemble you might see worn by Halo's Master Chief. But at 16 pounds, on top of an already crushing 60-plus-pound load for grunts, the gear just wasn't worth the weight. The Army brass wasn't exactly thrilled with Land Warrior, either -- it yanked every last dime to fund the get-ups. The half-billion-dollar, 15-year project looked dead.

Cash was on hand to send the 4/9 into battle with Land Warrior, though. And their commanding officer, Lt. Col. Bill Prior, was a big fan. So, this spring, Land Warrior went off to Iraq.

I've just spent a week with Prior and the 4/9 (known as the "Manchus" since their assaults on China in 1901). And much to my surprise, a bunch of the soldiers in the unit are warming up to Land Warrior, especially now that the gizmo ensemble has been pared down and made more tactically relevant. So now the question is: can this once-doomed soldier-of-the-future ensemble spring back to life?

Over the last decade, the military has connected nearly all its command posts and all its vehicles into a kind of internet for battle. That allowed them to, at the very least, see each other's locations and better coordinate attacks.

Individual soldiers, however, still remain largely off the grid -- only now, more than four years into the Iraq war, are many troop teams getting radios of their own. That's a problem because counterinsurgency fights, like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, are almost wholly dependent on small groups of soldiers like these. Land Warrior was supposed to be the way to plug them in.

Captain Jack Moore, the commander of the 4/9's "Blowtorch" company, peers into his Land Warrior monocle. Inside is a digital map of Tarmiyah, a filthy little town about 25 kilometers north of Baghdad that's become a haven for Islamists. Blue icons show two of his platoons sweeping through the western half of the town. Two other icons represent Blowtorch soldiers who have teamed up with special forces and Iraqi Army units to raid local mosques with insurgent ties.

A red dot suddenly pops up on Moore's monocle screen: 3rd platoon has found a pair of improvised bombs -- black boxes, filled with homemade explosives. Other troops will circumvent the scene.

As the other platoons move south to north, green lights blink on Moore's map. Each of these "digital chem lights" represents a house checked and cleared. It keeps different groups of soldiers from kicking down the same set of doors twice.

A year ago, these chem lights weren't even part of the Land Warrior code. But after a suggestion from a Manchu soldier, the digital markers were added -- and quickly became the system's most popular feature. During air assaults on Baquba, to the northeast, troops were regularly dropped a quarter or half-kilometer from their original objective; the chem lights allowed them to converge on the spot where they were supposed to go. In the middle of one mission, a trail of green lights was used to mark a new objective -- and show the easiest way to get to the place.

Later, a five-man "small kill team" or SKT, was set up about 10 kilometers north of Tarmiyah to ambush an insurgent crew. But that crew turned out to be larger than expected, and the SKT was suddenly being attacked by 10 Iraqis. Almost instantly, Captain Aaron Miller, stationed two kilometers to the south, was able to respond.

"They didn't have to tell us their location -- we knew it right away. So they could focus on the fight," Miller says.

Miller is still not happy with how much the system weighs. "Look, I need this like I need a 10th arm," he sighs. And all this stuff (Land Warrior does), my cell phone basically does the same at home." But Miller is committed to soldiers being networked. So he's willing to be the digital guinea pig. "It's got to start with someone."

The system has become more palatable to the Manchus because it's been pared down, in all sorts of ways. By consolidating parts, a 16-pound ensemble is now down to a little more than 10. A new, digital gun scope has been largely abandoned by the troops -- the system was too cumbersome and too slow to be effective. And now, not every soldier in the 4/9 has to lug around Land Warrior. Only team leaders and above are so equipped.

"It helped morale a lot," says Lt. Col. Prior. "Leaders need it to track where you're going next, and when to use the right route. But for Joe (average soldier) -- pulling security, climbing through a window -- it was too much."

It still is, for some members of the Manchus.

"If it were five pounds, it'd be money," says Sergeant First Class Benjamin Mulkey. "But right now, it's not worth the weight."

Sam Lee, another sergeant stationed in Tarmiyah, drives back and forth over a stretch of unpaved road. His Land Warrior system has frozen up, and tells him he's a few hundred meters away from his actual location. When he gets out, his fellow soldiers can talk fine over their radios. His Land Warrior model is dead.

And of course, everybody has to be plugged into the system in order for it to be worth a damn. At the end of an exhausting night's worth of house-to-house searches, Lieutenant Michael Bennett loses track of half of his platoon. They aren't very far away -- just a few blocks. But because no one is up on Land Warrior, it takes an hour of bleary-eyed scrambling for the platoon to be reunited.

But while some troops struggle with Land Warrior's basics, new features are being added to the system. Video feeds from small ground robots, pictures from flying drones and data from sniper-detecting sensors should all be available in the Manchus' monocles before their tour is over next fall.

The question is whether the 4/9 will be the last unit to wear the Land Warrior gear. Right now, there is no money in the Defense Department budget to similarly equip another set of soldiers. But the 2nd Infantry Division's 5th Brigade Combat Team is in the process of officially asking for the gear. And Land Warrior allies are also pushing Congress to include $60 to $80 million to give more troops the get-ups.

Neither effort has been successful, so far. So the future of the soldier-of-the-future still remains very much in doubt.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/when-the-soldie.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 30, 2007, 11:53pm

I suppose this is an example of environmental warfare:

Improvised Bomb Triggers Wasp Attack
By Noah Shachtman September 27, 2007

Improvised bombs are really bad news. And that's before they start stirring up wasps' nests:

http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=72f_1190749943

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/video-fix-impro.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 30, 2007, 11:56pm

Seaplane revival?
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 9/28/2007 11:54 AM

I heard several years ago that Lockheed Martin was looking at new seaplane designs. In 2003, seaplanes emerged again as an element of a sea-basing strategy - providing sea-bases with a high-speed, heavy-payload link to safe land bases a long way off. However, nobody at Lockheed Martin seemed to want to talk.

However, a newly unearthed paper with two Lockheed Martin authors shows some interesting potential features. The proposed SeaMax is a twin-hull design - apparently dating to equally little-known 1970s studies by Lockheed-Georgia - powered by two F117 turbofans.



A C-130 floatplane development - studied in the late 1990s, apparently at the instigation of the special operations community - would serve as the technology demonstrator for the project.

Incidentally, the third author on the paper - Basil Papadales of Washington-state consulting company Moire Inc - is an ex-Boeing guy, and was at one time the manager of the Condor UAV program.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/def....7-b3cdb2 aeb8fd

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Sept 30, 2007, 11:59pm

U.S. carries out successful missile defense test
Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:29pm EDT

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. interceptor missile on Friday shot down a dummy warhead replicating an incoming North Korean missile in the seventh successful test of Boeing Co's long-range missile shield, the Pentagon said.

The Missile Defense Agency said in a statement it completed a test "involving a successful intercept by a ground-based interceptor missile designed to protect the United States against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack."

The interceptor missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base on California's central coast, and its target was fired from Alaska's Kodiak Island.

"We got it," said test witness Riki Ellison, president of the private Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a group funded in part by missile shield contractors. "It was a success."

The $85 million test was a rerun of one that was supposed to have taken place in May but was scrubbed when the target misfired.

The test marked the sixth successful downing of a target in 10 full-fledged intercept tests since October 1999 in which knocking down the target was the primary objective, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency.

On September 1, 2006, the same missile system shot down a target. But the Pentagon said that test had been designed chiefly to collect flight data, not stop a target warhead. As a result, it was not included in the latest tally as reported by Lehner.

The Bush administration is building a layered shield to thwart ballistic missiles from countries like North Korea and Iran that could be tipped with chemical, germ or nuclear warheads.

Other components of the emerging anti-missile shield are based at sea, in the air and in space.

The United States want to install 10 ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar station in the Czech Republic as a defense against a potential missile attack from Iran. Russia opposes the plan, saying it would upset a delicate strategic balance between major powers and threaten its own security.

U.S. critics say the missile defense tests prove little because they are highly scripted. An attacker would use decoys that would likely foil U.S. defenses, they say.

"Once again, there were no countermeasures or decoys used, making this test one of the simplest, easiest, flight intercept tests they've ever tried," Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under former President Bill Clinton, said in a statement e-mailed to Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSWBT00766220070928?sp=true

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 1, 2007, 12:02am

China's Digital Soldiers
By Sharon Weinberger September 27, 2007

The U.S. military is already learning the limits of its own digital soldier, but that isn't stopping China from moving forward with its own system. As C4ISR Journal reports:



China revealed its version of the “digital soldier” concept at its annual North Sword 0709 live-fire exercise, begun Sept. 18 at the Zhurihe training base in northern Inner Mongolia. According to a Xinhua press report, the exercise involved 2,000 soldiers, tanks and other vehicles equipped with electronic devices that instantly relayed data about battlefield conditions back to the command center.

The system collected data on casualties, food, ammunition and supplies. “The system could let us know the exact conditions our troops are in under combat; how much ammunition, water and food remain; and when we should support them with logistics,” said Zhang Jixiang, vice commander of the Zhurihe training base, according to Xinhua. Richard Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the system is China’s attempt at creating a digital soldier system.

The system would “shrink and graft computer/satnav/digital-video connectivity to the individual soldier,” Fisher said. “The idea is for the individual soldier to be able to broadcast intimate details of his combat condition and receive data of a magnitude to give him a thousandfold more situational awareness than before. Weight, power supply and ruggedness issues have been the main technical barriers.

China's system is likely to suffer the same weight/utility issues as the U.S. Land Warrior. But for China, it's at least some progress, considering an earlier version of its digital soldier system wasn't all that much more than a digital camera and duct tape:

“In 2002, the [People’s Liberation Army] revealed a limited digital soldier rig following a special forces exercise,” Fisher added. “It involved an unwieldy-looking digital camera and a small viewing screen lashed to a helmet. It did not look like it would really survive a jump from a helicopter, but it at least signaled the PLA work in that area.”

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/chinas-digital-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 1, 2007, 12:07am

Here a thought - the fully recyclable PET soldier:

Armor and Dresses from Plastic Bottles
Posted by Joel Johnson, September 27, 2007 5:49 AM



Commissioned by a large soft drink manufacturer (I presume Coca-Cola, but I don't know), Artist Kosuke Tsumura created sets of armor and dresses out of plastic PET bottles, sewn together with transparant nylon thread. As Pink Tentacle points out, it may not be the strongest armor ever assembled, but it will last for many generations.

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/09/27/armor-and-dresses-fr.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 1, 2007, 12:10am

Homeland Security Money Buys Hovercraft
By Sharon Weinberger September 28, 2007

Local officials in Indiana are having a tough time explaining how federal dollars designated for counter-terrorism could be used to buy a hovercraft designed for all-weather rescue missions (short answer: It won't, unless you're expecting terrorists on water skiis). As the Indianapolis Star reports:



The six-passenger craft bought by emergency management officials from the two counties will be used in water, ice and snow rescues, according to Debbie Fletcher, spokeswoman for Marion County Emergency Management.

The craft's $59,600 cost includes a towing trailer and a pilot training course. It was purchased July 26 from the Terre Haute-based company Neoteric Hovercraft. The purchase was paid for by a 2005 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to the Indianapolis Urban Area Security Initiative, which includes Marion and Hamilton counties, Fletcher said. The initiative is part of a national homeland security program designed to protect cities with populations of more than 100,000.

Even a state senator noted that the homeland security funds are supposed to go for, well, homeland security:

While he did not criticize the hovercraft purchase, state Sen. Thomas J. Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said purchases made with Department of Homeland Security grants must be used primarily for counterterrorism purposes. Wyss chairs the state Senate committee that oversees homeland security spending.

"Homeland Security money is not just for taking care of your, quote, everyday needs that you have for public safety," he said. "First and foremost, it's there for protection and prevention in counterterrorism."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/homeland-secu-1.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 1, 2007, 12:29am

Make Cars Safer by Dressing Them as Animals?
By Brandon Keim September 28, 2007 | 9:11:49 AM



Because most of human evolution took place while we were intimately involved with animals -- as food, or as potential food for them -- we developed parts of brain specifically devoted to paying attention to them.

So theorized Yale University cognitive scientist Joshua New, who showed study subjects pairs of photographs depicting people, plants, animals or tools, each image identical but for a single change. (If it sounds a bit like a kindergarten task or restaurant placemat entertainment for children, that's because it is.)

People noticed the changes more frequently in photographs of people and animals, ostensibly because we're more sensitive to movement in things we expect to move. (Timeless advice: don't worry about the rock unless it has fur.)

So is this learned or hard-wired? New then showed people paired images depicting either animals or cars -- the latter being something we've learned to classify as mobile, and have far more connection to than, say, elephants. Nevertheless, people were still better at noticing movement in animals than automobiles -- which is a little disconcerting, as we're far more likely to be run over by a minivan than a cape buffalo.

Two caveats to these findings, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: maybe people were responding to the novelty of the animals, and to the static depiction of the automobiles. Show them pigeons rather than African megafauna, and video clips rather than snapshots, and maybe we'd be more aware of the cars.

But if the results really do represent reality, two possibilities: maybe, in a million years, vehicular accidents will have wiped out those of us who are still more likely to notice a rat by the curb than a car in the passing lane. And maybe vehicle manufacturers could start offering a novel safety feature: cars tricked out as animals! Compacts as gazelles, mid-size sedans as zebras, pickups as wildebeests, SUVs as elephants.....

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/make-cars-safer.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 1, 2007, 1:13am

Commandos Get Hydrogen-Powered Drone
By Noah Shachtman September 28, 2007

Robotic spy planes can stay in the air way longer than manned ones. But even the drones have their limits. The military's long-lasting Global Hawk maxes out at about a day and a half. Even the unmanned endurance champ can only go for two days or so. American commandos want to go far beyond that, with a unmanned eye the sky that can fly for up to a week, without landing. U.S. Special Operations Command has just handed out a contract, worth up to $108 million, to build as many as five of the marathon drones.

Robo-plane maker AeroVironment, Inc., which won the award, has been working on long-lasting unmanned aerial vehicles for years. Their Pathfinder and Helios solar-powered aircraft have set altitude and endurance records. Global Observer, powered by hydrogen fuel cells, will fly at 55,000 to 65,000 feet, serving as a communications' relay for commandos -- and keeping watching over the ground below. Here's a vid:

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=626958248

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/commandos-gets-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 4, 2007, 1:34am

Yacht Crashes into Submarine
Sunday, September 30, 2007, 11:50 PM

It took place Friday afternoon, during the 4th leg of the Vuelta España a Vela (Spain Sailing Tour), from Cartagena to Alicante.

While the fleet was approaching Alicante, a submarine suddenly surfaced in front of Endesa-Ceuta. The yacht managed to avoid a head on collision but the extent of damages suffered is not clear.



Unfortunately, the photo is fuzzy but the photographer, like the rest of the participants, was caught by surprise. Obviously, nobody was expecting to see a submarine surface in front of them.

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 4, 2007, 8:59pm

'Gay bomb' scoops Ig Nobel award

Pioneering research into a "gay bomb" that makes enemy troops "sexually irresistible" to each other has scooped one of this year's Ig Nobel Prizes.

Other winners included work on treating hamster jetlag with impotency drugs, extracting vanilla from cow dung, and the side-effects of sword swallowing.

The awards, founded in 1991, mark achievements that "first make people laugh, and then make them think".

The prize ceremony took place at Harvard University, US.

Genuine Nobel Laureates handed out the much-coveted awards to the winners, who took away no cash, but instead received a handmade prize, a certificate, and, of course, the glory of such an illustrious win.

Sword effects

Dan Meyer, executive director of Sword Swallowing Association International and an author of the British Medical Journal paper Sword Swallowing and its Side-Effects, said: "I was surprised and extremely honoured when I found out I was not only nominated for an Ig Nobel prize but that I had won it. I couldn't believe it."

He told the BBC News website that the study revealed that when professional sword swallowers ingested a single sword very carefully, it did not do much harm, but swallowing many swords, strangely shaped blades, or being distracted when swallowing, could cause injury.

The findings also suggested that sword swallowers should not swallow swords if they already had a sore throat, he said.

Unfortunately, said the organisers, nobody from the US military who carried out the research on chemicals that could prompt homosexual dalliances amongst rival troops (a research project called Harassing, Annoying and "Bad Guy" Identifying Chemicals) attended the ceremony because the study's authors could not be tracked down.

Real research

The Ig Nobel Prizes were created by the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR), a science magazine.

The awards, now in their 17th year, are intended to "celebrate the unusual, honour the imaginative - and spur people's interest in science, medicine and technology".

Marc Abrahams, the editor of AIR, told the BBC News website: "When I became the editor of a science magazine, suddenly I was meeting all kinds of people who had done things that were hard to describe, and for the most part, nobody had ever heard of.

"For some of them, it seemed a great shame that nobody would give them any kind of recognition, and that was what really led to the birth of the Ig Nobels."

Like their more sober counterpart, the Nobel Prizes, the Ig Nobels are split into several categories and all research is real and published.

2007 Ig Nobel Winners

Medicine - Brain Witcombe, of Gloucestershire Royal NHS Foundation Trust, UK, and Dan Meyer for their probing work on the health consequences of swallowing a sword.

Physics - A US-Chile team who ironed out the problem of how sheets become wrinkled.

Biology - Dr Johanna van Bronswijk of the Netherlands for carrying out a creepy crawly census of all of the mites, insects, spiders, ferns and fungi that share our beds.

Chemistry - Mayu Yamamoto, from Japan, for developing a method to extract vanilla fragrance and flavouring from cow dung.

Linguistics - A University of Barcelona team for showing that rats are unable to tell the difference between a person speaking Japanese backwards and somebody speaking Dutch backwards.

Literature - Glenda Browne of Blue Mountains, Australia, for her study of the word "the", and how it can flummox those trying to put things into alphabetical order.

Peace - The US Air Force Wright Laboratory for instigating research and development on a chemical weapon that would provoke widespread homosexual behaviour among enemy troops.

Nutrition - Brian Wansink of Cornell University for investigating the limits of human appetite by feeding volunteers a self-refilling, "bottomless" bowl of soup.

Economics - Kuo Cheng Hsieh of Taiwan for patenting a device that can catch bank robbers by dropping a net over them.

Aviation - A National University of Quilmes, Argentina, team for discovering that impotency drugs can help hamsters to recover from jet lag.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7026150.stm

Published: 2007/10/04 23:47:10 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 12:09pm

Ready, Aim, Zap!
By Sharon Weinberger October 03, 2007

The Air Force is seeking proposals for high-powered microwave weapons to "use as a Counter Electronics payload that would not cause physical damage to buildings or harm to humans." And they're not looking for blue sky type ideas either: they want either "immediate capabilities" that are ready for use or "near-term capabilities" that could be in commercial production in less than a year.



That's a tall order, because despite advances in high-powered microwave weapons, there's been some difficulties in developing fieldable weapons, as Aviation Week's Dave Fulghum noted earlier this year:

The development of HPM weapons has been hobbled for the last 30 years by seemingly intractable cost, size, beam-control and power-generation requirements. Tests of modified air-launched cruise missiles carrying devices to produce explosively generated spikes of energy were considered big disappointments in the early 1990s because of an inability to direct pulses and predict effects. New active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars can jam emitters or possibly cause damage to electronic components with focused beams. But power levels and ranges are limited by aperture size.

That said, some of the U.S. companies active in this area --like Raytheon and BAE Systems North America -- are quick to talk up advances. For example, Aviation Week's Fulghum in that same article notes that BAE Systems claims it has combined lasers and high-powered microwaves, and Raytheon is already marketing a ground-based weapon that can protect airports from missiles: http://www.raytheon.com/products/vigilanteagle/

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/ready-aim-zap.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 12:12pm

DHS 'Spam' List
Published: 2007-10-03,
Last Updated: 2007-10-03 20:26:37 UTC
by Marcus Sachs (Version: 3)

The US Department of Homeland Security sends out a daily Open Source Intelligence Report to a subscription list of hundreds, perhaps thousands of recipients. This morning a reader replied to the list address with a request for a change and his note got re-sent to all of the list subscribers. In the next hour or so, dozens of readers have replied, creating a mini-DDoS of sorts to the subscriber's inboxes. This points out an important point - if you maintain a broadcast mailing list make sure that the address will not reflect email from sources other than the owner of the list. Otherwise, you will become a training example for SANS.

While this is not a Cyber Security Awareness tip, it comes mighty close.

(DHS has been notified.)

Update #1

As of 1920UTC, about six hours into this event, over 275 emails were sent. Nearly one-half were either pleas to stop sending more replies or people demanding to be unsubscribed (in spite of the fact that unsubscribe instructions are at the bottom of the DHS daily reports.) Many of the posts were humorous, some offered jobs, at least one was a "vote for me" political advertisement, and many more offered their names and contact information in case somebody was looking to connect with their sector or region. While 275 is not even close to the millions of emails that get sent on a typical commercial spam run, it is a large number for a "flash crowd" or whatever this may eventually be called. It also revealed a nice cross-section of who subscribes to DHS daily publications and consider themselves part of the defensive security community. Most definitely do not have the Jack Bauer (character from the series "24") mentality of total seriousness and no-joking attitude.

We did a bit of investigating and this does not look like a typical Mailman or MajorDomo listserve administered by DHS. Instead, it appears to be an email address on a Lotus Domino Release 7.0.2FP1 server hosted by a government contractor that reflects email to a list of thousands of subscribers. It's not clear why a single email got reflected today and not in the many previous months this service has been available. Quite likely an email administrator either clicked a box last night, rebuilt the system, migrated it to a new server, or did something that un-set a setting designed to prevent this type of event. Regardless, the situation is still not fixed. As this diary is being written another email just came through. Sigh....

Update #2

The pain continues...in the past few minutes the CSC server has started spewing "attachment blocking notifications" in response to the emails sent in that had MIME formatted content. So now we brace for another round of spew.

A reader sent us an interesting idea - all it takes now is some wise-acre (or a BadGuy™) to send a zero-day PDF or Word attachment to the nearly 300 names now available and nail a few dozen gullible security professionals.

Marcus H. Sachs
Director, SANS Internet Storm Center

http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=3450

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 12:21pm

DARPA's Sex Slave Insects
By Sharon Weinberger
October 04, 2007

Of the many fascinating theoretical applications of DARPA's "cyborg insect" research, the most creative could be using sex-starved moths to follow bank robbers. A new article in EE Times goes into detail on HI-MEMS, and quotes a science fiction writer whose book inspired the DARPA program:

"Moths are extraordinarily sensitive to sex attractants, so instead of giving bank robbers money treated with dye, they could use sex attractants instead," said [science fiction writer Thomas] Easton. "Then, a moth-based HI-MEMS could find the robber by following the scent."



Easton, as it turns out, is a scientist as well as a science fiction writer, and his novel Sparrowhawk provided some of the ideas behind the DARPA program. Easton, in fact, was invited by DARPA to give a presentation at the start of the HI MEMS program, but wasn't able to attend the meeting. Instead, he posted his presentation online.

That's just one of the details that comes out in the article on the HI-MEMS program in the EE Times. The article provides a fair amount of details on the program I didn't previously know, and strikes a great balance between wide-eyed wonder and calibrated skepticism.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/darpas-sex-slav.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 12:27pm

Video Fix: AK-47 = Cigarette Lighter
By Noah Shachtman
October 04, 2007 | 7:18:31 AM

I'm sure Mikhail Kalashnikov would be proud...

See following link:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/video-fix-ak-47.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 12:51pm

How Israel Spoofed Syria's Air Defense System
By Sharon Weinberger
October 04, 2007 | 5:14:56 PM



Earlier this month, Israeli fighters bombed a suspected nuclear materials site in Syria. Here's the million dollar question: How did they do it without tipping off Syria's Russian-bought air defense radar? Radar expert Dave Fulghum over at Aviation Week's Ares blog may have the answer: Israel hacked the network.

Israel U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.

Whether this is the final explanation is unclear, but as Fulghum notes, there's a bunch of Russian radar engineers studying the strike right now.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/how-israel-spoo.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 1:17pm

Russian "Father of All Bombs" = Fake?
By David Axe October
04, 2007 | 1:13:00 PM


The test of the huge vacuum bomb is shown in this undated television image shown by Russian Channel One. Inset, the bomb before the blast.

Remember Russia's "Father of All Bombs," reportedly the most powerful thermobaric weapon in the world? Turns out it's at least partially a fraud. I've got the scoop over at Wired News:

Father of All Bombs "has no match in the world," a military officer boasts in the official video. ... But close analysis of the video reveals inconsistencies that have led some U.S. experts to question the veracity of the Russian claims, and to downgrade assessments of the weapon. It's possible, they say, that the video was partially faked, and that the test was hyped for political reasons.

The evidence? The video on state media that represents the only official "press release" about FOAB implies the bomb was dropped by a Tu-160 long-range bomber, thus making it a powerful weapon for conventional missions. But there's a problem.

The Father of All Bombs, as shown, would not fit in a Tu-160's bomb bay, as it features a horizontally deploying drogue parachute that would be fouled by the aircraft if released vertically. The only way to deploy a bomb like this is to slide it out of the cargo hold of an airlifter, as the U.S. Air Force has done with its fuel-air "Daisy Cutter" bombs used in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The appearance of ski-like legs on the bottom of the Father of All Bombs attests to this delivery method.

The Father of All Bombs cannot be used against defended targets; a cargo plane is too vulnerable. Daisy Cutters, for their part, were only ever dropped on remote deserts or jungles or against terrorists hiding in caves.

But wait, there's more! Read the whole damning analysis following.

See original report at:
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?b....ge=2#1189557173

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/russian-father-.html

#2 Did Russia Stage the Father of All Bombs Hoax?
By David Axe And Daria Solovieva
10.04.07 | 12:00 AM

"All that is alive merely evaporates."

That's how a Russian official described the effects of what is reportedly the world's most powerful non-nuclear bomb, tested on Sept. 11. A video released by state media shows a Tupolev 160 bomber, a bomb falling as a parachute unfurls and a huge fireball.

The Russians call the device the "Father of All Bombs," an homage to the American GBU-43 Massive-Ordnance Air Blast munition nicknamed "Mother of All Bombs."

Both weapons weigh around 8 tons, but the Russian device reportedly has a more powerful blast: equivalent to 44 tons of TNT, whereas the American bomb is equivalent to 10 tons.

Father of All Bombs "has no match in the world," a military officer boasts in the official video.

Western media reacted with alarm. An editor for Jane's told the BBC it was likely that FOAB indeed represented "the world's biggest non-nuclear bomb." UPI claimed the device "would enormously boost Russia's conventional military capabilities."

Russian state-run television released this video of a bomber dropping the "Father of all Bombs" last month:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ee_cDX7ys

But close analysis of the video reveals inconsistencies that have led some U.S. experts to question the veracity of the Russian claims, and to downgrade assessments of the weapon. It's possible, they say, that the video was partially faked, and that the test was hyped for political reasons.

"You've got to approach Russian claims with skepticism," says John Pike, an analyst at the think tank GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Virginia.


A Russian video implies that a Tu-160 long-range bomber dropped the FOAB test munition, but the bomb and bomber never appear in the same shot.
Image: Channel One

It's not even clear what kind of weapon the Russians tested -- if it was what some experts call a "fuel-air explosive," or if it was a "thermobaric" weapon. Fuel-air and thermobaric bombs differ in usefulness.

Traditional bombs rely on metal fragments propelled by TNT to do their damage. Thermobaric weapons, by contrast, release a massive shockwave. They're meant for taking out big buildings and cave complexes, places where fragmentation doesn't work very well, explains Tom Burky, a senior research scientist at Battelle, an Ohio-based defense contractor. Thermobaric blasts can push around corners and down corridors.

Fuel-air bombs, on the other hand, have a small explosive device connected to a large tank of compressed fuel. The tank cracks on impact with the ground, spreading a cloud of fuel vapor. The warhead explodes, igniting the fuel. The effect is roughly the same, but fuel-air bombs are much more finicky than thermobarics, according to Burky. "The mixing process is highly randomized -- very difficult to control on the battlefield."

The official video compares the Russian bomb to the thermobaric GBU-43, but the weapon depicted in the video appears to be a fuel-air explosive, based on its shape, Burky says.

Regardless, Phillip Coyle, an adviser to the Washington, D.C., Center for Defense Information, says he is skeptical about Father of All Bombs' true power. "It (the blast) may be bigger than MOAB," he concedes, "but it's not four times bigger -- at best 50 percent bigger, just going on the bomb's size and how these bombs are designed."


FOAB's ski-like legs -- and the drag-'chute lines seen on top -- indicate the bomb was released by a slow-flying cargo plane, contrary to Russian claims.
Image: Channel One

The force of a thermobaric/fuel-air blast is a function of the fuel type, the proportions of fuel and high explosive, and the way these elements mix during the blast. "The difficulty with bombs of this type is predicting the shape of the blast," Pike says. Teasing a fourfold improvement over the MOAB would require sophisticated chemistry, according to Burky, and that would challenge what Pike describes as cash-strapped Russian military labs.

Despite his skepticism regarding many Russian military developments, Pike says he believes that the Father of All Bombs is roughly as powerful as the Russians claim. What he doesn't necessarily buy is that the weapon is actually new. The Russian military has a tendency to rename old weapons in order to create the impression that they are new, Pike says. The Russians have possessed a range of thermobaric weapons for at least four decades.

The details of the "new" bomb's provenance and design are murky, but one thing is clear. The Father of All Bombs’ test model was not delivered by a Tu-160 bomber, as implied. Nowhere in the video are the bomber and the bomb in the same shot.

The Father of All Bombs, as shown, would not fit in a Tu-160's bomb bay, as it features a horizontally deploying drogue parachute that would be fouled by the aircraft if released vertically. The only way to deploy a bomb like this is to slide it out of the cargo hold of an airlifter, as the U.S. Air Force has done with its fuel-air "Daisy Cutter" bombs used in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The appearance of ski-like legs on the bottom of the Father of All Bombs attests to this delivery method.

The Father of All Bombs cannot be used against defended targets; a cargo plane is too vulnerable. Daisy Cutters, for their part, were only ever dropped on remote deserts or jungles or against terrorists hiding in caves.


The force of FOAB's blast was estimated at 44 tons -- four times the power of the equivalent U.S. bomb -- but some analysts doubt the claim.
Image: Channel One

"It's actually a niche weapon," Burky says. "They have their place, in attacking caves. But there are only so many caves you're going to attack. Not that we should ignore them."

Indeed, the Father of All Bombs' actual destructive force and military utility are perhaps less important than its apparent power.

"Some people claim Russia did this because they were upset about our (ballistic) missile-defense proposals for Poland and the Czech Republic," Coyle says. "Other people say it has more to do with the upcoming presidential elections in Russia. Maybe (Russian President Vladimir) Putin is trying to preserve his legacy."

Pike says that despite Moscow's recent surge in oil revenue, the underfunded Russian military is still 15 years behind the United States. But with Putin's regime positioning itself as a bulwark against the United States, the Russian military has had to step up. And where it lacks genuine capabilities, it has not hesitated to fake them.

Case in point, the much-hyped bomber patrols. In the past year, Russian long-range bomber types, including the Tu-160 featured in the video, have begun probing Western air defenses, in an echo of Cold War practices.

But according to Hudson Institute fellow Richard Weitz, the bombers themselves are old and poorly maintained -- State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack referred to them being taken "out of mothballs." Henry T. Nash, in his book Nuclear Weapons and International Behavior, describes deterrence as "being closely tied to the 'politics of appearances.'"


The horizontal drag 'chute slows the bomb in order to allow the releasing aircraft to escape, a method necessary for slow-moving cargo planes.
Image: Channel One

So it doesn't matter so much if a bomber is well-maintained, as long as it appears on U.S. radars. Nor does it matter if the Father of All Bombs is a fuel-air explosive or a thermobaric device, if it is really the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the world, or even if it is a new weapon at all. All that matters is that it makes an impressive explosion for the cameras.

Semantics support this view. The nickname Father of All Bombs is more than just an homage to the American MOAB. It's also an apparently intentional reference to an earlier episode in Russian military showmanship.

The Russian term for the Father of All Bombs, "Kuzkin otets," translates literally as "Kuzkin's father." The phrase itself makes no sense. But to "show you 'Kuzkina mat,'" "to show Kuzkina's mother," is one of the most famous Russian idioms. It equates roughly with the English-language threat "we'll show you." Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev forever cemented "Kuzkina mat" in the Russian lexicon in 1962, during a period of escalating tension that preceded the Cuban missile crisis, and described a reportedly successful test of a 50-megaton H-bomb, the most powerful weapon ever.

The kicker? Khrushchev's H-bomb itself was mostly a demonstration of might rather than a serious attempt at fielding a practical weapon. The H-bomb was too big and unwieldy for day-to-day carriage on Soviet bombers, so only the one test model was ever built.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/russian_bomb?currentPage=all

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 1:24pm

Israelis win award for submarine-based chopper
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich , THE JERUSALEM POST
Oct. 1, 2007

A small helicopter that can take off underwater from a submarine and hold two passengers - designed jointly by students at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and the University of Pennsylvania - has won first prize in a US helicopter design competition.



Called "Waterspout," the helicopter can be stored inside the submarine without taking up too much space. It is released through existing openings in the submarine, so no new ones have to be made.

The helicopter is autonomous, can function in a variety of weather conditions and can be dispatched from a submarine from some 15 meters under the water's surface (enough for a periscope to see into the air from under the water.)

It can also float on the water in a rough sea, has the ability to fly 260 kilometers in one trip, and can hold two passengers (even if they are injured and have to lie on stretchers.)

The Waterspout also features stealth technology, including low-heat emissions and a coating that prevents it from being picked up by radar.

The Technion team, consisting of Mor Gilad, Avihai Elimelech, Roni Hachmon, Igor Teller, Avida Schneller, Elad Sinai, Lior Shani and Chen Friedman, under the supervision of Prof. Omri Rand (dean of the school's Aeronautics, Engineering and Space Faculty) planned the rotor mechanics, the blade-folding mechanism, and the takeoff mechanism.

The Pennsylvania team, which was responsible for the aerodynamics of the rotors, the fuel system - which is not vulnerable to crashes - and various calculations, included Paul Branson, Meehir Misri, Alex Razano and Daniel Leonard, who worked under the supervision of Prof. Edward Smith, head of the Center of Excellence in Rotary Aircraft, and Dr. Robert Beale.

The model won first prize in the first-degree student category in a helicopter planning competition organized by the American Helicopter Society, as well as a prize in the "Best New Competitor" classification.

This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c....icle%2FShowFull

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 1:30pm

RAFAEL Unveils Panoramic, Vehicular Electro-Optical Gunshot Detector

* News Sept 29, 2007

At the upcoming AUSA 2007 exhibition in Washington DC, RAFAEL is planning to introduce a new vehicular version of the Spotlite electro-optical gunshot locator. The system is currently in development, with R&D funded by several customers. It's unique sensor and signal processing provides fully panoramic coverage, initiating threat warning, detection and localization within few seconds from a gunshot, rocket or a missile being launch, well before the threat reaches its target. RAFAEL plans to complete an integrated vehicular system before the year's end.


SpotLite-M

The new system, designated SpotLite-M joins the SpotLite-P (portable version). Both systems are capable of accurately and immediately detecting, locating and thereby enabling reaction to enemy fire sources, such as small arms fire, RPGs and anti-tank missiles. Spotlite M provides critical early warning on an imminent attack and enables the vehicle's crew to take evasive actions, employ effective counter-fire or deploy countermeasures against the threat within seconds from initial detection. Simultaneously, coordinates of the firing source can be sent to any shooter capable of receiving those coordinates, whether it be a tank, attack helicopter, anti-tank missile, sniper, etc. "The SpotLite-M provides the best solution for one of the most serious problems for mobile platforms on any battlefield and that, is finding the enemy and being able to react in real-time," says David Stemer Corporate VP and General Manager of Rafael's Missile Division. "We are confident that it will attract the attention of our customers worldwide."

The system comprises a unique, panoramic infrared camera developed by Rafael, enabling target detection and location at more than the effective range of the various threats. The system is effective in both day and night covering a full panoramic 360° view. In addition to land platforms, the SpotLite-M is also suitable for aerial and naval platforms.

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0907/news/300907_spotlite.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 1:39pm

Technology from another era may still serve the purpose:

Release the Gunships! Part One
Sunday September 30th 2007, 11:15 pm



The tech-heavy, increasingly irrelevant Air Force is finally making a half-hearted effort to actually contribute to low-tech counter-insurgency fights. But it could do a lot more, according to Major Robert Seifert in a recent piece for Joint Forces Quarterly. First up, the service needs to reconceptualize the enemy, Seifert writes:

Strategists yearn for a center of gravity to attack in order to crush the insurgency, and many claim there is none. They fail to see that the center of gravity is the individual insurgent and the location of his attack. For it is at that location alone, and only for a brief time, that the insurgent we struggle to define is an irrefutable enemy and a definable target. Strategists and tacticians both must look at each insurgent attack in the same light as our grandfathers looked at Germany’s war industry.

Next, the Air Force must give more freedom to one of its most effective weapons, the AC-130 gunship, to go out and destroy this “industry.” Why gunships? Because they combine a wide range of sensors and weapons in a platform with a long loiter time. It’s a perfect combo for a low-threat environment. The problem is that the Air Force assigns gunships to orbit over specified ground units for hours at a time, whether or not those units are likely to come across any bad guys:

[Gunships] fly every night in Iraq but rarely identify a single insurgent due to the inefficient manner in which they are requested by the Army and employed by the Air Force. … [A] simple yet fundamental change in AC–130 employment can kill or capture more insurgents, save friendly lives, and improve prospects for coalition success.

“I am convinced that if I was allowed to employ my gunship the way I propose, I would find and kill insurgents every single night,” Seifert told me:

I would ask where the insurgents are most likely to be (although I would start figuring it out pretty quickly myself) and I would then fly over those areas as much as possible all the while being on a frequency that all of the ground forces in the triangle knew to call at the first sign of trouble. Sure a lot of insurgents would get away every night but you catch a dozen insurgents every night and you start demoralizing them pretty darn quickly. I’ve shot dozens of them and they don’t even know what’s shooting them. AC-130s against insurgents is a total and complete unfair fight. We’ve made it fair, though, by sitting the gunships in the same spot for hours at a time “defending” whatever ground force happens to be in that location.

My concept is no different than how police forces are used. Do cop cars sit in the same spot and defend a neighborhood? Or do they roam around looking for bad guys all the while being on call to EVERY citizen in their jurisdiction. Cops are the best weapon against bad guys and gunships are the best weapon against insurgents. Another example is F-15 employment. Do F-15s sit in the same spot defending a particular army unit against air attack or do they roam the skies looking for MiGs and waiting for AWACS to push them to the first indication of MiGs? The Air Force has perfected the art of air-to-air and is the reason the Iraqi Air Force wouldn’t even take off. Put the same effort and expertise into gunship employment and you’d start seeing insurgents that didn’t want to leave their houses.



Sounds a bit optimistic to me, but the man does make an interesting argument. Today and tomorrow I am posting a two-part Q&A with Seifert:

Q: Do you think the gunship presence in theater will support this new strategy? In other words, are there enough planes?

Seifert: There are more than enough planes in theater. Keep in mind there are 13 U model gunships in existence with 4 more being built [plus 8 H models — ed.]. My article proposes two every night which would put a gunship anywhere in the triangle WORST case in 20 minutes. Another one or two would be nice but two employed optimally would change the course of the war. Have fighters working the same way and talking to the gunships and you’d have an airborne sensor on scene in minutes. And once that sensor locks on the insurgent(s), it’s a done deal. The gunship shows up and is either cleared to engage by the ground force commander for known insurgents or the gunship escorts a QRF to the scene so they can see if the insurgents act hostile or not. Approximately 10 seconds after showing hostile intent, there’s a single 40-mm round on the way or a single 105[-mm] howitzer round, ground commander’s choice. Again, the insurgent doesn’t even know what’s shooting at them. A total and complete unfair fight.

Q: In your article, you posit that the insurgency’s center of gravity is the individual fighter and his attacks. I disagree. I say the center of gravity is ideological and infused in the regional populace. Can you address my assessment in light of your proposal?

Seifert: I know what you’re saying but I still say that the insurgent shooting at U.S. troops is the center of gravity. Destroy and demoralize him as quickly and efficiently as possible and the war will start going better. The insurgents keep fighting because we haven’t made it painful enough for them to stop fighting. Sure there is the politicial aspect to the war but there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that we need to kill as many insurgents as possible, as fast as possible, as cheaply as possible, as unfairly as possible, etc etc. Killing insurgents with M-16s and F-16s is tough, dangerous, complicated, expensive, etc. Killing insurgents with an ammo-laden transport aircraft that can loiter in the Sunni triangle for 10+ hours every night shooting bullets that cost pennies compared to other means of killing insurgents and now we’ve got a chance of winning the war without bankrupting our country. I will also say that the Arab culture respects strength. If the gunships were unleashed, the only defense would be to stop attacking US forces. Again, you’d get away with some attacks but it would only be a matter of time before a gunship or another air asset caught you or a US soldier called quick enough to get the gunship in place. How many hours long battles have you read about in the paper. Why? Other air assets respond but only the gunship has the situational awareness and the ability to shoot a single 40-mm round at a time to efficiently kill insurgents and not cause collateral damage. The gunship is the only air asset I know that shows up on scene and quicly has more situational awareness than the ground forces. Too many times I’ve told ground forces that personnel were sneaking up on them and that we were 10 seconds away from a round on target the second they gave the command. No other asset compares (in a low threat environment like Iraq). There are CAS aircraft and then there is the AC-130. How many times have you read about other air assets making low passes and dispensing flares to scare away the enemy after they’ve attacked our forces. Why are we asking our pilots to fly hundreds of feet from the ground to dispense flares? Our pilots’ bravery is unquestioned but there has to be a better way. When you have enemy forces attacking your forces, they need to be killed not scared away. I’ll say it again, the Arab respects strength.

http://warisboring.com/?p=642

#2 Release the Gunships! Part Two
By David Axe
October 03, 2007 | 11:35:00 AM



The Air Force is struggling to adapt its Cold War airplanes and attitudes to new counter-insurgency fights. On Monday I introduced Major Robert Seifert, an AC-130 pilot who, in an excellent article, proposed putting the sensor-laden, heavily-armed gunships at the front of a new COIN strategy. He says the Air Force should release the AC-130s to roam around Iraq, working with ground controllers to spot and kill insurgents. Today I wrap my Q&A with Seifert:

Q: Would heavier use of gunships result in more civilian casualties?

Seifert: The gunship ONLY shoots when given permission by the ground force commander. It is easy to think that I am proposing that gunships should be allowed to roam the countryside shooting all the bad guys they can find, but nothing is further from the truth. Read again the situation in the article where I saw tracers in my window, got the sensors on the suspicious guys running away and then called the Army to tell them what had happened. The Army [Command and Control] called the unit at the coordinates we gave them and got word that, yes, they had been attacked. Army C2 then cleared us to shoot, BUT we saw the bad guys getting in cars, so we asked for further guidance. C2 said to keep track of them and they formed a QRF which ultimately resulted in 15 captured and us telling the troopers where to start digging to find the box of AK's and RPGs. Army C2 could have said shoot them on the spot and there would have been zero collateral damage. This would have been the case whether they were in open fields (which they were) or in the center of a town.

Most air assets would not have been able to shoot in a town though because they use 500 lb bombs minimum. The gunship, unlike anything else though, can fire a single 2.5-lb HE 40-mm warhead anywhere you want it. This warhead is the rough equivalent of a hand grenade or the 40-mm grenade our soldiers shoot from their rifles. So, you have an air asset that fires an equivalent weapon as a single soldier. The ability to do this is battle-changing. The gunship's two biggest strengths, in my opinion, are the situational awareness and the low-yield weapons. People think the 105-mm is huge, but it has a 32-lb HE warhead, vs 500-lb warheads [on bombs]. Could you use these weapons to kill lots of innocent people? Yes, and it has unfortunately happened -- but only when ground force commanders and/or gunship crews have made significant mistakes.

Q: So if you were in charge, what would you do to improve Air Force COIN capability?

Seifert: If I were King, I'd have several irregular-warfare wings, but I'd break them down between [Close Air Support] and transport wings. I found no synergy from being part of a wing that had transports and CAS aircraft. For example, I'd have an irregular wing of A-10s, AC-130s, an OV-10-type aircraft -- and I think the small gunship is an awesome idea. Not necessarily for operating out of small airstrips, but for the ability to buy enough of them so they're not hoarded and so they don't cause the Air Force to only have two dozen like they do the present gunships. A small gunship with one or two 30-mm cannons and a crew of about four would be awesome. I also would put the wings in ACC versus AFSOC, as I found AFSOC deep in their heart only wants to support "special ops" ground forces, whereas I have found ACC wants to kill bad guys for whoever was nice enough to point them out. The transport irregular warfare wing would obviously have some C-130s, CV-22s and a small transport. And both wings though would have a ... squadron for training friendly forces on how to operate the various wing aircraft.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/release-the-g-1.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 1:46pm

Congress may think its won but knowing the Military as I do the Star Wars concept will just be dressed up under a new name and trotted out again in a couple years time. Congress forgets that the Military specialize in camouflage:

Congress Dashes 'Star Wars' Dreams
By Sharon Weinberger
October 05, 2007 | 8:51:54 AM

Congress this week quashed the Pentagon's plans to start studies on a "space test bed" for missile defense, Aviation Week reports:



Missile defense advocates tried to resurrect MDA's request Oct. 3, but opponents claimed it was another step toward the so-called armed "Star Wars" concept. In particular, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a vocal missile defense proponent, and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D), an ardent critic, squared off during debate of FY '08 defense appropriations over Kyl's effort to restore the $10 million request.

Kyl eventually withdrew his amendment as it faced significant opposition from top defense appropriator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and other leading Democrats. So far neither House nor Senate defense authorizers, nor House appropriators, have approved or funded MDA's request.

Nevertheless, since China destroyed one of its own satellites in January with a ballistic missile, Kyl has pushed an aggressive defense of MDA budget requests on Capitol Hill and has even criticized Bush administration actions as insufficient (DAILY, Jan. 30). His test bed appropriations push, a repeat effort, follows explicit calls for space-based weapons to defend satellites.

It's wasn't a tiny chuck of change either; the article says the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency planned to spend $300 million between 2008 and 2013 on the space test bed concept.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/congresses-dash.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 2:02pm

If Xenu can't help, Tom has another option:

Tom Cruise's $10M Survival Bunker
By Sharon Weinberger
October 01, 2007 | 12:00:00 PM



Earlier this month, David Hambling wrote about one-time plans for a super-lux congressional bunker, a billion dollar bunker, and Finnish bunkers. So, why shouldn't Hollywood stars have bunkers? At least one may be planning on it, according to reports:

Tom Cruise is planning to build a $10 million bunker underneath his Colorado mansion in preparation for the end of the world, according to a bizarre new report. The Top Gun star and Scientology nut is said to be taking the costly precaution in order to out-smart an evil intergalactic ruler called Xenu who, he believes, will attack Earth. A source told Star magazine: "Tom is planning to build a $10 million bunker under his Telluride estate.

Of course, the Cadillac of bomber shelters is a converted missile silo.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/tom-cruises-10m.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 2:10pm

Pain Ray 2.0: Heat vs. Heat Gun
By Sharon Weinberger
October 02, 2007 | 9:13:00 AM

Some view it as a wonder weapon capable of revolutionizing warfare, others fear it as a scary microwave death beam. Yet despite the hype and attention, the Active Denial System (ADS), a nonlethal “pain ray” that heats the top layer of skin to create an intense burning sensation without damaging the target, still hasn't been deployed yet. Last week, DANGER ROOM spoke with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Diana Loree, the ADS project manager, to talk abut the weapon, particularly the new “System 2” version, which could eventually be sent to Iraq (or elsewhere).

Q: Why hasn’t ADS been deployed yet to Iraq? Is heat the major issue?

I will let you make that decision. System 1 was built as an advanced concept technology demonstrator (ACTD). It was a technology demonstrator. It met its requirements. The ACTD practically started before 9/11. At that time, with the cost and schedule constraints we had, we had no reason and we had no money to really make a fully temperatured system. A system that can only go to 95 or 100 degrees Fahrenheit without sun loading is probably not appropriate for a lot of regimes right now.

[But] we have no more room or weight to try to change System 1 a lot. System 2 has been being built for the last several years and it hasn’t been quite finished yet, even as of today. Do we have a system really ready for the environment that might be being requested? The answer was kind of “no” sometimes.

Q: What are the temperature limits now for System 1?

For the Humvee-mounted system, System 1, it’s about 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That was totally adequate for the concept technology demonstration. It did everything we needed. But obviously there are areas of the world that might be hotter than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The next system, System 2, has fixed it just by putting in a lot of air-conditioning, and a lot more room.

Q: And for System 2, what are the weather limitations?

System 2 was built for 125 degrees Fahrenheit with sun loading, and for rain. System 1 – you can’t let it rain a whole bunch. We’re not watertight. As soon as it starts raining, we pull it into the garage. System 2 has been tested for rain and tested for dust.

Q: What other improvements are you working on for the long-term?

I’ve been with the program since 1993, so I’ve seen all the current transmitters be built and go through their activities. Therefore, I can also see what has worked well and what hasn’t. We always want to work on anything we see that has not been reliable. We want to work anything we see that takes a long time to prepare. One example is the super-conducting magnet. We haven’t had any failures with the super-conducting magnet, but it takes about a day to get it ready if you start without it plugged in. If you just start with a system sitting there, we have to run a vacuum for a while, and then you turn on our compressor. And just like your refrigerator -- if your refrigerator isn’t ready, and it turns on, it takes a while to get cold; it’s same thing with our super-conducting magnet. It takes a while. It goes all the way to four degrees Kelvin. That takes about 16 hours. We have had magnets that are in the system take 30 hours, but the magnets in the system now take about 16 hours. That one day of prep, is something that, especially the Army, would like to see come down.

Q: What about in terms of preparation; does System 2 still need 16 hours?

Yes it does. We used basically System 2—you can point to every piece of technology on system 1. There wasn’t redesign time. It was simply: build another copy, but include the environmental [upgrades], even if we need to take it not quite as mobile. We took it off the Humvee wheels, and it’s on palletized containers, and so it could go on a variety of larger vehicles. We didn’t have time to change or wait for technology development. The pieces are almost exactly the same. We just have more room now.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/wheres-the-pain.html

#2: Pain Ray 2.0: People-Zapper on the Move
By Sharon Weinberger
October 03, 2007 | 7:00:00 AM

The Active Denial System, the Pentagon's "pain ray," is a millimeter wave nonlethal weapon that has been at the center of controversy since it was publicly revealed in 2001. This is the second part of an interview with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Diana Loree, the ADS project manager, who has been with the program since 1993. (Here's the first part.) In today's entry, we focus on "System 2," the latest version of the weapon, which could eventually be sent to Iraq.



Q: Where is System 2 in terms of testing?

The government is doing a little bit of testing on System 2 for the first time right now. Until this time, Raytheon was still manufacturing it. It’s just now starting a little bit of government testing. Just measurements right now.

Q: With System 1, the Humvee has to stop when it’s in use, correct?

With System 1 the power also turns the vehicle’s tires. System 1 is electrical; it’s a hybrid-electric Humvee, so that same power that's powering up the transmitters also turns the tires. We just couldn't quite fit on enough power to do both at the same time. The next system, you could absolutely do it. For System 1, the second you pull the trigger, unfortunately, it needs some of the wheel turning power.

Q: But System 2 can shoot and move at the same time?

It’s not tied to a vehicle. It's in boxes. If it’s on a truck, the truck could be in motion. We don’t quite have the antenna stabilization for really ‘shoot on move.’ Even for System 2, that’s a lot of vehicle motion, and we don’t quite have the level of antenna stabilization. To stabilize an antenna to a moving vehicle, you have to tie it to gyros, and use that in your computer loop, so it will help hold it still. We don’t have a communications link between System 2 and the vehicle it’s on. That is simple and could be added in the future. We just don’t have it on the current one.

Q: ADS still hasn’t been used operationally, are you concerned about accidental overexposure in a real world setting, for example, if someone trips and can't move away?

The current systems – any I’m sure any future systems – absolutely have hardware and safety limitations even beyond the operator’s control. The system is designed to make sure so we don’t defeat the blink response, no matter where somebody pops in. The system is designed with software that aids in range and aids in limiting how long it can be on, even if the operator holds the trigger down. Then, the operator in the loop here. They are being trained in tactics, techniques and procedures and the law of armed conflict and how to use this to engage someone, stop and gauge reaction and use it within the mission set. I think the combination of hardware, software and people in the loop, and someone watching the person in the loop, is going to be quite good.

Q: How long does it take for the automatic cutoff to kick in?

It can vary. But, again, I’m talking about the technology demonstrator system, the simple crawl, walk, and run approach. We’re probably at the crawl stage. Even these transmitters can only be on for 1,2,3,4,5,6 seconds. We do have a CW setting, but we don’t use it. The CW testing is mostly for measurement. This is still an assessment. The warfighters are still figuring out how to use it. We need to give them the flexibility. That type of setting can be disabled, if necessary, for other use.

Q: There was an April report of a test subject getting second-degree burn; can you provide any more details?

No, we have to stick with the public release statement. There’s going to be another one.

Q: What sort of improvements to the system do you envision making in the future, beyond System 2?

We have some small business innovative research projects going on to work on more rapid cool down magnets. Also, the compressor, the refrigerator we’re using to cool it down, has a harsh temperature limit. It’s this commercial product. It’s made to be in a nice hospital or a nice laboratory indoors with air conditioning. We have it sitting in the back of our humvee. It really hates hot weather. It’s something we didn’t have to fix for the [advanced concept technology demonstration] ACTD. The warfighter would like something that doesn’t mind hot weather. Another thing we’re trying to do in our innovative research is to get a more ruggedized compressor that doesn’t mind high temperature limits.

Q: Are you optimistic the weapon will be used eventually?

It’s been used 10,600 times.

Q: Yes, but what about operational use? It seems like there’s almost a psychological barrier, particularly because of its stigma as the “microwave weapon.”

It’s the millimeter wave weapon. I don’t control use. There are only a couple of these things, it’s up to the services to decide to use, or decide to buy, and get it into a program of record. This is just an advanced concept technology demonstration for the ground-based system. There are no established programs of record. There are some services looking at it, trying to make documents and do some planning. There’s not a real program of record. I think it’s a great success story for how far we’ve been able to advance and prove the capability. It does exactly what we say, now it’s simply the services’ time to decide.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/pain-ray-20-par.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 5, 2007, 2:15pm

The frontline soldiers who will run on solar power
By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE
Last updated at 23:19pm on 29th September 2007

Front-line troops could soon be carrying a new piece of hi-tech gear into battle - solar panels.

Soldiers will have them moulded on to their backpacks to help power the array of electronic equipment now used in combat.

The introduction of solar panels is being studied by the Ministry of Defence, which is keen to cut the use of traditional batteries. The new technology would be 'greener' than disposable batteries and much cheaper in the long run.



It could also help save troops' lives by eliminating the danger of equipment failing because of lack of power.

And it could save them from the risk of injury posed by traditional batteries, which can explode if exposed to fire or extreme desert temperatures.

Weighing just 14oz, the panels have been developed for the Australian army, whose troops and special forces regularly fight alongside elite British SAS units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The panels are made from a secret compound and can produce hours of low-level energy to power radios, night-vision goggles, communications equipment and sensors to detect enemy positions.

They even work in cloudy conditions because they harness solar radiation rather than direct sunlight. The Australian military, which spent £1million on the project, says the battlefield has become more "power hungry", so finding an alternative battery source was vital.

Lieutenant Colonel John Baird, of the Australian army, said: "This is fighting in the information age, where every soldier is connected via sophisticated communications equipment and uses sensors to provide information on an enemy's position.

"But it uses a hell of a lot of power, and the disposable batteries we are using now are far from ideal because when they run out the soldiers have to return to base and take the used batteries with them.

"If we can use the sun's radiation to recharge equipment then that is a clear advantage."

Dr Gavin Tulloch, director of the solar-panel project, said: "The lithium used in traditional batteries can be dangerous, particularly in conflict situations, and the residual electrolytes are quite polluting.

"The military disposes of them very carefully, but obviously it takes a long time for them to break down. This is a win-win situation for the army because it addresses those problems as well as operational needs."

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "We are exploring a variety of battery technology and alternatives to reduce the environmental impact and transport burden that comes with battery use."

She added that the MoD already used solar panels to keep its unmanned Zephyr aircraft aloft at nearly 60,000ft. The Zephyr has set a world record for the longest unmanned flight.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar....in_page_id=1965

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 6, 2007, 10:19am

Source: US Department of Homeland Security
Date: October 6, 2007

Detecting Liquid Explosives On A Plane

After the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airlines with liquid explosives was uncovered in London in August 2006, there has been pressure on the airline industry, and Homeland Security, to find new ways to not only detect liquids in baggage and on airline passengers, but also to figure out what they are. Now, the DHS Science & Technology Directorate (S&T) is teaming with scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to find a possible solution.


The DHS Science & Technology Directorate's SENSIT research will detect liquids and gels such as these. (Credit: DHS)

"Having to place your consumable liquids through the baggy routine when going through airport security may one day be history," says S&T Program Manager on the project, Mr. Brian Tait, "and that's going to make a lot of people very happy. This is a new screening prototype that definitely shows promise."

In late June, Los Alamos National Laboratory team successfully completed proof of concept of an extremely sensitive future screening technology. The new technology scans the magnetic changes of individual materials at the molecular level and stores them in a database, which then allows the differentiation and identification of many materials that may be packaged together or separately as they go through the screening process.

It uses the same technology that brain scans are performed with, and is based on ultra-low field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which is already being used in medical field for advanced brain imaging. The end goal is to eventually put it next to the current x-ray screener.

The SENSIT technology has already demonstrated the ability to differentiate more than four dozen materials considered "safe" for carrying onto aircraft --from everyday personal items like toothpaste to mouth wash -- to those that are considered hazardous .

"With the MRI signal, we want to distinguish between harmful items, and many common carry-on liquid consumables," says Tait. "The goal is reliable detection of liquids, with high throughput, that is non-contact, non-invasive, requires no radiation, produces no residue and uses the existing airport security portal."

SENSIT is one of S&T's Homeland Innovation Prototypes (HIPS) projects -- high-impact innovative technologies that have shown great promise and are on their way to being transitioned to industry for manufacturing and distribution.

"We're working hard on getting the SENSIT technology to an airport near you very soon," says S&T's Innovation Director, Roger McGinnis.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071002154017.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 11, 2007, 1:29am

Dragonfly or Insect Spy? Scientists at Work on Robobugs.

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; A03


Robotic fliers have been used by the military since World War II, but in the past decade their numbers and level of sophistication have increased enormously.

Vanessa Alarcon saw them while working at an antiwar rally in Lafayette Square last month.

"I heard someone say, 'Oh my god, look at those,' " the college senior from New York recalled. "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?' They looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects."

Out in the crowd, Bernard Crane saw them, too.

"I'd never seen anything like it in my life," the Washington lawyer said. "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical, or is that alive?' "

That is just one of the questions hovering over a handful of similar sightings at political events in Washington and New York. Some suspect the insectlike drones are high-tech surveillance tools, perhaps deployed by the Department of Homeland Security.

Others think they are, well, dragonflies -- an ancient order of insects that even biologists concede look about as robotic as a living creature can look.

No agency admits to having deployed insect-size spy drones. But a number of U.S. government and private entities acknowledge they are trying. Some federally funded teams are even growing live insects with computer chips in them, with the goal of mounting spyware on their bodies and controlling their flight muscles remotely.

The robobugs could follow suspects, guide missiles to targets or navigate the crannies of collapsed buildings to find survivors.

The technical challenges of creating robotic insects are daunting, and most experts doubt that fully working models exist yet.

"If you find something, let me know," said Gary Anderson of the Defense Department's Rapid Reaction Technology Office.

But the CIA secretly developed a simple dragonfly snooper as long ago as the 1970s. And given recent advances, even skeptics say there is always a chance that some agency has quietly managed to make something operational.

"America can be pretty sneaky," said Tom Ehrhard, a retired Air Force colonel and expert in unmanned aerial vehicles who is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit Washington-based research institute.

Robotic fliers have been used by the military since World War II, but in the past decade their numbers and level of sophistication have increased enormously. Defense Department documents describe nearly 100 different models in use today, some as tiny as birds, and some the size of small planes.

All told, the nation's fleet of flying robots logged more than 160,000 flight hours last year -- a more than fourfold increase since 2003. A recent report by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College warned that if traffic rules are not clarified soon, the glut of unmanned vehicles "could render military airspace chaotic and potentially dangerous."

But getting from bird size to bug size is not a simple matter of making everything smaller.

"You can't make a conventional robot of metal and ball bearings and just shrink the design down," said Ronald Fearing, a roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley. For one thing, the rules of aerodynamics change at very tiny scales and require wings that flap in precise ways -- a huge engineering challenge.

Only recently have scientists come to understand how insects fly -- a biomechanical feat that, despite the evidence before scientists' eyes, was for decades deemed "theoretically impossible." Just last month, researchers at Cornell University published a physics paper clarifying how dragonflies adjust the relative motions of their front and rear wings to save energy while hovering.

That kind of finding is important to roboticists because flapping fliers tend to be energy hogs, and batteries are heavy.

The CIA was among the earliest to tackle the problem. The "insectothopter," developed by the agency's Office of Research and Development 30 years ago, looked just like a dragonfly and contained a tiny gasoline engine to make the four wings flap. It flew but was ultimately declared a failure because it could not handle crosswinds.

Agency spokesman George Little said he could not talk about what the CIA may have done since then. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service also declined to discuss the topic.

Only the FBI offered a declarative denial. "We don't have anything like that," a spokesman said.

The Defense Department is trying, though.

In one approach, researchers funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are inserting computer chips into moth pupae -- the intermediate stage between a caterpillar and a flying adult -- and hatching them into healthy "cyborg moths."

The Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project aims to create literal shutterbugs -- camera-toting insects whose nerves have grown into their internal silicon chip so that wranglers can control their activities. DARPA researchers are also raising cyborg beetles with power for various instruments to be generated by their muscles.

"You might recall that Gandalf the friendly wizard in the recent classic 'Lord of the Rings' used a moth to call in air support," DARPA program manager Amit Lal said at a symposium in August. Today, he said, "this science fiction vision is within the realm of reality."

A DARPA spokeswoman denied a reporter's request to interview Lal or others on the project.

The cyborg insect project has its share of doubters.

"I'll be seriously dead before that program deploys," said vice admiral Joe Dyer, former commander of the Naval Air Systems Command, now at iRobot in Burlington, Mass., which makes household and military robots.

By contrast, fully mechanical micro-fliers are advancing quickly.

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have made a "microbat ornithopter" that flies freely and fits in the palm of one's hand. A Vanderbilt University team has made a similar device.

With their sail-like wings, neither of those would be mistaken for insects. In July, however, a Harvard University team got a truly fly-like robot airborne, its synthetic wings buzzing at 120 beats per second.

"It showed that we can manufacture the articulated, high-speed structures that you need to re-create the complex wing motions that insects produce," said team leader Robert Wood.

The fly's vanishingly thin materials were machined with lasers, then folded into three-dimensional form "like a micro-origami," he said. Alternating electric fields make the wings flap. The whole thing weighs just 65 milligrams, or a little more than the plastic head of a push pin.

Still, it can fly only while attached to a threadlike tether that supplies power, evidence that significant hurdles remain.

In August, at the International Symposium on Flying Insects and Robots, held in Switzerland, Japanese researchers introduced radio-controlled fliers with four-inch wingspans that resemble hawk moths. Those who watch them fly, its creator wrote in the program, "feel something of 'living souls.' "

Others, taking a tip from the CIA, are making fliers that run on chemical fuels instead of batteries. The "entomopter," in early stages of development at the Georgia Institute of Technology and resembling a toy plane more than a bug, converts liquid fuel into a hot gas, which powers four flapping wings and ancillary equipment.

"You can get more energy out of a drop of gasoline than out of a battery the size of a drop of gasoline," said team leader Robert Michelson.

Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments.

"They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web," said Fearing of Berkeley. "No matter how smart you are -- you can put a Pentium in there -- if a bird comes at you at 30 miles per hour there's nothing you can do about it."

Protesters might even nab one with a net -- one of many reasons why Ehrhard, the former Air Force colonel, and other experts said they doubted that the hovering bugs spotted in Washington were spies.

So what was seen by Crane, Alarcon and a handful of others at the D.C. march -- and as far back as 2004, during the Republican National Convention in New York, when one observant but perhaps paranoid peace-march participant described on the Web "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th avenue . . . watching us"?

They probably saw dragonflies, said Jerry Louton, an entomologist at the National Museum of Natural History. Washington is home to some large, spectacularly adorned dragonflies that "can knock your socks off," he said.

At the same time, he added, some details do not make sense. Three people at the D.C. event independently described a row of spheres, the size of small berries, attached along the tails of the big dragonflies -- an accoutrement that Louton could not explain. And all reported seeing at least three maneuvering in unison.

"Dragonflies never fly in a pack," he said.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice said her group is investigating witness reports and has filed Freedom of Information Act requests with several federal agencies. If such devices are being used to spy on political activists, she said, "it would be a significant violation of people's civil rights."

For many roboticists still struggling to get off the ground, however, that concern -- and their technology's potential role -- seems superfluous.

"I don't want people to get paranoid, but what can I say?" Fearing said. "Cellphone cameras are already everywhere. It's not that much different."

See video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con....7100400958.html

See also DARPA's "Cyborg Concept":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/science/interactives/moth/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con....7100801434.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 1:34am

IMI to unveil precision mortar shell
Ehud Zion Waldoks , THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 9, 2007

Israel Military Industries (IMI) will unveil a precision 120 mm. mortar shell at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) exhibition in Washington this week.

The shell can be fitted to any 120 mm. launcher, which is already widely used all over the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

The shell has a range of 13 km. and can be guided in two different ways: either other IDF personnel mark the target via laser, which the shell then can hone in on, or by using GPS relayed via satellite.

Because it can be guided in, it will enable a target to be destroyed with one shot, thus reducing the number of mortar rounds needed to be put on target as well as transported to the battlefield. That in turn will greatly reduce the strain on logistics during battles.

The "brain" of the mortar shell is a combined computer, guidance and navigation system called "Pure Heart" which operates in real time. Because of its minimal size, it can be loaded onto almost any air or ground weapons system.

The need for such a weapon became clear after the Second Lebanon War, IMI said, and therefore they decided to focus on "smart" munitions.

IMI head Avi Felder said in a statement Tuesday that the shell was in advanced demonstration stages for the IDF as well as foreign armies. He added that combining the "Pure Heart" system with other munitions such as rockets and artillery shells could very well bring about a revolution in battlefield capabilities.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257265227&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 1:39am

Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Weaving Batteries into Clothes

A new machine that makes nanostructured fibers could turn soldiers' uniforms into power supplies.

By Kevin Bullis

A novel machine that makes nanostructured fibers could be the key to a new generation of military uniforms that take on active functions such as generating and storing energy.


Wearable power: Researchers have developed technology that combines multiple materials into intricately structured fibers, such as those shown here (right). The researchers hope to make fibers that can store energy or convert sunlight into power, for use in soldiers’ uniforms.
Credit: (left) U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center, (right) Hills, Inc.

The fibers can be made of up to three different materials, arranged in regular, nanoscale patterns visible in cross section. (See slide show.) The machine, manufactured by Hills, of West Melbourne, FL, is one of only two in the world capable of producing such fibers, says Stephen Fossey, a researcher at the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center, in Natick, MA. The machine is scheduled to be delivered early next year to the Natick facility, where it will serve as the centerpiece of a program geared to making multifunctional uniforms.

Among the machine's many potential uses is assembling fibers that act as rechargeable batteries. Angela Belcher, a professor of biological engineering and materials science and engineering at MIT, says that some of the sample structures the device has made could be useful for combining positive and negative battery electrodes and electrolytes into individual threads. Such threads could be woven into uniforms and paired with threads that act as fuel cells or photovoltaics.

The machine was featured last week as part of a workshop on wearable power held at the United States Army Research Laboratory, outside of Washington, DC. The workshop was part of a major push to develop better alternatives to today's batteries as foot soldiers come to depend more on electronic devices, from night-vision goggles and laser range finders to advanced radios and networked computers. Today, a typical platoon requires almost 900 batteries of up to seven different types for a five-day mission, says Charlene Mello, a member of the macromolecular-science team at the Natick soldier center. Besides being cumbersome to manage and carry, the batteries don't last very long, which could put soldiers in the position of having to change them in the middle of a fight.

What's needed are ways to store energy in less space and relieve soldiers of logistical burdens so that they can concentrate on their jobs, says Dave Schimmel, a project manager at the Natick facility who works with experimental technologies that are close to being tested in the field.

Proposed solutions include lightweight fuel cells and batteries molded to the shape of a soldier's body armor. The Natick machine is important for longer-range research on power sources that would simply disappear into the background.

The machine is a variant on a common manufacturing technology used to extrude polymers: heated materials are forced through a die and then drawn down to make thin fibers. Its ability to combine three different materials into intricate patterns, however, depends on separate control of the temperature of each material (the upper temperature limit is 350 ºC).

The machine can process materials besides polymers, which could be key to making functional fabrics. Metals with low melting points could be used to make conducting fibers. A wide array of inorganic materials that can be useful for batteries, fuel cells, and photovoltaics could be incorporated into the fibers by embedding them within polymers. The fibers, once formed into novel shapes, could also serve as templates for inorganic materials deposited using other techniques.

One of the more exotic possibilities is creating fibers from viruses that Belcher has genetically engineered to bind to and organize inorganic materials. She has already shown that the viruses can be used to make high-energy-density battery electrodes and fibers. The machine could combine battery electrodes with a polymer separator and electrolyte to form a complete battery. A similar approach could be used with photovoltaic materials. (Indeed, photovoltaic fibers made by other means have been demonstrated in the past.)

Among the cross-sectional patterns possible with the machine (and illustrated by the slide show accompanying this article) are some that look like sliced pies or concentric rings, and others that are much more complex. Once made, the fibers can be modified by dissolving certain polymers, leaving behind fibers with increased surface area. In one example, called "islands in the sea," a fiber thinner than a human hair is divided into dozens of nanoscale fibers. The machine can also produce fibers with cross sections that, instead of being circular, could have the shape of a cross or a three-lobed structure.

"Pretty much any cross section can be made," Fossey says. Indeed, what's lacking now is not the capabilities of the machine, he says, but enough researchers with ideas for how to use it.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/19487/page1/

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 1:41am

Start for Pentagon Super-Sniper Scopes
By Noah Shachtman October 10, 2007 | 8:58:00 AM



The Pentagon's super-sniper program is under way. Back in April, we told you about "One Shot," DARPA's program to build scopes that compensate for the wind -- and boost snipers' kill-rates by ten-fold, in the process.

The first of those contracts has now been handed out to Lockheed Martin. It's a $2 million, nine-month deal to basic wind-measurement system. That'll be followed by an eighteen month project to build a prototype One Shot scope.

"Even a light gust has a huge impact on [snipers] and missing the target by over 1.5 meters at distances as short as 400 meters is not uncommon," notes DARPA program manager Deepak Varshneya. The agency wants its new scope to provide lethal precision at 2000 meters range, in winds up to 40 miles per hour. If it all works out as planned, American snipers will able to fire in a hurry -- "engag[ing] and pull[ing] the trigger" in "less than one second" -- and they won't miss, no matter how hard the wind blows.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/darpa-sniper-co.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 2:25am

When Pork Flies
By Noah Shachtman October 11, 2007 | 12:52:00 PM



It only took 20 years and $63 million. But infamous DP-2 Vectored Thrust Aircraft finally made its first flight the other day -- "for a total of about 90 seconds," the San Diego Union Tribune reports.

By the way, that's two 45-second flights, not one minute-and-a-halfer, for the aeronautically-challenged plane that's been repeatedly pushed on the armed services by Congresscritters. The pair of takeoffs did not particularly impress the DP-2's legion of critics.

“What the video of the test flights on Sunday shows is the aircraft flying in extraordinarily ideal conditions with no blowing dust and no indication of any wind,” John Eney, a former head of the aircraft conceptual design group at the Naval Air Systems Command.,said. “The airplane that he's promoting for taking troops would have to be able to take people into the desert. If you blast that with your jet engines, you can bury yourself in a dust storm.”

At an earlier hearing, "Eney warned that the DP-2's system, which directs hot jet exhaust toward the ground, could burn troops who were rappelling out of the aircraft, which is one of its intended uses."

Check out Jason Vest's definitive history of the pork plane:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/06/theres_way_way_.html

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/06/rohrabacher_len.html


http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/when-pork-flies.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 2:43am

Insect Drones 'Spotted' on U.S. Streets (Updated)
By Sharon Weinberger October 10, 2007 | 11:00:00 AM

I was incredibly remiss -- as one commenter pointed out -- in not linking to David Hambling's excellent post on beamed power for Dragonfly spies (where he also discusses a reported sightings of what one commenter thought might be a robo-critter) - see following. David pointed out that the idea wasn't totally far-fetched. The biggest limitation for these types of drones is power.

He wrote: "Beamed power micro UAVs would have obvious limitations – they're not going to be flying hundreds of miles away over enemy territory. But for covert surveillance in the domestic arena, they might be just the thing. I have no idea whether there are any dragonfly spies out there yet; but if there aren't now, there soon will be."

Do I think that dragonflies are already being used in the United States? Not likely. Why? First, because I've seen a lot of real dragonflies. They are beautiful and I love them. And yes, they sometimes look robotic -- that's just the bizarre, wonderful, cool thing about Dragonflies. Second, UAVs crash. That's just the nature of UAV technology. So my guess is that if the government was really using cyberbugs to spy, one of them would have crashed by now and the cat would be out of the proverbial bag.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/insect-drones-s.html

Beamed Power For Dragonfly Spies
By David Hambling September 21, 2007 | 11:51:00 AM



DANGER ROOM reader Justin posted this comment on yesterday's piece about the British Police's New Spy Drone :

During the Republican National Convention in 2004, I swear I saw a jet-black dragonfy hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th avenue. About six blocks later, marching toward Madison Sq. Garden, I saw another. Hovering. Motionless but for the wings beating. Dead center of the street, ten feet off the ground. Watching us.

In other words, I'm pretty sure smaller and stealthier gadgets are already in use for surveillance. Call me crazy.

Not that crazy. As far back as the 1970's the CIA were experimenting with a micro air vehicle which looked like a dragonfly. Flight International reported last year:

Developed during the 1970s, the CIA has displayed a mock-up of the micro UAV in its museum at its headquarters in Langley, Virginia since 2003. However until now no media organisation has been given access to the material that proved that the artificial dragonfly had been flight tested.

…. In the 1970s the CIA was interested in the dragonfly concept as a small unmanned surveillance device. Flight cannot reveal exactly what materials have been seen, but can confirm the four-winged robotic insect achieved sustained flight…. The CIA's entomopter dragonfly's power supply and actuation system for its wings are still highly classified subjects.



The CIA drone really does look like a real dragonfly. The problem was apparently with the flight control system, as the craft could not cope with crosswinds. This type of problem can be solved much more easily with modern electronics. The big issue with a craft so small is the power supply. Until we can get something as compact and efficient as the biological version (and there already ecobots that power themslves by digesting insects), the answer for robotic insects is likely to be beamed power.

There has been a lot of serious work on this already (and let's not talk about Tesla). As long ago as 1964, pioneer Bill Brown demonstrated a mini-helicopter powered by microwaves on the CBS News with Walter Cronkite. The craft was developed under a contract with the Air Force. NASA seem to believe that miocrowaves will be inherently inefficient because of how they spread out with range, and have been working on micro air vehicles remotely powered by laser.

But there has been more recent work on microwaves to power UAVs, using the body of the craft as an antenna to pick up power:

"We've already demonstrated we can transfer power with microwaves. We've performed tests on the safety issues of microwaves, and we've shown that having multiple ground stations [sending microwaves] is the best possible method, said Jenn. "Now we plan to show how we can power these UAVs using radar systems -- systems the Navy already has."

That was almost ten years ago. Beamed power micro UAVs would have obvious limitations – they're not going to be flying hundreds of miles away over enemy territory. But for covert surveillance in the domestic arena, they might be just the thing. I have no idea whether there are any dragonfly spies out there yet; but if there aren't now, there soon will be.

(Picture courtesy of Teresa Earl at the AFRL)

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/beamed-power-fo.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 3:03am

Army "Future" vs. Insurgent Superbombs
By David Axe October 10, 2007 | 1:58:00 PM



The Army’s $120 $200+ billion Future Combat Systems – a light, networked family of vehicles intended to replace a third of the active tank and Bradley fleet — was conceived in the 1990s before Improvised Explosive Devices and Explosively Formed Penetrators (insurgent "superbombs") started demolishing U.S. forces in Iraq. So does the FCS concept still hold water?

No, according to Ana Marte and Elise Szabo in an August 2007 study for the Center for Defense Information:

Based on the deployment of prototypical [FCS] systems in Iraq since the beginning of the war there, analysts … are unaware that this concept has achieved even rudimentary feasibility. Indeed, the devastating success of enemy IEDs and [Explosively Formed Projectiles] in Iraq has led to the deployment of heavier armor, not lighter, and an acknowledgement that the enemy rarely permits itself to be found and identified by sensor hardware.

Army officials disagree. Program manager Major General Charles Cartwright insists that FCS is still the way to go, for it represents one way of breaking the endless cycle of “up-armoring” that has resulted in 15-ton “Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected” trucks replacing 7-ton Humvees in Iraq. “If all we’re doing is piling on armor, where does that stop?” Cartwright asks.

The key, officials say, is applying all the lessons learned in Iraq to make the FCS vehicles as survivable as possible in the event of a blast, while still counting on improved sensors and networks to spot and avoid bombs — in a sense, swapping some armor for more information. Even after four years of dirty, low-tech war in Iraq, the network is still “the most important thing to come out of FCS,” says Brigadier General James Terry, who’s responsible for developing FCS tactics.

The vehicles themselves have been redesigned in light of Iraq, Cartwright says. “We’ve learned an awful lot about IEDs and EFPs.” The general won’t go into specifics, but angled hulls to deflect blasts and new layered armor for defeating EFPs both surely play a role. Plus, they’re heavier. Long gone is the 20-ton weight limit and the requirement to fly aboard C-130s. FCS vehicles will be transported by C-17 and, more often, by ship.

The FCS brigades that actually deploy around 2015 won’t look at all like those in the original 1990s plan. In addition to the heavier FCS vehicles and all the robots, FCS brigades will probably include MRAPs upgraded with network terminals, sensors and new armor kits. The Army and Marines are still studying the exact mix of MRAPs and FCS vehicles, but Cartwright assures that “there are going to be wheels inside an FCS [brigade combat team].”

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/army-future-vs-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 3:06am

Lockheed's Stealth Waterplane (Updated)
By Sharon Weinberger October 11, 2007 | 9:14:36 AM



Defense giant Lockheed Martin has patented a "relatively small, stable, low-signature, fast, heavily-armed marine vessel." Dubbed a SWATH boat, as in "small waterplane area twin hull," the boat could operate from a larger ship, deploying into shallow coastal waters. As the patent describes:

The marine vessel includes an upper hull, two propulsion hulls, and two struts for coupling the propulsion hulls to the upper hull. The struts are segmented and are capable of reconfiguring the marine vessel. In one configuration, the vessel can be folded for launch and recovery. In a second configuration, the struts can be extended downwardly for cruising and surveillance. In a third configuration, the struts can be extended laterally from the upper hull to provide a minimum-draft configuration for approaching a beach.

Update:

Although the patent was granted just this month, ATACMS correctly points out that this is actually Lockheed's CHARC (pronounced "shark") which has been around as a concept ship for a while. As this Popular Mechanics article from 2004 describes (and with great concept art of the CHARC):

At a recent armaments convention, the company revealed its plans for blending the offensive capabilities of an attack helicopter with the mobility of a high-speed surface ship. The resulting Covert High-speed Attack and Reconnaissance Craft (CHARC) would be used in missions by special forces units and by the Navy to protect its vessels from small, armed speedboats and submarines.

This looks like an idea that Lockheed floated, but couldn't get a good bite on.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/lockheeds-swath.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 12, 2007, 3:32am

Darpa Goal: Psychic Doctors
By Noah Shachtman October 11, 2007 | 8:14:00 PM



Most of us start wheezing, or coughing, or sniffling -- then we go see a doctor, to get treated for the flu. The Pentagon's mad science division wants to flip that around: Constantly monitoring troops' health, so diseases can be spotted, before the first sniffle. It's like having a having a doctor with a stethoscope... and a crystal ball, too.

The Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) Program will generate methods to assess whether an individual will develop an infectious disease prior to the onset of symptoms. While current methods diagnose and treat after an individual reports to a physician, the PHD Program seeks to alter this paradigm by identifying changes in the baseline state of human health through frequent surveillance. The vision is to maintain 100-percent warfighter readiness by detecting, intervening, and eliminating disease before the emergence of symptoms.

DARPA doesn't say how the trick might be pulled off -- only that it will require, "at the minimum, innovative data analytic methodologies coupled with traditional and non-traditional medical diagnostic[s]." But the agency does know what kinds of illnesses it would like to spot.

We are mainly interested in viral, upper respiratory pathogens that have the potential for decreasing warfighter mission readiness, and occasionally result in aborted missions and significant warfighter morbidity. Pathogens of interest include influenza, parainfluenza, adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and other similar viruses.

And since soldiers don't have time to wait, the agency wants the detection done in a hurry. "DARPA’s end goal is to create the technological breakthroughs required for the development of a field-portable, point-of-care health assessment system that is able to handle large throughput (100 or more analyses), in short time spans (under a 3-hour turnaround), at low costs."

Good luck, docs.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/darpas-nose-for.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 13, 2007, 1:11pm

Desktop naval gazers know a sub when they see one


Ship ahoy ... the two Chinese Jin Class submarines docked at the Bohai shipyard at Huludao, 400 km east of Beijing. Insets: The first Jin class sub; an Ohio-class US sub in transit and another Ohio class ballistic missile submarine in dry dock in Bangor, Washington state.
Photo: Google Earth

Stephen Hutcheon
October 12, 2007 - 2:01PM

Updated satellite imagery on Google Earth has revealed new evidence of China's nuclear submarine capability.

The discovery of what appears to be a second and possibly a third Jin class nuclear-powered submarine at a naval shipyard in north-eastern China has set armchair admirals' tongues wagging.

The find - the latest in a series of submersibles to surface on Google Earth and other online mapping services - was the work of Hans Kristensen, an analyst and blogger for the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

Kristensen is the same man who discovered the first publicly available pictures of the secret Jin class Chinese submarine on Google Earth in July.

(The FAS is a non-profit organisation comprising scientists who believe they have an ethical obligation to share their knowledge with the public and influence government policy.)

"The significance of this lies in the fact that China has never before had an operational sea-based deterrent," said Sam Roggeveen, the blog editor at the Lowy Institute think tank and a former senior analyst at the Office of National Assessment.

The two submarines popped up on Google Earth after the the most recent imagery update. The photo was taken by a commercial satellite on May 3, 2007, according to Kristensen.

Before that update, images of the Bohai shipyard at Huludao - about 400km east of Beijing - showed an empty dock surrounded by ice floe.

Kristensen writes that it is unclear whether both of the subs in the updated image are new or whether one is the earlier vessel he revealed in July.

"The rapid launch of two or three Jin class [submarines] indicate that the Chinese navy feels confident it has overcome at least some of the technical problems that curtailed the Xia [an earlier model]," he writes.

According to published US intelligence reports, China is believed to be building five of these new submarines that have a capacity to launch ballistic nuclear missiles with a range of more than 8000km.

When operational, the subs would for the first time give China a seaborne nuclear deterrent and place Hawaii and Alaska in range from anything fired from within Chinese territorial waters.

"It's the standard belief that you need at least four [nuclear-armed]submarines in order to have one operational at any time - that's what the French and British do," said the Lowy Institute's Roggeveen.

The new images of the Chinese subs are the latest in a recent string of submarine sightings on free online mapping services.

Last month, Dan Twohig - who works as a deck officer on a ferry service - stumbled across an aerial image of a US nuclear-powered submarine in dry dock showing its secret seven-bladed propeller.

Twohig was looking for a new home on Microsoft's Virtual Earth mapping service - which is similar to Google Earth - when he spotted the Ohio class submarine in dry dock at the Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor in Washington state.

The latest Google Earth imagery update has also revealed another Ohio class nuclear sub - this one travelling through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waterway that separates the US and Canada on the west coast of the North American continent.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/secret-su....ge#contentSwap1

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 15, 2007, 1:12am

Finally, the mini-bots have hit the newswires - the question though is will the story be killed or just allowed to die:

Reports: Dragonflies spying on protests

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 (UPI) -- Some protesters suspect strange looking dragonflies spotted hovering over Washington anti-war protests are surveillance devices.



Protesters in New York also said they have seen the devices, which reportedly look something like tiny helicopters, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

The claims may seem far-fetched, but they are not completely implausible, the newspaper said.

A variety of unmanned vehicles already fly, the newspaper said, and though no federal agency has admitted to having tiny dragonfly-looking spy drones, some have tried.

Both the CIA and Defense Department have worked on ways to create insect-like drones, and technology is progressing all the time.

Some experts say an obscure branch of the government may have developed the devices already, the Post said.

If that is true, the world may soon find out. The Partnership for Civil Justice has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with several federal agencies to find out if the protesters are right.

http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20071015-00553900-bc-us-spybugs.xml

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 19, 2007, 4:49am

Reaper UAV now in Afghanistan
Air Force Print News | October 12, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force announced Oct. 11 that the MQ-9 Reaper, the service's new hunter-killer unmanned aerial vehicle, is now flying operational missions in Afghanistan. The Reaper has completed 12 missions since its inaugural flight there Sept. 25, averaging about one sortie per day.



Capable of striking enemy targets with on-board weapons, the Reaper has conducted close-air support and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

Operational use of Reaper's advanced capabilities marks a step forward in the evolution of unmanned aerial systems. Air Force quality assurance evaluators gave a "thumbs up" to the aircraft's debut performance and have been pleased with its operation ever since.

"The Reaper is a significant evolution in capability for the Air Force," said Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff. "We've taken these aircraft from performing mainly as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms to carrying out true hunter-killer missions."

The Reaper is larger and more heavily-armed than the MQ-1 Predator. In addition to its traditional ISR capabilities, it is designed to attack time-sensitive targets with persistence and precision, and destroy or disable those targets. To date, Reaper operators have not been called upon to drop their weapons on enemy positions.

Like the Predator, the Reaper is launched, recovered and maintained at deployed locations, while being remotely operated by pilots and sensor operators at Creech Air Force Base, Nev. That is where the resemblance ends. The MQ-9 has nearly nine times the range, can fly twice as high and carries more munitions.

"It's a tremendous increase in our capability that will allow us to keep UAVs over the airspace of Afghanistan and Iraq in the future for a very long time," said Lt. Gen. Gary North, commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces, who said the Reaper was a perfect complement to the Air Force's existing manned airborne platforms. "This is just another evolutionary step where technology is helping commanders on the battlefield to integrate great effects from the air into the ground commander's scheme of maneuver."

General North added that he expects the Reaper to bring a significant impact to military operations throughout the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.

"The enemy knows we track them and they know that if and when they commit acts against their people and government, we will take action against them," General North said. "The Reaper is an incredible weapon in our quiver."

Approved by Air Combat Command in 2004, the Air Force currently has nine Reapers in its inventory.

http://www.military.com/features/0%2C15240%2C152564%2C00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 20, 2007, 12:31pm

Classified satellite failure led to latest SBIRS delay
BY: Amy Butler, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
10/16/2007

The loss of a classified satellite after only 7 seconds on orbit prompted the review of software and processors that has caused the most recent delay and a potential $1 billion overrun in Lockheed Martin's Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), says Gary Payton, deputy under secretary of the Air Force for space programs.

The classified satellite went into a "safe hold," mode, which is initiated when a major anomaly disrupts its operation, and the failure of the safe-hold software made it impossible for ground-control to recover the spacecraft. Payton refers to it as a useless "ice cube."

The safe-hold equipment engages with an anomaly and is used to properly point a spacecraft's solar panels toward the sun and direct its communications nodes toward ground stations to collect instructions. The satellite remains in orbit.

Industry officials say Lockheed Martin designed the safe-hold software and architecture for both the failed satellite and SBIRS. This classified spacecraft has some similar architectural qualities to that of the upcoming SBIRS geosynchronous spacecraft, which is what triggered a review of its processors and architecture this summer.

The architectural flaw that has proven troublesome is the process by which the attitude control and telemetry units process data and communicate through a common bus. Highly precise timing for communications between the computers is crucial to ensure the safe-hold software can engage as needed. In this case, however, timing for processing various tasks is slow, prompting officials to declare what Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne calls a "no-fly" condition for SBIRS GEO-1.

Though Wynne predicts in a Sept. 26 memo to the Pentagon acquisition czar that this newest SBIRS problem could prompt a one-year delay and a $1 billion overrun, Lockheed Martin's predictions are less dire.

Payton says Air Force officials will know in November the exact extent of the delay and cost impact. To date, SBIRS has experienced five cost overruns of more than 15 percent. Its cost estimate has nearly tripled and now stands at $10.2 billion for three GEO satellites and four payloads designed to piggyback on satellites in highly elliptical orbit.

Hints of this latest problem began early this year, Payton says, when Lockheed Martin began seeing software discrepancy reports on the first GEO spacecraft at its Sunnyvale, Calif., facility. By summer, the number of those discrepancy reports began to outstrip the pace at which officials could remedy them, Payton says. These types of problems generally don't reveal themselves until the spacecraft begins testing in a space-representative environment in the thermal vacuum chamber, he adds.

One government official suggested that Lockheed Martin's decision to shift its program management staff from Sunnyvale, Calif., where the spacecraft are being assembled and tested, to Denver, Colo., could have contributed to the problem. Close, on-sight management might have tackled the problem more aggressively, this source suggests.

Meanwhile, as engineers work on a fix to the processor timing issue, Payton says the team will also continue work on the spacecraft in parallel. This is the main reason why he says the schedule impact may not amount to a full year.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=21842

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 20, 2007, 12:44pm

Lockheed Tapped for X-Plane
By Sharon Weinberger October 18, 2007 | 9:34:40 AM

It may not be as exciting as a fighter, but at least it's something new: The Air Force Research Laboratory has selected Lockheed Martin to work on the second phase of a program aimed at building a composite-cargo aircraft, Defense Daily reports.



Bethesda-Md.-based Lockheed Martin said yesterday that the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has authorized it to proceed to the phase-two contract of the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA) Flight Demonstration program. The Air Force anticipates that innovations from the ACCA program will contribute to it being able to acquire a new class of short-takeoff-and-landing transports circa 2020 that is significantly lighter and costs much less to produce than current air mobility platforms of the same size.

The next phase funds lockheed Martin to build a prototype of the plastic aircraft.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/lockheed-tapped.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 20, 2007, 12:48pm

Report: Pentagon Going Overboard on MRAPs
By Noah Shachtman October 18, 2007 | 9:50:00 AM

For years, the Pentagon ignored calls to put heavily-armored vehicles on the streets of Iraq. Now, according to a new report, there's a good chance the Defense Department is overreacting -- buying way, way too many of the vehicles than is militarily or financially responsible.



The Pentagon is on track to buy 15,000 or more of the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs -- at a cost of nearly a million dollars each. There's no question that the tough, bomb-deflecting vehicles are life-savers; soldiers are so secure inside the MRAPs, they sometimes don't even know when they've been hit with an improvised explosive. There's also no question that guerrilla types can and will build bigger bombs, to knock even these well-armored MRAPs out. So the vehicles are a short- to mid-term fix, as Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway acknowledged on Monday. According to the AP, "Conway said he sees the current procurement plans for the vehicles as a moral imperative, but that a longer-term assessment of military requirements is probably necessary."

"Can I give a satisfactory answer to what we're going to be doing with those things in five or 10 years? Probably not," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Center for a New American Security. "Wrap them in shrink wrap and put them in asphalt somewhere is about the best thing that we can describe at this point. And as expensive as they are, that is probably not a good use of the taxpayers money."

The new report, from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, raises similar fiscal concerns. But it also questions whether the MRAPs are at odds with the American counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Counterintuitively, it may also be that a better way to reduce overall US casualties is to have personnel operate outside their vehicles. Successful counterinsurgency (COIN) operations, in particular, require close contact with the local population to provide them with security and to develop a working knowledge of the local environment that, together, produces the intelligence necessary to defeat an insurgent enemy force. This approach is similar to law enforcement techniques that emphasize policemen “walking the beat” in a neighborhood as opposed to merely driving through it in a squad car. Simply put, commanders may have to risk some casualties in the near term, by having their troops dismount, in order to develop the secure environment that yields the intelligence that will reduce the insurgent threat—and US casualties—over the longer term. Given this approach, which is consistent with the military’s new COIN doctrine, the MRAP—at least in this situation—may send the wrong message to troops in the field...

Counterinsurgent force commanders know that armor protects forces in the field; so, to mitigate the effects of enemy action and reduce casualties, commanders are drawn to increase the armor in their force. But heavily armored forces in a COIN environment are made less effective in accomplishing the tasks necessary to prevail.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/for-years-the-p.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 20, 2007, 1:03pm

Video: Robo-Weapon's Scary Twist (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman October 18, 2007 | 10:59:00 AM

The tragedy in South Africa that killed nine soldiers isn't the first time a robotic weapon has spun out of control.



Here's a video I obtained a few years back, showing a XM-101 Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station connected to an Apache chaingun, emptying its magazine of 30 mm high explosive rounds -- and then turning towards the camera, looking for new targets to nail. I'm told -- but cannot confirm -- that this footage was shot during a demonstration for VIPs, and that several members of Congress would've been in serious jeopardy, had the weapon not run out of ammo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7poF0M7H5M

UPDATE: I've changed the details above, thanks to info from KS, who "was there when it happened, and I was lying flat on the ground together with US Army officers."

See also:
XM101 Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m101-crows.htm


http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/video-robo-weap.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 20, 2007, 1:19pm

Roomba-Maker Unveils Kill-Bot
By Noah Shachtman October 17, 2007 | 10:39:18 AM



The makers of the cuter-than-cute robotic vacuum cleaner are rolling out a new machine: A big, fast-moving, semi-autonomous 'bot capable of killing a whole bunch of people at once.

Early versions of the iRobot Warrior X700 "are slated to be ready by the second half of next year," according to Army Times' Kris Osborn. And unlike previous offerings from iRobot -- which tended to be on the light, bordering-on-flimsy side -- the Warrior will weigh up to 250 pounds. It'll be able to lug a 500-pound payload, and carry 150 pounds with a newly muscular arm. Which will mean the machine is more than buff enough to pack heat.

“We’re looking at urban warfare... It can be deploying weapons systems. It can be doing re-supply operations, taking ammo or water to troops who are pinned down, perimeter security and building clearing,” Helen Greiner, iRobot chairman and co-founder, tells Army Times.

“Right now, it can go 10 miles per hour. When we finish the development, it will be able to do a four-minute mile,” said retired U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Joe Dyer, iRobot’s president of the government and industrial division. “You are starting to see the first robot that can really haul your pack and be not only a partner but be a stronger and faster partner.”

Unlike other armed robots -- which are entirely remote-controlled -- the Warriors are "being engineered with advanced software, giving them the ability to perform some battlefield functions autonomously."



“The software says, ‘Hey, robot, get back up yourself.’ If you lose [communications], right now you have to go get the robot,” Dyer said. “A capability they are building into PackBot is if you lose comms, go back to where you could talk last and re-establish comms on your own.”

At the same time, a key dimension to the Warrior X700 is its ability to protect soldiers by firing weapons such as a machine gun or 40mm explosive round.

“The Warrior has the stability and the engineering to be a weapons platform,” Dyer said. One Warrior variant is outfitted with an electronic firing system with four small barrels able to shoot as many as 16 rounds a second when firing simultaneously. The robot-mounted weapons shoot as far as 800 meters, according to officials at Metal Storm, the Brisbane, Australia-based company that makes the firing system. [Uh oh -- ed.]


“We have an inducted firing system which electronically creates an electric field that ignites the primer or the sensor,” a Metal Storm official said. “What it means is it is totally electronic. There are no moving parts apart from the rounds themselves. They can be sealed so it is resistant to weather conditions.”

Being fully electronic, it marries in well with a robotic platform and an electronic fire control, the official said.

“What we are focusing on at the moment is 40mm, so we’re dealing with high-explosive grenades or air-burst rounds. We also have less-than-lethal rounds and [improvised explosive device] disruptor rounds,” he said.

Recently, iRobot competitor Foster-Miller already has three armed robots in Iraq. The company unveiled a new, tougher model last week. iRobot has other armed offerings, too. The bot-makers already teamed with up Taser International to build a stun gun-equipped robot.

Re current stun gun-equipped robot, see:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/06/taser-armed-bot.html


http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/roomba-maker-un.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 20, 2007, 1:39pm

Robot Cannon Kills 9, Wounds 14
By Noah Shachtman October 18, 2007 | 11:00:00 AM



We're not used to thinking of them this way. But many advanced military weapons are essentially robotic -- picking targets out automatically, slewing into position, and waiting only for a human to pull the trigger. Most of the time. Once in a while, though, these machines start firing mysteriously on their own. The South African National Defence Force "is probing whether a software glitch led to an antiaircraft cannon malfunction that killed nine soldiers and seriously injured 14 others during a shooting exercise on Friday."

SA National Defence Force spokesman brigadier general Kwena Mangope says the cause of the malfunction is not yet known...

Media reports say the shooting exercise, using live ammunition, took place at the SA Army's Combat Training Centre, at Lohatlha, in the Northern Cape, as part of an annual force preparation endeavour.

Mangope told The Star that it “is assumed that there was a mechanical problem, which led to the accident. The gun, which was fully loaded, did not fire as it normally should have," he said. "It appears as though the gun, which is computerised, jammed before there was some sort of explosion, and then it opened fire uncontrollably, killing and injuring the soldiers."

Other reports have suggested a computer error might have been to blame. Defence pundit Helmoed-Römer Heitman told the Weekend Argus that if “the cause lay in computer error, the reason for the tragedy might never be found."

The anti-aircraft weapon, an Oerlikon GDF-005, is designed to use passive and active radar, as well as laser target designators range finders, to lock on to "high-speed, low-flying aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and cruise missiles." In "automatic mode," the weapon feeds targeting data from the fire control unit straight to the pair of 35mm guns, and reloads on its own when its emptied its magazine.

Electronics engineer and defence company CEO Richard Young says he can't believe the incident was purely a mechanical fault. He says his company, C2I2, in the mid 1990s, was involved in two air defence artillery upgrade programmes, dubbed Projects Catchy and Dart.

During the shooting trials at Armscor's Alkantpan shooting range, “I personally saw a gun go out of control several times,” Young says. “They made a temporary rig consisting of two steel poles on each side of the weapon, with a rope in between to keep the weapon from swinging. The weapon eventually knocked the pol[e]s down.”

According to The Star, "a female artillery officer risked her life... in a desperate bid " to save members of her battery from the gun."

But the brave, as yet unnamed officer was unable to stop the wildly swinging computerised Swiss/German Oerlikon 35mm MK5 anti-aircraft twin-barrelled gun. It sprayed hundreds of high-explosive 0,5kg 35mm cannon shells around the five-gun firing position.

By the time the gun had emptied its twin 250-round auto-loader magazines, nine soldiers were dead and 11 injured.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html


Inside the Robo-Cannon Rampage (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman October 19, 2007 | 3:41:00 PM

A South African robotic cannon went out of control, killing nine, "immediately after technicians had finished repairing the weapon," the Mail & Guardian reports.



A burst of explosive shells, lasting one-eighth of a second, from the barrel of the anti-aircraft gun killed nine soldiers and injured 15 others...

Explaining the circumstances around the incident, which happened last Friday, Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota told South Africa's National Assembly that he training exercise had involved eight guns positioned 20m apart in a line facing north.

The day was the first on which the soldiers involved had used "live" ammunition in a training exercise... Each gun [the picture above is of a Chinese knock-off -- ed.] had a crew of four. The gun on which the incident occurred was the one on the far right, at the east end of the line.

"As all guns commenced firing, the gun on the far right ... had a stoppage. This is something that happens from time to time. Technicians repaired this gun, while all the other guns continued firing. This is a very normal drill.

"As they continued firing, after the gun was fixed, it swung completely to the left, and one barrel fired off a burst of 15 to 20 shots in one-eighth of a second. The ... gun immediately to the left was hit.

"This fatal burst then killed or injured members of all the guns to the left. The effect was therefore that all of those killed or injured [were hit] from the right and lost right hands, or right legs, or lost their lives."

He confirmed the total number killed was nine, and 15 injured.


Lekota said the eight guns had been used the day before, "and each one had successfully fired between 500 and 800 rounds each".

He further explained the guns could be set on either "manual or electric firing mode". On the day, they had all been set on manual. This meant they were sighted on the target, and the barrel then clamped into position "so that the barrel should not move from side to side".

"When firing in electric mode, safety boundaries are computerised and the barrels are not clamped, but move within the boundaries set in advance."

UPDATE: Jim O'Halloran of Jane's Land-Based Air Defence is telling New Scientist that the incident was probably caused by "simple mechanical failure."

"Like many weapons these days you can fire this gun from a remote position," says O'Halloran, "but it's not a robotic weapon." While the gun is typically used with automated target-tracking systems, the decision to fire is left to the operator.

Okay, the last thing I feel like doing on a Friday afternoon is get into a semantic debate about what does or does not constitute a robotic system. However, we call remote-controlled machines like these robots -- and they don't automatically track and slew to targets, or automatically reload once their guns have been fired. Anyway...

"If a shell was jammed in the breech and the cordite then fired, it could set off the ammunition in the canisters," says O'Halloran. The force of that explosion could easily spin the turret around, he notes. "It's a very tragic accident, but it is not a robot gone out of control."

"I think it is bad luck more than anything else, the shells move through the gun so fast you only have to be a fraction out for something to go wrong," O'Halloran says, adding that weapons are usually subject to rigorous tests to try and ensure that they rarely, if ever, malfunction.

The Mark 5 model used by the South African army, as well as forces around the world was first produced in 1985 and is well known in the industry. "I've never heard of this kind of incident before," says O'Halloran, "and I think it is unlikely to happen again."

While we're waiting to find out, Matt Armstrong would like you all to fill out a survey on 'bots on the battlefield.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/inside-the-robo.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 23, 2007, 1:23pm


Super-strong body armour in sight
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News


Future soldier concept. Image: US Army/Sgt Lorie Jewell.

A new type of carbon fibre, developed at the University of Cambridge, could be woven into super-strong body armour for the military and law enforcement.

The researchers say their material is already several times stronger, tougher and stiffer than fibres currently used to make protective armour.

The lightweight fibre, made up of millions of tiny carbon nanotubes, is starting to reveal exciting properties.

Carbon nanotubes are hollow cylinders of carbon just one atom thick.

The new material was developed by a group at the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy at Cambridge.

It has emerged from efforts to create the world's strongest man-made fibre.

Our fibre is up there with the existing high performance fibres
Alan Windle, University of Cambridge

"These nanotube fibres possess characteristics which enable them to be woven as a cloth, or incorporated into composite materials to produce super-strong products," said Professor Windle.

For body armour, the strength of fibres in a fabric is a critical parameter. Strain-to-failure - in other words how much the material can extend before it breaks - is another.

The fibre created in Cambridge is very strong, lightweight and good at absorbing energy in the form of fragments travelling at very high velocity.


Reel of carbon nanotube fibre. Image courtesy of Alan Windle/University of Cambridge.

Carbon nanotube filaments are lightweight but very, very strong
"Our fibre is up there with the existing high performance fibres such as Kevlar", said Professor Windle.

But he added: "We've seen bits that are much better than Kevlar in all respects".

The work at Cambridge has already attracted interest from the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Army.

But the new material could also find applications in the area of hi-tech "smart" clothing, bomb-proof refuse bins, flexible solar panels, and, eventually, as a replacement for copper wire in transmitting electrical power and signals.

The method for making the fibre is simple but ingenious.

'Elastic smoke'

A hydrocarbon feedstock, such as ethanol, is injected into the furnace along with a small amount of iron-based catalyst.

Inside the furnace, this feedstock is broken down into hydrogen and carbon. The carbon is then chemically "re-built" on particles of iron catalyst as long, thin-walled nanotubes.

CARBON NANOTUBES

Single-walled carbon nanotube. Image courtesy of Alan Windle/University of Cambridge.
Made by folding over layers of graphite so they join at each end, forming a cylinder
Measure just a few billionths of a metre across
When pulled along their axes, are 5-10 times stronger than strongest known fibre
Can have single walls or multiple walls

"It makes particles of carbon that are like smoke. But because the nanotubes are entangled, the smoke we make is elastic," explains Professor Windle.

To the eye, this "elastic smoke" looks a bit like an ever-expanding dark "sock".

To begin winding it up, a rod is inserted into the furnace from below to grab one end of the sock and yank it down. This stretches the sock into a filament that can be wound up continuously on a reel.

The researchers are currently seeking funds to investigate whether the method can be upgraded from a laboratory to an industrial process.

Cambridge Enterprise Limited, the commercialisation office of the University of Cambridge, filed an initial patent application in July 2003.

It has now granted a licence to Q-Flo Limited, a university spin-out company, which will exploit the technology.

Nanotubes are made from graphite which is - along with diamond - one of two common forms carbon takes in nature. In graphite, carbon atoms are bonded in hexagon structures to form flat layers that are stacked on top of one another like sheets of paper.

To make nanotubes, scientists take individual graphite layers and fold them over so they join at either edge to form cylinders.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7038686.stm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 25, 2007, 11:08am

German Chocolate Bar Grenade Shows Cocoa Is Bad for Your Health After All



The MI5 says this chocolate bar is really a grenade. Made of steel and covered in chocolate, the Nazis designed this during WWII to kill British Royals, who were thought to be chocoholic and stupid. The Royals only had to open these and seven seconds later they will be dead. No bomb ever arrived to Britain, so the Royals remained as chocoholic and stupid as they ever where.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/09/german_chocolate_bar_grenade_s.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 26, 2007, 11:16am

October 24, 2007
Terrorist Insects

Yet another movie-plot threat to worry about:

One of the cheapest and most destructive weapons available to terrorists today is also one of the most widely ignored: insects. These biological warfare agents are easy to sneak across borders, reproduce quickly, spread disease, and devastate crops in an indefatigable march. Our stores of grain could be ravaged by the khapra beetle, cotton and soybean fields decimated by the Egyptian cottonworm, citrus and cotton crops stripped by the false codling moth, and vegetable fields pummeled by the cabbage moth. The costs could easily escalate into the billions of dollars, and the resulting disruption of our food supply - and our sense of well-being - could be devastating. Yet the government focuses on shoe bombs and anthrax while virtually ignoring insect insurgents.

[...]

Seeing the potential, military strategists have been keen to conscript insects during war. In World War II, the French and Germans pursued the mass production and dispersion of Colorado potato beetles to destroy enemy food supplies. The Japanese military, meanwhile, sprayed disease-carrying fleas from low-flying airplanes and dropped bombs packed with flies and a slurry of cholera bacteria. The Japanese killed at least 440,000 Chinese using plague-infected fleas and cholera-coated flies, according to a 2002 international symposium of historians.

During the Cold War, the US military planned a facility to produce 100 million yellow-fever-infected mosquitoes a month, produced an "Entomological Warfare Target Analysis" of vulnerable sites in the Soviet Union and among its allies, and tested the dispersal and biting capacity of (uninfected) mosquitoes by secretly dropping the insects over American cities.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/10/terrorist_insec.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 26, 2007, 11:31am

Before you get too excited there is nothing new about the technology per se. Rather it is simply an indication where the Defense budget is going to be spent:

Air Force Eyes Energy Shields, Microwave Bombs
By Noah Shachtman October 25, 2007 | 7:04:00 AM

Energy shields, microwave bombs, and laser-firing gunships -- those are just a few of the ideas the Air Force has in mind for its future arsenal.



Susan Thornton, head of the Air Force Research Lab's Directed Energy Directorate, laid out the sci-fi-style vision at the 33rd Annual Air Armament Symposium, held earlier this month. In it, she touts a high-powered microwave munition, capable of destroying of everything from "WMD Production Facilities" to "Cyber War Targets." The blasts from such a weapon "enables attack[s] on high value electronic targets with minimal collateral damage," Thornton notes, "virtually eliminating high post-conflict reconstruction costs!!!!"

Energy can also be used a defense, she notes. Using a combination of lethal and non-lethal weaponry, Thornton foresees a layered protection system... to detect, identify, and engage threats with beams of energy. An accompanying illustration shows an energy bubble -- straight out of Star Wars -- shielding a city. Incoming missiles bounce away, presumably harmlessly. (Sharon and David Hambling have both written about the idea of plasma shields here, recently.)

In her presentation, Thornton also touts a "Tactical Airborne High Energy Laser" -- a C-130 Hercules turboprop plane, outfitted with a blaster weapon. But unlike the shield project, say, the Air Force has already sunk millions of dollars into researching and developing such a system, also known as the "Advanced Tactical Laser." A flight demonstration is currently scheduled for 2015, according to Inside the Air Force.

Once the period for the advanced concept technology development is completed, the plane will be transferred to Air Combat Command for an extended user evaluation, which will last until the end of fiscal year 2010, Lawrence Grimes, production line lead for Precision Engagement for the lab’s Directed Energy Directorate, said in an Oct. 10 interview.

Currently, the laser system is equipped with a rudimentary targeting system. The pilot can identify his target, put it in his cross hairs and then press a firing button to engage the laser, Grimes said. In the future, the lab intends to develop a fully autonomous targeting system, he added.

Using the current technology, the developers are hoping to “let the pilots fly [the aircraft] around and see how they feel with being able to do a Buck Rogers-type thing and shoot a laser from a distance they’re not used to,” Grimes said. “The mere fact that we have a beam control system on there allows them to actually see out farther than they normally do, because most sensors on aircraft have very small apertures. The one on this system is considerably bigger and actually affords them an opportunity to see at higher resolutions at longer distances.”

Currently, the plane uses a chemical-powered laser -- which is problematic, for all kinds of reasons. But the Air Force is hoping to have an electric-powered laser by 2010 or so. Assuming that works, flight tests could begin about five years later.

The primary objective of the directed energy initiative is to create a laser for an offensive mission, Grimes said. Though the specific mission would depend on the platform on which they are integrated, they would mainly be engaging tactical, air-to-ground targets. Early on, they may be as simple as starting fires on the ground and other “disruptive” tasks, Grimes said.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/af-on-de.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 26, 2007, 11:35am

Drones, Everywhere
By Noah Shachtman October 24, 2007 | 9:24:58 AM

We tend to think of robotic planes as some kind of American-only invention. But just about every decent-sized military on the planet is building a unmanned air force of their own.

The new issue of Defense Update takes a look at all of the new flying robo-spies from around the world. Drones from Switzerland, Turkey, Israel, and Italy are all featured... as are models for a pair of unmanned aircraft from China. One is a "jet-powered High Altitude Long Endurance platform," the other, a fast recce [reconnaissance] super-drone called DarkSword." (Cue the ominous music.)

But my favorite drone of the bunch has to be this odd-looking contraption from the European aerospace conglomerate EADS:



http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/drones-everywhe.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 26, 2007, 11:41am

I Was a Pain Ray Guinea Pig

By Sharon Weinberger October 25, 2007 | 4:20:59 PM

Today, I broke my cardinal rule of defense reporting: never be a test subject for a supposedly "nonlethal" weapon. I adopted this rule some time back at a trade show, when I saw somebody pick up a dazzling laser from a booth and point it as his own face at close range. Basically, untrained people are prone to do stupid stuff around nonlethal weapons and I'm really fond of my central field of vision, so why take the risk?

But today, the military offered the second opportunity ever for reporters to be blasted by the Active Denial System, a millimeter wave beam weapon designed to heat up the very tippy top layer of skin. Considering that they've blasted the thing some 10,000 plus times, and at several hundred people, I thought, "Oh why not?" The demonstration was held today at Quantico in Virginia, where a couple dozen reporters -- along with military personnel -- volunteered for a demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRBuohFBsFU

All you had to sign was a "release of liability" and a "general talent release" that "grants the U.S. Government the right to "use my name, or that of said infant or minor child ... in any matter and for any purpose whatsoever; and to do the same perpetually." [Note to U.S. government: I may have forgot to sign and turn that second form in. Sorry!]

That's right, I was shot -- not once, but twice -- by the military's oh-so-scary Active Denial System. Yes, I realize the video is rather undramatic. Let me get to that.

In the briefings leading up to the test, Susan LeVine, of the Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate, told us that ADS felt like being burned by a hairdryer at the hairdresser (women will understand this one better than men).

Colonel Kirk Hymes, head of the Directorate, described it like the heat on your face when you open the oven to baste a Thanksgiving Turkey (I guess that's a guy thing, because women don't stick their heads in the oven when they baste a turkey).

Now, here's the immediate reaction of three reporters after going under the beam today:

"Can you do my other side?" one guy asked.

"That felt great," another reporter quipped.

"I want to go, again," a third requested.

Lesson number one: The Active Denial System does not like the rain, or as Air Force Research Lab scientist Diana Loree put it, rain "attenuates the beam." And it wasn't just raining down at Quantico today, there was water everywhere. On the equipment, on the ground, and forming in huge, muddy puddles. We were all drenched and cold. Frankly, getting that nice blast of heat from ADS was the best part of my day.

Lesson number two: It's hard to say whether the rain issue (which has always been acknowledged as a factor in the ADS beam) makes any difference in the end. After all, everyone jumped out of the beam within a couple of seconds. And, as the officials at the test noted, in real world operations, we would likely be closer to the beam (we were positioned over 500 meters away from the ADS system).

That said, my initial thought was: If it doesn't cut it as a weapon, it could be a nice space heater in a pinch.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/the-active-can-.html

Further:

2008: Year of the Pain Ray?
By Sharon Weinberger October 26, 2007 | 8:00:00 AM

It's been promised for years and yeas. But at a demonstration and briefing yesterday at Quantico, nonlethal weapons head Col. Kirk Hymes said that calendar year 2008 could indeed be the year the Active Denial System -- the so-called nonlethal "pain ray" -- is deployed to Iraq. That is, if it clears a long, long series of hurdles.

ADS still has to complete its Military Utility Assessment, another review, and then a sign off by the Secretary of Defense (or the deputy). But if that all that happens, ADS could, maybe, possibly might be fielded to Iraq with the Marines, who made the formal request for the weapon last year.

The question is, should it be deployed? For die-hard critics, no amount of testing will ever be enough, and that's part of the problem. On one hand, it is now conventional wisdom that no nonlethal system has endured as many tests and reviews as ADS. The military -- as the video here shows -- has demonstrated the system again and again on its own troops. It's even demonstrated in on reporters (twice now). As I wrote yesterday about my own experience being zapped, even on a rainy day, and at a great distance, it basically works as advertised.

If a few blisters are really the worst of the mishaps, well, that doesn't sound all that bad. It's better, as the military often likes to point out, than being shot by a lethal weapon. And I fully believe Col. Hymes when he says that having been Tasered, he'd much rather be shot by the ADS. Me, too, and I haven't even been Tasered.

See Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D088b7gMIEs

But perhaps the bigger question of ADS is simply the time and bureaucracy required to deploy it. The current system is over a decade in the making, not to mention the years of prior related research. This is not to say that ADS needs less or more review, or that is should or shouldn't be deployed, but that -- like with all Pentagon-funded weapons -- the time taken to field ADS should prompt the Defense Department leadership to think not just about how it moves such weapons through the bureaucracy, but also about which weapons it chooses to develop in the first place.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/2008-year-of-th.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 31, 2007, 3:56am

Heat Beam Targets 'Angry Mob'
By Sharon Weinberger October 29, 2007 | 12:42:05 PM

Last week, the military demonstrated its millimeter-wave nonlethal weapon, the Active Denial System, to reporters at Quantico.

They also released some new video, including this clip that shows the heat beam weapon used against a "mob" (or at least military personnel imitating a mob):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpjxjLRKqw8

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/heat-beam-targe.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 31, 2007, 4:01am

AT&T Invents Programming Language for Mass Surveillance
By Ryan Singel October 29, 2007 | 5:58:18 PM



From the company that brought you the C programming language comes Hancock, a C variant developed by AT&T researchers to mine gigabytes of the company's telephone and internet records for surveillance purposes.

An AT&T research paper published in 2001 and unearthed today by Andrew Appel at Freedom to Tinker shows how the phone company uses Hancock-coded software to crunch through tens of millions of long distance phone records a night to draw up what AT&T calls "communities of interest" -- i.e., calling circles that show who is talking to whom.

The system was built in the late 1990s to develop marketing leads, and as a security tool to see if new customers called the same numbers as previously cut-off fraudsters -- something the paper refers to as "guilt by association."

But it's of interest to THREAT LEVEL because of recent revelations that the FBI has been requesting "communities of interest" records from phone companies under the USA PATRIOT Act without a warrant. Where the bureau got the idea that phone companies collect such data has, until now, been a mystery.

According to a letter from Verizon to a congressional committee earlier this month, the FBI has been asking Verizon for "community of interest" records on some of its customers out to two generations -- i.e., not just the people that communicated with an FBI target, but also those who talked to people who talked to an FBI target. Verizon, though, doesn't create those records and couldn't comply. Now it appears that AT&T invented the concept and the technology. It even owns a patent on some of its data mining methods, issued to two of Hancock's creators in 2002.

Programs written in Hancock work by analyzing data as it flows into a data warehouse. That differentiates the language from traditional data-mining applications which tend to look for patterns in static databases. A 2004 paper published in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems shows how Hancock code can sift calling card records, long distance calls, IP addresses and internet traffic dumps, and even track the physical movements of mobile phone customers as their signal moves from cell site to cell site.

With Hancock, "analysts could store sufficiently precise information to enable new applications previously thought to be infeasible," the program authors wrote. AT&T uses Hancock code to sift 9 GB of telephone traffic data a night, according to the paper.

The good news for budding data miners is that Hancock's source code and binaries (now up to version 2.0) are available free to noncommercial users from an AT&T Research website.

The instruction manual ( http://www.research.att.com/~kfisher/hancock/manual.pdf ) is also free, and old-timers will appreciate its spare Kernighan & Ritchie style. The manual even includes a few sample programs in the style of K&R's Hello World, but coded specifically to handle data collected by AT&T's phone and internet switches. This one reads in a dump of internet headers, computes what IP addresses were visited, makes a record and prints them out, in less than 40 lines of code.

#include "ipRec.hh"
#include "ihash.h"

hash_table *ofInterest;

int inSet (ipPacket_t * p)
{
if (hash_get (ofInterest, p->source.hash_value) == 1)
return 1;
if (hash_get (ofInterest, p->dest.hash_value) == 1)
return 1;
return 0;
}
void sig_main (ipAddr_s addrs < l:>,
ipPacket_s packets < p:>)
{
/* code to set up hash table */
ofInterest = hash_empty ();
iterate
(over addrs) {
event (ipAddr_t * addr) {
if (hash_insert (ofInterest, addr->hash_value, 1) < 0)
}
}
/* code to select packets */
iterate
(over packets
filteredby inSet)
{
event (ipPacket_t * p)
{
printPacketInfo (p);
}
};
}

Another sample program included in the manual shows how a Hancock program could create historical maps of a person's travels by recording nightly what cell phone towers a person's phone had used or pinged throughout a day.

AT&T is currently defending itself in federal court from allegations that it installed, on behalf of the NSA, secret internet spying rooms in its domestic internet switching facilities. AT&T and Verizon are also accused of giving the NSA access to billions of Americans' phone records, in order to data-mine them to spot suspected terrorists, and presumably to identify targets for warrantless wiretapping.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/att-invents-pro.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Oct 31, 2007, 4:27am

Dragonfly Drones in Flight
By David Hambling October 29, 2007 | 11:00:00 AM

More than a few people were skeptical, when the Washington Post picked up on our story about robotic dragonfly spies. The paper quoted eyewitness accounts -- but failed to find any agency who would admit to using this type of micro air vehicle.

The FBI said they didn't have one. Homeland Security wouldn't comment. Neither would the CIA, whose previous robo-dragonfly effort in the 70's was shelved due to its inability to handle crosswinds. It can now be seen in their online museum*. DARPA said they were interested in the idea but still working on it.

"If you find something, let me know," Gary Anderson of the Pentagon's Rapid Reaction Technology Office told the Washington Post reporter.

No wonder the Post ended up with an arched eyebrow. However, if they don’t think there are operational, camera-carrying micro air vehicles that look like dragonflies maybe they should take a look the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hwvnXCOBdY

Or check out the at some of the impressive footage of the DelFly II ( http://www.delfly.nl/index.php?site=DI&menu=&lang=en ) , a craft built by a team at the Delft University of Technology. This video includes some footages from the DelFly's camera:

http://www.delfly.nl/media/movies/promo%20videa%20very%20smal.wmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hwvnXCOBdY

http://www.delfly.nl/media/movies/outdoor.wmv

Bart Remes, Developer of the Delfly, explains the unusual approach in building it. First you get your micro air vehicle working, then you make it smaller. And smaller.

"We start with a system that works (DelFly I), but which on has only forward flight, and make it smaller and better. DelFly II is smaller and more robust, has longer flight time, is able to hover, take off and land vertically, can even fly backwards. It can fly against the ceiling and walls without crashing - all this with a camera on board, so it is a useful platform."

The next stage is DelFly Micro with a ten-centimeter wingspan (pictured) which is already in development. This will be followed by DelFly nano with a wingspan of just five cemtimetres. Miniaturising the flight system is not necessarily a problem – it's the rest of it.



"Developing the electronics, battery, camera, controls - that's the hardest part," says Remes.

He also has experience of flying the craft in wind, and finds that it is not the show-stopper that many people assume.

"Flying outdoors is no problem. If the wind is higher than the max forward velocity, you float with the wind like insects do to go from one spot to the other. DelFly II is a inherent stable platform so flying outdoors with gusts is no problem - if you stop steering DelFly II will simply assume a stable position."

It's robustness means that impacts with obstacles or the ground will not damage it, which should mean that crashes are not a problem. The DelFly II has a maximum speed of 15 meters/second -- over 30 mph -- and an endurance of at least 15 minutes.

It won't just be used for spying on people. Remes suggests that it could be used to locate victims in collapsed buildings, or with a chemical sensor it can track down airborne pollution.

Perhaps there is nothing as advanced as DelFly in the US – in which case DARPA, the Rapid Reaction Technology Office and rest should come and talk to the DelFly team.

* I suspect the CIA may not have dropped the idea entirely. At a Christmas party thrown by the CIA's Office of Technical Services in 2000, Wired reported on a number of gadgets teasingly on display, noting "A dragonfly ornament's wings move at hummingbird speed ..."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/dragonfly-uav-v.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by alienops on Oct 31, 2007, 5:04pm

Anyone here think this technology has something to do with all the UFO sightings this past year?
This site has them all the major ones listed in order UFOSfrom all over the world.

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 1, 2007, 11:33am

Short answer: No.

In regard to the above post from alienops (aka seeker), I find the remarks describing the link to be most misleading and deceptive. Equally I am quite humorless about debunkers (in any shape or form) misrepresenting their identity and/or intent. Ergo, alienops is no more.

BB

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 1, 2007, 11:34am


Invisible tank ready for service by 2012

From correspondents in London

November 02, 2007 12:00am

NEW technology that can make tanks invisible has been unveiled by Britain's Ministry of Defence.

In secret trials last week, the army said it had made a vehicle completely disappear and predicted an invisible tank would be ready for service by 2012.

The new technology uses cameras and projectors to beam images of the surrounding landscape onto a tank.

The result is that anyone looking in the direction of the vehicle only sees what is beyond it and not the tank itself.

A soldier who was at the trials said, "This technology is incredible.

"If I hadn't been present I wouldn't have believed it.

"I looked across the fields and just saw grass and trees - but in reality I was staring down the barrel of a tank gun."

How the technology works in combat is very sensitive, but the Defence Ministry is believed to be also testing a military jacket that works on the same principles.

It is the type of innovation normally associated with James Bond.

The brains behind the technology, Prof Sir John Pendry, said the next step was to make a tank invisible without the cameras and projectors.

The Daily Mail, in The Herald Sun

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689812-2,00.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 6, 2007, 8:48pm

Thinking quietly about the Dragonfly drones (Reply #89 on this thread), there is nothing terribly novel about them. I say this because of an advert I found in my local media advertising a micro helicopter which is powered by a rechargeable battery. Nothing special about that until you realize that the battery is recharged by an infrared beam from the control unit. In other words, the same design principles which apply to the Dragonfly drones. For your edification, if nothing else:

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 6, 2007, 8:53pm

Our technology may be sophisticated but that's as good as it gets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8KKtO2SSk4

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 6, 2007, 9:08pm

Area 51's Robotic Spy Bird
By David Hambling November 06, 2007 | 4:54:00 AM



Those robo-dragonflies may not be the only creatures keeping an eye on you. For many years now intelligence agencies have been looking at drones disguised as birds. These days flapping-wing 'ornithopters' are not easy to tell apart from birds – take a look at this video of a robo-peregrine and some seagulls and see how long it takes you to spot the impostor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GtEXpb4j5s

But even back in the 1970's you could build something that did a pretty good impression of a soaring bird seen from a distance. This was the CIA's 1970 Project Aquiline, one of those top-secret program carried out at Area 51. That's the only known model of it in the photo.

The plane's mission was to intercept signals from deep inside enemy territory, hence the need for the bird camouflage. The project was headed by Lt Col John H. "Hank" Meierdierck, who tells the story in his online autobiography. The relationship with contractors McDonnell Douglas was the problem:

The vehicle was a six foot long plane that had a small pusher prop and actually looked like an eagle or buzzard when it was in the air. It was designed to fly at very low levels along communications lines and intercept their messages. It also had a small television in the nose as an aid to navigation and to photograph targets of opportunity. There were several successful flights and some crashes [reason unknown] and some lousy landings.

This small vehicle was launched from inclined rails and was recovered in a large net strung between two poles. Progress was passable, but then came budget time. The contractor predicts the amount of money needed since I did not have the intimate knowledge of the development expenses. I had $11 million for the following year and I advised McDonnell of this fact and asked for the next years operating budget.

They came back to me with a $110 million forecast. Ridiculous! I returned to HDQ and discussed it with the bosses and they suggested that I give them two weeks to adjust the amount and then to come to DC with the result and have Macdonald Douglas present their budget. I did just that.

They decided to back into the $110 million number rather than actually justify the true amounts needed. A grave error. I was forced to interrupt them many times during the presentation to point out errors and outright lies. Upon the completion, I was asked for my comments.

I explained that we really needed only $11 million and could not possibly spend the larger amount. I also pointed out their exaggerations, padded costs for items and the brazen lies that they tried to force on the group. My big boss asked me what I thought we ought to do.

I stated, in no uncertain terms that since this group tried to charge 110 Million for a 11 Million job, that I couldn’t trust them and that “WE SHOULD CANCEL THE PROGRAM."

He said "I think that you are correct. Program canceled”.

That was the end of Aquline. A typical story of Area 51: no aliens or weird science, but a bold attempt to pump up the budget of a black program outside of government oversight. Hank Meierdierck was a brave man – by terminating the project he put himself out of a job. Few people have the honesty to make that sort of stand.

Meanwhile, where is the successor to Aquiline? I've no idea, but perhaps some of those vultures circling above Afghanistan may not be real vultures.

(Aquiline is not to be confused with Aquila, a small US army drone from the same era which also ended in expensive failure.)

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/its-a-bird---it.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 6, 2007, 9:11pm

Invisible Submarines?
By Noah Shachtman November 06, 2007 | 10:44:59 AM

Scientists are already making progress in developing real-world invisibility cloaks. Now, Navy-funded Duke University researchers are applying some of the same concepts to sound. One day, perhaps, it could make a sub invisible to sonar signals -- and impossible to spot.



The key to both projects are metamaterials -- composites than can be structured to let electromagnetic waves flow around them, rather than reflecting those waves back. Light waves, just outside the visible spectrum, have been bent. -- can be turned into real-world invisibility cloaks. Duke University investigators are trying to finding out if "acoustic cloaking" is possible, too.

If so, you might be able to "'cloak' a submarine so that sonar signals from another submarine flowed around it and didn't bounce back," according to a Office of Naval Research newsletter. You could "make a submarine invisible (or inaudible)."

A submarine sends out a sonar "ping"—a burst of sound waves that travels through the water. If the sound waves encounter a solid mass, perhaps another submarine, some of the waves bounce back and return to the first submarine. Sonar receivers pick up this echo, which contains information about the location and distance of the object ahead. No echo, no sonar signature.

Maybe.

"In two dimensions, acoustic waves behave like electromagnetic waves" in a way that would "allow someone to build an acoustic cloaking device," theoretically. But it wouldn't work three dimensions, "so presumably such a cloak would only hide a submarine from another submarine at the same depth, not one that was sending sonar upward or downward." Plus, the "surrounding fluid[s]... must have different densities in different directions, such as a layer of oil floating on water, or bands of particles suspended in a liquid. This is not a typical property of your average ocean."

So it's gonna be a while before we hear anything substantive about invisible subs.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/invisible-subma.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 10, 2007, 1:29am

Skynet military launch is delayed
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, Kourou



The launch of the UK's Skynet 5B military communications satellite from French Guiana has been delayed.

The spacecraft's Ariane rocket has developed an electronic problem in one of its solid fuel boosters and will be rolled back to an inspection shed.

The flight, originally timed for Friday night, is not now expected to take place until Monday at the earliest.

The £3.6bn Skynet project is designed to give British commanders access to more information, much faster.

"We tried to understand what's going on [in the electronic equipment] but unfortunately we did not succeed," explained Jean-Yves Le Gall from Arianespace, the company which runs the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana.

"We are now taking the launch vehicle back to the Final Assembly Building where we will investigate the equipment and replace it."

The countdown was stopped six hours, two minutes and 34 seconds before the scheduled lift-off.

Video demand

The Skynet 5B platform is set to join in orbit the 5A satellite, which was lofted successfully in March and is already handling secure traffic for UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The spacecraft, which have been developed by EADS Astrium in Stevenage and Portsmouth, provide-two-and-a-half times the bandwidth capacity of their predecessors, the Skynet 4 satellites.

The greater performance is necessary because military commanders are starting to use information-rich applications, such as video, in their operations.


The RAF is now using Reaper, which was formerly known as Predator B

Only today, the Ministry of Defence announced it had started flying its new Reaper Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Afghanistan. The planes will gather intelligence on Taliban activities and their pictures can be fed back to the UK via Skynet 5A for further analysis, if necessary.

The problem with the Ariane rocket also delays the launch of Skynet 5B's co-passenger - a Brazilian satellite called Star One C1 which will deliver broadband internet services to consumers in South America.

Delays to launches are not uncommon. Officials constantly monitor the rocket and its payload and if there is the slightest doubt, the flight is stood down. Skynet 5A was itself held on the ground for 24 hours when a fault developed in the launch table.

"This is the price for total quality; we do not want to take any risks, and this is why we replace equipment anytime we could have a problem," said Mr Le Gall.

The technical teams responsible for the satellites will continue to monitor their systems over the weekend. Umbilical connections to the Ariane allow engineers to talk to the spacecraft even though they are closed inside the top of the rocket.

"At this stage, the thing we worry about is the battery [in 5B]," explained Patrick Wood, the Skynet programme chief at Astrium.

"The team will be monitoring the charge on the lithium ion battery, and checking it is on external power. Once we've got a resumed launch time, we will go with our standard test sequence," he told BBC News.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7087910.stm

Published: 2007/11/09 17:45:34 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 10, 2007, 4:38am

Pentagon Forecast: Cloudy, 80% Chance of Riots
By Noah Shachtman November 09, 2007 | 9:02:00 AM



The Pentagon is paying Lockheed Martin to try to predict insurgencies and civil unrest like the weather. It's part of a larger military effort to blend forecasting software with social science that has some counterinsurgency experts cringing.

Lockheed recently won a $1.3 million, 15-month contract from the Defense Department to help develop the "Integrated Crises Early Warning System, or ICEWS. The program will "let military commanders anticipate and respond to worldwide political crises and predict events of interest and stability of countries of interest with greater than 80 percent accuracy," the company claims. "Rebellions, insurgencies, ethnic/religious violence, civil war, and major economic crises" will all be predictable. So will "combinations of strategies, tactics, and resources to mitigate [against those] instabilities."

DARPA, the Pentagon's bleeding-edge research arm, laid out the case for ICEWS this summer at its conference, held outside of Disneyworld. "Commanders will always need to have an accurate picture of enemy positions, as well as friendly units and allies," David Honey, who heads the agency’s Strategic Technology Office, told confab-goers in Anaheim, California. "But increasingly it’s social, cultural, political and economic information, foreign language capabilities and other clues – that are proving essential."

Figuring out how to find those clues won’t be easy, his colleague, Sean O’Brien, warned. He has a three-part plan for how ICEWS might get it done, however. It tracks, roughly, to how meteorologists piece together long-range weather forecasts.

Step one: dump everything we know about a country like Iraq, and “create [software] agents that mirror the actual communities.”



Not only does that mean identifying "government leaders['] propensity to defuse or exacerbate potentially volatile situations," O'Brien explained in a call for proposals. It also requires a determination of "how a country’s macro-structural conditions (social, demographic, economic) affect the way in which the country’s citizens interact with its government."

What's more, according to an article in the Military & Aerospace Electronics trade journal, the ICEWS system should be designed to "capture and process vast quantities of data from digitized news media, Websites, blogs, and other sources of information that reflect the dynamic and rapidly changing character and intensity of interactions between people and governments."

Step two in the ICEWS plan: make these agents even more realistic, by “leverag[ing] the hundreds of social, cultural, and behavioral theories” about why people act the way they do.

Step three: let commanders run mock battle plans against these modeled Iraqis, to see how they might react.

Experts on counterinsurgency are, to say the least, skeptical.

“Wait a minute, you can’t tell me who’s going to a win a football game. And now you’re going to replicate free will?” Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, who helped write the Army's manual on defusing insurgencies, tells DANGER ROOM.

“They are smoking something they shouldn't be," retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper recently quipped to Science Magazine.



The military has been trying, for decades, to use social science data to forecast what might happen next on the battlefield -- or around the world. In 1976, for example, Pentagon-funded researchers put together a "integrated crisis warning system... comprised of (1) quantitative military, political, and economic crisis indicators; (2) quantitative indicators of U.S. military, political, and economic interests abroad; (3) a unified multi-method forecasting capability; and (4) a computer base."

More recently, DARPA has funded efforts to "anticipate the societal/regional indicators that precipitate instability."

For these projects, the agency turned to Massachusetts research firm Aptima, Inc. VISualization of Threats and Attacks in Urban Environments, or "VISTA," was the company's attempt to "utiliz[e] cultural models and other social network analysis techniques to assess and forecast nation state instability and conflict." The "Anticipatory Culture-Based Modeling Environment," or ACUMEN, toolkit created a "simulation engine" based on "theories from psychology, social psychology, sociology, organization science, political science, and economics."

ACUMEN modeled political, military, social, religious, and insurgent groups as agents, along with their relationships regarding hostility, support, membership, and more. ACUMEN modeled the profiles of agents and geographic regions (at the state and province levels) within specific test states using a set of social, political, economic, health, and demographic indicators. In all there were 150 indicators for the state, 60 indicators for each province, and 30 indicators for each agent.

But that was all in the lab. The goal of ICEWS is to eventually bring the tool to war. As Military & Aerospace Electronics notes, "The third phase will involve a live, in-theater test of the system."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/lockheed-peers-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 11, 2007, 10:30am

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

By MATTHEW HICKLEY -
Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.


Uninvited guest: A Chinese Song Class submarine, like the one that sufaced by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".

The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.

Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar....in_page_id=1811

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 12, 2007, 9:55am

Updated information on Chinese Song class referred to above:

Type 039 Song Class Diesel-Electric Submarine



Last updated: 28 August 2007

The Type 039 (NATO codename: Song class) diesel-electric submarine was designed by Wuhan Ship Development and Design Institute (701 Institute) for the PLA Navy (PLAN). Construction was carried out by Wuhan Shipbuilding Industry Company in Wuhan, Hubei Province and Jiangnan Shipyard Group Corporation in Shanghai. At least seven hulls have been delivered to the PLA Navy since 1994, with more expected to come in the future.

The first hull of the Type 039 submarine (pennant No.320) was launched on 25 May 1994 at Wuhan Shipyard, and started sea trials in August 1995. However, the submarine was not fully operational until 1999, reportedly due to serious design flaws, including unsatisfactory underwater performance and noise level. After some major redesign work, a modified Type 039G variant (No.321) entered the service in April 2001, followed by the second (No.322) in December 2001 and the third (No. 323) in November 2003.

On 3 June 2004, Wuhan Shipbuilding Industry Company revealed a further improved variant Type 039G1. Since then at least six hulls (324, 314, 315, 316, 318, and 327) of this design have been launched in Wuhan and two more in Shanghai-based Jiangnan Shipyard, indicating that the submarine design had been finalised and the series production was underway.

The Type 039 was designed for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (ASuW) using torpedoes and submarine-launched anti-ship missiles. The submarine is also capable of reconnaissance, water mine laying and patrol roles. The submarine itself is a blend of Chinese and Western technologies, and represents a major step forward in China’s conventional submarine design.

Compared with the previous Chinese-built submarines, the Type 039 has a more hydro-dynamically sleek profile. To reduce the submarine’s acoustic signature, the main engine is fitted with a shock absorbance, and the hull is covered by rubber anti-sonar protection tiles similar to those used on the Russian Kilo class. The submarine has a pair of fin-mounted hydroplanes, four rudders, and a single large skewed propeller.

The first and only basic variant Type 039 submarine has a stepped conning fin, with the bridge a step lower than the part of the fin that contains masts. This design was reported to have affected the submarine’s underwater performance and noise level, and was replaced by a different shape with no cutaway on the subsequent Type 039s.

Armaments

The Type 039 is equipped with six bow 533mm torpedo tubes, which are said to be capable of firing the YJ-8 series anti-ship cruise missiles as well as the indigenous Yu-4 (SAET-60) and Yu-1 torpedoes. The submarine carries 18 torpedoes, with 6 in the launch tubes and 12 on the weapon racks. Alternatively the submarine can carry 24~36 mines.

In the past few years, China has developed a range of new torpedoes for its submarine forces, including both wire-guided and wave-homing designs. Detailed information of these torpedoes is not available, but it can be certain that these torpedoes can all be launched from the Type 039 submarine.

The submarine can also carry 4~6 YJ-82 submarine-launched anti-ship missiles, which are carried inside cylinder-shape containers and launched from the submarine’s torpedo tubes. The missile flies at a speed of Mach 0.9 over a distance of 40~80km to deliver a 165kg high explosive warhead.

Electronic Equipment

The submarine has a new digital bow-mounted, medium-frequency sonar for passive and active search and attack, as well as for underwater communication. The submarine is also fitted with an H/SQG-04 low-frequency passive ranging and interception. There is an I-band radar for surface search purpose. Countermeasures include electronic support measures (ESM), radar warning receiver and direction-finder. In addition, the submarine is fitted with an indigenous combat data system capable of multiple targets tracking as well as other functions such as surveillance and navigation.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type039song.asp

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 12, 2007, 10:16am

George Knapp, Chief Investigative Reporter

I-Team: Area 52, The Secret Sister

Some of the greatest and most secretive airplanes in history have been developed in the Nevada desert, most of them at the now-infamous base known as Area 51. It turns out Area 51 has a sister facility -- Area 52 -- and it's a place with secrets of its own.

Area 52 isn't quite as secretive as Area 51. For one thing, you can at least find it on some maps. But it's off limits to most of us because of the classified work that goes on out there. The base has been bombed, blasted, poisoned, and nuked in the pursuit of cutting edge technology that probably can't be tested anywhere else.

At Cisco's in Tonopah, you can get a grilled cheese or crispy fries, but you won't get much information, not about the classified military base that sits in the desert east of this hardscrabble mining town.

Jose Ramirez: "They sure got a lot of stuff out there."

George Knapp: "What is it?"

Jose Ramirez: "You know more than I do."

It's a Tonopah tradition to keep a tight lip about a place they call "The Base." Back in the mid-80s, when the rest of the world was still in the dark about stealth technology, Tonopah residents saw bat-like 117's flying overhead almost nightly, but didn't tell anyone. Ramirez' son and daughter-in-law work at the base.

Jose Ramirez: "I don't ask the kids. I don't want to put them in that position."

The base, all 525-square miles of it, is best known as the Tonopah Test Range, or TTR. In government documents, however, it's called Area 52, sort of a nod to a better known and far more secretive sister facility on the other side of the Nellis Range, Area 51. The connection between the two is more than sequential.

Joerg Arnu, Dreamland Resort webmaster, said, "Yes, TTR is really referred to in official documents as Area 52. On several occasions, black projects moved from Area 51 to TTR, Area 51 being, of course, a super-secret facility, TTR being slightly less secret. It's still a secret facility but not a supersecret facility."

Joerg Arnu is at the center of a loose, worldwide network of aviation watchers who share information online about the so-called black world, including Areas 51 and 52. Employees at both bases travel to work onboard unmarked planes that depart a private terminal in Las Vegas.

Arnu and other listen to the air traffic chatter for clues about what's going on. The most obvious indication that 52 is less secretive than 51 is a rocket-shaped sign 20 miles east of Tonopah. Unlike 51, TTR is listed on most maps, although the paved road leading to the base isn't. At the main gate, armed security forces stop any unauthorized visitors, and with good reason.

Aviation researcher John Lear said, "There's always something going on there, some secret project going on there."

Before he became interested in UFOs at Area 51, famed pilot John Lear was staking out the boundaries of Area 52 in search of secret planes, planes that some think were never built.

"Originally, when the F-117 came out, that was a cover airplane for another airplane, the F-19. The F-19 was made for the Navy. They made 62 of them. You go anywhere on the net and they say that's total bull, there was no F-19. But there was," Lear said

Area 52 is managed by the private Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. The base serves both the Department of Energy and Department of Defense. Because the area is so isolated, it's the perfect spot to cut loose. It's there that new missiles are tested, bombs are dropped, cannons are fired, bunker busters are tried, and all sorts of things that go boom.

As Joerg Arnu says, "Where they can blow stuff up and nobody cares."

It took decades for images from 52 to be declassified. It will be decades more before we see what's underway now. One effort believed underway at TTR is the weaponization of UAVs. This is where the military figured out how to strap missiles onto predators, for example, and it's believed the work on drones is a major effort at TTR.

If you think secrets can't be kept, you've never met Colonel Gail Peck, who headed a classified program dubbed "Constant Peg." From 1978 through 1988, Peck commanded a team of pilots who flew Russian MiGs in simulated combat against American warplanes. It's long been known that Area 51 had MiGs for radar testing. Peck put those planes into combat action from Area 52.

Col. (Ret.) Gail Peck, U.S. Air Force, said, "It was compartmentalized into what we call must-know. Meaning, that if you were going to participate, you were brought into the program, briefed, participated in the program, then were debriefed; you had the door shut behind you."

They built the long runway at TTR, not for the Stealth as everyone has long believed, but for a fleet of MiGs. Through ten years and 15,000 sorties, the public never knew about it until 11 months ago, some 19 years after the program ended.

Col. (Ret.) Peck said, "The fact that security was maintained is a reflection of the respect that all the pilots who participated had for the value of it. It just was not a leaker."

As far as anyone knows, TTR did not receive any of those strange disc-shaped craft that people claim to have seen at Area 51 over the years, but, there are more exotic secrets about programs at the base -- things supposedly deep in the ground.

Part 2

The deserts of Nevada hold many secrets, including military secrets. Our state is home to some of the most highly classified military installations in the world. We've all heard of Area 51, but there's also an Area 52, and it has inspired plenty of wild stories of its own over the years, including what's going on underground.

UFO Conference 2007 in Las Vegas

When the Washington Post ran a cartoon in 1997 joking that Area 52 is where the government hides its elves and gnomes, it didn't realize there really is an Area 52, also known as the Tonopah Test Range. It might not house any elves, but it's where the military grapples with gremlins. For example, how to better exploit pilotless drones, or how to use parachutes to deliver nuclear bombs. The Sandia Corporation, which manages Area 52, is working on a fusion reactor, which it pointedly announced is, quote, "not from Area 51," a more secretive sister facility.

From public land, it's easy to see Area 52's large infrastructure with accommodations for thousands. The long runway was built for a fleet of pilfered Russian MiGs, which flew 15,000 missions without the public ever knowing. The first stealth wing followed the MiGs, also in total secrecy. In nearby Tonopah, residents like Jose Gonzalez say they see dozens of contrails from the base every day, most likely the transport planes carrying employees from a private terminal in Las Vegas. To work on what, though?

Jose Gonzalez told the I-Team, "When I first got here, they were talking about a plane that would go into space and land, for NASA. I don't know."

Area 52: The Secret Sister - Part 1

Designs for secret space planes have been openly discussed in aviation journals, and most look a lot like something from another planet, the kind of craft long associated with that other base, Area 51.

John Lear said, "Most people think I'm absolutely nuts. And that's okay with me."

Famed pilot John Lear, whose father developed the Learjet, helped to popularize stories about saucers at Area 51, but has also spent years poking around the perimeter of Area 52. Lear says there are other unknown facilities hidden on the test ranges. Satellite imagery tends to back him up. They're all over the place. He says the biggest secrets, though, are underground.

The John Lear Disclosure Briefing, Nov. 2003.

Lear says, "There is so much stuff underground that it's essentially all the secret stuff underground now."

Example: Lear alleges that a clean nuclear device was used to create a giant chamber under Pauite Mesa in Area 52, and that a facility capable of housing 25,000 people or troops is active out there. He says he heard part of this from a cement truck driver who worked out there.

"He said it would take four hours to get to the bottom, dump the cement, then wind his way back up. For some reason, he disappeared off the face of the earth after he told us that story," Lear continued.

Lear further alleges there's a high speed underground train that runs from Area 52 to Las Vegas, a concept that Nevada Test Site tunnel workers say is highly unlikely. And he says pilots told him there are secret runways out there that open and close like zippers.

"They'll look down and it will be forest or desert or natural landscape, and all of a sudden it will unzip like this and they will see a runway and then the landscape zips back up and it looks like normal," he explained.

There is some evidence for one of Lear's suspicions, one that harkens back to the claims of former government scientist Bob Lazar, who said he worked on flying saucers at a place called S-4, or Site 4. Nellis confirmed to the I-Team that there is more than one S-4 on the Test Range, and one of them is at TTR. Workers have claimed the S-4 inside Area 52 requires special entry. It's believed that highly advanced radar research is one project. Military watchdogs say they don't believe there's a big underground operation.

Joerg Arnu, Dreamland Resort webmaster, said, "There are underground facilities in the Nevada Test Site, but as far as I know there is no underground facilities at Tonopah Test Range."

The man who commanded the secret MiG project for ten years without any leaks says he knows of no big secret projects now but admits that such secrets can be kept at Area 52.

U.S.A.F. Colonel (Ret.) Gail Peck said, "It's the only place in the world where we can operate discreetly. Where we can do things without people watching."

The I-Team requested a tour of Area 52 but was turned down. You can get a look inside the base by checking out some declassified films produced by Sandia Labs about what goes on out there.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=7333994&ClientType=Printable

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 4:44am

Private navies - don't you love 'em:

Colombia's Cocaine Subs
By Noah Shachtman November 12, 2007 | 11:36:10 AM



Colombia's drug lords and narco-terrorists have an increasingly-sophisticated undersea navy. "Over the last two years, Colombian authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy have seized 13 submarine-like vessels outfitted for drug running," the L.A. Times observes. The latest: a pair of subs, found in a mangrove-covered estuary, each capable of carrying tens of millions of dollars worth of cocaine, says the London Times.

The 50ft-long submarines were found on slipways close to a river that would have allowed them to escape through Colombia’s largest port, Buenaventura, and into the Pacific Ocean. One of the vessels was ready for its maiden voyage and the second was 70% complete. They were protected by armed guerrillas and camouflaged beneath tropical leaves...

The fibreglass submarines each had a conning tower and periscope, four bunk beds and room to carry five tons of cocaine which would fetch £50m in the United States. They were fitted with diesel engines, radar antennae to navigate the western coast-line and 20ft air tubes for when they were submerged...

Captured workers described how they had sweated at gun-point to meet a Christmas deadline set by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), the terrorist group that controls up to a third of the country and trades cocaine for weapons. The workers have not been charged with any crime...

The submarines are the brain-child of Jorge Briceno Suarez, also known as Mono Jojoy, a veteran Farc commander wanted for killing missionaries and forcing children into the army. He justifies trading with US drug importers as "exporting suicide."

"The boats have become increasingly sophisticated, according to the L.A. Times, "evolving from huge tubes built to be towed by fishing or cargo boats to self-propelled vessels with ballast systems and communications equipment that leave no wake or radar profile as they glide just below the ocean surface."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/colombian-drug-.html

More examples of recent efforts in this regard:

Submarine with cocaine seized off Costa Rica
Makeshift vessel carrying 3 tons of drugs en route from Colombia to U.S.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15811689/

DIY: Cocaine-Smuggling Submarine
November 21st, 2006

http://www.vestaldesign.com/blog/2006/11/diy-cocaine-smuggling-submarine.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 6:55am

Thermobaric Grenade Brings Down the House?
By David Hambling November 13, 2007 | 11:20:00 AM



A woman and two children in Afghanistan died on Sunday, the AP reports, after their house was "destroyed" in a U.S.-led raid. But the story may not be quite so simple.

During one of the engagements, several militants barricaded themselves in a building on the compound and engaged coalition forces with a high volume of gunfire. Coalition forces used a single grenade which killed the attacking militants," the statement said. "However, the building the militants were fighting from collapsed."

The implication is that it is surprising that a building should collapse under those circumstances, that it cannot have been just the grenade which did it. The MSNBC story suggests that one of the soldiers 'lobbed a grenade', reinforcing the impression that this was one of those 'pineapple' fragmentation hand grenades that were around circa WWII. But that's not what the coalition statement says.

I suspect that the grenade involved may have been the 40mm thermobaric XM1060 fired from a launcher. This is a special cartridge developed for Afghanistan which generates a much more destructive blast than normal explosives. It was fielded in 2002 'in record time' and was very popular for use against targets in enclosed spaces such as caves.

"Commanders report that it has given them the capability needed for urban terrain and close-quarters cave operations," it was reported more recently. (My emphasis)

Thermobarics are renowned for their ability to demolish buildings, an effect of the prolonged overpressure produced by the blast. One brochure for the thermobaric SMAW-NE rocket bore the title 'thermobaric urban destruction' -- and showed what the warhead could do against buildings. In 2002, at Fort Leonard Wood, there was a demonstration of thermobaric infantry weapons with the title Bring Down The House.

Of course, there may be a different explanation. But when you give individual infantrymen increased firepower which includes the ability to demolish buildings, then a certain amount of additional collateral damage is not at all surprising.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/thermobaric-gre.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 6:59am

New Army helicopters have heat flaw
Officials say they are unsafe to fly on hot day

By Aaron C. Davis, Associated Press | November 10, 2007



SACRAMENTO - The Army is spending $2.6 billion on hundreds of European-designed helicopters for homeland security and disaster relief that have a crucial flaw: They are not safe to fly on hot days, according to an internal report obtained by the Associated Press.

While the Army scrambles to fix the problem, potentially adding millions to the taxpayer cost, at least one high-ranking lawmaker is calling for the deal to be scrapped.

During flight tests in Southern California in mild 80-degree weather, cockpit temperatures in the UH-72A Lakota soared above 104 degrees, the point at which the Army says the communication, navigation, and flight-control systems can overheat and shut down.

No cockpit equipment failed during the nearly 23 hours of testing, according to the report, prepared for the Army in July. But it concluded that the aircraft "is not effective for use in hot environments."

The Army said that to fix the problem it will take the highly unusual step of adding air conditioners to many of the 322 helicopters ordered.

The retrofitting will cost at least $10 million and will come out of the Army's budget.

Kim Henry, a spokeswoman for US Army Aviation & Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, said that the Army began outfitting the helicopters with vents after the report was issued and that they have been effective at lowering temperatures.

The Army, however, decided it still needs to put air conditioning on many of the choppers, including all those configured for medical evacuations, said an Army spokesman, Major Tom McCuin..

Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, contends that the lightweight helicopter will still have too many weaknesses.

"In my view, we would be well advised to terminate the planned buy of 322 Lakota helicopters and purchase instead additional Blackhawk helicopters," Hunter said in a letter this week to Army Secretary Pete Geren.

But McCuin said, "It's certainly a concern to people out there in the field now because it's hot in those cockpits, but it's being fixed."

The Army has received 12 of the Lakotas from American Eurocopter Corp., a North American division of Germany's European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. Testing on the first six by an independent arm of the Pentagon revealed the problems. The rest of the choppers are scheduled for delivery over the next eight years.

The Lakota represents the Army's first major effort to adapt commercially available helicopters for military use. Air conditioning is standard in commercial versions of the aircraft, which have not had overheating problems. But the military usually avoids air conditioning in military aircraft to reduce weight and increase performance.

"We don't need air conditioning in the Blackhawks, so we didn't think it would be an issue" in the Lakota, McCuin said. "But when we got the helicopter into the desert, we realized it was a problem."

The Army plans to use the Lakota for search-and-rescue missions in disaster areas, evacuations of injured people, reconnaissance, disaster relief, and VIP tours for members of Congress and Army brass. All of its missions will be in the United States or other noncombat zones.

Blackhawks, Chinooks, and other helicopters will still be available for more demanding duties, such as fighting wildfires.

Guy Hicks, a spokesman for European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., declined to comment directly on the criticism of the aircraft. "We're proud of our partnership with the Army and the UH-72A, but we defer on anything to do with aircraft requirements and performance. It's the Army's program and they should address that," he said.

The Lakota has another problem; testers said it fails to meet the Army's requirement that it be able to evacuate two critically injured patients at the same time. The Lakota can hold two patients, but the cabin is too cramped for medics to work on more than one at a time, the testers said.

The report by Dr. Charles McQueary, the Defense Department's director of operational testing, said that overall, the Lakota performs better than the Kiowa or Huey and that pilots found it easy to fly.

But the report said inadequate ventilation, heat emitted by aircraft electronics, and sunlight streaming through the large windows caused cockpit temperatures to reach 104.9 degrees during a simulated mission in California.

The aircraft's safe operating limit is 104 degrees, according to the Army.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl....have_heat_flaw/

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 7:02am

Big Armored Vehicles' Big Surprise
By Jason Sigger November 13, 2007 | 6:02:14 AM



Wow, imagine this. The Pentagon just might not need all of the big, honkin' armored vehicles that the Army and Marine Corps have demanded. The extraordinarily heavily things, costing up to $2-3 million each, just might present some operational deployment issues.

From Defense News (subscription required):

The Pentagon will store thousands of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, DoD’s [Department of Defense's] top procurement official told lawmakers Nov. 8.

“We might not need as many as we are buying. Some will be stored for a period of time,” said John Young, the defense acquisition undersecretary. “The service chiefs have indicated that these are heavy, large vehicles that might not fit well with mobile expeditionary missions.”

Young told the House Armed Services Committee and other congressional panels that he had asked service chiefs to assess their plans for the more than 15,000 MRAPs DoD intends to buy and ship to Iraq and Afghanistan by 2010.
---------
December could see the next wave of MRAP orders — perhaps several thousand vehicles, far more than previous batches, industry and government officials said. Vehicle makers had been asking the Pentagon to keep the orders large to reduce cost. DoD spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin declined to speculate on upcoming orders.

Yes, who could have foreseen that a hasty, emotional call to procure very expensive, hard-to-build defense systems -- driven by Congress to bypass the standard requirements process -- might spiral out of control?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/who-could-have-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 7:05am

U.S. Building Base on Top of Iraq Oil Platform
By Noah Shachtman November 12, 2007 | 9:26:00 PM



KHAWR AL AMAYA OIL TERMINAL, Iraq -- The U.S. Navy is building a military installation atop this petroleum-export platform as the U.S. establishes a more lasting military mission in the oil-rich north Persian Gulf," the Wall Street Journal reports.

While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry...

The new installation will house U.S., British and Australian officers and sailors. The Pentagon has said it has no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and Navy officials say they intend to turn over the facility to Iraqi forces as soon as they can run it on their own.

But Iraqi forces are a long way from being able to take over the mission, Navy officials say. Iraqi patrol boats are on the water assisting in sector patrols around the terminals. But they are rusting hulks. Iraqi soldiers stationed on the terminals have just recently started training with live ammunition. "They are going to need help for years to come," Adm. Cosgriff says.

So for the time being, the new base will serve as a U.S.-controlled command post straddling a major component of Iraq's creaking oil industry. From a collection of modified shipping containers, coalition officers will monitor ship traffic and coordinate the movement of coalition warships circling "Kaaot" and "Abot," as the military has nicknamed the two terminals...

The new outpost also offers a convenient perch from which to monitor Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Amid heightened rhetoric between Tehran and Washington over the past few years, some Iranian officials have threatened a disruption to shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The naval component of the Revolutionary Guards Corps operates from a partially submerged barge and crane visible on clear days from Kaaot. Iranian forces in the spring captured a contingent of British sailors who were participating in the oil-protection mission here and paraded them in front of cameras before letting them go.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/us-building-bas.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 7:07am

$100 Million for Worldwide, Instant Strike Weapon
By Noah Shachtman November 12, 2007 | 5:43:02 PM



The Pentagon's plan to hit anywhere on Earth, in just an hour or two, just got a $100 million boost from Congress. As the Washington Post notes, "the House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill" provides a hundred large for a "'prompt global strike' program that could deliver a conventional, precision-guided warhead anywhere in the world within two hours."

The new [actually, several years old -- ed.] program, dubbed Falcon, for "Force Application and Launch from CONUS," centers on a small-launch-vehicle concept of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The agency describes Falcon as a "a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from [the continental United States] in less than two hours... The vehicle would be launched into space on a rocket, fly on its own to a target, deliver its payload and return to Earth.

Well, eventually. Most of the Falcon work, for now, is going towards work that's decidedly less sexy -- and less creepy.

In the short term, a small launch rocket is being developed as part of Falcon. It eventually would be able to boost the hypersonic vehicle into space. But in the interim, it will be used to launch small satellites within 48 hours' notice at a cost of less than $5 million a shot.

There's a huge array of smaller programs underneath Falcon's aegis. Air-Attack.com has a round-up of what's going on with each of 'em.

Not all "global strike" programs fared quite as well as Falcon in Congress. The controversial plan to turn nuclear Trident ballistic missiles into conventionally-armed first strike weapons gets "no funding for testing, fabrication or deployment." The problem: It's basically impossible to tell a conventional and a nuclear Trident apart. Which means the weapon runs the risk of starting World War III, every time it's launched. Falcon won't be quite so similar. But, in the end, it (and nearly every other global strike option) may suffer from problems of misunderstanding.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/100-million-for.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 7:44am

Made-to-Order Camo?
By Noah Shachtman November 12, 2007 | 4:59:25 PM



Nissan says it has a new system that it promises will let drivers change the color of their car, by flipping a switch. But the military applications seem pretty obvious. Made-to-order camo, anyone?

Nissan has developed what it calls a "paramagnetic" paint coating -- a unique polymer layer which features iron oxide particles is applied to the vehicle body. When an electric current is applied to the polymer layer, the crystals in the polymer are then interpreted by the human eye as different colors.

Depending on the level of current and the spacing of the crystals, a wide gamut of colors can be selected by the driver. However, since a steady current is needed to maintain the color effect, the paramagnetic paint doesn't work when the vehicle is turned off -- instead, the vehicle would revert back to a default white color.

Speaking of which, a North Carolina company, Military Wraps, claims to have come up with a "'Photo-Real' site-specific camouflage technique." The idea is to take "photographic digital detailing and [then] print them over vinyl-adhesive wraps that are designed to match a surrounding terrain so vividly that vehicles, weapons, and equipment can seem to disappear into the surrounding battlefield environment." Sounds intriguing. But something tells me it's not quite so simple.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/made-to-order-c.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 7:47am

Last Missile-Watching Spy Sat Launched
By Sharon Weinberger November 12, 2007 | 3:30:15 PM

The U.S. yesterday launched the final satellite in the Defense Support Program (DSP), a constellation designed to detect a Soviet ICBM attack. In marking the final launch, Jeffrey Richelson, one of the leading writers (and authorities) on intelligence programs, has posted on the National Security Archive's website a number of declassified documents detailing the rich and sometimes controversial history behind this program:



The documents posted today, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and archival research, include documents on the theoretical work behind the concept of space-based missile detection, the early doubts about the feasibility of such detection, and 1960s research and development work on the Missile Defense Alarm System (MIDAS). They also include documents on the evolution of the DSP--with regard both to its capabilities and its use for a variety of additional missions, including the detection of intermediate-range missiles, bombers flying on afterburner and spacecraft. In addition, a number of documents focus on the decades-long search for a follow-on system to DSP.

One of the more fascinating documents is this one, which details concerns (ultimately rejected) that the Soviets had tried to "blind" an early warning satellite with a laser (Sound familiar? Similar claims were made about China earlier this year).

Of course, a more current issue are concerns that delays to the Space Based Infrared satellite program, the follow on to the DSP constellation, has faced a series of delays and cost overruns.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/tomorrow-the-us.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 14, 2007, 7:53am

Video Fix: Nuclear Bomber's Parasite Fighter
By Noah Shachtman November 12, 2007 | 1:30:00 PM

The Cold War's B-36 "Peacemaker" was the largest combat aircraft ever built, and the first plane to deliver thermonuclear weapons. But with a wingspan of 230 feet, some worried that the Peacemaker would be a sitting duck for enemy attacks. So the military designed a second, teeny-tiny plane that could be deployed, in case of attack. Officially, it was known as the XF-85 Goblin.


B-36 "Peacemaker"


XF-85 Goblin

But it's gone down in aviation history as the "Flying Egg." Check out the video, and you'll see why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PisUjsXSUZU

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/video-flying-eg.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 17, 2007, 10:10am

Georgia Police Turns Sonic Blaster on Demonstrators
By Noah Shachtman November 15, 2007 | 11:43:14 AM

There's more evidence that the Saakashvili regime in Georgia is using sound weapons against opposition protestors. This English-language footage from Russia Today shows riot police rolling through the streets of Tblisi in pickup trucks, small dishes in hand. A high frequency pulse follows. "Georgian police used an acoustic gun -- it's a non-lethal weapon that disorients people for a period of time," says one "special weapons expert."

See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MThThdEmswU

"Similar such guns are also used by the Iraq police," the Russia Today piece claims. That, I'm not so sure about. But the sonic systems -- which can also be used as a long-range "hailer," projecting sound far, far away -- have been tested out by American troops in Iraq. They were employed by the New York Police Department during the last Republican National Convention -- and by military police during Hurricane Katrina. A cruise ship even used a sonic blast to ward off Somali pirates in '05.

Reader TM points out that short-range versions of the same technology can be bought online -- for as little as $898 a pop.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/georgia-police-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 17, 2007, 10:19am

Military's Exotic Weapons Manual
By Noah Shachtman November 15, 2007 | 9:23:00 PM



The military has a new field manual for tasers, laser dazzlers, pepper spray, and sonic blasters. Field Manual 3.22-40: Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for the Tactical Employment of Nonlethal Weapons looks at all kinds of weaponry and military approaches where the design is not to kill.

See Manual @:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-22-40.pdf

"The prevalence of urbanization in many crisis-prone regions of the world creates the potential for large, vulnerable groups of civilians to be entrapped in volatile operations in urban terrain," the manual notes. So maybe it'd be better to use techniques and tools that are a bit less deadly.

But, just to be clear: "the term “nonlethal” does not mean zero mortality or nonpermanent damage; these are goals and not guarantees of these weapons," the manual adds. And it doesn't just mean some new-fangled ray gun. "Examples of NLW include a show of force, physical obstacles, blunt impact munitions, noise to create or enhance psychological effects, and using light and directed energy systems to disorient combatants."

The manual runs through all sorts of scenarios, and how NLW might apply. But Secrecy News warns that "by lowering the threshold for violent conflict and diminishing its consequences, nonlethal weapons may paradoxically encourage the outbreak of violence in some circumstances."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/military-forces.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 17, 2007, 10:33am

Cig-lighter electropulse cannons offered to US plods
Cold dead turkey strangely incapable of flight

By Lewis Page
Published Tuesday 13th November 2007 21:36 GMT

Electromagnetic weapons designed to zap circuitry have long been a favourite speculation of war-tech buffs. Consensus opinion suggests that the only energy source capable of powering a useful pulse strike is a nuclear explosion, or perhaps in the near future a largish conventional bomb. But a recent report in MIT Tech Review suggests that actually it can be done with a car alternator.

The Tech Review piece introduces us to Eureka Aerospace and its High power Electromagnetic System (HPEMS) tech, now being touted as a good idea for police in high speed chases. Apparently, a 200lb, six by three foot HPEMS module can "be attached to an automobile or aircraft carrier" (though the aircraft-carrier option might be a tad unwieldy on the freeway). It works like this:

The car's alternator serves as the system's power source [cool! You just plug it into the cigarette lighter socket, presumably]... pulses are amplified to 640 kilovolts using a 16-stage Marx generator... then converted into microwaves using... a pair of coupled transmission lines and several spark-gap switches. Finally, a specially designed antenna beams the microwave energy toward an opposing vehicle...

The microwaves get into the fleeing villains' engine compartment through some kind of unspecified gap in the metal that would typically surround it, and zap all the microcircuitry, so shutting the motor down.

Tech Review notes that this might cause some snags by frying innocent people's stuff in a crowded urban environment, but otherwise it seems to assume that the idea is a flyer.

In fact, all the signs of a tech turkey are there. The obvious customer - the US military* - funded initial research and then gave up some time ago. Even the company doesn't claim effective range greater than 15 metres, so a pursuing cop would have to get well inside safe stopping distance behind a fleeing car - just before forcing it to stop suddenly. All tests thus far have been on stationary target vehicles. The only way of aiming the directional beam is by aiming the car. Years have gone by and nothing much has changed.

Nope - this thing's a gobbler, and a cold dead one at that. The MIT tech scribes seem to have slipped up here. ®

*A mysterious outfit called the "U.S. Marine Corp [sic]" is referred to twice.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/....nonz_for_plodz/

The Tech Review article referred to above:

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Stopping Cars with Radiation

A beam of microwave energy could stop vehicles in their tracks.

By Brittany Sauser

Researchers at Eureka Aerospace are turning a fictional concept from the movie 2 Fast 2 Furious into reality: they're creating an electromagnetic system that can quickly bring a vehicle to a stop. The system, which can be attached to an automobile or aircraft carrier, sends out pulses of microwave radiation to disable the microprocessors that control the central engine functions in a car. Such a device could be used by law enforcement to stop fleeing and noncooperative vehicles at security checkpoints, or as perimeter protection for military bases, communication centers, and oil platforms in the open seas.


Zapping the bad guys: Attached to the roof of this police car is a 200-pound electromagnetic system that can quickly bring an opposing vehicle to a stop. The system is six to eight feet long (antennae included) and almost three feet wide. It works by sending out pulses of microwave radiation that disable the microprocessors that control the central engine functions of a car.
Credit: Eureka Aerospace

The system has been tested on a variety of stationary vehicles and could be ready for deployment in automobiles within 18 months, says James Tatoian, the chief executive officer of Eureka Aerospace and the project's leader.

To bring an opposing vehicle to a halt, the 200-pound device is attached to the roof of a car. The car's alternator serves as the system's power source, whose direct-current (DC) power feeds into a power supply. This generates a stream of 50-nanosecond-duration pulses of energy. These pulses are amplified to 640 kilovolts using a 16-stage Marx generator.

The 640 kilovolts of DC power are then converted into microwaves using an oscillator that consists of a pair of coupled transmission lines and several spark-gap switches. Finally, a specially designed antenna beams the microwave energy toward an opposing vehicle through a part of the car, such as the windshield, window, grill, or spacing between the hood and main body, that is not made of metal. (Metal acts as a shield against microwave energy.)

The radiated microwave energy will upset or damage the vehicle's electronic systems, particularly the microprocessors that control important engine functions, such as the ignition control, the fuel injector, and the fuel-pump control. However, electronic control modules were not built into most cars until 1972, hence the system will not work on automobiles made before that year.

The concept of disabling vehicles' electronic system with microwaves was first tested in 1997 by the U.S. Army using bulky and heavy military equipment. But the Eureka Aerospace system is only six to eight feet long (antennae included) and not quite three feet wide. "It is much more efficient and compact than anything previously used in military vehicles," says Tatoian.

The device's peak power output is two gigawatts, although the average power emitted in a single shot is about 100 watts. Each radiated pulse lasts about 50 nanoseconds. All the test cars' engines were shut off using a single pulse at a distance of approximately 15 meters, making the total energy output 100 joules, says Tatoian. His company is currently developing a more compact high-power microwave pulse system with the goal of disabling engines at ranges from as far away as 200 meters.

"I have no doubt that if you set up a microprocessor and get a high-powered, well-focused beam of energy on [a car], you can disrupt its operation," says Peter Fisher, a professor of physics and the division head in particle and nuclear experimental physics at MIT. But to be able to deploy such a system safely will take some work, he says.

Imagine if a police officer is in a high-speed chase near a shopping mall and turns on one of these systems to stop the perpetrator: a lot of elevators have microprocessor controls, so if the officer is pointing the device in the direction of the mall, he or she could end up trapping 12 people in an elevator, says Fisher. Many other electronic systems, such as an automated teller machine or a security system, could also be disrupted.

Furthermore, Fisher cautions that, while the system may seem like an easier and more efficient solution than spike strips, it could still cause a huge accident if a car is disabled and a driver loses steering control. The system could pose a safety concern as well: radiation can burn human skin, and microwaves have long been suspected of being a cancer-causing agent.

At the moment, the most practical application for the system would be in the U.S. Army or Marine Corp, for perimeter protection of areas that are generally remote, says Fisher. Initial funding for the project came from the U.S. Marine Corp, but now Eureka Aerospace is looking to other governmental agencies for financial support as the company continues to work to make the device smaller, lighter, and more efficient. (Tatoian says that details regarding future work with the military are confidential.)

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19699/?a=f

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 17, 2007, 10:36am

Underground Object Mapping Capability from BAE Systems

The US Air Force awarded BAE Systems Electronics and Integrated Solutions, Inc. a $8 million contract to build and demonstrate an 'active electromagnetic' tomography sensor, designed to characterize complex sub-surface objects such as underground facilities or perimeter breaching tunnels. Such objects are usually concealed from conventional airborne imaging or radar based sensors.

The new technology called Airborne Tomography using Active Electromagnetics (ATAEM) is derived from field proven geophysical exploration concepts commonly used for mineral and oil exploration.

By illuminating the surface with electromagnetic energy ATAEM will interpret minute distortions of the electric and magnetic fields created by surface and sub-surface objects to detect and characterize surreptitious structures. The program elements will include the development of electromagnetic illumination sources, noise-isolated sensor payloads, and signals processing, and demonstrate them on an appropriate airborne platform.

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/1107/news/141107_ataem.htm#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 17, 2007, 10:42am

British Nukes Armed with a Bicycle Lock Key
By Noah Shachtman November 16, 2007 | 12:01:36 PM



Well into the late 1990's, arming one of Britain's nuclear weapons required no special knowledge, and no special hardware. All that was needed was a single key, like the kind you use to open a bicycle lock.

There are no codes," former nuclear engineer Brian Burnell explains to a BBC reporter, as they stand around a "training version" of a WE.177 nuclear bomb. "You need access to the arming panel, and for that, just a strong fingernail or screwdriver would do.

Once you've opened the panel up, you only need "one key -- rather similar to a bicycle lock key...Turn it 90 degrees to the right, and the bomb's armed."

Thankfully, that's been fixed. But an even-more unnerving fact remains. The BBC alleges that British Trident nuclear submarine skippers can still launch their missiles -- without any code being sent from their commanders. According to the BBC, the Ministry of Defence said that "the safeguards that other countries built in... were not relevant to British submarines."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/british-nukes-a.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 18, 2007, 8:50am

Army Rejects Dragon Body Armor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTrTrsJu3pk

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Nov 18, 2007, 6:47pm


Quote:

Georgia Police Turns Sonic Blaster on Demonstrators By Noah Shachtman November 15, 2007 | 11:43:14 AM There's more evidence that the Saakashvili regime in Georgia is using sound weapons against opposition protestors. This English-language footage from Russia Today shows riot police rolling through the streets of Tblisi in pickup trucks, small dishes in hand. A high frequency pulse follows. "Georgian police used an acoustic gun -- it's a non-lethal weapon that disorients people for a period of time," says one "special weapons expert." See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MThThdEmswU Continued..... http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/georgia-police-.html

These "non-lethal" weapons are becoming quite popular it seems.

And they are in fact killing people:

November 16, 2007
Video of Taser Death in Canada Sparks Probe
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/16/5283/

VANCOUVER, Canada - A video of a Polish man dying while being restrained with a taser by Canadian policemen sparked a diplomatic protest and controversy on Thursday over the use of stun guns. Canada's public safety minister ordered a review of the death of Robert Dziekanski.

The 40-year-old immigrant died on October 14 about 10 hours after he arrived at western Canada’s biggest airport here.

Dziekanski, who had traveled to Canada to live with his mother, died after a bizarre series of events that culminated in police approaching him and, in less than one minute, zapping him repeatedly with a Taser stun gun.

“I was quite shocked,” Piotr Ogrodzinski, the Polish ambassador to Canada, told AFP after viewing the video. “Perhaps (the) police officers’ reaction was not suitable to the circumstances.”

Ogrodzinski said he formally requested details from Canada of the investigation into Dziekanski’s death, and also met with the national police complaints commissioner.

The video was taken by Paul Pritchard, a Canadian traveler at the scene. It was not released for one month because police held onto it until Pritchard filed a court action to have it returned.

The video shows Dziekanski, appearing distraught and frightened, moving around furniture in the airport and at one point throwing a computer off a desk onto the ground.

He is watched by security guards who stand back and can be heard saying, “he’s speaking Russian.”

Then four officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada’s national police force, enter the frame. They walk toward Dziekanski and surround him. He turns away from them, raising his hands with his back to them.

In one hand he holds what looks like a stapler.

The police close in on Dziekanski and stun him repeatedly with a Taser device. Dziekanski screams and writhes on the floor, and the policemen pile on top of him and pin him down. Within minutes he falls still.

RCMP spokesman Corporal Dale Carr said an investigation by a homicide team will take another 30 to 45 days.

He urged the public to withhold their judgment of what they see on the video until the police can explain their conduct while testifying under oath at a coroner’s inquest.

“The inquest will be the venue in which the contents of the video and the actions of police will be scrutinized,” said Carr in a statement.

A preliminary coroner’s report earlier showed there were no drugs or alcohol in Dziekanski’s body, and that the cause of death was uncertain..... (continued)

The above-referenced video may be viewed here:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/276565

Scroll down to the third paragraph in the article for a direct link.

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 19, 2007, 8:55am

Pioneering 'heat wave' gun may be used in Iraq

By Philip Sherwell in Quantico, Virginia and Jacqui Goddard
Last Updated: 9:54am GMT 19/11/2007

American commanders in Iraq are urging Pentagon chiefs to authorise the deployment of newly-developed heat wave guns to disperse angry crowds or violent rioters. But the plea for what senior army officers believe could prove a valuable alternative to traditional firepower in dangerous trouble-spots has so far gone unanswered.

The Active Denial System (ADS)

The ADS can target crowds from 750 metres away

Washington fears a barrage of adverse publicity in the suspicious Muslim world and is concerned that critics will claim the invisible beam weapons were being used for torture.

Now the US military directorate charged with developing non-lethal weapons, which has invested more than a decade developing the Active Denial System (ADS), has launched a concerted effort to convince both the public and its own bosses at the defence department of the device's merits.

"With brand new technology like this, perception is everything," said Col Kirk Hymes, a former Marine artillery officer who heads the directorate.

He added that tests were almost complete and the first ADS, also known as the Silent Guardian, could be deployed early next year if the Pentagon allows. The decision is so sensitive that it is expected to be made personally by the defence secretary, Robert Gates, who sent senior representatives to the demonstrations.
advertisement

Raytheon, the company contracted to manufacture the prototype, has also received interest from several undisclosed European countries. The machine displayed last week cost about $10 million to build, but the directorate believes that the ADS can be put into production for $2-$5 million (£1-2.5 million) per device.

Col Hymes told observers at a demonstration that the system was a safe and effective alternative to plastic bullets, which can cause injury and sometimes death and are effective only up to 75 metres.

The heatwave weapon can, by contrast, target troublemakers from 750 metres. It works by dispatching high-powered radio waves from a vehicle antenna, similar to a satellite television dish, causing the molecules in a target's skin to vibrate violently, creating a burning sensation.

"We are pretty good at shouting and intimidating people and we have been perfecting the art of lethal warfare since Cain and Abel," he said. "But in places like Iraq we are re-learning that we need a response in the spectrum between shouting and shooting. The ADS provides this."

But he added: "This is not something we want to roll out and deploy and surprise people. We know we need to educate the public."

In fact the development of the weapon only became public after the Sunshine Project - a Texas-based group that campaigns against biological and chemical weapons - pushed for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.


In pictures: The Telegraph's Philip Sherwell is zapped by a heat wave gun

The group's director, Edward Hammond, said: "If we are not prepared to use it as a crowd control technique on our own citizens, then we really shouldn't be using it in Iraq either."

Marc Garlasco, a former Pentagon intelligence officer who is senior military analyst for the Human Rights Watch campaign group, was among those invited to feel the device's impact at a recent demonstration.

He said: "If I had the option of being shot by a bullet or this, I would choose this - but still not enough is known about it. This is novel technology. We're talking about bringing science fiction into reality and it's critical to have open discussion."

He added: "People understand what happens when you get shot with a gun, but with the "pain-ray" there's still uncertainty. When it's used, the military is going to have to deal with a public backlash because I'm sure there will be claims of medical problems by the people it's been used upon, real or not."

"We are talking about young soldiers having this in their hands. If we upset the civilian population in Iraq, whether by killing, by torture or by misusing this, it will have a strategic effect on the US's ability to execute effective operations."

Col Hymes said that all ADS operators were given a six-week training course that covered sophisticated crowd control techniques as well as handling the technology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/18/wdenial118.xml

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 19, 2007, 9:05am

US plans new space weapons against China

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 2:48am GMT 15/11/2007

The Pentagon is spending billions of dollars on new forms of space warfare to counter the growing risk of missile attack from rogue states and the "satellite killer" capabilities of China.

Congress has allocated funds to develop futuristic weapons and intelligence systems that operate beyond the Earth's atmosphere as America looks past Iraq and Afghanistan to the wars of the future.
The Falcon could fly at six times the speed of sound and deliver bombs anywhere in the world in minutes.


The Falcon could fly at six times the speed of sound and deliver bombs anywhere in the world in minutes

The most ambitious project in a new $459 billion (£221.5 billion) defence spending Bill is the Falcon, a reusable "hypersonic vehicle" that could fly at six times the speed of sound and deliver 12,000lb of bombs anywhere in the world within minutes.

The bombs' destructive power would be multiplied by the Earth's gravitational pull as they travelled at up to 25 times the speed of sound towards their target.

The cost of the vehicle has not been revealed, but a spokesman for the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) said a first test flight was scheduled for next year.

Loren Thompson, a leading defence analyst in Washington, said the focus of the project was attacking "time sensitive targets" in states such as North Korea and Iran, which have either developed nuclear weapons without international approval or are suspected of doing so.

"If we received intelligence that a strike was about to happen on South Korea, or on Israel, we would want to destroy that within minutes and not hours. But from most current US bases that is not feasible.

"With a hyper-sonic vehicle launching from the Middle East or Asia you could be over hostile territory within minutes," he said. "It's not just a question of can we destroy North Korean weapons, but can we get there quickly enough in the event of an imminent launch?"

Darpa is also developing a small unmanned launch vehicle that would provide "responsive and affordable" access to space, for less than $5 million per launch. The first test flight was made in March.

It would be capable of re-launching satellites that had been attacked, or acting as a fast-moving replacement for a damaged satellite with intelligence sensors of its own that could identify enemy installations.

In its 621-page report on the Defence Appropriations Bill, Congressmen from both Republican and Democratic parties said: "Enhancing these capabilities is crucial, particularly following the Chinese anti-satellite weapons demonstration last January."

In China's first successful test of an anti-satellite system, a ground-based missile fired into space shattered a weather satellite in low earth orbit. The Pentagon has also given warning that China is making greater efforts to hack into its defence computers.

Congress awarded $150 million for the Falcon project and its associated "prompt global strike" programme. A defence industry source said it was likely that hundreds of millions more were being spent on space warfare "away from the public view".

The "global strike" platform would give America the "forward presence" it requires around the world without the need for bases outside the US.

Attempts to base missile defence shields in Poland and Czechoslovakia have provoked a fierce row with Russia, while Uzbekistan, which neighbours Afghanistan, evicted the US from an air base two years ago.

• The economic cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated at $1.6 trillion (£772 billion) - roughly double what the White House has requested thus far, according to a report by Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion (£627 billion) from 2002 to 2008.

FALCON HYPERSONIC CRUISE VEHICLE

Max speed: Mach 6 (4,614mph)

Payload: 12,000lbs including cruise missles, 1,000lbs penetrator munitions and independent 'kill gliders'

CRUISING ALTITUDES

Satellites: 370 miles

Space shuttle: 230 miles

Falcon: 28 miles

Concorde: 12 miles

Airliners: 6 miles

Sources: Darpa and globalsecurity.org

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht..../weap on114.xml

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 8:03am

In the Search for Loose Nukes, a Little Propaganda Goes a Long Way
By Michael Levi 10.23.07 | 12:00 AM



Catching evildoers armed with nuclear devices is tougher than it sounds. True, unexploded nukes are radioactive, but not face-meltingly so. That makes 100 percent detection impossible. So instead of trying to find a perfect protection scheme (domed cities, anyone?), clever policymakers and technologists are developing a kind of Goldilocks strategy: Neither too much nor too little detection. These admittedly imperfect plans are designed to convince terrorists that even attempting a nuclear attack is futile. Put the ideas into action, the thinking goes, then deploy a smart PR strategy to let the would-be bombers know we're onto 'em — security wonks call it "strategic communication." Others call it propaganda. Whatever — as long as we get it just right.

How to discover an atomic bomb

PDAs
Problem
Some radiation detectors work best in a network.

Plan
Use industrial-grade materials to make cheap, networked scanners the size of PDAs and blanket cities with them.

Seriously?
Lawrence Livermore National Lab is working on these connected detectors, but cost is still an issue. Getting Apple to build them into the next iPhone might also be an obstacle.

Border Guards
Problem
Terrorists might try to smuggle nuclear materials into the US across the Mexican or Canadian borders.

Plan
Equip Border Patrol officers with handheld detectors.

Seriously?
Totally. People trying to sneak across the Mexican border get through because they try again and again. Many of them end up in contact with Border Patrol at some point.

Radiography
Problem
Baddies could line a truck with detection-blocking lead and drive a bomb to its target.

Plan
Use radiography at borders to look for the lead.

Seriously?
It would work better if the Feds would buy machines that could distinguish between lead and other common materials. Some models are more effective than others.

Neutron Beams
Problem
Cracking open suspect cargo takes lots of time. And lots of things can be lead-lined.

Plan
Neutron guns! Fire a stream of these subatomic particles at an object to trigger the release of a telltale radiation signature.

Seriously?
A powerful enough beam can definitely spot hidden uranium... but it can also cause damage to nearby DNA.

Container-Based Sensors
Problem
Some container ports already have radiation detectors, but they may have only a few seconds to spot a concealed bomb.

Plan
Embed a radiation sensor in every shipping container.

Seriously?
It's less promising than it sounds. Cosmic rays can make steel-filled containers emit neutrons and confuse detectors.

CSI: Apocalypse
Problem
Nuclear-armed countries might slip nukes to terrorists.

Plan
Develop forensic capabilities to trace nuclear materials back to their sources.

Seriously?
Yup. Even a remote chance that materials could be matched to a nuclear stockpile may scare rogue states out of sharing their bombs — and becoming the target of a retaliatory strike.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-11/st_nukes#

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 8:22am

Olive Drab Goes Green: The Military Deploys Solar, Wind and Biomass Power
By Amanda Griscom Little 10.23.07 | 12:00 AM


Photo: Michael Sugrue

The Pentagon developed the Internet, created GPS, and supercharged the markets for microchips and jets. Next target: renewable energy. In December, the Department of Defense will complete the 15-megawatt solar installation shown here — the nation's largest — at Nellis Air Force Base outside Las Vegas. Operated by a computerized tracking system that follows the sun's path, the sprawling array of 70,000 crystalline silicon solar panels will generate up to 30 percent of the electricity needed by the 12,000-person facility. And solar is only one front in the military's green campaign. One of the world's largest geothermal installations, which turns Earth's heat into electricity via 166 wells bored as far down as 10,000 feet below the surface, can be found at China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in California. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba derives up to a quarter of its power from wind turbines — one of about a dozen wind-powered US military bases worldwide. And Dyess Air Force Base in Texas is powered completely by biomass fuel generated from paper industry byproducts, making it one of the largest single-site consumers of green electricity in the world. Charge!

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazine/15-11/st_nellis#

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 9:00am

Anthro Wars Heat Up
By Sharon Weinberger November 22, 2007 | 9:38:00 AM



The conflict between anthropologists and the military took an altogether different turn this week with Ann Marlowe's withering portrait of the Human Terrain System. Her critique is not sitting well with proponents of the military's attempt to incorporate anthropology into military doctrine. Human Terrain has faced criticism from academics, who oppose embedding anthros in military units, but Marlowe's article, published in the Weekly Standard, represents a blow from the other side of the political spectrum. Human Terrain supporters are striking back at the article, and at Marlowe. And some of it is gets ugly.

Joshua Foust writing at the Conjecturer, points to Marlowe's "long history of heroin addiction" (documented in a book Marlowe wrote). Yes, Google is wonderful, but it's not clear how this is relevant to debates over human terrain.

Dave Dilegge, writing in the Small Wars Journal, calls her an "accidental tourist." He writes: "My major exception is that a rank amateur, on the basis of a relatively brief visit to a war-zone can proclaim that the Human Terrain System is a solution in search of a problem and is contrary to sound COIN [counterinsurgency] theory and practice."

Beyond that, Dilegge questions Marlowe's logic:

The majority of Marlowe’s assertions is single-sourced and not attributable to those directly involved in the HTT, excepting a brief meeting with [program bosses] Dr. McFate and COL Fondacaro, and is based on uninformed opinions on a very new capability that has not been afforded an opportunity to get out of the starting gate.

S*** happens, Marlowe’s embed was screwed up and early mistakes might have occurred in the establishment of a HTS reach-back capability. Go figure, the prudent COIN practitioner learns and adjusts – does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. That is what the lessons learned process she identified does for a living – if we did it perfect at the onset there would be no need to learn lessons.

There is so much more to address in Marlowe’s careless assertions – and I will – but for now I’ll leave it with her claim the Human Terrain System, and by extension cultural knowledge, is a solution in search of a problem.

Every source Marlowe cited on the cultural issues, this site, FM 3-24, and the lessons leaned process (to include those of the Army, Marine Corps, and Joint Forces Command) have come down hard on the critical need for not only cultural knowledge but also the capability of acting on that knowledge on the ground and in harm’s way.

Dr. Montgomery McFate, who Marlowe seemed to take personal issue with, was a contributing author to the doctrine she implied is somehow contradictory to the HTS program. I don’t get that – at all.

Marlowe’s experience in Afghanistan was a mere snapshot in time and her article does an injustice to our efforts to get this thing right. I am sorry the HTS did not live up to her expectations of a “slam dunk” success from the get-go. There are many examples of capabilities that cut their teeth in combat, did not fare well initially, but went on to become shining examples of American military ingenuity. I believe the HTS will follow in those footsteps.

Marlowe criticized Human Terrain propopents, in part, for being amateurs when it comes to Afghan culture. So Human Terrain defenders accuse Marlowe of being an amateur when it comes to military theory. That's understandable, but what is beginning to characterize the Human Terrain debate is name calling.

Attacking critics' or proponents' character is only going to make this debate worse.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/ann-marlows-whi.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 9:11am

Company Uses Pulsed Power to Blast IEDs
By Sharon Weinberger November 21, 2007 | 9:00:00 AM

Everyone has a gadget for stopping improvised bombs, ranging from the exotic to the ordinary.

In Texas, one company is looking at pulsed power to fry electronics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx5PENBIlOM

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/everyone-has-a.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 9:25am

Navy: Let's Play "Sim Iraq"
By Noah Shachtman November 20, 2007 | 3:49:46 PM



When I mentioned the other day that the armed forces were funding all kinds of "Sim Iraq" projects, I meant it as a metaphor -- a way to describe the military's new breed of simulations of a society's cultural, political, and economic landscape.

The Navy, it turns out, has a "Sim Iraq" in mind, too. A literal one. The service has issued a call for a developers to build "a highly interactive, PC-based Human, Social and Culture Behavioral Modeling (HSCB) simulation tool to support training for military planners for handling insurgencies, small wars, and/or emergent conflicts."

We are looking for innovative ideas that explore and harness the power of “advanced” interactive multimedia computer game technologies (e.g. "sim games”), that offer single or multi-player interaction via single computer, network or internet. The system should incorporate the best-practices of the videogame industry, including intuitive controls, story-telling, user-feedback (for performance assessment), scenario editing, and high-quality graphics & sound.

But don't think you can just use the Unreal engine to gin up some pixelated Mesopotamia. "Although, high-quality 3-D graphics and 3-D interaction are desirable, we will not be considering games based on first-person shooter (or equivalent) technology for this solicitation," the Navy notes. "The current solicitation is not aiming to build entertainment, but a highly accurate and advanced simulation platform."

The Navy is also looking for a second set of programs, to help commanders get a feel for the local culture in a hurry.

The aim is to better understand the socio-cultural context in which these military missions operate. What is needed is a Rapid Ethnographic Assessment program: New models and methodologies to improve and augment the data collection efforts being undertaken in these missions. This capability will ensure that military analysts will not just collect data, but also be able to know what data matters, in order to make sense of tribal, ethnic and social class relationships, understand environmental factors (for example, the control of water in arid climates), land rights, disputes, the role of religion in everyday life, and the structure of the elites, to name but a few examples relevant to military operations. Candidate methodologies include: cognitive anthropology, social network analysis, other methodologies with a structuralist focus, linguistics, applied anthropology, development anthropology, and computational approaches. This effort will provide analysts with new capabilities for analyzing ethnographic data in ways that are informed by ethnological theory and modern anthropological approaches. A rich, scientifically sound, description of society and the relationships of the various parts of society, will be the result of rapid ethnographic assessment.

The Rapid Ethnographic Assessment program complements on-going efforts to improve data collection on culture and society. This program will provide a more comprehensive, scientifically sound framework for understanding the individual social facts that are being collected. Because all of culture is too large a concept for the limited time and funding of this effort, it is expected that the proposal writer concentrate on one, significant scenario in one, actual culture. Example: Power structure in Afghanistan, Tribal structure and political affiliation in Sudan, Humanitarian relief in Pakistan, Reconstruction in Iraq.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/culture-modelli.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 9:29am

South Korea's 'Shrapnel' Rifle
By Sharon Weinberger November 20, 2007 | 2:19:57 PM

According to a local news report, South Korea is developing some sort of new-fangled "shrapnel-bullet firing rifle", which I assume is really a badly translated (or misunderstood) term for air-burst munition (but gun nuts out there, feel free to correct me).



The state-funded Agency for Defense Development (ADD) has developed a new rifle that fires special bullets that explode over targets and scatter shrapnel, a report said Tuesday.

"The specially designed bullets blow up over enemy soldiers and disperse deadly fragments,'' the Yonhap news agency reported, quoting an unidentified source. The rifle will be mass produced from next year after test trials, the source said.

The easy-to-carry rifle is equipped with laser scope, as well as optical and night sight functions, he said.

"The development of the rifle is remarkable in terms of its size, weight and fire power,'' the source said. "The rifle is expected to be a best seller on the global market.''

The rifle will reportedly be used in urban operations.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/south-koreas-sh.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 9:44am

Terror Gets A Short Stare

Since 9-11 TSA and DHS have been besieged with detector proposals for ferreting out passengers attempting to conceal explosives and hazardous substances beneath their clothing. They have run the gamut of technical ambition, most bad, many ugly, and variously plagued by poor signal-to-noise ratios and alarming false positive rates. Some that work do so more by brute force than technical elegance- what can't you detect with a MR scanner, a sawed off synchotron and a megabuck array of single crystal gadolinium scintillators ?



Few of the black boxes on offer have seen practical deployment, so I was pleasantly surprised by a gizmo in prototype production by the British ex-MOD firm, Qinetiq.

This sub-terahertz gadget relies on the short end of the ambient millimeter wave spectrum to illuminate the difference between what people are made of and what they may be carrying. Advances in high electron mobility indium phosphide semiconductor detectors and a MIMIC amplifier allow a simple dielectric lens (the white-domed top of the hooded cocktail shaker in the photo) to give passengers the once over at a few hundred gigahertz, to see if they are plain vanilla humans, or packing liquid or solid contraband that does not match the dielectric properties of flesh, blood, and bone.

The dielectric lens and a boresighted video camera ( the cocktail shaker's dark spout ) afford a magnified directional view fed to an internal millimeter wavelength horn antenna and a one dimensional scan train not much more complicated than a bar code reader. Discrimination is afforded by proprietary AI firmware that presumably has total recall of what people look like over several wavelengths, allowing comparison of the real-time background illumination with what emanates from a target up to several hundred feet away.

If a passenger's millimeter wave profile lights up as anomalous, security people come into play to see what he or she may be hiding. This is a very simple system , but MIMIC devices lend themselves to phased arrays, and the technology could grow into a sophisticated imaging system if this early embodiment delivers high passenger throughput and few false positives. A larger roadside version can detect concealed passengers in soft-sided Brit lorries, but here in the land of metal truck bodies , it will probably be debuting in airports rather than Ro-Ro terminals.

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/11/terror-gets-a-s.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 9:55am

Video: Lockheed's Secret Airship Flies
By Sharon Weinberger November 20, 2007 | 9:43:51 AM

Airships may suffer some insurmountable problems, but after watching this video, I understand why little things like cost and engineering don't stop people from building them.

Airships are just great to watch. This is video of Lockheed's P-791, a hybrid airship built on the company's dime by its secret Skunk Works unit. The closely held project was first revealed by Aviation Week & Space Technology reporter Mike Dornheim (who died in a tragic accident last year).

See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xs0mvJLK0

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/airships-but-af.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 23, 2007, 10:00am

Video Fix: Built Like A Tank, Fast as Crotch-Rocket
By Noah Shachtman November 21, 2007 | 3:20:00 AM

Forget the secret blimp. Ditch the slithering bio-bot. The hottest video you'll see on DANGER ROOM today is this one right here, for an early prototype of the Howe Brothers' Rip Saw vehicle.

Shaped like a mini-tank, with the giddy-up of a motorcycle (0-50 in 3.5 seconds), the thing blasts over ditches, cruises through water -- and crushes unsuspecting houses. Yours for a mere twenty two hundred grand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_iup2jXQqI

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/post.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 24, 2007, 1:39am

Russian Air Force to adopt Su-34 "flying tank"
19:59 | 16/ 10/ 2007



The Su-34 design incorporates several crucial concepts: high maneuverability and speed, heavy payload extended flight range:



http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20071016/84180029.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 9:50am

The Most Dangerous Object in the Office This Month: The Photonic Disruptor
By Miyoko Ohtake 11.27.07 | 12:00 AM



This laser is borderline illegal. With an output of 105 milliwatts, it's 21 times more powerful than your average presentation pointer. It was designed for SWAT and military use in nonlethal takedowns. The adjustable-focus green ray will do permanent retinal damage to anyone within about 60 feet, visually disorients people up to 1,150 feet away, and illuminates objects almost 2 miles out. Alternative uses: melting plastic, lighting fireworks, and settling heated disagreements over Wired kitchen queue-cutting on Burger Thursdays.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/15-12/st_dangerous

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 10:30am

Mogadishu's Wheeled Battlecruisers
By David Axe November 26, 2007 | 6:18:00 PM



MOGADISHU, Somalia - Super-tough, nearly bomb-proof trucks are all the rage in Iraq these days. But in Africa, these "Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected" vehicles, or MRAPs, have been standard for thirty years. The armored rides with the v-shaped hulls first hit the road in the 1970s during a brutal war in what is now Zimbabwe. Today, they’re the truck of choice for another bloody conflict: the 17-year-old series of civil wars and invasions and insurgencies in Somalia.

I went riding with the Ugandans today. Fifteen hundred of them deployed to Mogadishu eight months ago under an African Union banner, and with U.S. funding, in a bid to seize and hold the key infrastructure that some future international force would need to begin stabilizing the embattled city – a “bridgehead,” according to Captain Paddy Ankunda.

This ain’t your typical peacekeeping mission: within moments of stepping foot on Somali soil at the seaport, the Ugandans got mortared – and the attacks have continued. Roadside bombs, suicide bombers, mortars, rockets, snipers and insurgent infantry assaults – the range and intensity of threats makes Mogadishu “like Baghdad,” Paddy says. So when the Ugandans roll out, they roll out under armor, in RG-31 Nyala minesweepers and what appears to be an open-top, single-crew variant of the Casspir -- the smaller predecessor of the American 25-ton Buffalo monster truck.


RG-31 Nyala


Casspir

U.S. MRAPs are fairly lightly armed: usually just one .50-caliber machine gun, often in a remote-controlled turret. Ugandan MRAPs are like wheeled battlecruisers. The RGs sport two machine guns; the Casspirs have three, plus a rifleman with his AK-47, crouched in the armored bed beside the turret gunners.

“We have the arsenal,” Paddy told me last week when I ran into him at the airport. He was explaining why I shouldn’t believe press reports saying one of his camps had been briefly overrun by insurgents. In fact, the bad guys got gunned down outside the walls.

The Ethiopians are the most feared army in Mogadishu, but the Ugandans are probably the best-protected – and rightly so. Theirs is essentially a defensive mission, holding onto that key real estate, hoping and praying for the day when the U.N. wakes up and sends its own peacekeepers. That'll let the widely hated Ethiopians leave. And that might begin the slow process of returning peace to Mogadishu.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/african-peaceke.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 10:34am

November 28, 2007 4:11 PM PST

Virtual shooting gallery on wheels
Posted by Mark Rutherford


(Credit: VirTra Systems)

If your fair-weather friends are getting bored with your in-home theater, bowling alley, and bevy of indentured pedicurists, you may want to step up to a VirTra Systems' mobile live-fire training simulation trailer.

The trailer is based on the Houston company's IVR (immersive virtual training) simulation technology and offers a three-lane marksmanship simulator and "full-featured judgmental-use-of-force scenario" with both laser-based and live-fire training, including full auto in anything up to .50 caliber. Depending on your preferred quarry, it's available in either a police or military version.

"We remain committed to offering the training community innovative, high-tech, immersive small-arms training simulation products at extremely competitive prices," retired Major Gen. Perry V. Dalby, VirTra Systems' chief executive officer, said in a press release. The company sells "situational awareness" training equipment and virtual-reality systems to military and other clientele, such as General Motors and Red Baron Pizza.

The live-fire trailer is reasonably priced at between $250,000 and $500,000, depending on accessories.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13639_1-9825092....bj=MilitaryTech

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 10:39am

Uh Oh... Killer Drone "Structurally Complete"
By Noah Shachtman November 28, 2007 | 12:51:00 PM

The Navy's killer drone program is picking up steam. The unmanned combat air systems demonstrator, or UCAS-D, is now "100% structurally complete," according to its manufacturers at Northrop Grumman. Testing of the flight software in underway. Now it's on "subsystems installation," "failure detection," "accommodation testing"... oh, and paint, too. Northrop is aiming towards have the first one completed in 2009.



The Navy only decided to build UCAS-D a few months ago, as Lew Page notes. But Northrop engineers are working with the same design they were using for a Darpa /Air Force / Navy killer drone effort that was canceled. "We're finishing a programme started seven years ago," a Northrop executive told Flight magazine. Lew adds:

The $635m UCAS-D contract will see Northrop produce a brace of aircraft and - if successful - prove that they can operate from US Navy carriers, traditionally considered one of the more demanding flight environments for human-piloted jets.

"The performance of the aircraft isn't an issue anymore," Rand Corp. analyst David Ochmanek tells the L.A. Times. "The sole remaining issue that hasn't been addressed -- because it is so difficult -- is landing them and having them take off."

After the jump: some hot CGI action, showing how the UCAS-D might look in flight -- and one the carrier deck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobrNcrdRxw

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/ucas-d-up-runni.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 10:47am

BAE Sports Most Powerful Railgun Ever
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 27, 2007 1:36 PM


An older 8-megajoule U.S. Navy railgun. (Source: Office of Naval Research)


BAE's new 32-megajoule functional railgun ups the firepower and includes a nice looking barrel. (Source: Office of Naval Research)


The 32-megajoule gun will require massive capacitors to store enough power to fire a slug. (Source: Office of Naval Research)

BAE's new BFG 32-megajoule railgun annihilates its competitors

Like some super weapon from a video game, BAE's 32-megajoule Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun (32-MJ LRG) design juts prominently into the air, its massive barrel letting everyone know that it means business.

While rail guns still are far from being used in practical warfare, BAE has been continuously laboring to slowly transform this fantastic premise into reality. BAE, known for its fighting vehicles such as the Bradley, is one of the foremost pioneers in high-tech weaponry. Recently the company debuted a semi-autonomous version of its Bradley fighting vehicle, known as the Black Knight.

The company has also been hard at work researching how to create a railgun that packs a serious punch.

Earlier this year General Atomics, a rival research company, demonstrated a 8-megajoule railgun, which fired shells at Mach 7. Until now 9-megajoule railguns were the most powerful models in existence.

BAE is looking to blow these "peashooters" away after it announced a railgun four times more powerful. A functional prototype of its railgun has been delivered to the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va. and is currently being installed at the Center.

The Navy plans to install special capacitors to fuel the beast's appetite for destruction.

The device operates similarly to previous railguns, using electric force to propel a nonexplosive solid projectile along a series of magnetic rails. The device requires a staggering 3 million amps of power to fire.

Incredibly, the device is only the initial offering from BAE. It hopes to soon meet the Navy's goal of a 64-megajoule weapon capable of being mounted on a warship. Such a weapon would draw a current of approximately 6 million amps.

With such high power requirements, such a design is technically feasible when placed on a nuclear-powered vessel. Dr. Amir Chaboki, program manager for Electro-Magnetic Rail Guns at BAE Systems, states, "The power is available. The challenge is how you use it."

Chaboki believes the ideal ship platform would be the Navy's electrically propelled DDG 100 Destroyer, which has an operating power of 72 MW, approximately.

One challenge is that the destructive force and mechanics of the device can easily damage the gun in its current state. A few shots can dislodge the rails or even damage the gun barrel.

BAE is constantly improving upon its designs, though and sees the 32-megajoule cannon as a key milestone in its goal of deploying a 64-megajoule cannon, on ship, within 13 years or less. Such a cannon would be able to fire at speeds in excess of Mach 7 at targets as far as 220 miles away using cheap metal slugs. Such a cannon could unleash a silent deadly barrage that would hit the enemy harder and would give less warning than a traditional missile strike.

For now there are great technical obstacles that need to be overcome in making the gun hardy enough to withstand multiple firings in a deployment system and be able to efficiently manage the tremendous power it needs. However, that takes nothing away from BAE's moment of glory as the creator of the first 32-megajoule railgun, undisputedly the most powerful projectile weapon in existence.

http://www.dailytech.com/BAE+Sports+Most+Powerful+Railgun+Ever/article9791.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 11:15am

Miami Police Enlists Drone
By Sharon Weinberger November 28, 2007 | 12:50:29 PM

Police in Texas want to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to spot speeders, and now Miami cops are also looking at drones for SWAT Teams. A local TV station reports that law enforcement there are looking at Honeywell's ducted-fan Micro Air Vehicle:



The capability of the unit is phenomenal," said Miami-Dade Detective Juan Villalba.

The unmanned aircraft will be used during SWAT team and tactical operations, especially when officers need video of a heavily armed suspect.

The Miami-Dade police department has not yet taken possession on its drone, but the Houston police department has and is already conducting tests.

Miami-Dade hopes to use grant money to pay for the MAV. Officials said the units are pricey. Depending on the complexity of the system, they can cost several thousand dollars to more than a million.

Apparently police in Miami and Houston are first in line for drones because they've both received FAA clearance; a big hurdle for operating UAVs in domestic airplace.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/miami-police-bu.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 11:17am

Army Buys Up Robot Air Force
By Sharon Weinberger November 28, 2007 | 5:14:09 PM

Last month, there was a vigorous debate over a radical, and I believe ultimately misguided, proposal to disband the U.S. Air Force. The Army, however, seems to have its own solution: it's going to buy its own damned air force. Writing at Aviation Week's Ares blog, Bill Sweetman reports on Army plans to buy 540 armed drones:



According to [General Atomics-ASI's Steve] May, the Army is looking at acquiring as many as 45 complete Sky Warrior systems once full-rate production starts in 2011 - each with 12 air vehicles, 540 UAVs in all. The Sky Warrior resembles the USAF MQ-1L Predator but is heavier and more powerful, routinely carrying eight Hellfire missiles.

As Bill also notes, Air force reps at the conference were, well, unhappy. I can only imagine.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/army-buys-own-a.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Nov 30, 2007, 11:19am

IED Solution: Fry 'Em
By Sharon Weinberger November 29, 2007 | 12:54:56 PM

It's wonderful that all across America, inventors are thinking about ways to help the military defend itself against improvised explosive devices. I'm sure some of the ideas are novel and worth trying. That said, I kind of wonder about the utility of this invention, which would place a huge electrical generator in a Humvee to "electrocute" the ground in front of the vehicle, pre-exploding IEDs:



An apparatus for neutralizing explosive devices at a safe distance from the vehicle equipped with the device. The main components are a diesel engine-generator that is placed in the cargo area of a high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) or towed behind the HMMWV or lifted above a mine field by a helicopter. Connected to the electrical box of the generator is a version of a circuit known as a single wire earth return circuit. One lead of the circuit is grounded at a distance in front of the HMMWV so as to send electricity into the ground. The second lead of the circuit is grounded at the rear of the vehicle completing the circuit.

As the HMMWV approached a buried explosive device, the electricity flowing from the generator, into the front lead, which is in a conduit reaching yards in front of the HMMWV, is allowed to flow into the ground in yards in front of the HMMWV. The electricity will explode the explosive device before the HMMWV reaches it. Injuries to the crew will be lessened if the explosive device is exploded a distance in front of the HMMWV when compared to it being detonated by a terrorist directly underneath the HMMWV.

I can think of more than a few problems with this invention. For starters, a few yards is not a safe distance for many IEDs.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/ied-solution-fr.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 2, 2007, 4:41am

China Targeting All 'Enemy Space Vehicles' Including GPS
Special To World Tribune
East-Asia-Intel.com
11-29-7

China's anti-satellite and space warfare program includes plans to destroy or incapacitate 'every enemy space vehicle' that passes over China.

The annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, released last week, listed among Beijing's goals that of ensuring that Chinese space weapons are "conducted covertly so China can maintain a positive international image." China has called for a ban on space weapons at the United Nations.

The report said that China also is developing civilian technology that can be applied to military space programs and is acquiring the "ability to destroy or temporarily incapacitate every enemy space vehicle when it is located above China," the report said.

The Chinese also plan to attack U.S. global positioning system (GPS) through various means, including anti-satellite weapons, high-energy weapons, high-energy weather monitoring rockets and ground attacks on earth-based stations.

One section of the report, based on public and classified briefings, concluded there was a need for more information about Chinese activities and intentions.

Research from nearly 100 Chinese sources identified 30 proposals and recommendations by Chinese military leaders "regarding the development of space and counter-space weapons and programs."

The military is also developing stealth satellites and a space program that will "provide key support for Chinese combat forces."

"Some of these proposals appear to have been implemented already, as evidenced by January's kinetic anti-satellite test and earlier laser incidents involving American satellites," the report said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_china_11_29.asp#

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 2, 2007, 5:29am

U.S. Pursuing New Spy Satellite Program

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2007 (AP) The U.S. is pursuing a multibillion-dollar program to develop the next generation of spy satellites, the first major effort of its kind since the Pentagon canceled the ambitious and costly Future Imagery Architecture system two years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

The new system, known as BASIC, would be launched by 2011 and is expected to cost $2 billion to $4 billion, according to U.S. officials familiar with the program. They discussed details on condition of anonymity because the information is classified.

Photo reconnaissance satellites are used to gather visual information from space about adversarial governments and terror groups, such as construction at suspected nuclear sites or militant training camps. Satellites also can be used to survey damage from hurricanes, fires and other natural disasters.

The new start comes as many U.S. officials, lawmakers and defense experts question the high costs of satellite programs, particularly after the demise of the previous program that wasted time and money.

The National Reconnaissance Office spent six years and billions of dollars on Future Imagery Architecture, or FIA, before deciding in September 2005 to scrap a major component of the program. Boeing, the primary contractor, had run into technical problems in the development of the electro-optical satellite and blew its budget by as much as $3 billion before the Pentagon pulled the plug, according to industry experts and government reports.

"They grossly underestimated the cost of the program," as well as the technological feasibility of FIA, said John Pike, a space expert who heads GlobalSecurity.org. FIA "was a hallucination," he said.

The Defense Department is in the initial stages of preparing the new program for bidders. The Pentagon's classified "request for information" on the technology was issued this fall to industry. Comments were due two weeks ago. A solicitation for proposals is expected next spring.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is conducting an analysis of the system's potential capabilities that is to be completed this month.

Officials said the Pentagon is considering a range of options, but the new program is expected to be significantly less ambitious than the one it is meant to replace. Options include developing an entirely new photo imagery satellite or a derivative of a commercial imagery satellite, buying a commercial satellite or leasing existing satellite capacity.

U.S. commercial satellites currently can make out the outline of 2-foot-long object from space. In April, a satellite will be launched with the ability to see a 16-inch object. By 2011, that capability is expected to narrow to nearly 10 inches.

Industry officials said the contract probably will be for a commercial or commercially derived spacecraft because of the time and budget constraints and the government's apparent desire to maintain control of the satellite.

The U.S. military has a $1 billion contract with two commercial satellite companies to buy space imagery. Each $500 million contract pays for a satellite, its launch and insurance and roughly $200 million in photo imagery.

"We would look forward to reviewing any new government acquisition request since we give the government more eyes in the sky and high quality imagery at a fraction of the cost," said Mark Brender, vice president for communications at GEOEYE, one of the imagery companies under contract with the Pentagon.

The canceled Boeing satellite under FIA was supposed to provide both broad area views of the Earth and the ability to home in on a single target with a high-powered telescope on a single satellite. Those capabilities currently are provided by different satellites, according to an industry official.

When the Pentagon canceled the program in 2005, it hired Lockheed Martin to cobble together a space craft from spare parts from the current generation of secret electro-optical reconnaissance satellites to cover a potential gap in coverage.

The nation's classified network of satellites represent some of the most expensive government programs and receive almost no public oversight. Because of their multibillion-dollar price tags, sensitive missions and lengthy development schedules, spy agencies go to great pains to keep details from becoming public.

The House and Senate intelligence committees have criticized the Pentagon and intelligence agencies' management of space programs. Half the programs have experienced cost growth of 50 percent or more. The Defense Department spends about $20 billion annually on space programs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/30/tech/main3561086.shtml

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 5, 2007, 9:26am

Russia to showcase new-generation subs at maritime exhibition
21:36 | 03/ 12/ 2007



MOSCOW, December 3 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will present its new-generation Amur-1650 class submarine at an international maritime exhibition in Malaysia, Russia's state-controlled arms exporter said on Monday.

The Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace (LIMA) 2007 exhibition will take place on December 4-8 at the Mahsuri International Exhibition Center (MIEC).

"The submarines will include Project 636 [submarines] with an integrated missile complex, Club-S, and the next-generation Amur-1650 submarine," Rosoboronexport said in a press release.

The Project 677 or Lada-class submarines have been designed to engage surface ships and submarines as well as to perform surveillance, mine laying, and special operation forces deployment missions.

Long range anti-ship missiles, rockets, torpedoes and mines can be fired from the torpedo tubes at the bow.

The ninth edition of the biennial LIMA is expected to be the biggest ever with more than 250 companies from 26 countries taking part in the aerospace exhibition alone.

They include Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom, France, Hong Kong, India, Germany, Italy, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore and Spain.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071203/90765627.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 7, 2007, 2:33am

'Flying Fish' Unmanned Aircraft Takes Off And Lands On Water


'Flying Fish' unmanned aircraft takes off and lands on water. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Michigan)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2007) — Flying fish were the inspiration for an unmanned seaplane with a 7-foot wingspan developed at the University of Michigan. The autonomous craft is believed to be the first seaplane that can initiate and perform its own takeoffs and landings on water.

It is designed to advance the agency's "persistent ocean surveillance" program.

Engineering researchers from U-M recently returned from sea trials off the coast of Monterey, Calif., where they demonstrated the craft's capability to DARPA officials.

"The vehicle did very well," said Hans Van Sumeren, associate director of the U-M Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratories. "To take off and land in the water was a big effort. We did it 22 times."

The researchers named the robotic plane Flying Fish after its inspiration. Guy Meadows, director of the U-M Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratories, conceived of the design while out on the water. "I saw these fish pop up and soar over the waves," Meadows said.

That got Meadows and his colleagues looking at sea birds for a design for their craft.

"We studied sea birds seriously," Meadows said. "They're all about the same size---about 20 pounds with a 2-meter wingspan. It turns out that, aerodynamically speaking, that's a sweet spot to be flying close to the water. Our plane is about the size of a large pelican."

Flying Fish, an electric vehicle, drifts until its onboard Global Positioning System tells the craft it has floated too far. That triggers the takeoff sequence, which gets the plane airborne in just 10 meters. Other GPS coordinates trigger the landing sequence. The craft accomplishes both in simple ways, explained Ella Atkins, associate professor of aerospace engineering and associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science.

The flight pattern is, for the most part, a recording of a graduate student's piloting of the plane. That means the takeoff is blind, Atkins explained. The plane takes no measurements of its surroundings. The waves would confuse it.

"Most people wouldn't do it this way," Atkins said. "The plane puts the motors on at full throttle and sets the pitch elevator enough to break out of the water. Then it counts and pitches forward. We believe that if we had done it any other way, we would have basically dived into the ocean on takeoff because the plane would have detected huge oscillations due to the waves."

The landing is basically a shallow descent.

"When it impacts the water, it goes, 'Oh, there's the water,'" Akins said. "The boat has very well-designed pontoons. Because it doesn't have a flat bottom, it cuts into the water like a diver, as opposed to belly-flopping."

The craft was a collaborative effort among researchers in the departments of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Aerospace Engineering.

Next, the team plans to outfit the plane with solar power and add more sensors.

Meadows is also a professor of naval architecture and marine engineering and a professor of atmospheric, oceanic and space sciences.

Funded by the Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071205190838.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 7, 2007, 9:05am

BrahMos to increase production of Russian-Indian cruise missiles
06/ 12/ 2007



NEW DELHI, December 6 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian-Indian joint venture BrahMos will buy a manufacturing plant in southwestern India to increase production of its supersonic cruise missiles, an Indian military source said Thursday.

In 1998, Russia and India established a joint venture, BrahMos Aerospace, to design, develop, produce and market a supersonic cruise missile. Sea-based and land-based versions of the missile have been successfully tested and put into service with the Indian Army and Navy.

The source said India's Defense Research and Development Organization, which represents the Indian side in the BrahMos venture, and the government of the Kerala state had signed a memorandum of understanding on the acquisition of a plant currently owned by state-run company Kerala Hightech Industries Limited.

He said the plant has all the facilities and over 250 qualified personnel to launch production of the [BrahMos] cruise missiles.

The contract on transfer of the plant's ownership to BrahMos will be signed January 1, 2008, the source said.

The Brahmos missile, named after India's Brahmaputra River and Russia's Moskva River, has a range of 180 miles and can carry a conventional warhead of up to 660 pounds. It can hit ground targets flying at an altitude as low as 10 meters (30 feet) and at a speed of Mach 2.8, which is about three times faster than the U.S.-made subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile.

Work is currently underway to create aircraft- and submarine-based BrahMos missiles.

The airborne version could be installed on the Sukhoi-30MKI air superiority fighters of the Indian Air Force.

Experts estimate that India might purchase up to 1,000 BrahMos missiles for its Armed Forces in the next decade, and export 2,000 to third countries during the same period.

In 2000, Russia and India signed a 10-year program on military-technical cooperation, which currently lists about 130 R&D and production projects, including the joint development of a fifth-generation multirole fighter.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20071206/91245076.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 7, 2007, 9:11am

$1B In Military Equipment Missing In Iraq

Exclusive: Report Shows Vehicles, Machine Guns And More Meant For Iraqi Forces Unaccounted For

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2007



Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit. Auditors for the Inspector General reviewed equipment contracts totaling $643 million but could only find an audit trail for $83 million.

The report details a massive failure in government procurement revealing little accountability for the billions of dollars spent purchasing military hardware for the Iraqi security forces. For example, according to the report, the military could not account for 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons, including pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns.

The report comes on the same day that Army procurement officials will face tough questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding their procurement policies. One official, Claude Bolton, assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics and technology has already announced his resignation on the heels of sharp criticism of army contracting. Bolton’s resignation is effective Jan. 2, 2008. The Army has significantly expanded its fraud investigations in recent months.

Inspector General Report (1.95 mb):
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/IG_Report_Security_Forces_Fund.pdf


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/06/iraq/main3584247.shtml

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 9, 2007, 1:10am

Artificial Jellyfish, Explosives Sensor Among Projects Being Developed At Undersea Technology Center

ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2007) — Artificial jellyfish, explosives sensors and seabed batteries are among the diverse research projects under way just nine months after the creation of a Center of Excellence in Undersea Technology in collaboration with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Rhode Island.

When researchers at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport began to investigate how to create a covert network of widely-distributed underwater sensors, they imagined attaching the sensors to artificial jellyfish that could maintain their place in the water while passing information from one sensor to the next.

So the scientists turned to the Center of Excellence in Undersea Technology at the University of Rhode Island, which was established last January in partnership with NUWC to collaborate on a wide range of innovative research and education initiatives. The Center linked NUWC with two URI oceanographers and a Providence College expert in jellyfish locomotion to explore this novel idea.

“To maximize the utility of these sensor systems and deploy a large number

of them, it’s important to put them on an inexpensive platform. That’s where the jellyfish idea came from,” explained Malcolm Spaulding, director of the Center and a URI professor of ocean engineering. “An artificial jellyfish would need to be made of simple materials and be acoustically transparent. The key is understanding how jellyfish move and whether they can stay in one place despite tidal currents and waves.”

While still in its early stages, this project is a unique example of the diverse initiatives under way just nine months after the Center of Excellence was established.

“Rhode Island and the rest of southern New England has a wealth of marine and defense companies and an abundance of oceanography and ocean engineering researchers to call upon for assistance on almost any underwater project that could be imagined,” Spaulding said. “We’re one of the hubs of undersea technology research in the country.”

Among the other projects in progress are:

* a chemical sensor that can detect minute quantities of explosives in the water (a mine on the hull of a ship or a diver carrying a bomb, for instance);
* a battery that uses the chemical reactions from bacteria living in the seabed to generate small amounts of electricity to power offshore sensors or other devices;
* an emergency radio beacon powered by a seawater battery that harvests the motion energy of waves to extend the life of the signal; and
* a non-toxic method of preventing organisms from fouling underwater equipment and vehicles.

One of the Center’s initial projects, led by the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (RIEDC) and involving a number of Rhode Island-based businesses, was the first phase of the development of a prototype of an undersea perimeter defense system that will detect, classify and respond to undersea threats against critical infrastructure like ports and military facilities on shore.

In addition, testing began this fall in Narragansett Bay on an integrated system of undersea sensors and data management tools that are being linked to oceanographic measurement devices and underwater vehicles in a high-tech project called the Ocean Response Coastal Analysis System. Initial demonstrations of the project, led by URI Marine Research Scientist Al Hanson, have shown the capability to monitor dissolved oxygen levels using remotely controlled sensors deployed on bottom-mounted vertical profilers and autonomous underwater vehicles. When completed in five years, it will provide real-time data, analysis and visualizations of a wide range of coastal conditions and observations. Further testing is planned for the spring.

“Few of these projects would have advanced as quickly as they have without the support of the Center of Excellence to coordinate funding, formation of research teams, and associated administrative details,” said Spaulding. “The Center has become a vital vehicle for fostering collaboration between academic institutions, industry and the Navy.”

Funding for these projects comes mostly from NUWC, with additional support from URI, RIEDC, the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071208145842.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Dec 9, 2007, 2:24pm

December 9, 2007
Army's vision of combat in the future is technologically close at hand
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/09/armys_vision_of_combat_in_the_future_is_technologically_clo se_at_hand/

EL PASO - A $200 billion plan to remake the largest war machine in history unfolds in one small way on a quiet country road in the Chihuahuan Desert.

Jack Hensley, one of a legion of contractors on the project, is hunkered in a slowly moving sport utility vehicle, serving as target practice for a baby-faced soldier in a Humvee aiming a laser about 700 yards away.

A moment later, another soldier in the Humvee punches commands into a computer transmitting data across an expanse of sand and mesquite to a site 2 1/2 miles away. On an actual battlefield, this is when a precision attack missile would be launched, killing Hensley almost instantly.

For soldiers in an experimental Army brigade at the sprawling Fort Bliss base, it's the first day of field training on a new weapon called the Non-Line of Sight Launch System, or NLOS-LS, a box of rockets that can automatically change direction in midair and hit a moving target about 24 miles away. The Army says it has never had a weapon like it.

"It's not the Spartans with the swords anymore," says Emmett Schaill, the brigade commander, peering into the desert-scape.

In the Army's vision, the war of the future is increasingly combat by mouse clicks. It's as networked as the Internet, as mobile as a cellphone, as intuitive as a video game. The Army has a name for this vision: Future Combat Systems, or FCS. The project involves creating a family of 14 weapons, drones, robots, sensors, and hybrid-electric combat vehicles connected by a wireless network. It has turned into the most ambitious modernization of the Army since World War II and the most expensive Army weapons program ever, military officials say.

It is also one of the most controversial. Even as some early versions of these weapons make their way onto the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, members of Congress, government investigators, and military observers question whether the Defense Department has set the stage for one of its biggest and costliest failures. At risk, they say, are billions of taxpayer dollars spent on exotic technology that may never come to fruition, leaving the Army little time and few resources to prepare for new threats..... (continued)

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 15, 2007, 6:31am

'Harmless' Area Denial Weapons Facts...And Burns
By Ted Twietmeyer
12-12-7

Here are some facts about the active denial weapon, and what the DoD has called a "mishap" when a serviceman was injured. From the known information, we can clearly see this weapon is far more harmful than we are being told. The energy required to power this weapon is enormous, and may indicate that the military is using (or plans to use) zero point energy to power it.

* The weapon does not generate a small amount of "harmless" microwave power. It generates 100 THOUSAND WATTS of microwave power. This is equivalent to more than 100 microwave ovens. This is the equivalent energy of ONE THOUSAND 100 WATT light bulbs. Who would put anyone in front of such energy? And who would be stupid enough to push the button to activate it? To put this in perspective, just 100 watts of microwave power are used to send signals to television satellites 22,500 miles out in space. And even 100 watts of microwave power is considered unsafe. Satellite dishes on remote hookup trucks usually have a radiation symbol on them to warn people of the risk. One hundred watts of microwave power is more than enough energy to cause cataracts in the eyes. It is still unknown if this weapon can cause cataracts.

* A very large power source for this weapon is required. It is known that the beam can be turned on continuously for at least 4 seconds, which was used on reporters during a demonstration. To generate 100,000 watts of power requires the electrical equivalent of 134 horsepower. In fact, more power is actually required because the gyrotron that generates this power requires far more energy to power it than what is generated by it.



GYROTRON SIMILAR TO THAT USED IN THE WEAPON [6]

Though not described here, the window is made of diamond. The small yellow zig-zag line shows the path of the microwaves which are collected. An interaction takes place between the electrons from the electron gun and the super conducting magnet, creating super high frequency microwaves. Only a portion of the electrons emitted from the electron gun become microwaves. The remaining energy is lost and travels to the top end of the tube, which is called a collector.

One paper written in 2004 [1] claims gyrotron efficiencies of just 6.3%. Yet a patent claims a theoretical efficiency of 75% is possible.[2] If we assume an efficiency of perhaps 50%, this would require no less than the equivalent of 268Hp to power the weapon at 100% full power. This figure is conservative, and does not include any additional energy losses in the weapon or power to operate the aiming or control system. It has been claimed that there are plans to put this weapon on an unmanned aerial vehicle like an RPV. This would appear impractical because of the tremendous electrical power required. However, a zero point energy power generator could make this possible, and it may be exactly what they have in mind. These generators are not fiction, and are not within the scope of this report.

* A 12 page report [3] on the "mishap" (a term NASA uses when they have an "accident") has 2 pages deleted and several other pages heavily edited.

* Athough almost no details have been released on the injured serviceman, but here is what we do know:

* The injured servicemen was exposed to high power in the millimeter region, with exposure from some or all of the weapon's 100 kilowatts. It has also been divulged that he received 2nd degree burns. What percentage of his body was burned is not known.



BURN EXAMPLES (left to right)
1st degree burn, 2nd degree burn which the serviceman has, and 3rd degree burn. [4]

* Cost to treat this serviceman's injuries was not trivial at $17,748.00. This probably indicates a large burned area which may also have included his face. His burned skin will be blood-red as shown in the example above (center.) His long term prognosis is unknown. The microwaves have burned away the outer layer of the skin exposing the dermis. This can also expose nerves and create considerable long-term pain and possible scarring.

* Testicles reside outside of the body for a specific reason. Sperm does not survive long at temperatures inside the body. Sperm survives inside a female long enough to achieve conception, but not much longer because of internal body temperatures. Exposure to heat and microwave energy could very well sterilize the serviceman, and also anyone who is exposed to the beam. It's unlikely any of this will ever be divulged, as it will be unpopular with public opinion of this "non-lethal weapon." This may also be in a portion of the text deleted from the publicized version of the DoD report.

* When this weapon was first announced, it was stated by the DoD that it is harmless and only penetrates a fraction of an inch into the skin. To damage the testicles or alter DNA permanently, a brief exposure to high power microwave energy could be more than enough. Skin on the scrotum is some of the thinnest skin on the human body. Did the DoD knowingly or unknowingly sterilize participlant or damage their DNA during that demonstration? This is also unknown. In that video of the demonstation no women were present. [5] Why? Perhaps this weapon IS harmful to females, and this is why they were not part of the demonstration.

This report is based on a mishap report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act [3] as well as other public information.

Ted Twietmeyer
www.data4science.net
tedtw@frontiernet.net


REFERENCES

[1] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/ iel5/9315/29616/01345957.pdf

[2] http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4370621.html

[3] http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/files/Scan0519-2.pdf

[4] http://bioe.eng.utoledo.edu/adms_staffs/akkus/4740_2004_WEB/www/ Uses.htm&h=232&w=450&sz=13&tbnid=OVohN-6TEnfliM:&tbnh=65&tbnw=127&prev =/images%3Fq%3D2nd%2Bdegree%2Bburn%2Bphoto%26um% 3D1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&c

[5] http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/seven-months-af.html

[6] http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/img/honbun/ 3-14.jpg

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 15, 2007, 6:39am

New Document Reveals Military Mystery's Powers
By David Hambling December 10, 2007 | 1:35:00 PM



For years, no military program has sparked more fevered speculation from conspiracy theorists than the mysterious High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP. And for years, the Pentagon has been pooh-poohing speculation that the enormous collection of transmitters, radars, and magnetometers in Alaska was some sort of superweapon.

But, it turns out, the conspiracy theorists may not have been entirely off-base, after all.

Since its inception, there's been a huge range of opinion on what HAARP actually does: everything from a giant mind control facility to a space nuke countermeasure to a weather controller to an ionosphere-boiling mad science experiment to the mother of all pork projects has been suggested. But now that the program is actually up an running, military managers say the electronics array has much more benign use. "HAARP's main job is to produce radio waves to probe the ionosphere," an Air Force Research Laboratory officer said in October.

Which is true -- up to a point.

A drive by Clifford Stone on the X-Files-esque uber-site Above Top Secret to use the Freedom of Information Act to turn up UFO-related documents has led to the release of a fascinating report, HAARP: Research and Applications: http://foia.abovetopsecret.com/ultimate_....pplications.pdf It's from the Air Force Research Laboratory and Office of Naval Research, and it lays out the uses the military see for HAARP. Turns out the Pentagon wants some military bang for their buck from the program.

HAARP can actually perform a lot of militarily important functions, all involving the interactions of radio waves with the high atmosphere, magnetosphere and ionosphere.

The document points out that "on the higher frequency end (VHF/UHF) transionospheric propagation is a ubiquitous element of numerous civilian and military communication systems, surveillance and remote sensing systems." In other words, messing with the ionosphere means you can shut down VHF radio, TV and radar signals at will. As radio hams know, the reflection and refraction effects of the ionosphere make a huge difference to long-range radio reception, and HAARP provides the only means of influencing that.

Another interesting feature is how HAARP can influence the 'auroral electrodynamic circuit', a natural flow of electricity with ranges from 100,000 to 1 million megawatts ("equivalent to 10 to 100 large power plants"). Messing with the electrical properties of the ionosphere means some of this tremendous flow of power can be changed at the flick of a switch. In effect, the natural flow can be modulated to create a gigantic low-frequency radio transmitter.

Which is extremely interesting to military types. Extremely low frequency, or ELF, waves can be used for submarine communications and for probing the planet; because of the way they propagate, HAARP can cover "a significant fraction of the Earth." The document says that the waves can be used for "seabed exploration" and even locating mines underwater, not to mention "underground target detection."

HAARP can also "induce precipitation of energetic particles" in the ionosphere, which "could impact the operation and lifespan of satellites." While this is mainly about protecting satellites from particles from solar flares or nuclear explosions, the phrasing suggests that it might be able to have a subtle negative impact on satellites as well.

At the High Frequency range, HAARP also has some useful tricks, including being able to "enhance ground-to-ground and satellite-to-ground links that would otherwise be marginal or absent." Its ability to create a radio-reflective layer means it can create new over-the-horizon capabilities for radio and radar systems. It can even act as a HF radar emitter itself.

The third band is optical and near-optical: HAARP can make lights in the sky. While we have looked at the effect of creating high-altitude plasmas before (as possible anti-missile defence), the document notes that it can also produce "airglow with megawatt power…in the IR [infrared] region of the spectrum." This has "significant military implications for IR detection and countermeasures." The picture with this shows the IR glow below a satellite, suggesting that the system may be able to blank out the view of IR satellites selectively. Given that such satellites are the best way of detecting the launch of ICBMs, this is a significant capability.

All in all, it's a set-up that can do a lot more than just basic research. And while this may not seem much compared to weather modification, remember that these are just the capabilities they're willing to make public...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/secret-document.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 15, 2007, 6:41am

Pain Ray: Don't Hold Your Breath
By Noah Shachtman December 10, 2007 | 2:40:32 PM



The head of the Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate continues to insist that his pain ray is going to be shipped out to Iraq, soon. But he still hasn't been able to clear the biggest hurdles to sending the "Active Denial System" to war: the Defense Department bureaucracy, and a squeamish public.

At a conference the other day, Inside Defense notes, Col. Kirk Hymes said that he "would anticipate within the first half of 2008, we may see this [Active Denial] system deployed to Iraq.”

But, he added, that the skin-heating weapon “still hasn’t been accepted by the government yet. Raytheon [the manufacturer] is still finishing up the final tweaking, if you will, to get it to where the government will accept it.”

Once that has been done, the government will conduct a capabilities and limitations assessment and then make a decision “once we verify that the environment is still such that it’s needed in Iraq,” Hymes said.

In other words, don't hold your breath.

Troops in Iraq have asked for the pain ray, over and over again. It's still stateside -- in large part, because of a (completely understandable) fear that Active Denial would be seen as a tool for torture. As the AP noted in August, "The main reason the tool has been missing in action is public perception. With memories of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal still fresh, the Pentagon is reluctant to give troops a space-age device that could be misconstrued as a torture machine."

And what's true for soldiers goes double for cops. Which is why the idea that the Pima County or the L.A. Sheriff's Department is about to start using the pain ray -- as this article suggests -- just doesn't fly. Sure, the system has a high-profile advocate in L.A.'s Commander Sid Heal, who has called the weapon the "Holy Grail of crowd control."

UPDATE: David Hambling says, "As it happens, US cops can use it, and very probably will. An article coming up in Wired News soon will explain why... Also, I have a piece on why it's not as safe as they say, coming up in the Guardian newspaper this Thursday."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/active-denial-a.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 15, 2007, 11:10pm

RAND: Russians Top U.S. in Paranormal Research (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman December 13, 2007 | 3:31:00 AM

Watch out, America: those damn Ruskies are kicking our butts in figuring out how to use the paranormal to win the Cold War.

That was the conclusion, at least, of a 1973 RAND Corporation study, put together "in response to request by the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency." RAND reviewed all of the day's American and Soviet scientific literature into everything from telekinesis to yoga, and concluded:

(1) Soviet research is much more oriented toward biological and physical investigation of paranormal phenomena than is U.S. research, which is dominated by psychologists;

(2) although visible U.S. and Soviet level of effort appear roughly equal, over forty years of research in the United States have failed to significantly advance our understanding of paranormal phenomena;

(3) if paranormal phenomena exist, the thrust of Soviet research papers appears more likely to lead to explanation, control and application than is U.S. research;

So, c'mon eggheads! Get to it! We can't let the Reds open up a psychic gap!

After the jump: Some diagrams of where Soviet and American paranormal research went down, during the Cold War.





UPDATE: The CIA was peering deep into Soviet paranormal research, too. AT passes on this awesome 1972 report: http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/SovParapsych.pdf

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/rand-russians-t.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 15, 2007, 11:30pm

US gov silent robot white (?) helicopter prangs itself

Groundbreaking technology

By Lewis Page → More by this author
Published Wednesday 12th December 2007 13:56 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/12/....ck_crash_a160t/

A revolutionary* new robotic whisper-mode helicopter under development in America has crashed, according to reports.
The A160T robot whisper-copter

The US government's silent robot helicopter.

Not black! What were they thinking?

The A160T "Hummingbird" unmanned chopper was under development by US aerospace colossus Boeing for the Pentagon deathboffin bureau, DARPA (the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) and the Special Operations Command. Likely end-users would include top-secret American special-forces units operating undercover.

The design features a new variable-speed rotor configuration which Boeing believes will offer improved range, speed, height and the ability to "operate much more quietly than current helicopters".

Given this background, Boeing's choice of colour scheme seems at odds with popular culture to say the least. White is the new black when it comes to silent government helicopters, seemingly.

However, it appears that the you-didn't-see-us crowd may have to wait a while for their new ride. Flight International reports that the sole flying A160T prototype was destroyed in a crash on Monday during trials in California. The cause of the wreck is unknown thus far. Apparently this was the turbine-powered T model's tenth flight, though there was an earlier test programme involving basic piston-engined A160s. (That version suffered three crashes in 36 sorties.)

Flights of the (literally - cough) groundbreaking new helicopter will be suspended while an investigation takes place. There is apparently one further A160T in existence, but it is only being used for ground testing at present.

The Flight report is here:

Boeing A160T Hummingbird UAV crashes
By Graham Warwick

Boeing has suspended flights of its A160 Hummingbird after the 10 December crash of the long-endurance unmanned helicopter at Victorville in California. The cause of the crash is not known.

The turbine-powered A160T, vehicle A008, was flying at 5,000ft (1,500m) above mean sea level - about 2,300ft above the ground - before it crashed and was destroyed, the company says.

A Boeing-led accident investigation team is being formed and flight operations have been suspended until the cause of the crash has been determined. The vehicle was one of three A160s on flight status at Victorville, says Boeing.



The A160T made its first flight in June and had completed nine flights. It is the first crash of the turbine-powered Hummingbird, but the earlier gasoline-engined A160 has crashed three times in 36 flights since January 2002.

Development work on the unmanned helicopter has been funded by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Special Operations Command.

Boeing says it has a second A160T at its facility in Irvine, California facility that is configured for flight, but is being used as a ground test vehicle. The A160T is powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW207 turboshaft.

The Hummingbird is equipped with an optimum-speed rotor that can be slowed by up to 50% to extend endurance. The rigid rotor system and lightweight, low-drag airframe are also designed to enable ranges up to 2,500nm (4,600km) and ceilings up to 20,000ft.

Boeing is aiming to demonstrate at least 18h endurance with the A160T and says the UAV is designed to exceed 24h with a 135kg (300lb) payload. The unmanned helicopter completed a 12h flight in October.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/200....av-crashes.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 15, 2007, 11:34pm

U.S. Police Get Weapons That Shoot Around Corners
By Sharon Weinberger December 14, 2007 | 2:20:52 PM

It looks like police in Ohio will be the first U.S. law enforcement officials to get the Israeli Corner Shot weapon, which can shoot around corners:



Using a video monitor to see that target, the officer can fire a round at a 90-degree angle while staying protected behind cover.

"Expose a weapon, expose a lethal threat, without exposing any part of your body," said Capt. Mike Shearer. "So it's looks like a very nice weapon."

Shearer was the first officer to fire the system during a familiarization exercise last week with the SWAT team. Shooting around a barricade, Shearer easily positioned the weapon so that he could engage multiple targets via a small television monitor instead of having to stick his head out around the corner.

"On the screen, there's a nice crosshair," Shearer said. "So you do have a nice clear picture, a nice crosshair to look through. This weapons platform is going to be a very, very useful tool for the Akron Police Department."

Apparently, Corner Shot execs provided the gun to police in Akron because they're thinking of opening up a distribution center in Ohio. Normally, I wouldn't think Akron would be first in line to buy the weapon, which is meant for SWAT teams/counter-terrorism missions.

Here's a video that demonstrates Corner shot in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQeu9J43jXU

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/us-police-get-g.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 15, 2007, 11:50pm

Iranian scientists develop country's most powerful supercomputer

By Antone Gonsalves
11 December 2007 11:22AM

Iranian scientists claim to have used 216 microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices to build the country's most powerful supercomputer, despite a ban on the export of U.S. computer equipment to the Middle Eastern nation..

Scientists at the Iranian High Performance Computing Research Center at the country's Amirkabir University of Technology said they used a Linux-cluster architecture in building the system of Opteron processors. The supercomputer has a theoretical peak performance of 860 giga-flops, the posting said. A giga-flop is a billion calculations per second.

The disclosure, made in an undated posting on Amirkabir's Web site, brought an immediate response Monday from AMD, which said it has never authorized shipments of products either directly or indirectly to Iran or any other embargoed country.

"AMD fully complies with all United States export control laws, and all authorized distributors of AMD products have contractually committed to AMD that they will do the same with respect to their sales and shipments of AMD products," the company said. "Any shipment of AMD products to Iran by any authorized distributor of AMD would be a breach of the specific provisions of their contracts with AMD."

Enforcement of export bans is handled through the Office of Foreign Asset Control, which is part of the U.S. Treasury Department. Officials were unavailable for comment.

The Iranian system will be used for weather forecasting and meteorological research. Iranian scientists developed software for systems management and monitoring, but use a medium scale computer model called MM5 for creating atmospheric simulations and weather forecasts. MM5 is freely available and supported by a division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the U.S. Other software includes the Advanced Regional Prediction System that was initially developed at the University of Oklahoma, under a program of the National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center.

Besides weather forecasting, supercomputers are used in the oil and gas industry, drug making, computer assisted design and the aerodynamics industry, as well as in scientific research. The Iranian research center built the country's first supercomputer in 2001. Another supercomputer was built in 2003 for processing satellite images for the Iranian Space Agency.

The Iranian supercomputer falls far behind the world's fastest computers. In November, the BlueGene/L System, jointly developed by IBM and the U.S. Department of Energy was ranked No. 1 in the world with a benchmark performance of 478.2 teraflops. A teraflop equals a trillion calculations per second.

http://www.itnews.com.au/Tools/Print.aspx?CIID=99158

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 20, 2007, 9:51am

Robo-Planes Log 250,000 Flight Hours This Year
By Noah Shachtman December 17, 2007 | 12:29:00 PM



How important are drone's to today's armed forces? In 2002, the U.S. military's unmanned air force flew a total of 30,000 hours. Last year, that total rose to 160,000. In 2007, the number of robotic flight hours should peak at over 250,000 -- an increase of more than 50% in just a year, according to a recent Defense Department presentation.

Remarkably, that figure doesn't include the small, hand-launched drones which account for more than 80% of the military's robo-plane fleet. Instead, it's the bigger unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs -- Global Hawks, Predators, and the like -- that are flying all those hours.

And with more use comes more money. Spending on UAVs has gone from $400 million in 2002 to more than $2 billion next year to an expected $3.5 billion by fiscal year 2010.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/uav-conference.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 20, 2007, 9:54am

Russian military to adopt Topol-M MIRV missile soon
14:16 | 19/ 12/ 2007



MOSCOW, December 19 (RIA Novosti) - A new multiple-warhead missile system armed with Topol-M multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) will go into service in Russia's Armed Forces soon, a first deputy prime minister said.

Sergei Ivanov said the Topol-M missile complex currently exists in two modifications - mobile and fixed-site.

"I very much hope that it will appear in its MIRV modification in the very near future," he said.

Russia will operate 48 fixed-site Topol-M (NATO reporting name SS-27) ballistic missiles by the start of 2008, a Strategic Missile Forces spokesman said on Monday.

The missile forces said previously that the system will be equipped with MIRV in the next two or three years, and that the new system will help penetrate missile defenses more effectively.

As of December 2006, Russia's SMF operated 44 silo-based and three mobile Topol-M missile systems.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071219/93134926.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 21, 2007, 10:48am

Death Ray Replaced By The Voice of God

December 17, 2007: While U.S. efforts to deploy it's microwave Active Denial System (which transmits a searchlight sized bean of energy when makes people downrange feel like their skin is on fire) continue to be delayed, another non-lethal system, LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) has been quietly deployed to Iraq. And there the story gets a little strange.

LRAD is basically a focused beam of sound. Originally, it was designed to emit a very loud sound. Anyone whose head was touched by this beam, heard a painfully loud sound. Anyone standing next to them heard nothing. But those hit by the beam promptly fled, or fell to the ground in pain. Permanent hearing loss is possible if the beam is kept on a person for several seconds, but given the effect the sound usually has on people (they move, quickly), it is unlikely to happen. LRAD works. It was recently used off Somalia, by a cruise ship, to repel pirates. Some U.S. Navy ships also carry it, but not just to repel attacking suicide bombers, or whatever. No, the system was sold to the navy for a much gentler application. LRAD can also broadcast speech for up to 300 meters. The navy planned to use LRAD to warn ships to get out of the way. This was needed in places like the crowded coastal waters of the northern Persian Gulf, where the navy patrols. Many small fishing and cargo boats ply these waters, and it's often hard to get the attention of the crews. With LRAD, you just aim it at a member of the crew, and have an interpreter "speak" to the sailor. It was noted that the guy on the receiving end was sometimes terrified, even after he realized it was that large American destroyer that was talking to him. This apparently gave the army guys some ideas, for there are now rumors in Iraq of a devilish American weapon that makes people believe they are hearing voices in their heads.

This made more sense when an American advertising firm recently used an LRAD unit to support a media campaign for a new TV show. LRAD was pointed at a sidewalk in Manhattan, below the billboard featuring the new show. LRAD broadcast a female voice providing teaser lines from the show. The effect was startling, and a bit scary for many who passed through the LRAD beam. It appears that some of the troops in Iraq are using "spoken" (as opposed to "screeching") LRAD to mess with enemy fighters. Islamic terrorists tend to be superstitious and, of course, very religious. LRAD can put the "word of God" into their heads. If God, in the form of a voice that only you can hear, tells you to surrender, or run away, what are you gonna do?

Meanwhile, the microwave powered ADS, a non-lethal weapon that looks like a radar dish, languishes in politically correct limbo. The ADS "radar dish" projects a "burn ray" that is about four feet in diameter. It is effective in fog, smoke and rain. When pointed at people and turned on, it creates a burning sensation on the skin of its victims, causing them to want to leave the area, or at least greatly distracts them. The microwave weapon has a range of about 500 meters. ADS is carried on a hummer or Stryker, along with a machine-gun and other non-lethal weapons (like LRAD). The proposed ROE (Rules of Engagement) for ADS were that anyone who kept coming after getting hit with microwave was assumed to have evil intent, and could be killed. The microwave is believed to be particularly useful for terrorists who hide in crowds of women and children, using the human shields to get close enough to make an attack. This has been encountered in Somalia and Iraq.

Deployment of ADS has been delayed for years because of concerns about how non-lethal it really is. ADS has been fired, in tests, over 2,500 times. Many of these firings were against human volunteers, and the device performed as predicted, without any permanent damage. But generations of exposure to lurid science fiction descriptions of "death rays" has made the defense bureaucrats anxious over the negative public relations potential if something like ADS was actually used. From a publicity perspective, using more lethal "non-lethal-weapons" is preferable to deploying something safer, but that could be described, however incorrectly, as a "death ray." In any event, it appears that the cheaper, smaller (about 45 pounds), gentler and more flexible LRAD has taken ADS's place in the American arsenal. At least for now.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20071217.aspx

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 22, 2007, 6:48am

Explosives On A Chip: Unique Structure Enables New Generation Of Military Micro-detonators


Copper structure shown here is a precursor material for explosive compounds used in military detonators. The copper structure can be formed on chips, then converted to an explosive compound. The compound is being used to improve US Navy detonator devices. (Credit: Gary Meek)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 23, 2007) — Tiny copper structures with pores at both the nanometer and micron size scales could play a key role in the next generation of detonators used to improve the reliability, reduce the size and lower the cost of certain military munitions.

Developed by a team of scientists from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, the highly-uniform copper structures will be incorporated into integrated circuits -- then chemically converted to millimeter-diameter explosives. Because they can be integrated into standard microelectronics fabrication processes, the copper materials will enable micro-electromechanical (MEMS) fuzes for military munitions to be mass-produced like computer chips.

"An ability to tailor the porosity and structural integrity of the explosive precursor material is a combination we've never had before," said Jason Nadler, a GTRI research engineer. "We can start with the Navy's requirements for the material and design structures that are able to meet those requirements. We can have an integrated design tool able to develop a whole range of explosive precursors on different size scales."

Nadler uses a variety of templates, including microspheres and woven fabrics, to create regular patterns in copper oxide paste whose viscosity is controlled by the addition of polymers. He then thermochemically removes the template and converts the resulting copper oxide structures to pure metal, retaining the patterns imparted by the template. The size of the pores can be controlled by using different templates and by varying the processing conditions.

So far, he's made copper structures with channel sizes as small as a few microns -- with structural components that have nanoscale pores.

Based on feedback from the Navy scientists, Nadler can tweak the structures to help optimize the overall device -- known as a fuze -- which controls when and where a munition will explode.

"We are now able to link structural characteristics to performance," Nadler noted. "We can produce a technically advanced material that can be tailored to the thermodynamics and kinetics that are needed using modeling techniques."

Beyond the fabrication techniques, Nadler developed characterization and modeling techniques to help understand and control the fabrication process for the unique copper structures, which may also have commercial applications.

The copper precursor developed in GTRI is a significant improvement over the copper foam material that Indian Head had previously been evaluating. Produced with a sintered powder process, the foam was fragile and non-uniform, meaning Navy scientists couldn't precisely predict reliability or how much explosive would be created in each micro-detonator.

"GTRI has been able to provide us with material that has well-controlled and well-known characteristics," said Michael Beggans, a scientist in the Energetics Technology Department of the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. "Having this material allows us to determine the amount of explosive that can be formed in the MEMS fuze. The size of that charge also determines the size and operation of the other components."

The research will lead to a detonator with enhanced capabilities. "The long-term goal of the MEMS Fuze program is to produce a low-cost, highly-reliable detonator with built-in safe and arm capabilities in an extremely small package that would allow the smallest weapons in the Navy to be as safe and reliable as the largest," Beggans explained.

Reducing the size of the fuze is part of a long-term strategy toward smarter weapons intended to reduce the risk of collateral damage. That will be possible, in part, because hundreds of fuzes, each about a centimeter square, can be fabricated simultaneously using techniques developed by the microelectronics industry.

"Today, everything is becoming smaller, consuming less power and offering more functionality," Beggans added. "When you hear that a weapon is 'smart,' it's really all about the fuze. The fuze is 'smart' in that it knows the exact environment that the weapon needs to be in, and detonates it at the right time. The MEMS fuze would provide 'smart' functionality in medium-caliber and sub-munitions, improving results and reducing collateral damage."

Development and implementation of the new fuze will also have environmental and safety benefits.

"Practical implementation of this technology will enable the military to reduce the quantity of sensitive primary explosives in each weapon by at least two orders of magnitude," said Gerald R. Laib, senior explosives applications scientist at Indian Head and inventor of the MEMS Fuze concept. "This development will also vastly reduce the use of toxic heavy metals and waste products, and increase the safety of weapon production by removing the need for handling bulk quantities of sensitive primary explosives."

The next step will be for Indian Head to integrate all the components of the fuze into the smallest possible package -- and then begin producing the device in large quantities.

A specialist in metallic and ceramic cellular materials, Nadler said the challenge of the project was creating structures porous enough to be chemically converted in a consistent way -- while retaining sufficient mechanical strength to withstand processing and remain stable in finished devices.

"The ability to design things on multiple size scales at the same time is very important," he added. "Designing materials on the nano-scale, micron-scale and even the millimeter-scale simultaneously as a system is very powerful and challenging. When these different length scales are available, a whole new world of capabilities opens up."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071218105422.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 22, 2007, 12:48pm

Unmanned AEW 'Not So Far Away'
Aviation Week's DTI | Bill Sweetman | December 15, 2007
This article first appeared in Aviation Week's Ares weblog.



After a swift and (for competitors) apparently trouble-free development, IAI-Elta expects the Coformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) to reach formal initial operational capability (IOC) with the Israeli Air Force in the first quarter of 2008. In fact, the Gulfstream G550-based system is already flying missions with IAF crews, as the service conducts training and familiarization flights; crews have been training on the simulator in parallel with flight tests, which started in Israel last fall.

But the crews may not be flying for much longer. CAEW is already designed so that it does not need radar operators on board the aircraft. With a wideband datalink, it's intended to feed information to a ground station, and ultimately will be part of a tight network that also includes signals intelligence, maritime patrol and ground-surveillance G550s.

The final step is to take the flight crew off the aircraft, according to Avishai Itzhakian, general manager for IAI-Elta's AEW division. Speaking at IQPC Defence's AEW conference in London last week, Itzhakian outlined the project's goal -- to provide continuous air, land, sea and electronic surveillance with a constellation of UAVs.

It got interesting when someone asked when that might happen. "It's not so far away," he said, and pointed out that a Northrop Grumman speaker, talking about the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program, had just referred to Boeing's proposal based on an optionally piloted G550. "You can figure this out for yourself," he said.

If anyone knows how to "unman" a G550 quickly and with reasonable risk, it's IAI; and IAI is closely linked to Gulfstream, which bought IAI's bizjet line in 2001 and now contracts with IAI to build the aircraft. Gulfstream also designed the aerodynamic and structural modifications for the CAEW and conducted the non-avionics flight testing.

And if the unmanned G550 is further along than we think, as Itzhakian implied, it would explain Boeing's confidence in its BAMS proposal -- which otherwise is an all-new UAV competing with two in-service designs.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158316,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 22, 2007, 12:52pm

Israel Wants JSF as Soon as Possible
Aviation Week's DTI | David A. Fulghum, Robert Wall and Douglas Barrie | December 18, 2007
This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.



Israel plans to keep its aerial domination of the Middle East intact, and that includes buying Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, accelerating its first deliveries, and deciding whose advanced equipment will be packed into the stealthy strike aircraft.

A senior Israeli air force (IAF) official says those major areas of concern appear to be on the right track because of an "understanding" with the U.S. officials. Washington's representatives are more ambiguous, saying that there has been no official change to Israel's F-35 program.

"The plan is that we will get the F-35 as soon as it's possible," the senior IAF official says. He says the service will end up with more than 100 F-35s, but he would not confirm the size of the purchase or that Israel is asking that the initial delivery date be accelerated by two years to 2012. The IAF wants the JSF "the minute it is available."

"Israel has a unique requirement, it doesn't operate in a coalition, [and it has a] different kind of strategic relationship" with the U.S. than the other F-35 partners," says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin's vice president and general manager for the F-35. However, he says the overseas release of the first export aircraft will be no sooner than 2014.

The purchase, which could include an initial batch of 25 aircraft, is still being negotiated. Brig. Gen. Johanan Locker, head of the IAF's air division, was in Fort Worth as recently as late November.

Israel's ambitions to integrate indigenous weaponry also pose some problems for the program. The weapons road map for the Blocks 1-3 F-35 standards has already been drawn up with no Israeli weaponry on the list. Partner nations are currently working on a list for Block 4, but there's pressure to cut weapons from the process rather than add them. Israel undoubtedly will want its F‑35s to carry the Rafael Python 5 air-to-air missile and possibly its successor, as well as the Rafael Spice family of precision-guided weapons.

Moreover, an influential retired IAF general says total sales will be limited by the JSF's disadvantages. He points to its overdependence on stealth, a single crewman and what could be proprietary U.S. avionics.

"Eventually somebody will come up with a way to detect it," he says. "A stealthy configuration also means you can't carry additional weaponry on the exterior. The weapons system is more important than stealth. Israel will have F-35s, but not as many as we once thought."

Smaller numbers won't detract from the aircraft's deterrence value, he concedes. Even a small fleet will ensure a first-day-of-war, surprise-strike capability. But once daily combat operations escalate, nonstealthy aircraft aided by standoff weapons, escort jammers and information operations will sustain air operations.

Nonetheless, he worries that the JSF will start showing its limitations within five years. Among the drawbacks will be its one-person crew. As a result, "we can't operate the F-35 by itself," the retired general says. "We really need two-seaters, with one person concentrating on flying and someone else focused on the strike mission. One man can't take advantage of all the options," particularly since JSF capabilities will include jamming, information warfare and network attack.

Inevitably, the avionics will present an area of contention. For example, Israeli aerospace officials say they can offer a tailored, active, electronically scanned array radar for less money than an AESA bought from the U.S. However, many of the electronic warfare and attack techniques are routed through the radar to produce jamming, false-target and other effects at ranges of 125 mi. or more. As a result, integration could be difficult and expensive.

Elta, the electronics division of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), has a version of the AESA, according to the retired general. "We need our own radar that we don't share with others. We also need our own advanced radar warning and active jamming." The Israeli AESA was flown last year; but for now it remains a generic system, not tailored to any specific aircraft—although it's sized for an F-16, an Elta official says. Flight trials are continuing.

Meanwhile, current IAF leadership appears less concerned about the international trade issue.

"The number of aircraft [we obtain initially] could be irrelevant," a senior general says. "The main issue now is that we get the first squadron as soon as possible. We give the basic capability to the squadron, and later on we increase it [with technology upgrades]."

The idea is to get just enough aircraft to develop a concept of operations and to lay out a technology development road map to tailor the JSF's systems—particularly EW and attack capabilities—to Israeli-specific needs.

"At the beginning, we expect to get at least one squadron, with more to follow by the end of the decade [in 2020]," he says. "This is the first time there is not only an understanding [with the U.S.], but also a plan."

Another major issue is what comes with the aircraft and what is Israel allowed to develop on its own. Industry officials are struggling with the problem since the F-35 has a highly integrated sensor suite that makes it harder to replace one black box with another. A senior Lockheed Martin official says Israel will not be allowed to simply replace parts of the electronic suite.

However, an IAI executive sees a workaround. The company expects to build JSF structural elements. Once the structure is well understood, there could be opportunities for embedding unique sensors, he says. The information from these sensors could be shown in the cockpit through bolt-on displays if integration proves too difficult.

However, the air force is more concerned about threats than industrial hurdles. "We did not decide on the exact systems and processes by which we intend to [proceed]," the senior IAF officer says. "But I think there's an understanding that Israel will get the best [U.S.] aircraft, and we'll be able to put the best Israeli systems inside [to meet] the IAF's unique needs. We need to adapt them to the systems and the platform. That's what we've done with the F-15I and the F-16I, and I believe we will be able to do that with the JSF. It's very important that we get this capability on our own.

"That includes systems related to network offense and defense," he says. "Some are the same as the Americans', but we insist on some unique [capabilities] in every area. [Israel has] to have a relevant operational capability. You can't wait to get [an upgrade to meet a new threat] a year late. You need to get intelligence, capability [and] precision on your own in a very short time."

Syria, for example, is reputed to have the largest air defense capability in the region, and they are upgrading it with new investments.

"We are working to understand what our enemies are trying to do so we can tailor our power to deal with it," he says. "The main reason why we have to modify the F-35 [is to counter] the relevant systems at the relevant time. We must be able to deal with them. . . . We're also developing new systems and weapons that we can't talk about. Sometimes reality is more impressive than the imagination."

Israel also must wrestle with its weapons inventory, which often differs from that of the U.S. or other JSF buyers. Rafael officials say they are already working on alternative designs for the Spice precision air-to-surface bomb that can be integrated into the F-35. Foldout wings for the existing 2,000-lb. Spice will not fit in the JSF's internal bay. Adapting it could reduce the bomb's standoff range, but officials think that may be moot, since stealth will enable the JSF to fly closer to its targets.

Tied closely to the F-35 procurement is a decision to upgrade the F-15s and F-16s, particularly with new AESA radars that offer more range, small-target detection and broadband communications. However, the advanced radars are expensive.

"Do we intend to let the F-15s fly more years than we had planned?" the IAF official says. "It's on the table. I intend to do the same with the F-16s. We have the second largest fleet in the world. With the right investment in avionics upgrades, they can be relevant for years."

"The JSF will not replace all our needs," agrees a senior defense ministry official.

According to IAF plans, not every aircraft will have the full package of upgrades. Instead, more advanced aircraft will feed target information to the others. However, U.S. radar developers point out that AESAs won't be able to pass the same amount of information to non-AESA aircraft as they can to one that's similarly equipped.

"For the future, the idea is to work as a group," the IAF official says. "That allows you to do [advanced operations] without investing in each aircraft. If we have some of the best of the best technology, we can spread it to the other platforms, weapons and systems. You upgrade the group via the network."

Here too, the former general expressed caution. "You have to attack information more than targets," he says. "You need air superiority and information dominance. If you're not building network-centric operations the right way, the capability can be eliminated [by the foe's own network attack]."

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158469,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 23, 2007, 7:49pm

Israel funds Iron Dome rocket interceptor

The Israeli security cabinet approved $206 million Sunday for the Iron Dome missile system designed to intercept short- and medium-range rockets.

The system is expected to take about 5 years to develop, though an operational version could be deployed in Sderot, a town 1 kilometer from the Gaza Strip that is the frequent target of Hamas Qassam rockets, Haaretz reported.

Once complete, Iron Dome, which is being developed by Rafael, the national military technology authority, would detect rocket launches, then immediately send faster rockets to intercept and destroy them at high altitude.

If it works as planned, it could help open the way for Israel to hand over the West Bank, since Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said withdrawal is impossible without a way to defend against rocket attacks.

Defense ministry officials chose Iron Dome from a field of 14 proposals earlier this year.

Publication date: 24 December 2007

Source: UPI-1-20071223-18160900-bc-israel-rocketdefense.xml

Further:

Israel Embarks on a Third Ballistic Defense System

In an attempt to address continuous Palestinian rocket attacks, Israel is embarking on an ambitious development program to develop a missile system capable of intercepting short range rockets in flight, protecting population centers and sensitive installations currently subjected to repeated and deadly attacks by Katyusha or improvised Qassam or rockets. In recent years Israel suffered over 6,000 rocket attacks, most of them short range rockets fired fired by Iranian and Syrian backed Hezbollah and Palestinians terror groups.

Israel has suffered Katyusha attacks since the mid 1970s, as Palestinian guerillas, based in South Lebanon used short range 107mm rockets to bypass the border obstacle ('electronic fence") established along the Lebanese border, to prevent terrorist infiltrations.

For 30 years Israel avoided the decision and commitment to establish adequate defenses against such threats. Israel willingly left this capability gap open, despite spending tens of millions of dollars on a joint program with the US to develop laser defenses to counter rocket threats. The prevailing argument was that the risks of rocket attacks did not justify diverting the huge funding from other, higher priority programs.

The recent war in Lebanon, and the IDF failure to put a stop to the continuous attacks of improvised Qassam rockets from the Gaza strip, despite unchallenged domination from the air. Political pressure which mounted after the 2nd Lebanon war, drove the Minister of defense, Amir Perez to demand adequate answers without further delay.

A committee, headed by former Director General of the MoD, and future Chief of Staff Major General Gabi Ashkenazi, evaluated several options proposed by four companies, and today recommended to select a system proposed by RAFAEL, as offering an all-weather capable solution, at the lowest risk, within relatively a short development cycle. The development and procurement cost of the entire system is estimated at about US$ 0.5 billion, spent over three to five years.

On February 1, 2007 the Israeli Ministry of Defense (MoD) selected RAFAEL to develop the system that could mitigate the rocket threat. Called "Iron Cap" the system will address the threat of short range rockets, including Qassam improvised rockets and Katyushas fired by Palestinian and Hezbollah guerillas from Gaza and South Lebanon. The mobile Iron Cap system will most probably will consist of mobile radar systems, battle management center and missile firing units employing a version of a yet unspecified number of missiles, to be modified into rocket interceptor. The system will utilize a new radar developed at IAI's Elta, capable of tracking multiple targets and discriminate between benign threats and those threatening the protected targets.

The system should have a sophisticated battle management capability, track multiple targets from rocket salvos, plotting the trajectories of each rocket, identifying those which pose a most critical threat and engaging them effectively, over neutral area, therefore reducing collateral damage on the ground. The system's radar and battle management elements will integrate two types of interceptors - one designed to defeat ultra-short-range rockets flying at low rajectories and another, designed to intercept long medium and range rockets, developed for the"Magic Wand" system.

RAFAEL has already embarked on another missile defense program known as Magic Wand, which will use the new Stunner missile. "Iron Cap" is expected to use a different, much smaller interceptor, which will cost about about $30,000 each. Although the MoD selected the system to be developed, an agreement on the funding is yet to be reached with the Ministry of Treasury and approved by Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. And this could prove to be quite a challenge. Although Israel's defense budget for 2007 was increased, most of the additional money will support procurement for replenishment of stores used during the recent conflict, acquisition of high priority systems and increased training activities. Allocating the resources for the "Iron Cap" could face a significant challenge.

Once all programs are completed, Israel will have a three-tier missile and rocket defensive systems in place. The operational Arrow system, capable of defeating ballistic missiles at high altitude, within or above the earth atmosphere, at ranges of hundred kilometers from the Israeli border. Development and production for Arrow were funded jointly by the U.S. and Israel.

"Magic Wand", currently in development under cooperation between Israel and the USA, as a joint venture between RAFAEL and Raytheon, will address short range missiles and long range rockets (ranges of 40 - 200km), such as the Iranian made Zilzal 2 and Fajr 5, deployed by Hezbollah in Lebanon. From their positions in Lebanon and Syria, such weapons can target most of the Israeli population centers and strategic sites.

"Iron Cap", selected today will offer defense against short range threats, including Qassam and Katyusha, such as the 107mm rockets, which present the most irritating and continuous threat to cities and settlements along the Israeli Northern and Western borders. Iron Cap will address threats at ranges of 'tens of kilometers', overlapping the Magic Curtain's capabilities at the lower end. The system will share the same radar and battle management system of the "Magic Wand".

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0207/news/010207_iron_cap.htm

Re Magic Wand:

Israel Plans Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRMD)

Raytheon Company and Rafael Armament Development Authority have been selected by the Israel Ministry of Defense' Defense Research and development Directorate (DDRD) to develop a new terminal missile defense interceptor to defeat a variety of low-cost, short-range ballistic missile threats. According to an IMOD announcement, The next step in the program will be a feasibility study. No decision about full scale development has been made.

The Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense program is an IMDO initiative to address the proliferating threat of short-range ballistic threats. Such missiles and rockets are cheap, plentiful, easily concealed and largely exempt from international arms control accords. These relatively insignificant battlefield weapons can be transformed into deadly, strategic threats when fitted with unconventional warheads and deployed in large quantities.

Israel and the US have agreed to jointly develop new Short Range Missile Defense (SRMD) capability. The systems will be optimized to defend against short range ballistic missiles and long range rockets
with ranges of 70 - 200 km. The new system will establish a lower tier, complementing the Israeli Arrow system, which extends the defensive capability to longer range and higher altitude. The program will be managed by the Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO), which already supervises Israel's ballistic missile defense program.

The SRMD program will be based on a interceptor, under development by RAFAEL. The IMDO selected the solution proposed by a team headed by Raytheon and RAFAEL. This team competed against another plan, proposed by Boeing, IAI/MLM and ATK which proposed an Arrow derivative missile interceptor, augmented by a lower tier RAM solution, based on a low cost rocket to be developed by IMI. "Raytheon's cooperation with Rafael ensures that Rafael's multi-mission interceptor is designed from the start for seamless insertion into U.S. terminal missile defense systems. Our approach provides the U.S. Army with a low-cost extended air defense option for the future," said Michael Booen, Raytheon vice president of Advanced Missile Defense programs commenting on the company's selection by the IMDO.

The interceptor proposed by Raytheon and RAFAEL, is specially designed for all-weather, day and night “hit to kill” intercept, and is considered to be low cost and optimized for the trajectory and short flight time of the potential SRMD and rocket targets. "Our interceptor solution fundamentally redefines the performance-cost value equation for terminal missile defense, providing all-weather, hit-to-kill performance at a tactical missile price," said David Stemer, Rafael Missile Division general manager.

IAI, RAFAEL and Northrop Grumman have teamed in the past to develop the Nautilus chemical laser based rocket and mortar defense program, which has recently been cancelled due to lack of funding and limited access to current generation (solid state laser) technology. Facing the new threat of improvised rockets fired from the Gaza strip, Israel could revive this program, which will be based on locally developed directed energy sources.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/SRMD.htm

Re Arrow System:

Israel's Strategic Defense Programs - Missile Defense System's Update



Israel's multi-layered anti-ballistic defense program known as "Choma" (Barrier wall in Hebrew), headed by Arieh Herzog, was developed to mitigate ballistic missile threats. "What made our "Arrow" system unique right from the start is its role, to protect Israel's civilian population from missile attacks. Other Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) systems were developed to protect limited targets such as deployed forces. Arrow and "Choma" are designed to protect the entire country" says Herzog.

Since 1989, some US$ 2.4 billion have been invested in the Arrow program, 50% of which donated by the US Government. The current production of missiles, in the US is also funded by both countries.

"In the past we focused on the Scud missile and its derivatives" Herzog told Defense Update, "Today we face more diversified threats - a numerical threat by Syrian medium range (Scud based) missiles, the threat of short range rockets, primarily from Lebanon and long range missiles, with future nuclear potential, from Iran."

The current Mid-East Scud derivative arsenal comprises Scud B, C and D variants, which became more accurate and sophisticated, based on North Korean missile technology, capable of attacking targets at a range of up to 700 km. These New Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MBRM) are employing solid state digital systems, for flight control, navigation, pre-launch sequencing etc. This capability enables faster response due to automated pre-launch preparations and also improving accuracy. Such missiles are more difficult to intercept and destroy, as they employ a wide range of countermeasures, among them decoys, trajectory shaping, to distract interceptors. According to Herzog, the Arrow system was designed with significant growth capability and flexibility. The baseline capabilities of the Arrow system were designed to defend against Scud type threats, including such missiles equipped with non conventional (chemical and biological) warheads.

The Iranian government is investing major effort to develop indigenous missile technologies and expanding the missile production industrial base. The mainstay of Iran's offensive potential threatening Israel, is based on the indigenously developed Shihab family of missiles, which was first flight tested in 1998. With a range of 1,300 km, Shihab 3 missiles are already capable of attacking all over Israel, including its strategic facilities. "This platform and other delivery platforms are maturing in parallel with the Iranian nuclear weapons program, with the potential to put a nuclear missile in Iranian hands in the foreseen future", says Herzog. "This imminent threat is the new challenge for the Israel's missile defense system".

In recent years, new tactical missiles and rockets designed for short range have added a numerical and qualitative edge. "A tactical weapon that threatens a third of our population and most of our strategic sites cannot be regarded as mere 'tactical', it becomes a strategic threat. There is no clear definition between a rocket and a missile. They carry almost the same payload and reach the same range and thus, should be addressed equally by defensive means" states Arieh Herzog.

Typically, such weapons have a range between 70 and 200 km, flying through short, relatively flat and low ballistic trajectories w making intercept much more challenging. Like the medium range ballistic missiles such weapons carry warheads of 100 up to 600 kg which can cause significant damage. On the other end of the scale, Israel is facing a "low tech" but equally dangerous threat from short range improvised rockets and mortars. These weapons are also employed as part of the asymmetric terror warfare, by Iranian- and Syrian-backed Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist organizations. The firing of rockets on Israeli territory, by terrorists from Palestine and Lebanon is characterized as a new type of "cross-border terrorism", which, if not countered effectively, can spread to strategic locations in the densely populated narrow coastal area. At present, there are no effective means to counter such threats, although some promising technologies are over the horizon.

"We are expecting new defensive systems to evolve in the next few years, to provide effective answers to such challenges. 2005 marked the initiation of this process, as the US congress earmarked funding for the Short Range Missile Defense (SRMD)" Herzog told Defense Update.

Responding to the challenge of short range threats is the Nautilus laser interceptor system, a joint US-Israeli program developed over the past few years. In its first live-fire test in June 2000, the system shot down a single Russian-made Katyusha rocket. Two months later, the system shot down two Katyushas simultaneously. "Directed energy is ideally suited to be used against such short range, short flight targets", says Herzog, "Nautilus, based on chemical laser technology is practically terminated, but other systems, based on solid state lasers continue development in the US. Israel is pursuing several directions, to defend against such threats. Based on local know-how, Israel could pursue similar development to protect its cities and military forces from rocket attacks, if the current situation continues". In July 2006, a delegation from Northrop Grumman presented the new deployable Skyguard system to the Israeli MOD. Skyguard is based on the THEL concept, utilizing modern systems and is designed to be operated by the military.

To maintain the Arrow's effectiveness against evolving threats, the missile is developed through a typical "spiral" development, maintaining "one step ahead" of the threat.

In the 1980s Israel evaluated several missile defense concepts, including boost phase and mid-course attacks. The Arrow, proposed by IAI was selected as a defensive system designed for terminal phase intercept.

Arrow is integrated into a larger multi-layered defensive network which can also provide mid course engagement, within an international coalition of defenses (with the US and NATO, for example).

"The Arrow was developed as a robust interceptor, continuously evolving through a spiral development process, accommodating advanced capabilities and adapts to face evolving threats." Herzog told Defense Update, "The same interceptor designed with 1990s hardware and fielded in the year 2000 is operational today, upgraded with software modifications to defend against new threats such as the Shihab". Since its initial fielding in the year 2000 the Arrow system received two software-block upgrades. Currently operational with Block 2, the system is expected to receive Block 3 which is currently in final testing. Under a parallel Arrow System Improvement Plan (ASIP) program, the system is undergoing hardware improvement through all its subsystems. Since the production of the missile was commenced also in the USA, the missile has been updated with more advanced computers, designed to form-fit into existing missiles, resulting in improved performance and lower cost.

Block 3 will expand the missile's intercept envelope, to include the anticipated Iranian unconventional threat. The Block 3 missile completed system integration and testing, this version was used during all three tests, conducted in 2004 and 2005. The Arrow program is currently developing Block 4 which is expected to become operational long before the Iranian threats against which it was developed are expected to enter the Mid-East Theater. "We are evaluating what are the characteristics of a future nuclear threat and prepare our defenses to be ready for it well in advance of such threat".

Citron Tree Battle Management, command, Control and Communications (BMC3) system, developed by Tadiran Systems, is one of the world's most advanced net-centric system, This computing network is built around a huge software application including some two million lines of code, performing real-time sophisticated computations, of calculating intercept, assigning launchers to specific threats, and assessing the effects, probabilities and threats of each intercept to enable maximum defense for the protected areas. Citron Tree's net-centric interoperability was operationally proven during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), as it was integrated with coalition air defense units (Patriot) and naval missile defense systems, deployed in the East Mediterranean and other locations in the region. The Arrow command and control facility has recently moved from its previous shelter facilities into a new spacious bunker, fully protected from nuclear, chemical and bacteriological threats. Defense Update was allowed to photograph this facility for the first time.

As the U.S. Thaad system entered production, by the end of 2006, Israel is interested in integrating its into its missile defense program with deployable U.S. missile defenses, such as the ground based THAAD and naval AEGIS SM-3 systems. Such integration will enable full interoperability between Israeli made Arrow, and U.S. Patriot missiles and the new missile interceptors developed for the US Missile Defense Agency, to enhance defenses against potential nuclear attack from Iran, if and when this country acquires nuclear capability for its long range missiles.

At the lower tier, the market is preparing new air defense systems for simultaneous missile and rocket defense. Due to its unique geopolitical situation, Israel is the only country constantly subjected to cross-border rocket attacks. However, with the proliferation of global terrorism, demand for such systems is expected to grow in the coming years.

Several Israeli companies are collaborating in the development of such systems, including IAI subsidiaries Elta and RAFAEL. This consortium has already introduced the Barak I missile defense system, and is currently developing the Barak II and Spyder systems. Although unconfirmed by Israel's official sources, it was reported that Barak II has entered a $330 million development program funded jointly by the Indian and Israeli defense ministries. The Spyder was jointly funded by RAFAEL and IAI and is currently evaluated by several air forces. "The RAFAEL Spyder concept reflects the multi-mission aspect of modern air and missile defense systems" a senior IAF official told Defense Update. "The Israel Air Force plans to evaluate the system."

Yossi Horowitz, marketing manager for air defense systems at RAFAEL confirms the growing interest in the new systems: "At Defexpo 2006 exhibition in India RAFAEL unveiled the new Spyder MR, a growth version of the Spyder SR system currently in development. The MR system will employ the Derby and Python 5 missiles fitted with boosters to enable vertical launching, to gain the initial speed and altitude. Both interceptors will engage targets at ranges beyond 35 kilometers and up to an altitude of 16,000 meters.

Counter Rocket, Artillery and Missile (C-RAM) defenses based on directed energy weapons are also evolving and could be expected to mature within the next few years. Chemical lasers are already providing such capabilities, while safer solid state lasers, which are still in development, promise to have even more potential. C-RAM systems will become a reality in the future, offering multi-mission, low-cost per kill, simple to operate tactical air defense system. While not replacing current missile defenses, they will represent an evolutionary phase enabling air defenses to handle new threats, expected to be smaller and stealthier - based on high precision weapons, long and short range cruise missiles and armed and unarmed UAVs. The challenge faced by air defense systems developers is to establish a mix of multi-mission systems operating in different and rapidly changing scenarios.

The IDF constantly monitors potential launch areas in the Gaza strip, detecting improvised rocket launches, calculating their ballistic trajectory and plotting the expected target, thus issuing a "Red Dawn" warning for the population to take cover. These early warning systems could be employed with active protection elements, such as low-cost 'hit to kill' interceptor missiles, C-RAM laser such as the Northrop Grumman Skyguard or air defense artillery, firing special ammunition, which could defeat the rockets in flight. Reportedly, Israel evaluated the Rheinmetall Air-Bursting munitions (ABM) ammunition as a potential countermeasure against improvised rocket attacks from Gaza but ABM was found immature for operational use for the C-RAM role. Therefore, at present, C-RAM countermeasures remain an "unsolved issue".

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-2-06/feature-ILmissiledefense.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 27, 2007, 1:21am

ATF ruling has weapons innovator on edge

DADE CITY, Fla., Dec. 26 (UPI) -- A ruling by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has the inventor of a firearm accelerator on the verge of economic ruin, a report said.

The Tampa Tribune reported Wednesday that Bill Akins, 54, initially received ATF approval years ago for his Akins Accelerator -- a device that allows a rifle to fire more rapidly -- but the agency has since rescinded its original decision and banned the device.

The ATF had approved Akins' innovation after testing a device he sent the bureau in 2003 -- but only, apparently, because the device malfunctioned. In a subsequent test, the device worked properly and agents determined it was illegal because it could convert a target rifle into a 700-round-per-minute weapon.

Officials threatened Akins with imprisonment if he did not cease production and turn over parts for the device as well as his customer list, the newspaper said.

Akins said the ban destroyed his business and he faces bankruptcy.

"They've destroyed my dream," he said. "Eleven years of my life, gone like that."

The Tribune said Akins has tried in vain to get the decision reversed, claiming that his invention is not a machine gun and should not be banned.

http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20071226-18304300-bc-us-accelerator.xml

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 27, 2007, 2:39am

Russia tests ballistic missiles



Russia has successfully tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles that are to replace ageing rockets from the Soviet era.

A strategic missile known as the RS-24 flew 7,000 km (4350 miles) to hit targets on the Kamchatka peninsula.

Later, a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea launched another new missile, hitting the same test site.

It comes as Russia has again accused the US of ignoring its concerns over a planned US missile defence system.

Washington plans to site anti-missile facilities in central Europe, claiming that it will help defend against any possible future nuclear threat from Iran.

The US missile shield system would see a radar site set up in the Czech Republic and a base in Poland for 10 missile interceptors.

However, speaking in an interview to be published later this week in the Vremya Novostey daily, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it was clear the system is aimed at deterring Russia, rather than Iran.

The US has said that the limited system it proposes could not threaten Russia's own missile arsenal.

The Interfax news agency reported that the RS-24, the missile tested on Tuesday, is capable of carrying at least three nuclear warheads.

Russia says they are able to penetrate any kind of defensive system.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7160082.stm

Published: 2007/12/26 01:25:56 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 27, 2007, 11:06am

Dutch cops to ditch helicopters for airships in green bid: agency

by Staff Writers
The Hague (AFP) Dec 20, 2007



Dutch police Thursday said they would do their bit to fight climate change by using airships instead of helicopters to monitor protests and port security in Rotterdam.

"We want to do our little bit," the Police Chief for Rotterdam, Aad Meijboom, told the ANP news agency.

The German-made airships will be equipped with cameras and will be deployed from next year, he said. They will also be used for surveillance of the city's port, which is Europe's largest.

Rotterdam aims to halve gas emissions by 2025 through a variety of measures including the use of low-energy bulbs, tramcars and underground trains.

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Dutch_c....agency_999.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 27, 2007, 11:08am


Saab Reveals Mach 5.5 Missile
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/20/2007 8:01 AM

Saab Bofors Dynamics has announced three successful tests of an experimental guided missile capable of Mach 5.5 speeds - that's 4200 mph at sea level, for a ground-launched missile, or more than a mile per second.



The hypervelocity missile (HVM) project has been mentioned very little in the past - Sweden's defense establishment is often very successfully secretive, not talking about technology until it has been demonstrated.

In this case, the key breakthrough is the ability to control and steer the missile at high speeds. The challenge is the enormous dynamic pressure, the result of high speeds and low altitude. For example, a very small amount of sideslip generates very large lateral aerodynamic forces on the body. Academic papers also indicate that the designers have worked on lightweight, high-energy motors to sustain these high speeds.

HVMs have some useful characteristics. Saab notes that the high speed is useful against armored targets, although the test missile seems pretty big for an anti-tank weapon: however, terminal speed and energy are hard to protect against.

On the other hand, it's interesting to speculate as to whether the HVM development might originally have been associated with the now-canceled counter-stealth air defense system that Saab Microwave unveiled a couple of weeks ago.

Stealth advocates point out that a system such as Saab's Associative Aperture Synthesis Radar (AASR) might be able to detect targets, but that's not much use unless they can be tracked and engaged; but the Swedish planners aimed to get around this problem by using a coordinate-guided missile which - like a JDAM - would fly out to a computed point and then detonate without necessarily seeing the target.

An HVM makes a lot of sense in this application, because you have to predict the location of the target based on the last few detections, and there is always some degree of uncertainty based on the target's movement. But that area of uncertainty can be reduced based on the missile's speed.

Pic credit: Saab

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/def....8-6b3c5a 11e041

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Dec 27, 2007, 11:21am

Pentagon Report: High-Flying Spy Drones Hobbled
By Noah Shachtman December 20, 2007 | 10:39:52 AM



The Pentagon's highest-flying spy drone isn't able to "consistently " perform, even on a "limited schedule," according to a draft Defense Department report.

The Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is designed to fly at altitudes of up 60,000 feet, for a day at a time -- staring down on foes with a combination of synthetic aperture radar, infrared sensors, and long-range cameras. Flown remotely from a set of cramped trailers at Beale Air Force Base in California, a Global Hawk typically looks down on more than 450 targets per day in Iraq and the greater Middle East -- spying on everything from improvised bomb sites to insurgent trucks to individual guerrillas.

That is, when they can fly. According to a draft report, from the Defense Department's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), the current Global Hawk models -- so-called "Block 10s" -- aren't able to get into the air nearly as often as they ought to. The document was obtained by the Project on Government Oversight and provided to DANGER ROOM.

"Increased combat operational tempo combined with less-than-predicted reliability and limited sparing of key components resulted in a declining Block 10 mission capable rate," the report notes. "Low Global Hawk system reliability adversely affects the ability... to consistently fly on a limited schedule."

After the 9/11 attacks, Global Hawk prototypes were rushed into service -- flying missions over Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. The first two production models -- the Block 10s -- arrived at Beale in early 2006. Nine have been built, overall. And defense contractor Northrop Grumman is already working on larger, longer-flying "Block 20" and "Block 30" versions. The first Block 20 flew earlier this year.

Those later models have become controversial projects, within the military. The Block 20 program went approximately $2 billion over-budget after a redesign. And the DOT&E report says the project is still running the risk of delays, with "sensor suite development and production continu[ing] behind the originally scheduled pace." The document recommends limiting "the production of air vehicles and/or sensor payloads" next year, until an independent test can be done of the system. The Federal Aviation Administration is also making life difficult for the Global Hawk effort, the report notes, by holding back on its authorizations of the drones' test flights.

But DOT&E itself has come under fire, for its handling of drone projects. Back in October 2001, for example, the office declared the Predator UAV to be not "operationally effective or suitable." It went on to become one of the most widely-hailed weapons of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/the-pentagons-h.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 1, 2008, 11:59am


Aussie ships 'can't go to war'

By Ian McPhedran

January 02, 2008 12:30am

THE navy's front-line fighting ships cannot defend themselves and are unable to be sent into battle, despite a $1.4 billion upgrade.

A navy insider close to the 4000-tonne Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigates has revealed the ships' complex electronic systems are not working properly.

He told The Advertiser that sending the 1970s ships to war would be like sending a VK Commodore to race at Bathurst.

Senior officials now admit that the 1997 frigate upgrade project was a "debacle" created by the Howard Government's decision to maximise the sale price of the Sydney-based contractor, Australian Defence Industries, when it was sold to the French firm, Thales.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon described the upgrade as "another nightmare" Labor has inherited from the previous Coalition government.

The project is four years late and includes four ships - not the original six.

The navy insider, who asked not to be named, said sailors were quitting because their ships could not be deployed to the Middle East or any conflict zone.

Navy chief Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders last year refused to accept the first ship in the program, HMAS Sydney, for "operational release" as its fighting systems did not function properly.

The whistleblower said the ships' anti-missile and anti-torpedo systems could not be integrated. Their electronic support measures (eyes and ears for detecting incoming airborne threats) were "a joke".

"That means they would be going into a war zone virtually blind," the sailor said. "The torpedo detection system cannot be integrated."

The ships also are unable to us long-range chaff, which confuses enemy missiles and takes them from ships, link their helicopters to war-fighting data and integrate towed and on-board sonars to detect enemy torpedoes.

The sailor said what angered him and comrades was the gross waste of taxpayer funds when the navy could have bought virtually new and more capable U.S. Navy Kidd Class Destroyers in the late-1990s for a bargain price.

Mr Fitzgibbon said the upgrade was "another nightmare" Labor would have to manage.

"We are, however, determined to deliver the level of capability required for our navy to operate safely in various areas around the world," he said.

The best news from the project has been the integration of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile for self-defence. That is not enough to send them to war.

The total cost of the upgrade is $1.46 billion, or $360 million per ship.

Government auditors say up to 98 per cent of the money has been paid to Thales despite the project being four years late and not one ship being operational.

The officer who inherited what is widely regarded as the worst contract signed by the Commonwealth since the Collins "dud subs" submarines, Commodore Drew McKinnie, said that, despite all the problems, he was confident the project would deliver "significant improvements" to the ships.

The head of Major Surface Ship Projects with the Defence Material Organisation said he was seeing "much improved performance" from radar sensors.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22996234-2,00.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Jan 1, 2008, 10:00pm

January 1, 2008
Military relying more on drones, mostly in Iraq
Predator flights doubled, while hand-held Ravens are most widely used
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22463596/

WASHINGTON - The military's reliance on unmanned aircraft that can watch, hunt and sometimes kill insurgents has soared to more than 500,000 hours in the air, largely in Iraq, The Associated Press has learned.

And new Defense Department figures obtained by The AP show that the Air Force more than doubled its monthly use of drones between January and October, forcing it to take pilots out of the air and shift them to remote flying duty to meet part of the demand.

The dramatic increase in the development and use of drones across the armed services reflects what will be an even more aggressive effort over the next 25 years, according to the new report.

The jump in Iraq coincided with the build up of U.S. forces this summer as the military swelled its ranks to quell the violence in Baghdad. But Pentagon officials said that even as troops begin to slowly come home this year, the use of Predators, Global Hawks, Shadows and Ravens will not likely slow.

"I think right now the demand for the capability that the unmanned system provides is only increasing," said Army Col. Bob Quackenbush, deputy director for Army Aviation. "Even as the surge ends, I suspect the deployment of the unmanned systems will not go down, particularly for larger systems."

For some Air Force pilots, that means climbing out of the cockpit and heading to places such as Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, where they can remotely fly the Predators, one of the larger and more sophisticated unmanned aircraft.

Pilots do drone duty

About 120 Air Force pilots were recently transferred to staff the drones to keep pace with demands, the Air Force said.

Some National Guard members were also called up to staff the flights. And more will be doing that in the coming months, as the Air Force adds bases where pilots can remotely fly the aircraft. Locations include North Dakota, Texas, Arizona and California, and some are already operating.

One key reason for the increase is that U.S. forces in Iraq grew from 15 combat brigades to 20 over the spring and early summer, boosting troop totals from roughly 135,000 to more than 165,000. Slowly over the next six months, five brigades are being pulled out of Iraq that will not be replaced, as part of a drawdown announced by the administration, which began in December.

The increased military operations all across Iraq last summer triggered greater use of the drones and an escalating call for more of the systems — from the Pentagon's key hunter-killer, the Predator, to the surveillance Global Hawks and the smaller, cheaper Ravens.

In one recent example of what they can do, a Predator caught sight of three militants firing mortars at U.S. forces in November in Balad, Iraq. The drone fired an air-to-ground missile, killing the three, according to video footage the Air Force released.

Air Force officials said that Predator flights steadily increased last year, from about 2,000 hours in January to more than 4,300 hours in October. They are expected to continue to escalate when hours are calculated for November and December, because the number of combat air patrols had increased from about 14 per day to 18.

"The demand far exceeds all of the Defense Department's ability to provide (these) assets," said Air Force Lt. Col. Larry Gurgainous, deputy director of the Air Force's unmanned aircraft task force. "And as we buy and field more systems, you will see it continue to go up."

Use of the high-tech surveillance and reconnaissance Global Hawk has also jumped, as the Air Force moved from two to three systems on the battlefield.

"I think it has to do with the type of warfare we're engaged in — it's heavy into intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance," Gurgainous said. "This war requires a lot of hunting high-value targets."

Ravens put in most hours

The bulk of the unmanned flight hours belong to the Army's workhorse drone, the Raven, which weighs just four pounds and is used by smaller units, such as companies and battalions, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Ravens, which soldiers fling into the air and use for surveillance, will rack up about 300,000 hours this year — double the time they were used last year, said Quackenbush.

The Army has a total of 361 unmanned aircraft in Iraq alone — including Shadows, Hunters and Ravens. And in the first 10 months of 2007, they flew more than 300,000 hours..... (continued)

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 3, 2008, 11:02am

Deb, the most interesting point about many of these UAVs is that they are not much more than remote-controlled aircraft. While it is true that more sorties may be flown, it is the results of these missions that are relevant. As we can see by the progress of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, these drones aren't the answer.

Arguably it is a cheaper way to fight a war but ultimately do we really want what the Military desire - autonomous, robotic killing machines roaming the planet actually doing as they are told. Call me old fashioned but I'm not terribly enthused by the prospect.

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 3, 2008, 11:15am

Obviously nothing else to do:

Blue Angel buzzes SF Bay (note the appearance of a 2nd Angel in the closing frames of the video as shown below):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7rAUu8djZ4

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 3, 2008, 11:20am

DHS Readies the 'Sick Stick'
By Sharon Weinberger December 31, 2007 | 9:01:00 AM



The Puke Ray, long the realm of science fiction (and the DANGER ROOM blog) is really going to be deployed soon.

As we've reported earlier, the Department of Homeland Security has funded the development of a laser dazzler that is designed to create nausea, with plans to field it to law enforcement officers. The LED Incapacitator "has been winning over hearts and minds," DHS says. Apparently, last month "DHS law enforcement officers convened in Washington to get their hands on the LED-I and describe for the developers the features, sizes, and controls they’d like to see. Commercial models are expected to hit the streets (and borders) in 2009."

DANGER ROOM won't be happy till we see some "puke on demand" action. Heck, we'll be human guinea pigs (well, I'll volunteer Noah first).

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/dhs-readies-the.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 3, 2008, 11:23am

Taser wins verdict appeal on shock injury to officer

By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Emily Heller, Bloomberg News | January 1, 2008

SOUTHFIELD, Mich - Taser International Inc., the largest stun-gun maker, defeated an appeal by a sheriff's officer who contended the company was liable for injuries he suffered when he was shocked in a training exercise.

A state appeals court in Phoenix yesterday denied a request for a new trial by Samuel Powers, the former deputy, who said he suffered a broken back because Taser didn't warn of the weapon's risk.

The former officer, then 44, lost a jury verdict in December 2005.

The appeals court rejected his assertion that the Phoenix trial court wrongly kept him from presenting evidence that Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser knew the gun could cause long-term injury and failed to warn, and that the judge wrongly instructed the jury on how to consider the evidence.

"The trial court did not err" in its jury instructions, a three-judge appeals panel said.

The company said that Powers was injured because he had osteoporosis and that he shouldn't have volunteered to be shot.

Powers's was the first of two product-defect claims to go to trial against Taser.

The company prevailed in the other trial and won dismissals of other cases.

At least 10 lawsuits brought by police officers injured in training accidents have been settled.

Powers was injured in July 2002 when he volunteered to be shot with the Taser, which delivers a temporarily disabling electric shock through a wire.

The officer said in his suit that he took a two-second hit that set off muscle contractions severe enough to cause a compression fracture of one of his vertebrae.

The injury ended his 16-year career.

The pivotal issue on appeal was a so-called hindsight test, which Powers argued required Taser to update warnings.

Taser argued the test didn't apply, and the appeals court agreed, finding that the judge's rulings were not reversible error.

John Dillingham, a Phoenix lawyer who represented Powers, and Doug Klint, Taser's general counsel, didn't immediately return calls for comment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl....ury_to_officer/

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 3, 2008, 11:25am

New H-Bomb: Not Dead Yet?
By Sharon Weinberger January 02, 2008 | 1:30:00 PM



Congress has ended funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead - the next generation of nuclear weapon designs. But it's not clear that the National Nuclear Security Administration is throwing in the towel on RRW. "Over the next year we will be working to refine our certification plan, and the approach to RRW security and safety, in line with congressional authorization and funding," the Administration says.

Basically, NNSA still feels confident that there's money available to pursue concepts related to RRW. For example, there is $15 million appropriated in the omnibus bill for advanced certification issues (which came up in the recent JASON's study). There's also $10 million for safety and security of weapons in the stockpile. Both of these could feed into RRW-type efforts.

If RRW were reborn next year under some new name, this really wouldn't be a surprise, given that it was the controversial proposal for "Advanced Concepts" that eventually morphed into RRW.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/new-h-bomb-not.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 3, 2008, 11:29am

Intel Geek Squad Targets Culture, Language
By Sharon Weinberger January 02, 2008 | 10:07:00 AM



The newly created Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency -- one of the latest attempts to create a new DARPA-like entity -- has released a preliminary solicitation that gives a good indication of what one of the agency's primary interests will be -- culture (and linguistics). IARPA this month began soliciting proposals for the "Socio-cultural Content in Language Program":

IARPA’s SCIL Program is seeking innovative, creative, cutting-edge research to achieve advancements in technologies that significantly expand human language understanding. As a mirror of socio-cultural norms and principles, language reflects people’s beliefs, goals, intentions and relationships. This R&D program intends to explore automated methods of correlating socio-cultural features with human language indicators. The goal of the program is to develop new approaches to expanding our knowledge of context, meaning and identity.

It looks like IARPA may be targeting a slightly different niche than other agencies and offices working on socio-cultural issues, saying it does not want to continue "the standard work done in Information or Content Extraction, Social Network Analysis nor Data Mining." IARPA, at least for this proposal, wants to correlate linguistics with socio-cultural characteristics.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/iarpa-targets-c.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Jan 3, 2008, 7:05pm


Quote:

DHS Readies the 'Sick Stick' By Sharon Weinberger December 31, 2007 | 9:01:00 AM The Puke Ray, long the realm of science fiction (and the DANGER ROOM blog) is really going to be deployed soon. As we've reported earlier, the Department of Homeland Security has funded the development of a laser dazzler that is designed to create nausea, with plans to field it to law enforcement officers. The LED Incapacitator "has been winning over hearts and minds," DHS says. Apparently, last month "DHS law enforcement officers convened in Washington to get their hands on the LED-I and describe for the developers the features, sizes, and controls they’d like to see. Commercial models are expected to hit the streets (and borders) in 2009." DANGER ROOM won't be happy till we see some "puke on demand" action. Heck, we'll be human guinea pigs (well, I'll volunteer Noah first). http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/dhs-readies-the.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 9, 2008, 6:32am

Russian-Indian BrahMos JV buys plant to double missile production
31/ 12/ 2007



NEW DELHI, December 31 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian-Indian joint venture BrahMos has bought a manufacturing plant in south India to double production of its supersonic cruise missiles, a company spokesman said on Monday.

The joint venture has bought a plant from state company Kerala Hightech Industries Ltd, the purchase that would allow it to bring production to 50 BrahMos missiles a year.

Praveen Pathak said the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which represents the Indian side in the BrahMos venture, will invest around $25 million in the plant within a year or two, and the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) will invest another $6 million.

"At the plant in [the state of] Kerala, we will assemble BrahMos missiles, as well as make components for Astra rockets produced by ISRO," Pathak said.

Earlier reports said the contract on the transfer of the plant's ownership to BrahMos will be signed January 1, 2008.

Established in 1998, BrahMos Aerospace designs, produces and markets supersonic missiles, whose sea-based and land-based versions have been successfully tested and put into service with the Indian Army and Navy.

The Brahmos missile has a range of 180 miles and can carry a conventional warhead of up to 660 pounds. It can hit ground targets flying at an altitude as low as 10 meters (30 feet) and at a speed of Mach 2.8, which is about three times faster than the U.S.-made subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile.

Experts estimate that India might purchase up to 1,000 BrahMos missiles for its Armed Forces in the next decade, and export 2,000 to third countries during the same period.

Work is currently underway to create aircraft- and submarine-based BrahMos missiles.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20071231/95020449.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 9, 2008, 8:04am

American Airlines to test anti-missile system
Move latest phase in testing technologies to protect commercial jets
The Associated Press
updated 4:06 p.m. ET Jan. 4, 2008

DALLAS - Up to three American Airlines jets carrying passengers will be outfitted with anti-missile technology this spring in the latest phase of testing technology to protect commercial planes from attack.

An American Airlines spokesman said Friday that the test will determine how well the anti-missile system holds up under the rigors of flight.

The first Boeing 767-200 will be equipped in April or later, said the airline spokesman, Tim Wagner. American operates that Boeing model mostly between New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles.

American said it is "not in favor" of putting anti-missile systems on commercial planes but agreed to take part in the tests to understand technologies that might be available in the future.

The technology is intended to stop a missile attack by detecting heat given off from the rocket, then firing a laser beam that jams the missile's guidance system.

The device on the belly of the Boeing 767-200 aircraft will be operational but won't be tested on regular flights, Wagner said. The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.

American, the largest U.S. carrier, has been working with defense contractor BAE Systems PLC on the project for a couple years. In 2006, BAE installed its hardware on a Boeing 767 that wasn't used to fly paying passengers.

About a year ago, reporters were invited to American's maintenance base in Fort Worth to see a jet outfitted with the laser-jamming device on its belly.

"We are now entering the next phase," Wagner said, which is "to see how the system holds up on an aircraft in real-time conditions — weather, continuous takeoffs and landings, etc. — and to test its maintenance reliability."

Wagner said American is also collecting more information on how the laser-jamming device affects fuel consumption.

Congress has approved funding for anti-missile research partly out of fear that terrorists armed with shoulder-fired weapons could hit jetliners as they take off and land. U.K.-based BAE won a contract from the Homeland Security Department to test its technology.

Fort Worth-based American, a unit of AMR Corp., has said anti-missile defense is best handled by stopping terrorists from getting missiles that could shoot down commercial jets and by improving security around airports.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22507209/

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 9, 2008, 8:54am

Russia launches full-scale production of new-generation warplane

09/ 01/ 2008





MOSCOW, January 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has started full-scale production of the Su-34 Fullback fighter bomber at a Siberian aircraft plant, plane maker Sukhoi said on Wednesday.

A company spokesman said up to 20 fighters could now be assembled simultaneously at the Novosibirsk Aviation Production Association (NAPO), but did not specify how many would be built each year.

The $36 million Su-34 fighter-bomber is a two-seat strike aircraft equipped with twin AL-31MF afterburning turbojet engines. It is designed to deliver high-precision strikes on heavily-defended targets under any weather conditions, day or night, and fields weaponry that includes a 30mm GSh-301 cannon, up to 12 Alamo or Archer AAMs, ASMs, and bombs.

Designed by Sukhoi, the Su-34s will replace the Su-24 Fencer frontline bombers. Experts said the new bomber has the potential to become the top plane in its class for years to come.

To date only a handful of pre-production models have been built. In mid-2004 Sukhoi announced that low-rate production was commencing and that initial aircraft would reach squadron service around 2008.

In March 2006, Russia's then Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that the government had purchased only two Su-34s for delivery in 2006, and planned to have a complete air regiment of 24 Su-34s operational by the end of 2010. A total of 58 aircraft will be purchased by 2015 to replace some of 300 Su-24s, which are undergoing modernization to prolong their service life.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080109/95829755.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 10, 2008, 9:33am


Submarine collides with cargo ship

From correspondents in New Delhi

January 10, 2008 11:36pm
Article from: Agence France-Presse

AN Indian naval submarine on a routine mission collided with a cargo ship in the Arabian Sea off Pakistan.

The 2500-ton INS Sindhughosh, with a crew of 53, sustained only superficial damage to its conning tower, Indian navy spokesman Nirad Sinha said.

But according to naval official,s who asked not to be named, the vessel was seriously damaged.

The navy declined to comment on the extent of damage to the Cayman-registered merchant vessel or reveal its current whereabouts.

"The ship MV Leeds Castle was in restricted waters and in that area the depth is not much and hence the mishap," the spokesman said.

The submarine has been towed to a naval dockyard at the western Indian city of Mumbai.

The naval officials said the submarine was submerged and had its radars off and periscope down when it slammed into the ship off India's Diu island, 400 nautical miles from Mumbai. Diu lies 70 nautical miles from Pakistani waters.

The diesel-powered Sindhughosh, which was acquired from the then Soviet Union in 1986, had returned from Russia last year after an extensive refit. It carries Russian-designed land-attack Klub-S cruise missiles.

The collision came just after naval intelligence received alerts of possible strikes against its warships off Pakistan, naval sources said.

Last year, a 450-ton Indian navy patrol ship sank off India's Goa state after ramming a merchant carrier, prompting a massive mission to rescue 73 crew members from the Arabian Sea.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23036157-1702,00.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 21, 2008, 10:35am

Pentagon Explores 'Human Fear' Chemicals; Scare-Sensors, 'Contagious' Stress in the Works?
By David Hambling January 18, 2008 | 12:00:00 PM

American military researchers are working to uncover and harness the most terrifying chemical imaginable: that most primal odor, the scent of fear.



Pheromones are chemicals released by animals as signals to their own kind: for sex, for territorial marking, and more. They're often detected in the olfactory membranes. But there's more to pheromones than attraction. Many animals have an alarm pheromone which is used to signal danger; aphids, for example, use it to cause their fellow lice to flee.

Now, the US Army is trying to track down and harness people's smell of fear. The military has backed a study on the "Identification and Isolation of Human Alarm Pheromones," which "focused on the Preliminary Identification of Steroids of Interest in Human Fear Sweat." The so-called "skydiving protocol" was the researchers' method of choice.

The authors collected sweat, urine, blood, saliva, ECG, respiration, and self-report measures in 20 subjects (n=11 males and n=9 females) before, during, and immediately following their first-time tandem skydive, as well as before, during, and immediately following their running on a treadmill for the same period of time. Measurements between the test (skydive) and control (exercise) conditions were made on consecutive days, each experiment precisely matched to the minute between subjects and between conditions to prevent diurnal confounds. Emotional states were monitored using brief standardized questionnaires. For most of the observed compounds, men showed an increase in the compound emission during acute emotional stress, while women showed either no change or a decrease in emission of the compound.

In a lecture given at a 2007 Congress on Stress, the researchers hint at what their study found:

Our findings indicate that there may be a hidden biological component to human social dynamics, in which emotional stress is, quite literally, “contagious."

This work piggybacks on a 2002 study by the Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute for Urban Ethology at the University of Vienna. Subjects wore underarm pads while watching a 'terrifying' film -- the horror movie Candyman -- or a 'neutral' documentary. Afterwards subjects were asked to try and distinguish between pads worn by people seeing each film. The results showed that they could -– though subjects thought the smell was aggression rather than fear.

Some have suggested that the human alarm pheromone could lead to chemical fear-sensors. The project Integrated System for Emotional State Recognition for the Enhancement of Human Performance and Detection of Criminal Intent (do they call it ISESREHPDCI for short?) specifically mentions the possibility of monitoring pheromone levels:

Such systems could be used to assess fitness for duty, integrated into closed loop systems regulating user vigilance and workload, or used to detect the sinister intent of individuals and prompt pre-emptive interdictions. These systems could unobtrusively monitor individuals within military operational environments or crowded civilian settings by relying on passive detection.

If they're trying to spot terrorists at an airport, it may not work: I know a number of people whose fear levels when approaching a flight would overload any fear sensor for miles. The suicide bombers are probably way calmer.

But what about offensive use? Pheromones are effective in minute quantities, so a wide area can be blanketed with just a few liters. Given sufficient concentration, would everyone exposed start suffering from an unidentifiable dread? The contagious aspect means that those affected would start churning out fear pheromone as well.

On its own, the alarm pheromone probably would not do much. But given an external trigger, such as a loud noise, it could influence people to start stampeding like spooked cattle. Then again, the bee alarm pheromone triggers attack rather than flight, and the Viennese study suggested something similar may apply to humans -- or are there multiple pheromones involved? Whatever is going on, this research is likely to uncover some novel and powerful ways of manipulating human behavior.

Some in the military research complex have been down this road before. Remember the so-called "Gay Bomb," that would make enemy combatants irresistibly attracted to one another? Speaking of which, all those web sites advertising pheromones to make you irresistible to the opposite sex haven’t actually got many decent studies to back them up, a topic I explored in last month's Fortean Times magazine.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/pentagon-resear.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 21, 2008, 11:03am

Spy Gear and Police Tech at Homeland Security Conference
By Dave Bullock
01.18.08 | 12:00 AM

LOS ANGELES – The Homeland Security Stakeholders Conference wraps up today and Wired News has photos of the coolest security tech from the show floor. From throwable video cameras to shotgun-wielding robots, these are the gadgets that help you sleep at night, unless you have something to hide ...


iRobot, makers of the popular housecleaning bot, Roomba, also makes industrial and military robots. The iRobot PackBot 510, shown at bottom with the explosive ordinance disposal kit, is quite popular with EOD teams in Iraq. The PackBot is holding Canon’s new Field Deployable Digital Radiography System, which will allow the robot to view X-ray scans of suspicious packages. The PackBot now comes with a controller (inset) that is more familiar to the troops who grew up in the videogame generation. The robot has three cameras, one of which is shown at top with an array of IR LEDs for illumination.

Photo: Dave Bullock



The Remington R1 is a throwable wireless camera. Just toss one of these bad boys through that window you’re about to jump through and you can survey the area with a push of a button. If you’re in the market for a rugged tactical camera, you may want to get out your credit card now. The R1 is on sale for only $2,500.

Photo: Dave Bullock



GE’s working prototype of the Streetlab Mobile is a totally badass handheld spectrometer. Designed to be used in “hot zones” by environmental-suit-wearing first responders, the Steetlab has large, easy-to-use buttons and controls. It can scan both liquids and solids with a friggin' laser and identifies unknown agents in less than a minute. We’re working hard to get one of these for a Gadget Lab review.

Photo: Dave Bullock



Smiths also makes this chemical identifier known as the RespondeR RCI. It’s a compact and portable spectrometer that can identify a chemical agent in less than 30 seconds. It is Bluetooth-capable and can be paired with the Smiths HazMatID to increase chemical-identification accuracy.

Photo: Dave Bullock



The LAPD Bomb Squad’s truck full of bomb-diffusing goodies includes several robots and plenty of their own ammunition and explosives.

Photo: Dave Bullock



Andros is the LAPD Bomb Squad’s tactical robot. He can shoot buckshot, slugs or just plain old water as well as grip and manipulate dangerously suspicious packages. Andros is controlled from inside the truck, and fortunately is not autonomous, not that we’re afraid of armed robots ... OK, we are.

Photo: Dave Bullock



Smiths' LCD-3.2e is not a liquid crystal display; it’s a lightweight chemical agent detector. It can detect a wide array of chemical-warfare agents, including nerve, blister, blood and choking agents as well as toxic industrial chemicals. It weighs just more than a pound and is designed to be worn on the belt of a soldier or emergency responder. The LCD's exhibitor said it's difficult to sell the LCD because some of the substances it detects are classified. We hope he's joking.

Photo: Dave Bullock



The unfortunately named Phraselator is a voice-recognition-based translator device. Although not quite as cool as Douglas Adams' Babel fish, it still does the trick when you’re trying to tell your subject to get out of the car with his hands up even if you don’t speak his language. Out of the box, the Phraselator supports six languages, but it can be trained to translate many more. In fact, the LAPD has taught it 224.

Photo: Dave Bullock



The CATCHER Rhino is a ruggedized Windows-based tablet computer. It features a biometric fingerprint scanner, dual cameras, digital voice recorder, GPS and a panic button. It can stream real-time video to and from the field. The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security are both using CATCHER Rhinos in the field. No more settling things downtown!

Photo: Dave Bullock



CrowdFlow is a crowd simulator developed by Avalias. Feed it a satellite map of your location, tell it where people will be coming from and it will simulate the crowd. The simulation shown is for an event in Sydney. The Sydney PD used this simulation to modify their route before the event and the actual crowd mirrored the system's predictions.

Photo: Dave Bullock



BW Solutions and Kolossal Technologies make an impressive software- and hardware-based system for real-time monitoring of multiple surveillance devices. These systems, known as Strategic Operations Centers, combine training, planning and command for remotely controlling a security situation.

Photo: Dave Bullock



Future Concepts makes mobile incident command software applications for first responders. These command trucks are all linked with both 802.11 and high-speed satellite uplinks. The software allows collaboration between the main Incident Command and various field outposts through video, data and radio communications. These particular vehicles are part of the Los Angeles Regional Common Operational Picture Program.

Photo: Dave Bullock

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneo....e=1&slideView=3

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 24, 2008, 9:52am

Navy Mulls New Way to Enhance, Hide Submarine Communications

Deep Siren technology would let submarines communicate with ships and shore without compromising stealth

By Larry Greenemeier


DEEP THOUGHTS: The Deep Siren system comprises a disposable gateway buoy with an antenna that gathers radio-frequency signals and converts them to Deep Siren acoustic signals that are converted on board the submarine to text messages.
Courtesy of Raytheon Company

The U.S. Navy is considering new technology that will allow land-based officers to communicate with submarines with minimal disruption to the sub's operations and reduced risk of detection. The military hopes that an emerging tactical paging technology dubbed Deep Siren will allow fleet commanders anywhere in the world to instantly communicate with subs despite the latters' depth or speed.

Currently, vessels can only be contacted if they are on or near the surface, which is not only inefficient but dangerous for subs furtively trolling hostile waters. Deep Siren is designed to deliver communications using acoustic, expendable buoys that, when contacted via a communications satellite in the National Security Agency's Global Information Grid, can send and receive messages to and from submerged subs as far as 175 miles (240 kilometers) away depending upon acoustic propagation conditions.

"This is about bringing real-time communications to the sub, without latency," says Bill Matzelevich, a former Navy captain who retired in 2000 and is now a senior manager in government contractor Raytheon Company's Network Centric Systems group. The Navy in July awarded Raytheon a $5.2 million development contract to deliver a Deep Siren tactical paging system. "If you need to get a message urgently to a sub, you might have to wait eight hours for it to come close enough to the surface. A strike group commander may need to change direction and can't get this info to the sub immediately."

Messages to submarines are typically broadcast from onshore naval communication centers for a fixed amount of time--eight hours or so. For a sub to receive these radio-frequency or satellite messages, it must stop what it is doing within that time period, extend an antenna and rise to "periscope depth"— approximately 60 feet (18 meters) below the surface, which is shallow enough to use a periscope. During this time the sub may become more vulnerable to detection and may be more restricted in its ability to perform its mission.

Once at periscope depth, submarines tow a floating long-distance antenna behind them, but the data rates are generally slow and the wire used to tether the antenna to the sub restricts the vessel's agility. "You can only go so fast and so deep with this wire attached," Matzelevich says. "This is Word War II–era technology."

To communicate with a submerged submarine safely, a gateway mechanism is required to deliver messages deeper than periscope depth. The Deep Siren Tactical Paging system is comprised of a disposable gateway buoy with an antenna that gathers radio-frequency signals and converts them to Deep Siren acoustic signals that penetrate the water and are received by the submarine's sonar system. These acoustic signals are then converted on board the submarine to text messages with the Deep Siren receiver. The Deep Siren system also includes a portable transmit station which can be located on shore or carried on board a ship or airplane. "You want to have this be a global capability, where the buoy can be called from anywhere in the world," Matzelevich says.

Working with RRK Technologies, Ltd., in Glasgow, Scotland, and Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Raytheon is developing a Deep Siren system that includes expendable buoys that are five inches (12.7 centimeters) in diameter and about 3.5 feet (one meter) long with antennas that receive signals from a constellation of Iridium Satellite, LLC, communication satellites. The buoys—designed to stay afloat for up to three days—can be ejected out of the sub's trash disposal unit without major modifications to the vessel. In this way, subs can set up their own acoustic networks without the need to tow an antenna.

The other components of Deep Siren include computers onboard subs and in communications facilities—which may be located ashore, or onboard ships or aircraft—to access messages, along with special software to interpret them. The software—written by RRK—matches different acoustic tones emitted by the buoys with a set of vocabulary words shared between the sender and receiver, performing the translation from words to tones and back to words again. This methodology allows communications to a submarine in a format similar to text messages that occur on a cell phone or PDA.

Deep Siren acoustic technology uses digital message processing to ensure that the receiver can move at a rate of greater than 30 knots (about 35 miles per hour) without incurring any measurable interference. Deep Siren uses digital signaling capabilities at lower frequencies—less than two kilohertz— and permits signal encryption to achieve secure sonar communications at a substantial range to a submarine at depth. Secure and encrypted signals permit more liberal communication from ship to submarine; enemy units may be able to pick up the signals, but they cannot decode them.

The Navy plans to conduct an at-sea military assessment of Deep Siren in June as part of its Communications at Speed and Depth initiatives.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=navy-satellite-deep-siren

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 26, 2008, 1:16am

Forget space travel, fix the SatNav

January 25, 2008

A top Kremlin figure has threatened to sack space agency officials unless they get on with developing a Russian satellite navigation system to rival the US-controlled global positioning system GPS.

First Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov told a collegium at the Russian space agency Roskosmos they should focus on the long-delayed system rather than space exploration.

"I call attention to the unacceptable failure to achieve goals ... the personal responsibility of the directors ... and I do not exclude carrying out organisational and staff changes," Ivanov said.

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly mentioned the hi-tech application, which is being coordinated by the space agency, as a priority for his administration.

GLONASS, short for Global Navigation Satellite System, began as a military project in the 1970s but stalled in the early 90s.

In December amid much fanfare, Russia launched the final components to provide domestic coverage for GLONASS, and said the remainder of its 24 navigational satellites should be in orbit by the end of 2009.

"The necessary infrastructure for mass-commercial use of GLONASS has still not been created," Ivanov said, citing satellite receiver inaccuracy and incomplete coverage as the two main problems facing the navigation system.

Ivanov said high-profile but distant plans to land a cosmonaut on the moon and send humans to Mars should not be a priority for Russia, which, despite its recent economic flush from oil revenue, is still cash-hungry.

"Working on such large-scale and correspondingly wasteful projects purely to satisfy our own ambitions or to achieve some kind of fantastic goal is something we have no right to do," said Ivanov.

Roskosmos head Anatoliy Perminov said afterwards his agency would shift priorities this year to reflect Ivanov's criticism at the collegium in Moscow.

"At the previous collegium we learned about a series of serious problems at some of our basic subcontracting enterprises, and since then the directors there have been warned," Perminov said, declining to name names.

Last year Roskosmos' prime subcontractor, RKK Energiya, fired its director and enacted a crisis programme to stave off bankruptcy after its next-generation lunar spacecraft plans were shelved by the space agency.

Roskosmos is a federal agency in the Russian government's executive branch and the prime contracting organ for all space projects. It oversees Russia's rocket production as well as the launch programmes for commercial and government satellites.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/fo....1025084868.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 26, 2008, 4:55am

The militarisation of space

Disharmony in the spheres

Jan 17th 2008 | COMBINED AIR OPERATIONS CENTRE
From The Economist print edition

Modern American warfare relies on satellites. They make America powerful but also vulnerable, particularly in light of China's new celestial assertiveness


Illustration by Andy Baker

A HUSHED, dimmed hall in the nerve centre that controls America's air operations from Somalia to Afghanistan is dominated by giant video screens tracking coalition aircraft. Blue dots show the location of ground forces, with “troops in contact” highlighted for priority air support. Smaller screens show live black-and-white footage, relayed by satellite from unmanned drones which, in their turn, are remotely controlled by pilots in America.

The Combined Air Operations Centre's exact location in “southwest Asia” cannot be disclosed. But from here commanders supervise tens of thousands of sorties a year. Through aircraft surveillance pods they get a god's eye view of operations that range from old-fashioned strafing to the targeted killing of insurgent leaders with bombs guided by global positioning system (GPS) satellites, and emergency air drops to isolated soldiers using parachutes that steer themselves automatically to the chosen spot.

These days America fights not in a fog of war but, as one senior air force officer puts it, in a “huge cloud of electrons”. Large amounts of information, particularly surveillance videos, can be beamed to soldiers on the ground or leaders in America. The officer says this kind of “network-centric” warfare is “as revolutionary as when the air force went from open cockpits to jet aeroplanes.”

If Napoleon's armies marched on their stomachs, American ones march on bandwidth. Smaller Western allies struggle to keep up. Much of this electronic data is transmitted by satellites, most of them unprotected commercial systems. The revolution in military technology is, at heart, a revolution in the use of space. America's supremacy in the air is made possible by its mastery of space.

During the cold war space was largely thought of as part of the rarefied but terrifying domain of nuclear warfare. Satellites were used principally to monitor nuclear-missile facilities, provide early warning should they be fired and maintain secure communications between commanders and nuclear-strike forces. Now, by contrast, the use of space assets is ubiquitous; even the lowliest platoon makes use of satellites, if only to know its position.

Space wizardry has made possible unprecedented accuracy. As recently as the Vietnam war, destroying a bridge or building could take dozens if not hundreds of bombing runs. These days a plane with “smart” bombs can blast several targets in a single sortie, day or night, in good weather or bad. Needless to say, precise intelligence and sound judgment are as important to military success as fancy kit.

But might this growing reliance on space and cyberspace become a dangerous dependence, a fatal weakness? Air force officers talk of space being America's Achilles heel. Satellites move in predictable orbits and anybody who can reach space can in theory destroy a satellite, even if only by releasing a cloud of “dumb” pellets in its path—using a shotgun rather than a hunter's rifle to kill the orbiting “bird”.

The Taliban or al-Qaeda can do little about America's space power except hide themselves from its intelligence-gathering satellites. But the Pentagon worries about what would happen if America came up against a major power, a “near-peer” rival (as it calls China and Russia), able to intercept space assets with missiles and “space mines”, or to disable them with lasers and electronic jammers. “There are a lot of vulnerabilities,” admits an American general, “There are backups, but our space architecture is very fragile.”

The precise nature of these weaknesses is a well-guarded secret. But wargames simulating a future conflict over Taiwan often end up with the “Red Force” (China) either defeating the “Blue Force” (America) or inflicting grievous losses on it by launching an early attack in space, perhaps by setting off one or more nuclear explosions above the atmosphere. “I have played Red and had a wonderful time,” says the general, “It is pretty easy to disrupt Blue. We should not expect an enemy to play by established norms in space. They will play dirty pool.”

One shot China has been practising became clear a year ago, on January 11th 2007. In a nuclear-proof air force command centre, built on giant shock-absorbing springs within Cheyenne Mountain, outside Colorado Springs, officers tracked a missile fired from a mobile launcher deep inside China. It followed what one American official said was a “strange” trajectory, designed neither to land a warhead nor to put a payload into orbit. Instead it intercepted one of China's ageing weather satellites. The impact about 850km (530 miles) above Earth created a huge field of space debris, contributing about 28% of the junk now floating around in space (see chart).



Litter louts do their worst

Creating all this rubbish seems a bit irresponsible for a country seeking to be a great space-faring nation. It is true that both America and Russia carried out scores of similar anti-satellite (ASAT) tests during the cold war. Then they stopped, not least because the celestial shrapnel was endangering their hugely expensive satellites. They also accepted that spy satellites provided a degree of mutual reassurance in nuclear arms control. The last piece of American ASAT debris fell back to Earth in 2006, say Pentagon officials. China's shrapnel, created in a higher orbit, could be around for a century to come.

The missile shot put America on notice that it can be challenged in space. The Chinese routinely turn powerful lasers skywards, demonstrating their potential to dazzle or permanently blind spy satellites. “They let us see their lasers. It is as if they are trying to intimidate us,” says Gary Payton, a senior Pentagon official dealing with space programmes. The only conclusion, he argues, is that “space is no longer a sanctuary; it is a contested domain.”

In a report to Congress in November, a commission examining America's relations with China gave warning that “the pace and success of China's military modernisation continue to exceed US government estimates.” China's principal aim, the report said, is to develop the wherewithal to delay or deter American military intervention in any war over Taiwan.

The ASAT test intensifies the concern of those who already find plenty to worry about in Chinese military literature. A study for the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank, cites a Chinese theorist who argues that China should adopt a policy of overt deterrence in space. Other Chinese argue that their country's territorial sovereignty extends to space. This kind of thing reinforces the hawkishness of American hardliners.

Ashley Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, another think-tank, believes China ultimately seeks to build a “Sinocentric order in Asia and perhaps globally.” Any attempt to negotiate arms-control agreements in space would be futile, he argues, and America “has no choice but to run the offence-defence space race, and win.”

Other experts, such as Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Centre, a security think-tank, play down the Chinese peril. Mr Krepon says that though similarly alarming conclusions could have been drawn from American or Soviet military literature in the cold war, a space war never took place. What is more, the greater China's economic reliance on satellites, the keener it will be to protect them.

Even those who doubt that America would really go to war against China for the sake of Taiwan worry about the dangers posed by the growing number of countries that have access to outer space. Ten countries (or groups of countries) and two commercial consortia can launch satellites into orbit. A further 18 have ballistic missiles powerful enough to cross space briefly. By the end of 2006, 47 countries and other groups had placed satellites in orbit, either on their own or with help from others. In its crudest form, any object can become a space weapon if directed into the path of a satellite.

In testimony to Congress last year, General James Cartwright, a former head of America's Strategic Command, said that “intentional interference” with all types of satellites, “while not routine, now occurs with some regularity”. GPS signals are relatively weak and easy to jam. For several months in 2006 electronic jammers in Libya interfered with the Thuraya satellite telephone system, apparently because the Libyan government wanted to make life difficult for smugglers in the Sahara desert.



Satellites are not just military tools; they have also become a vital part of globalised civilian life. It is hard to disentangle military from civilian uses of space. Military GPS satellites support a myriad of civilian uses, including road directions for taxi drivers, navigation for commercial airliners, tracking goods in transit and time signals for cash dispensers. But the armed services' hunger for electronic data means that four-fifths of America's military data is transmitted through commercial satellites. A single Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft flying over Afghanistan can eat up several times more satellite bandwidth than was used for the whole of the 1991 war against Iraq.

Star wars delayed

Space provides the high ground from which to watch, listen and direct military forces. But the idea that countries would fight it out in space has so far been confined to science fiction. International law treats outer space as a global common, akin to the high seas. Countries are free to use space for “peaceful purposes” but may not stake territorial claims to celestial bodies or place nuclear weapons in space. “Peaceful” has been interpreted to mean “non-aggressive” rather than non-military. Space is highly militarised but for the moment nobody has placed weapons there, not openly at least.

During the cold war, under Ronald Reagan's presidency, America worked on plans for space-based weapons designed to shoot down ballistic missiles. But this “star wars” programme faded with the collapse of Soviet communism. Before being appointed defence secretary in 2001, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a special commission to review America's space policy. It issued a stark warning that America could suffer a crippling surprise attack on its space systems—a “space Pearl Harbour”—and argued that America “must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space.”

America then broke out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, freeing itself to pursue a slimmed-down version of missile defence. The latest official statement on America's space policy, issued in 2006, affirms the country's freedom of action in space, the right of self-defence and the right to “deny, if necessary, its adversaries the use of space.” At the UN General Assembly, America has stood alone in voting against a resolution supporting negotiations on a treaty to prevent a space arms race, an idea pushed by China and Russia.

Yet the Bush administration has stopped short of taking the fateful step of “weaponisation” in space. Perhaps it is too preoccupied with Iraq, and certainly the downfall of Mr Rumsfeld removed a powerful champion of space weapons. A year after China's ASAT shot, the defence budget passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress did not provide any money for a missile defence “space test-bed”.

One of the big disincentives to placing weapons in space has been the technical difficulty and cost of such an enterprise. A recent study by the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), a defence think-tank, concluded that ground-based systems were almost always more cost effective and reliable than space-based weapons, whether used to attack missiles, enemy satellites or targets on land.

America is still hedging its bets. With some tweaking, say experts, the ground-based interceptors for shooting down ballistic missiles could be used against satellites. A host of technologies under research, such as high-powered lasers to destroy missiles rising through the air, could be applied to anti-satellite warfare.
A game of celestial dodgems

The core fear is that any conflict in space would cause the most injury to America since America has the most to lose. Damaged planes crash to the ground and destroyed ships sink to the bottom of the sea. But the weightlessness of space means that debris keeps spinning around the Earth for years, if not centuries. Each destruction of a satellite creates, in effect, thousands of missiles zipping round randomly; each subsequent impact provides yet more high-speed debris. At some point, given enough litter, there would be a chain reaction of impacts that would render parts of low-Earth orbit—the location of about half the active satellites—unusable.

As matters stand, ground controllers periodically have to shift the position of satellites to avoid other objects. This month, NASA was tracking about 3,100 active and inactive satellites, and some 9,300 bits of junk larger than 5cm, about 2,600 of them from the Chinese ASAT test. Given their speed, even particles as small as 1cm (of which there may be hundreds of thousands) are enough to cripple a satellite.

For America, then, avoiding a space war may be a matter of self-preservation. The air force has adopted a doctrine of “counterspace operations” that envisages either destroying enemy satellites in a future war or temporarily disabling them. But for the most part, America's space security relies on passive measures: sidestepping an attacker by moving out of the way of possible strikes; protecting the vital organs of satellites by “hardening” them against laser or electromagnetic attack; replacing any damaged satellites; or finding alternative means to do the job, for example with blimps or unmanned aircraft.

More esoteric space research has ideas such as sending small satellites to act as “guardian angels”, detecting possible attacks against the big birds. It also includes plans for breaking up satellites into smaller components that communicate wirelessly, or deploying “space tugs” that would repair and refuel existing satellites.

Few of these options are cost-free. More manoeuvrable satellites are heavier, as they have to carry more fuel; protective equipment makes satellites cumbrous and more expensive; placing a satellite farther away from Earth, where it is more difficult to attack, means it will broadcast a weaker signal or require more costly sensors and antennae. The promise of cheap, reuseable launch vehicles has yet to materialise. All this makes it hard for America to achieve its goal of “operationally responsive space”: the ability to place satellites in orbit quickly and inexpensively.

The essential prerequisite for better space security is to improve “situational awareness”: that is, to know what is in space, who it belongs to and whether it is acting in a threatening manner. America already has the world's most developed space monitoring system with a network of radars and telescopes. But its surveillance is patchy. Objects in orbit are catalogued periodically rather than tracked continuously. Space surveillance is not really like air-traffic control: it is more akin to trying to track ships at sea with the naked eye, watching them leave port and predicting when they will next come in sight of land. There are gaps in coverage, particularly over the southern hemisphere, and much of the antiquated surveillance system cannot fuse the data to create an overall picture.

Space surveillance would seem to be ideally suited to international co-operation. Yet the Americans, Chinese, Russians and Europeans all seem intent on doing their own monitoring. They are frightened of giving away their space secrets to rivals. Accurate and timely information on space objects is vital for defending a satellite, but also necessary for attacking one.

Coming back down to Earth

Many strategists argue that the most vulnerable parts of the American space system are closer to home. Ground stations and control centres, particularly those of commercial operations, are exposed to conventional bombing, whether by armies or terrorists. Communication links to and from satellites are open to interference. In cyber-warfare, critical parts of the space system could be attacked from distant computers. Even without external meddling, notes Tom Ehrhard, a senior fellow at the CSBA, American forces struggle to find enough bandwidth and to prevent the myriad of electronic systems from jamming each other.

Some remedial action is being taken. Backup ground stations are being set up in case the main GPS control centre outside Colorado Springs is disabled. New satellites will have a more powerful GPS signal that is harder to block. America is experimenting with satellite-to-satellite communication by laser, which can carry more data and is less prone to interference than radio waves.

And the armed forces are starting to train for warfare with few or no data links. Simulated attacks by both space and cyberspace “aggressors” are being incorporated into events such as the regular “Red Flag” air-combat exercises over the Nevada desert. But, said an officer at one recent wargame, there are other ways of doing things. “If you really want to take us down, why go to space? You could just try to take out the control tower or bring down the electricity supply to the base.”

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533205

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 26, 2008, 10:37am

Israel launches new satellite to spy on Iran

Mark Tran
Monday January 21, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

Israel today launched a powerful spy satellite to keep watch on Iran, its main threat in the region.

The TecSar satellite has an advanced radar system that should allow Israeli intelligence officials to gather material at night and in cloudy weather, a capacity beyond current Israeli satellites.

Reportedly capable of imaging with a resolution of up to 10 centimetres, TecSar is considered crucial to enable Israel to track Iran's nuclear activities. Israel suspects Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, despite conclusions to the contrary by US intelligence agencies.

Last November, a US intelligence report stated that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme, a finding that undermined hawks in the US who had been pushing for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel, however, has publicly disagreed with the US intelligence finding.

Israel's most advanced satellite was sent into orbit by an Indian rocket from the Sriharikota launching range in south-east India. It was the first time an Israeli satellite had been launched by an Indian rocket.

The decision to use an Indian vehicle was reached three years ago during a visit by the then defence ministry director-general Amos Yaron and marks growing Indian-Israeli cooperation. Two more satellites using Indian rockets are scheduled.

The TecSar, manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), uses radar to identify targets. The use of radar marks a considerable advance on Israel's Ofek series of reconnaissance satellites that rely on cameras.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the satellite, weighing some 300 kilogrammes, was launched at 5:45am (3.45am GMT), and was successfully placed in orbit.

Scientists and engineers are now conducting tests to check the systems and gauge their performance. First pictures from the satellite are expected within two weeks.

The TecSar launch was postponed a number of times, largely due to weather conditions.

Israel operates a number of reconnaissance satellites, including Ofek 5 and Ofek 7, as well as several commercial satellites, such as the Amos and Eros series. A total of 11 Israeli satellites have been placed in orbit, a number of them still operational.

"The TecSar is the first satellite of its kind developed in Israel, and ranks among the world's most advanced space systems," IAI said in a statement.

The satellite includes an advanced imaging system based on synthetic aperture radar, or SAR, technology, the statement said. The development and launch cost tens of millions of dollars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0%2C%2C2244325%2C00.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 26, 2008, 11:06am

Russian missile cruiser hits all test targets in Atlantic
19:24 | 21/ 01/ 2008

MOSCOW, January 21 (RIA Novosti) - The flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva guided-missile cruiser, has successfully hit designated targets as part of a Navy exercise in the northern Atlantic Monday, a Navy spokesman said.



A Joint Naval Task Force, comprised of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Udaloy-Class destroyers Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko, as well as auxiliary vessels, is currently on a two-month tour of duty in the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic.

"The missile system used for the launches has no match in performance terms," Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo, an aide to the Navy commander, said.

The Moskva cruiser joined up with Russian warships in the Mediterranean on Friday to participate in ongoing maneuvers, including live missile launches against airborne and seaborne targets.

Russian warships will also practice interoperability with naval aviation and strategic bombers for several days.

The operation is the first large-scale Russian Navy exercise in the Atlantic for 15 years. All the warships and aircraft involved are carrying full combat ammunition loads, the Navy said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080121/97461951.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 26, 2008, 12:20pm

Divine Strake By Another Name:
Nuclear Weapons Effects Tests at White Sands



http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/500ton_WSMR.pdf

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 9:20am

Spook Geek Agency Picks A Leader
By Sharon Weinberger January 09, 2008 | 3:05:19 PM



The nascent Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) took a nice step forward today by announcing (at long last) its first director.

Lisa Porter, currently NASA's Associate Administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, has been tapped to head the new office, which is supposed to be modeled after the Pentagon's DARPA. Among other qualifications, Porter has prior experience at DARPA (a big plus, considering IARPA is supposed to replicate DARPA) and a doctorate in applied physics from Stanford University.

IARPA now also has something DARPA hasn't yet had: a woman at the helm.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/spook-geek-agen.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 9:42am

Stun Gun Patent Battle Breaks Out
By Sharon Weinberger January 10, 2008 | 7:00:00 PM



Stun gun maker Stinger Systems today issued a press release announcing that it had asked the U.S. Patent Office to reexamine one of Taser International's patents:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently evaluating whether to reexamine Taser International, Inc.'s (Nasdaq: TASR) United States Patent 7,234,262. The application for the '262 Patent was filed on December 2, 2005. It is alleged that the application for the '262 Patent was erroneously designated as a continuation of an earlier Taser patent application, filed on September 17, 1999, and that Taser failed to disclose to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that from at least the year 2000, Taser had manufactured an M-26 model Taser, embodying the inventions claimed in the '262 application. It is further alleged that, consequently, the inventions claimed in the '262 application are unpatentable as obvious pursuant to 35 United States Code 103(a).

For now, it's not clear if the patent office will even reexamine this patent. Stinger Systems has also announced that the patent office has canceled another Taser International patent for nonlethal land mines, which is interesting, but not exactly a huge market area for stun guns.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/stun-gun-upstar.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 9:50am

F-15s return to flight but flaws found in others: air force

Jan 9, 2008



WASHINGTON (AFP) — Inspectors have found structural flaws in about 40 percent of the US Air Force's F-15A-D fighter aircraft, the service said Wednesday, raising questions about their long-term viability.

The air force grounded all 665 of its F-15 fighters in November after one broke up in the air during a simulated dogfight over Missouri.

After more than two months of inspections, the air force said 295 F-15 fighters of the "A" through "D" models have been cleared to fly again as of Wednesday.

But the inspections found nine aircraft with cracks in the thin strips of metal to which the aircraft's skin is attached, called longerons, the defect that is reported to have caused the F-15 to break up in flight November 2.

"Additionally, approximately 40 percent of inspected aircraft have at least one longeron that does not meet blueprint specifications," the air force said in a statement.

About 90 percent of the fleet has now been inspected so the air force is faced with a decision about whether to fix or retire the more than 100 aircraft with the structural flaws.

Some older F-15 already had been scheduled for retirement beginning in 2009, and the cost of replacing a defective longeron is about 200,000 dollars, said Major Thomas Crosson, spokesman for the air force's Air Combat Command in Langley, Virginia.

"I could kind of sum it up in one phrase and that is 'return on investment,'" he said.

"We're going to evaluate what is going to be needed to fix those jets and how those jets that need fixing fit into the retirement plan. Are we going to spend 200, 300,000 dollars to fix a jet that we are going to use only another year or two?"

Long the top US fighter jet, the F-15s now have an average age of about 25 years.

F-15Es, the most advanced model in the line, are used for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan but the older "A" through "D" models are mainly used to defend US air space.

They are gradually being replaced by the F-22, a faster, stealthy and more expensive aircraft, but the air force says it needs more than the 183 F-22s that it has been authorized to buy.

Air force leaders have pushed for authority to buy 381 F-22s, arguing in part that the existing fighter fleet is increasingly at risk.

The Los Angeles Times quoted US Defense Secretary Robert Gates as saying the air force's problems are genuine.

"The air force's top priority has to be the replacement of the tanker fleet, but I think the notion that the air force is somehow pumping up the F-15 problem, I just don't believe that for a second. I think it's a real concern," Gates said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1Ccwc3UVTPEmzNukRJQ5qBlUyvA

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 10:07am

The art of looking good on patrol in Iraq

Elbow or knee pads strapped deliberately to ankles and goggles worn back to front over helmets, some Iraqi soldiers have a unique sense of style.


Sejad Mehdi wears knee pads around his ankles while on patrol

Efforts to mimic their American mentors or simply spruce up and re-enforce their regular army gear result in a variety of different outfits whenever the troops are on patrol.

Sejad Mehdi, 21, said that he habitually fixes a pair of goggles to the back of his American helmet – bought at a Baghdad market for 50,000 Iraqi dinar (21 pounds) – because he saw US troops wearing them that way rather than because he uses the mask in his job.
“It makes the helmet look better,” he said, speaking while on a joint patrol escorting a visiting American general to a market in Yousifiyah, a town south of Baghdad, last week.

Asked why he also had knee pads around his ankles, Mr Mehdi said: “It looks more trendy and they tend to slip down when you have them around your knees.”

Pads sometimes worn by US troops (officers told me that their new uniform has internally fitted padding for the knees already, which makes the attachable versions redundant) have been known to slip down on operations, but certain Iraqis think it looks good that way to begin with so put them around their ankles on purpose.
There is trouble, however, if a commanding officer spots the fashion statement.


I love the fact that this soldier posed for a picture with the little girl with a fag in one hand and a meat cleaver in the other.

“I have punished two soldiers before because they did not have their pads in the right position,” said Captain Ali Mansour, a Special Forces officer aged 31. “They said that it was more comfortable to wear around their ankles because otherwise it limits their movement.”

Knee pads and goggles are among a range of extra products that Iraqi soldiers who can afford to buy to improve their image and for better protection – Iraq’s security forces are a prime target for the insurgency that has plagued the country since 2003. Other favourite items include secondhand American military boots and helmets, magazine holders, gun holsters and even handcuffs.

Markets in Baghdad do a roaring trade in old US military equipment for the new Iraqi Army. Even combat trousers and shirts (including American cast-offs) are on offer for anyone who would rather not wear the regular uniform issued by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence.

“I did not like the uniform given to me by the Iraqi Army so I bought my own one,” said Mohaned Sa’ad, aged 22, showing off a dark green top and pair of trousers that are typically warn by Iraqi Special Forces rather than ordinary soldiers like him.

American troops also on occasion give an old helmet, a pair of protective glasses or even a flak jacket to their poorly equipped Iraqi partners who they train or work alongside.

Standing to attention with a pair of protective shades wrapped around his face and pistol strapped to one thigh, Bassam Abas is kitted out in presents from American army friends and gear that he has bought.

“Many soldiers look good. We take care of our image, but to do this we have to buy extra gadgets because the equipment we get from the Iraqi Army is not good.” said the 25-year-old soldier.

“The Americans teach us many things such as how to hold a rifle, how to stand to attention and to keep our uniform clean.”

http://timesonline.typepad.com/inside_iraq_weblog/2008/01/the-art-of-look.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 10:13am

Jan 9 2008

Shortwave infrared: Next-generation night vision

* Mark Rutherford


Image taken of a hotel from a distance in heavy haze sans SWIR (left) and with SWIR.
(Credit: SUI)

The next generation in night vision for the U.S. military may be something that is already a commercial success in such applications as noninvasive medical examinations and silicon wafer inspection.

DARPA is betting on an indium gallium arsenide crystal and shortwave infrared (SWIR) sensor technology developed by Sensors Unlimited (SUI) that works in a wavelength somewhere between the visible and thermal bands. SUI, a subsidiary of Goodrich, has signed a three-year contract with DARPA to develop prototypes of lightweight helmet- and vehicle-mounted cameras based on SWIR technology.


(Credit: SUI)

Incorporating advanced materials and circuitry, the cameras detect reflected light at wavelengths invisible both to the human eye and current night-vision technology. The cameras with a resolution of 640x512 pixels will weigh less than 10 grams, or 0.35 ounces, light enough to use on hand-launched unmanned air vehicles and other small conveyances. There are other cameras operating on SWIR wavelengths that are made of different materials, but they need to be mechanically cooled--and that adds weight.

SWIR cameras operate in starlight conditions, relying on illumination from "atmospheric night glow," a phenomenon created by hydroxyl ion emissions in the shortwave infrared portion of the spectrum, according to SUI. (Night sky radiance emits five to seven times more illumination than starlight.)

But it really pays off in target recognition. "Humans are very recognizable, with the typical difference being that all hair shows as white due to the lack of moisture in hair," the company says. "Conversely, skin shows darker, due to its high moisture content."

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9846350-1.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 10:17am

War and Porn Collide
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 1/10/2008 7:59 AM

New generation cellular telephones – which offer wider channel width and much faster data rates that allow video and the internet to be shown on a handheld telephone screen – are being driven by the large commercial market for games, pornography and gambling, say top electronic warfare researchers.

That popularity is reducing prices so that these same capabilities are being adopted and reshaped to fill the arsenals of the worlds’ military cyber warriors. Military organizations around the globe, including the U.S., are using commercially developed attack and network exploitation technologies to build an arsenal of rapidly upgradable, flexible and hard to avoid cyber weapons.

In fact, the ability to move lots of data quickly and securely is expected to eliminate many of the aircrew from the U.S. Air Force’s premier Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft and the Army and Navy’s next attempts at the Aerial Common Sensor, a next-generation intelligence gathering aircraft.


Credit: USAF

As network technology improvements accelerate, however, the typical hacker has changed from the precocious teenager to members of organized crime groups, says Rance Walleston, BAE Systems’ director of information warfare and information operations initiative tells Aviation Week & Space Technology.

“Anybody who has gone after illegal money in the past is just finding a new way to do it,” he says. “It’s becoming global. We can identify from their methods of attacking networks whether it’s Russian or Brazilian crime gangs.”

“In China, it’s like the Wild West of networks,” says a military cyber warrior. “They really beat each other up. Cyber warfare is a way of doing business. If you are a voice over IP provider, it’s considered fair game for your opponent to take down your network. From a customer’s perspective, they just see that their service isn’t working. They don’t realize that other companies are taking them down so the effect can be used for industrial extortion.”

It used to be that hackers wanted their name associated with the great vulnerabilities they found. But now that big money is involved, they don’t publish what they’re doing say cyber specialists.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/def....2-554cf1 09f8be

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:13am

U.S. Africa Command vs. Global Warming
By Noah Shachtman January 11, 2008 | 4:00:00 PM



The U.S. military's new Africa Command was touted as a way to stop the spread of global jihadism. But it looks like AFRICOM is going to be handling a whole lot of other issues along the way... including the consequences of climate change, Inside the Pentagon reports.

Last spring, research and analysis firm CNA Corp. conducted a study proposing a link between climate change and war. The authors of the report, drafted with the help of a military advisory board of 11 former officers, expressed concern that several regions like Africa vulnerable to climate change may be drawn into conflict in the future. The study specifically mentioned the Darfur area of Sudan.

According to the latest United Nations figures, more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2 million others forced to flee their homes since 2003. The U.S. government has described the situation as genocide. The conflict between the Sudanese government and Darfurians is rooted in the migratory movement of farmers into herders’ areas due to the loss of arable land following weather pattern changes.

“The issues of changing weather patterns and a sustained severe drought has impacted on Darfur and set the conditions for the increase in tensions between those that were farmers and those that were camel herders,” Theresa Whelan, the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, tells Inside the Pentagon.

“And certainly, peripherally, to the extent that the Africa Command... enables African forces to be more effective in deterring conflicts, defusing conflicts, responding to local flare-ups that might occur because of some environmentally caused issue -- then, yes, you could say that AFRICOM is part of the process of addressing the consequences of environmental change,” she added.

AFRICOM may be able to intervene in other situations created by climate change, Whelan said.

In the event that an African country experiences a spike in rainfall, making a stream no longer crossable via foot, the command may work with that nation’s military engineers to help build a bridge over the water, she said.

“You could imagine scenarios like that,” she said.

The United States and Africa already have certain relationships revolving around the environment that involve both militaries, added Whelan.

The U.S. and South African governments have had a working group on climate-related security for several years aimed at reducing the impact of military operations on the environment and developing procedures for environmentally safe training practices, she explained. Under AFRICOM she expects the bilateral relationship to build on “core competencies,” but did not mention specifics.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/africom-vs-glob.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:16am

Nonlethal Crowd Control
By Sharon Weinberger January 11, 2008 | 12:47:47 PM

Imagine if the military could incapacitate an entire crowd of people with a nonlethal weapon mounted on a Humvee. That's what the Marine Corps hopes to do with its Mission Payload Module Non-Lethal Weapons System (MPM-NLWS):



The MPM-NLWS will provide a Joint warfighting capability that delivers counter personnel non-lethal effects applicable to controlling crowds, denying/defending areas, controlling access and engaging threats while providing increased standoff distance for protection of friendly forces. These non-lethal effects will enable friendly forces the following capabilities: deny, disrupt and/or canalize enemy movements and maneuvers; Deny enemy access to terrain or facilities; Enhance friendly force weapons, obstacles, and munitions effects; Generate exploitable delays and opportunities; Produce desired effects on enemy forces (non-lethal); and reduce causalities and risks to the U.S. and allied forces. The MPM-NLWS will be designed to operate in all operating environments and is well suited for asymmetric warfare, urban environments, maritime security, homeland defense and decisive combat engagements.

I.B System Description

The MPM-NLWS is a non-lethal weapon system that is explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate with a high probability of infliction to personnel positioned within the targeted area, while maintaining a low probability of permanent injury. The MPM-NLWS is envisioned, but not conclusive, to be a tube launched munitions system that delivers a volume of fire to affect a targeted area; however, other non-kinetic non-lethal technologies (payloads) are known and may be available that could adequately satisfy the desired performance parameters and system attributes identified in the MPM-NLWS Performance Specification.

As the pictures above shows, it's a Humvee (or Humvee-replacement) mounted system, although the draft solicitation says that future versions may go on unmanned ground systems or naval vessels (which would have made the recent confrontation with Iran pretty interesting). It's worthwhile to note that one of the lead candidates for the delivery system is Metal Storm (of "million rounds a minute" fame) While I've often ridiculed questioned Metal Storm's market strategy (i.e. convincing shareholders that Metal Storm is the next sliced bread), I do believe the technology may have some very decent niche capabilities, like this one.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/nonlethal-crowd.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:20am

New U.S. Tactic: Bomb Roads, Before the Iraqis Do
By Noah Shachtman January 11, 2008 | 8:57:00 AM



Since the Iraq insurgency started, I must have heard a thousand idea for beating roadside bombs -- from lightning guns to radio-controlled toys to mine-mashers to microwave blasts to new roads to just plain walking.

But this NPR report reveals a brand new tactic for dealing with deep-buried improvised explosives: fly a B-1 overhead, and bomb the living crap out of the road itself. Detonate all those weapons, in other words, before the insurgents do.

It's all part of an absolutely ginormous U.S. assault on Sunni insurgent strongholds north and south of Baghdad -- seven battalions, in an region that was once patrolled by just 500 soldiers, Phil Carter points out. Phil spent a year where all those troops are now. He's confident that American forces can kick around any insurgents they find there. But he's still pessimistic about how far this war can move beyond wack-a-mole. Or bomb-a-road.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/b-1s-drones-vs.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:23am

Dolphins Play with Drone "Flying Fish"
By Noah Shachtman January 07, 2008 | 1:25:00 PM

The University of Michigan's Flying Fish drone isn't the first robotic plane that can take off and land on water by itself. The Pentagon-funded machine recently became "the world's most unusual dolphin toy," too. LiveScience has the story -- and the footage to prove it.



Remarkably, when the UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] was landing in the sea, scientists on the research vessel John Martin monitoring the tests saw dolphins swim over to investigate.

To the researchers, it appeared that the dolphins thought the UAV was a pelican diving for fish, said Ella Atkins, a researcher from U-M's Aerospace Engineering Department.

Finding the craft wasn't a bird that had spotted tasty fish swimming below, the pod of three dolphins began playing with it, repeatedly swimming in formation with the little seaplane and diving underneath on one side to surface again on the other.

It's not surprising the playful dolphins initially were fooled. The Flying Fish is about the size and weight of a large seabird.

"We studied seabirds seriously," said Guy Meadows, director of the U-M Hydrodynamics Laboratories. He had the idea for the unmanned seaplane while watching flying fish pop up from the sea, soar over the waves, and drop down again.

Seabirds are "all about the same size — about 20 pounds with a 2-meter wingspan," said Meadows. "It turns out that, aerodynamically speaking, that's a sweet spot to be flying close to the water. Our plane is about the size of a large pelican."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/dolphins-robots.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:33am

Twenty Billion Ways to Say We Love You
By Sharon Weinberger January 14, 2008 | 5:08:07 PM

Timing is everything. President Bush's visit to Saudi Arabia today came with a sweetener: a formal announcement of plans to sell Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMS) bombs to the oil-rich Kingdom. The sale is part of a larger arms package intended for the Gulf and estimated at a hefty $20 billion. As the Jerusalem Post reports:



Coinciding with Bush's trip, the Bush administration in Washington notified Congress on Monday that it would offer Saudi Arabia the chance to buy sophisticated Joint Direct Attack Munitions - or "smart bomb" - technology and related equipment, the State Department said. The administration envisions the transfer of 900 of the precision-guided bomb kits, worth US$123 million, that would give the kingdom's armed forces highly accurate targeting abilities.

The proposed deal follows notification of five other packages to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, bringing to US$11.5 billion the amount of advanced US weaponry, including Patriot missiles, that the administration has announced it will provide to friendly Arab nations, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Administration officials say the total amount of eventual sales as part of the Gulf Security Dialogue is estimated at $20 billion, a figure subject to actual purchases.

While some talking heads are saying Congress may balk, the sale has already gone through informal notification periods so I expect it'll sail through the 30-day congressional notification period.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/twenty-billion.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:37am

Lasers Zap With 'Nonlethal' Pulses
By David Hambling January 14, 2008 | 1:42:00 PM

Zapping lenses and sensors is just the beginning. The same technology behind the Laser Crazer weapon I describe in Wired News may ultimately be used to produce ray guns designed for "personnel incapacitation."



There are a whole family of lasers that create intense pulses of laser energy, that, in turn, produces a plasma flash-bang at the target's surface. The Laser Crazer is just the latest example.

The big bear of this technology is the Pulsed Energy Projectile, a chemical laser weighing several hundred pounds that's being developed as a nonlethal antipersonnel weapon. It fires pulses slowly -- at a rate of less than ten per second.

The middle bear is the Plasma Acoustic Shield System, a solid state laser producing hundreds of pulses a second as a screening device and to stun and disorientate.

The latest device is the little bear of the three, based on a femtosecond laser firing ten thousand plus pulses a second, creating a series of minute explosions at the target surface. That's enough to scratch glass and damage lenses, but little else. The photo at left shows the laser hitting a glass target.

But there's more to it than that. When the PEP's predecessor was being developed – the Pulsed Impulsive Kill Laser or PIKL – the emphasis was on the shockwave it produced. Then it was discovered that against living targets, there was a more dramatic effect of pain and paralysis. This turned out to be due to the electromagnetic pulse caused by the expanding plasma, and the PEP took a new direction.

In 2005, documents released under the FoIA showed that PEP was being tuned to maximise the pain effect of the plasma blasts . The term to watch out for is "nociceptor activation." Nociceptors are the pain-sensing nerve cells, and activation is setting them off. The problem is that these laser-generated plasmas are not yet well understood.

A session at the Directed Energy & Non-Lethal Weapons conference in December was supposed to have included a session on the PEP. The topic: "identify & specify bio-effects parameters that would cause personnel incapacitation and to determine if a laser system can produce that incapacitation effect." But apparently this was canceled, alas.

So, naturally, I was interested in a paper on "detection and analysis of RF emission generated by laser-matter interactions" -- especially because the contributors included researchers into femtosecond laser and those who had done the "maximum pain" work. Basically, they fired ultrashort, one-joule pulses at copper and dielectric targets and measured the EMP produced. In the results the authors record fields of 400 volts/meter, noting that somewhat higher fields (10,000 volts/meter) are needed for nociceptor activation.

The femtosecond laser they used is not quite capable of causing agony at the receiving end. But that seems to be the intention (the fact that the study was sponsored by the Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate may be a clue, too). DARPA-back researchers are already working on a shoebox-sized femtosecond laser, and it's likely they will succeed in the near future. Of course, humans aren’t the only ones vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse. The same technology could be used to develop anti-missile, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and other weapons which would use a relatively weak laser to zap the target with EMP from a plasma burst on its surface. The US Army is developing an ultra-short pulse laser which aims to destroy IEDs and other targets.

The technology is advancing fast; how long it remains in the open is anyone's guess.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/laser-for-micro.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:39am

New Sensor-Blasting Laser: Blinding Brilliance?
By David Hambling January 14, 2008 | 1:40:00 PM

What can you do with laser that destroys glass lenses? Zap incoming missiles, neutralize armored vehicles, and wipe out night vision goggles, for starters. In Wired News, I describe the Laser Crazer, a gadget for doing just that. The trick is to use a laser which is phenomenally powerful -– ten million megawatts no less -– but which fires thousands of incredibly short pulses. Pulse length is measured in femtoseconds (millionths of a nanosecond) so the actual pulse energy is quite low, and the laser itself can be compact enough to be portable.



Pulses like that might be a great way to blinding heat-seeking missiles -- either surface-to-air or air-to-air. Current infrared countermeasures use a laser, but can only temporarily confuse heat seekers:

Closed-Loop IRCM would analyze incoming missiles, determine their type, then return a custom jam code sequence that would cause the missile to break lock and move sharply away from the target aircraft, allowing engagement of another target after only 3-4 seconds. This would surpass current open-loop systems, which confuse missiles with random false targets or IR energy, making the missile wobble in flight but not necessarily break lock. The missile can reacquire the target if the jam head moves to another missile.

It might also be a way of neutralizing armored vehicles without destroying them. Armed with one of these you can laser-sandblast the vision blocks and external optics without giving away your own position, leaving them inacapable of firing accurately, or even driving without sticking a vulnerable head out of the hatch.

It could also be used to blind all sorts of sensors – night vision gear, missile sights, pretty much anything that anyone might be using to watch you. In fact, it might lead to a revival of the Stingray Combat Protection System (AN/VLQ-7), described here as:

a tactical laser system integrated on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and designed to acquire and defeat threat direct fire control systems. Stingray increases the effectiveness and survivability of the Bradley crew and other friendly forces in the area by employing in-band laser energy to acquire and disable threat fire control systems..."

Stingray detects, tracks, and counters optical and electro-optical devices on tanks, combat vehicles, and other ground and airborne systems "beyond the threat's effective [conventional weapons] ranges." The weapon works by scanning for a sensor with a low-power near infrared spectrum beam (a novel solid-state neodymium laser), reflecting a small fraction of the light back upon entering an optical system, and then instantaneously increasing the level of laser energy to overload or jam the sensor.

Stingray was developed by Martin Marietta Electronics and Missiles Group of Orlando, Florida, for the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey. General Electric (GE) was the subcontractor for the actual laser. The 350-pound system consists of four components...

Two Stingrays were deployed to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War, but were never used. The program -- along with a whole host of other US projects – was discontinued after 1995. The problem was that Stingray would be as efficient as permanently blinding humans as sensors, and the 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons effectively banned this class of weapon.

Efforts to create something similar to Stingray with lasers which only dazzled rather than blinded were never successful. However, as the detection technology advances – a couple of years ago the Georgia Institute of Technology revealed a system which can target the CCDs used in digital cameras – it might become feasible to build something capable of knocking out night vision devices, weapon sights and other threats without harming human eyes.

Certainly, you have to assume that the intention behind the Laser Crazer is to have something that will target people as well as sensors.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/new-sensor-blas.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:43am

Osprey's Weapons Not Ready to Shoot?
By David Hambling January 14, 2008 | 12:09:00 PM

The Osprey tilt-rotor is in the news again, and not in a good way. This time it's the Government Accountability Office's report on the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) mortar that the Osprey is supposed to carry. Bottom line:

Since the original acquisition program cost and schedule estimate was approved in 2004, costs have increased by $15.5 million and the schedule has been extended by nearly 2 years.

Being able to transport a 120mm mortar swiftly into action is part of the Osprey's justification -- but it can't do that until the EFSS is ready. Unfortunately delays and cost overruns seems to strike everything around the Osprey, and the scale of the problem is quite breathtaking.



The latest budget documents show that for Financial Year 2006, 12 MV-22 Ospreys were purchased for $1.245 billion – that's $103 million apiece. In, in FY 07 it was 14 for $1.427 billion (or $102 million each), but the situation improves markedly with in FY08 with 21 being bought for just $1.847 billion, so the latest batch are down to $88 million each. Bell Boeing hope that the price will drop further in future.

But those substantial prices don't include the cost of researching and developing the Osprey. I could not locate an 'official' figure for this, but Lee Galliard's very thorough study V-22: Wonder Weapon Or Widow Maker comes up with a cool $18 billion in development costs. That was in 2005: I asked Lee for an update and he says: "By now those 'costs to date' are well over $20 billion and climbing." This includes the production to date.

For comparison, perhaps the nearest equivalent in term of capacity if the CH-47F Chinook. The Chinook can carry thirty-three troops or 25,000 pounds of cargo, compared to the Osprey's 24 passengers or 15,000 lbs. The army paid $157 million for six CH-47Fs in 2007 ($26 million a piece) and $462 million for 16 in 2008 ($32 million each).

So, if we ignore inflation, money-of-year and other factors, the V-22 program would arguably have paid for something over 500 Chinooks. This would have doubled the fleet - as of May '06 there were estimated to be 445 Chinooks still in service.

Each MV-22 costs the equivalent of two or three Chinooks. Supporters argue that with twice the speed of the Chinook (cruising at 270 mph cruise against 135 mph for the helicopter) it's worth the money; critics dispute this.

The other factor which people tend to underestimate is just how long it has taken for the tilt-rotor to reach its present state. The V-22 program goes back 27 years, but was itself a direct offspring of the earlier XV-15 program. This is turn can be traced back to the first US attempts to build a tilt-rotor, the Bell XV-3, pictured. This actually flew over 50 years ago, but was not a success.

The first hover flight was made on August 11, 1955, by a Bell test pilot, but limited progress was made in flight testing during the next three years due to continuing problems with wing/pylon/rotor instabilities during flight. The first of these occurred after only one week and 1.2 hours of flight time, during an air taxi test. It resulted in a hard landing, and the XV-3 sustained rotor and airframe damage. While the damage was not extensive, the discovery of the instability raised major concerns.

In short, as soon as one problem was solved, more arose -- until eventually the program was abandoned because those funding it could not be persuaded that it would ever work as advertised. But the actual history goes back even further, as I recounted in my book Weapons Grade:

The Luftwaffe wanted an aircraft which could keep up with the speed of the Blitzkrieg, and which would not have to rely on airfields, and they came up with the Focke-Achgelis FA-269. This had a large engine in its fuselage and a complicated transmission system to drive two huge propellers on the wings. In normal flight the propellers would face backwards, but they could be rotated through 85 degrees for takeoff and landing.

Models were built and tested in wind-tunnels which seemed to validate the theory, but in June 1942 the Focke Achgelis factory was destroyed by bombing. Faced with starting from scratch, and with a number of engineering problems still to solve (the control system was particularly troublesome), the 269 was cancelled.

So what we are actually seeing is an aircraft with a very long pedigree, indeed. It has taken about 65 years for the concept to be turned into a workable aircraft -- and the Osprey has only made it this far (it has survived multiple attempts to cancel it) because of some stoutly partisan support and deft political footwork.

What's at stake with the Osprey's first deployment to Iraq is around six decades of research, twenty billion dollars of investment, and at least the same amount in future orders. (Which puts the EFSS's problems, at a fews tens of millions and a couple of years, into context). So we can expect that they are going to be very, very careful with those aircraft -- and the news releases are likely to be managed pretty carefully as well.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/osprey-how-much.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:45am

F-22 rises as an option after F-15 faults found

By DAVE MONTGOMERY
Star-Telegram Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Accelerating production of Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor is emerging as a possible option as the Air Force determines how to maintain its overall force structure with the grounding of older-model F-15 fighter jets, a top Air Force general said Friday.

In an interview with the Star-Telegram, Maj. Gen. Mark "Shack" Shackelford said Air Force leaders are studying the service's combat capabilities after finding structural defects in more than 40 percent of the service's 441 F-15s.

One possible course, he said, will be "should we or could we accelerate the rate at which we buy F-22s." He added, however, that it is "too early to speculate" on the ultimate decision.

Shackelford, who oversees the acquisition of fighters and bombers, said the discussion on the F-15 is unrelated to a separate high-profile push to extend Raptor production beyond its scheduled termination in 2011. But he acknowledged a "potential fallout effect" resulting from problems with older F-15s, which the F-22 is being built to replace.

An internal debate has raged for months over the Defense Department's plan to cease F-22 production in 2011 after a final purchase of 20 fighters. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, a former Fort Worth aerospace executive, favors that plan, but Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, a Grand Prairie native, is leading his service's push to keep the assembly line open.

Under the current plan the Air Force's F-22 fleet would be capped at 183 aircraft, roughly half the number service officials say is needed to maintain U.S. air superiority. More than 1,800 Lockheed workers in Fort Worth build the center fuselage, the largest section, and Boeing workers in Seattle build the tail and rear section. The fighter is assembled at a Lockheed Martin plant in Marietta, Ga., which also builds the forward fuselage.

Shackelford restated the Air Force's goal of buying 381 Raptors, which he said is the minimum needed to confront a proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missiles and the emergence of new-generation fighters in Russia and China.

Maj. Gen. Jeff Riemer, program executive officer for the F-22 who also participated in the interview, said the Air Force has several cost scenarios for extending Raptor production.

The current production rate of 20 a year means that building 198 more aircraft would cost about $40 billion and keep the production line open until 2019. But boosting production to 32 annually, he said, would be more efficient, reducing the cost to about $35 billion, and production would last until 2016.

The two-star generals stressed that the Air Force remains committed to buying 1,763 of the F-35 Lightning II, a joint strike fighter also being made by a Lockheed-led team, and said the two aircraft will complement each other.

Under the current cap of 183 aircraft, Riemer said, suppliers would be forced to begin shutting down production later this year and workers at the Fort Worth plant would produce the last center fuselage in December 2010.

Raptor supporters in Congress have cited the older aircraft's troubles as an argument for increasing production of the new aircraft, widely regarded as the world's most sophisticated fighter.

The Air Force grounded its F-15 fleet after an F-15C broke apart in November on a training mission southwest of St. Louis. Although more than 200 have returned to flight, Air Force officials have since found defects in at least 162 aircraft built from 1978 to 1985 by McDonnell Douglas, which later merged with Boeing.

The push to extend F-22 production is likely to be part of annual budget deliberations to shape defense spending for fiscal 2009 and beyond. Fiscal 2009 begins in October, but the congressional debate will begin in early February after President Bush and the Pentagon submit their recommendations.

"There is a fundamental disagreement between the Air Force and the senior policy people [in the Pentagon] over whether additional F-22s are required," said military analyst Loren Thompson, an executive at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. Thompson, who has close contacts in the Pentagon, said the defense budget may opt to defer a decision.

Congressional supporters, many of whom represent the manufacturers or suppliers, are rallying behind the Air Force. Sixty-eight House members and 27 senators sent letters to Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month urging that F-22 production be continued.

Boosting F-22 production is a top priority in Texas, where Lockheed Martin Aeronautics has well-placed political friends. All four Republican House members who represent Tarrant County, Kay Granger of Fort Worth, Joe Barton of Arlington, Michael Burgess of Lewisville and Kenny Marchant of Coppell, and the state's two Republican senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, all signed the letters to Gates.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry made the same appeal in a letter to President Bush on Dec. 21, saying that more than 2,700 people at more than 100 companies work on the F-22 in Texas.

http://origin.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/18219..../printstory.jsp

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:48am

New boat aims to make SEALs' travels less painful

BOOTHBAY, Maine (AP) -- Navy SEALs are tough by nature, but they take a beating from their patrol boats: bruises, bumps and sore backs, even sprained ankles and chipped teeth.


An all-composite version of the aluminum Mark V patrol boat is launched n East Boothbay, Maine on Friday.

An all-composite version of the aluminum Mark V patrol boat, constructed by luxury boat builder Hodgdon Yachts Inc., is aimed at reducing the wear and tear on boat operators and SEALs by absorbing the impact as the vessel crashes through the waves at 50-plus knots.

The goal is a boat that can deliver up to 16 combat-ready Navy SEALS in shape to carry out their missions and will reduce the boat operators' neck, back and joint injuries.

"The idea is to build a boat out of the best carbon-Kevlar composite that we can build to reduce those slamming forces," said David Packhem Jr., president and chief executive officer of Maine Marine Manufacturing LLC, a military spinoff of Hodgdon Yachts.

The 82-foot research prototype unveiled Friday looks similar to current patrol boats, but it has a new hull made from advanced composite materials.

Though designed to reduce slamming forces, the prototype is actually 50 percent stronger -- and slightly lighter -- than the aluminum version. Packhem thinks even more weight can be eliminated without sacrificing performance.

"This extraordinary boat is going to be of extraordinary value to the Navy and to our SEALs," said U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who christened the vessel Friday with a bottle of champagne.

The original Mark V, known in military parlance as the MK V Special Operations Craft, was created in the mid-1990s to get special operations forces, primarily SEAL combat swimmers, quickly in and out of messy situations.

Powered by a pair of diesel engines, the vessel is propelled to a top speed of about 60 mph by twin water jets.

The aluminum hull is stiff and lightweight, but the ocean's force is transmitted to the boat's occupants in bone-jarring fashion.

Fighter jet pilots are subjected to forces up to 10 times the pull of gravity, but the Mark V has produced forces upward of 20 Gs slamming against waves, said Lt. Damon Shearer, senior medical officer of Naval Special Warfare Group 4.

Soon after the vessel went into service, the Navy began getting reports of injuries.

Though it responded by installing shock-absorbing seats, there continues to be a problem with back, neck and joint injuries that occur over time, Shearer said in a phone interview. Furthermore, SEALs are sometimes weary from the beating by the time they arrive for their mission, he said.

Navy Capt. Evin H. Thompson, commander of Naval Special Warfare Group 4 in Norfolk, Virginia, who attended the ceremony in Maine, said he hopes the new vessel -- dubbed the Mark V.1 -- will build upon the lessons learned at sea with the original vessel.

"We've learned along the way about the power of the sea," Thompson said. "The sea can be cruel."

Hodgdon Yachts worked with the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center on the project. Maine's congressional delegation secured $14 million through a series of earmarks over several years.

The prototype developed for the Office of Naval Research and the Special Operations Command was created using multiple layers of carbon with a foam core and an outer layer of Kevlar for additional strength, Packhem said.

Dubbed MAKO for the shark that frequents the Gulf of Maine, the vessel will undergo shipbuilder testing this month in Maine's coastal waters before traveling to Norfolk for further evaluation by the Navy.

If it performs as expected, it could be deployed within two to three years, Thompson said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/13/seals.new.boat.ap/index.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Jan 28, 2008, 11:52am

Gun Egg Fryers, Cook Your Eggs in the Shape of Gun
posted by Scott Beale on Saturday, January 12th, 2008



Consumer products design and development company Urban Trend ( http://www.urbantrendhk.com/ ) has designed a series of Gun Egg Fryers that help you cook your eggs in the shape of a gun.

http://laughingsquid.com/gun-egg-fryers-cook-your-eggs-in-the-shape-of-gun/

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 10:49am

Pentagon's Top Tech: Solar Drones, Robot Security
By Noah Shachtman January 31, 2008 | 11:58:50 AM



The Pentagon just picked 10 of its top technology projects for the upcoming year. Drones that can fly for a week straight, new defenses against shoulder-fired missiles, and robotic security teams are all on the list, Inside Defense notes.

These "Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations," or JCTDs, are the Defense Department's way of nudging promising high-tech efforts out of the lab, and into the field. In a sense, they represent some of the best bets the Pentagon thinks it can make. They include:

* Zephyr, a hand-launched, solar-powered UAV that could fly "continuous operations for periods of months at a time." In the air, it'd be a "low-cost persistent surveillance and communications relay," with providing "ground radio communications links over hundreds of square miles and surveillance of logistics routes and ground threats."

* Global Observer, a "long-endurance, liquid hydrogen-powered unmanned aerial vehicle" that flies as high as 60,000 feet. At that altitude, the drone would provide "persistent surveillance capability" an "broadband communications" for small outposts, "reducing the number of forward bases required for world-wide support." Think of it as Zephyr's bigger brother.

* Joint Force Protection Advanced Security System, a set of sensors and ground robots to protect military bases with fewer humans in the loop.

* Multi-Function Threat Detector, an "expanded aircraft missile warning system" that gives the heads-up about "man-portable air defense systems, rocket-propelled grenade, unguided rockets and incoming surface-to-air fire ranging from small arms to anti-aircraft artillery."

* Combat Autonomous Mobility System, which "demonstrates integrated, ground-based, autonomous technologies to leverage current special operations forces (SOF) manpower. Uses mature sub-components to extend intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance range and targeting coverage, to improve joint fires support and multiple command and control unmanned ground and air systems, and to provide automated support for multiple SOF mission profiles."

No, I'm not sure what that means, either.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/pentagons-top-t.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 10:53am

Is the New Air Force Bomber Doomed?
By Sharon Weinberger January 31, 2008 | 2:00:00 PM



The Air Force's bomber plan doesn't have a lot of cheerleaders. Clark Murdock, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts the criticism bluntly in this new report: "Fielding a penetrating bomber by 2018 is probably not doable, because the technology is not mature enough, and almost certainly not affordable, because the cost of trying to field immature technology will lead to skyrocketing costs."

Actually, I've thought the Air Force's bomber plans --- fielding off-the-shelf technology by 2018 -- made more sense than blue-sky plans to develop entirely new systems. But Murdoch offers a different solution:

If the still-operational force of B-52s and B-1s is not capable of conducting the volume of long-duration air support missions (in low-threat environments) needed in the 2018-timeframe, the Air Force could consider the option of fielding first a commercial-derivative bomber optimized for the low-end mission to fill this capability gap (if it emerges). But this should not divert the Air Force from developing and then procuring the penetrating bomber the nation needs in the mid-2020s when the technology is mature and the next-generation bomber is affordable.

Underlying the bomber conundrum is that there is "little or no effective Air Force advocacy" for fielding a new bomber. In other words, the Air Force, despite official pronouncements, is not 100 percent behind the 2018 bomber, making it unlikely it will be fielded.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/is-the-new-air.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 11:05am

Drone, Copter Team Kills 2,400 Bombers in Iraq
By Noah Shachtman January 21, 2008 | 9:08:00 AM



In Iraq, a hundred-man Army unit is using an array of drones, manned surveillance planes, helicopters, and video downlinks to kill 2,400 bomb-planters and capture 141 more.

The 14-month-old, once-classified Army outfit is called Task Force ODIN, for “observe-detect-identify-neutralize.” It was first disclosed in May. But now, additional details about ODIN are emerging. And the Task Force's "success has led Army officials to expand it and to bring its tactics to Afghanistan," Kris Osborn reports in this week's Defense News.

The unit generally begins its work in the air, high enough for sensor-laden C-12s [reconnaissance planes] and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] equipped with electro-optical/infrared cameras to remain undetected from the ground.

“Without these technologies, we might never see [the insurgents], because they often plant IEDs [improvised explosive devices] at night,” a senior Army official said. “With manned-unmanned teaming, Apache pilots are on alert while the UAVs find targets. It is crucial to remain undetected, because as soon as you show yourself, [insurgents] take off and get lost in the urban terrain. Now, we track them, follow them, and quietly process targets.”

The images are broadcast to One System Remote Video Transceivers (OSRVTs) on the ground or in command-and-control aircraft. Built on a Panasonic Toughbook laptop computer and a multiband radio receiver, the 20-pound OSRVT can receive video feeds from several varieties of UAVs at the same time. The Army has more than 400 of the terminals, delivered by Textron’s AAI unit under a $70 million deal signed in 2006. They are installed on Strykers, Humvees and A2C2S (Army Airborne Command and Control System) UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.

In an August interview with DANGER ROOM, Gen. David Petraeus didn't mention Task Force ODIN by name. But he did talk about how the unit, run out of the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, was proving just how effective network-centric warfare could be. By connecting together drones and copters and ground forces, the Army was able to attack insurgents with previously unheard-of speed and an efficiency.

OK, we've got a UAV overhead. It sees guys planting an IED, now what do you do? OK, well you have to be able to command and control: maybe attack helicopters, maybe ground forces, maybe armed UAVs, maybe F-16s. How do you tie all that together? ...We're really doing it here, in real detail. Three to five times a day that scenario is playing itself out, that one scenario right there.

Colonel A.T. Ball, commander of the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, has a shockingly detailed official article on ODIN's promises and challenges:

The task of integrating numerous non-standard aircraft, several exploitation systems, and dozens of civilian contractors while performing management and oversight for the contracts in place for TF ODIN is incredibly challenging for a unit deployed in combat and supporting brigade combat teams in the daily fight. This unique task force requires a systems integration officer, contract officer representatives, and government flight representatives in order to ensure that minimum infrastructure and oversight are in place...

TF ODIN also faced complex technical issues pertaining to distribution of full-motion video transmission and broadcast throughout theater. In broadcasting full-motion video across the theater, bandwidth is always a limiting factor.

Others issues smaller in scale, yet equally as critical, such as ensuring that commercial off-the-shelf avionics and radios were compatible with Army communications security requirements also needed solutions... This is the first time that an entire battalion-sized aviation task force was developed around the concept of using all non-standard material solutions to directly support ground forces in contact.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/drone-copter-te.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 11:13am

Plasma Propulsion for Palm-Sized Drones
By Noah Shachtman January 21, 2008 | 9:19:00 PM

Military researchers keep building smaller and smaller robotic spies. But reliably propelling the things hasn't been easy. Using flapping wings, tiny propellers, or ducted fans, the drones all have a tendency to break down, because of the itty-bitty moving parts.

Which is why Darpa-funded researchers at Oklahoma State University are working on a propulsion system for tiny drones with no moving parts at all. It uses plasma thrusters instead, reports the Daily O'Collegian.



Ceran Ozturk, a graduate student studying mechanical and aerospace engineering... said having no moving parts is necessary for smaller engines.

“Our project is perfect for small scaled usage,” Ozturk said. “It will work in an engine for a small vehicle because building an actual engine that small with all the moving parts is almost impossible.

A could provide power for micro and nano unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV.)This class of airplane can measure anywhere from a foot to less than 6 inches long.

It's not the only far-out project OSU professor Jamey Jacob is quarterbacking.

"Jacob and his students are developing a plane with stowable, inflatable wings that could withstand the thin atmosphere of" Mars, an OSU press release notes. "The wings have no internal parts, ribs or structures of any kind." See further: http://www.mae.okstate.edu/marsflight.html & http://marsairplane.okstate.edu/

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/plasma-propulsi.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 11:17am

Israel Eyes Thinking Machines to Fight 'Doomsday' Missile Strikes (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman January 22, 2008 | 5:15:00 PM



Israel has been hit in recent years by thousands and thousands of rockets, mortar shells, and missiles. And that could be just a preview of the onslaught Iran may one day unleash. So Israeli military leaders have begun early planning for a new, robotic defense system, armed with enough artificial intelligence that it "could take over completely" from flesh-and-blood operators. "It will be designed for... autonomous operations,' Brig. Gen. Daniel Milo, commander of Israel's air defense forces, tells Defense News' Barbara Opall-Rome. And in the event of a "doomsday" strike, Opall-Rome notes, the system could handle "attacks that exceed physiological limits of human command."

How do you say "Skynet" in Hebrew, again? Israel already uses a blend of Arrow and Patriot interceptors to handle incoming rockets and missiles. This new command-and-control program would be "superimposed over all those defenses" -- and over new ones to come.

Experts here described the as-yet-unnamed system as a kind of supremely oriented, highly intuitive virtual coach-cum-battle manager whose primary mission would support system operators and commanders during engagements. As such, the super system would help Israeli air defenders pick the optimum timing, sequence and targets for specific interceptors.

Air defense systems today often take a great deal of the work away from the troops who supposedly run them. The machines automatically slew to their targets, lock on... and then await instructions from flesh-and-blood.

At least they do, most of the time. Back in October, however, some sort of glitch allowed a South African air defense cannon to spin out of control -- killing 9, and wounding 14.

In "extreme scenarios, where the number of incoming weapons could overwhelm today’s [air defense] systems and their human operators, [Israel's] envisioned super system could take over completely," Opall-Rome writes.

“It will be designed for man-in-the-loop as well as autonomous operations,” said Milo, the officer spearheading the vision within Israel’s user community. “But right now, our emphasis is on algorithms, not autonomy. Man-machine interface is the name of the game, because the more clever we make the interface, the more successful we’ll be in providing operators and commanders the situational awareness they’ll need to make very tough decisions...”

“Our approach cannot be based exclusively on man-in-the-loop, nor can it rely only on the opposite. Rather, we need to build an operational concept and a system that is flexible and situationally dependent,” Milo said.

In the future, and “under very complex scenarios,” Milo said, the envisioned super system would be able to generate a level of supreme situational awareness and snap intuitive capabilities that could surpass the very best wartime commanders.

“We’re talking about something that sees everything and calculates everything and makes decisions that can only be made through a real revolution in BMC4ISR [Battle Management/Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance],” he said. “We’re not there yet, and it could take a decade. But this is our vision and we’re running in that direction.”

UPDATE: As if on cue...

Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Israel's arms development firm, unveiled plans for a new missile system Tuesday designed to intercept mid to long-range rockets and missiles of the kind used by Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War.

The firm introduced the "Stunner" missile during a visit from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister's Office said.

Jointly developed by Rafael and the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon as a counter to medium-range missiles and rockets, Stunner is likely to become operational in four years. It will be incorporated into the new Magic Wand anti-missile system.

Because of the advanced technologies involved, the estimated cost of each individual missile is the relatively high sum of several hundred thousand dollars.

A defense source said Tuesday that the missile is meant to serve as the interceptor element of a defensive system called Magic Wand. The system is meant to provide a defense against missiles and rockets whose range is between 40 and 250 kilometers, like Hezbollah's Zilzal and Fajr missiles.

The first layer of this defensive structure will include Iron Dome, which Rafael is developing against Qassam and Katyusha rockets. That system's intercepting missile is dubbed Tamir.

Magic Wand and Iron Dome will complement the Arrow missile defense system, which intercepts long-range missiles and is already operational.

No word on thinking machines, though.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/israel-thinking.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 11:20am

Hovering Drones Rushed to Iraq (Updated)
By Sharon Weinberger January 28, 2008 | 10:46:41 AM

Ducted-fan unmanned aerial vehicles are making their way to Iraq to help spot improvised explosive devices. These new drones, which can hover in place, have been under development as part of the Army's massive Future Combat Systems, but it's actually the Navy that plans to deploy them, reports Flight International:



The US Navy will usher Honeywell's unmanned ducted-fan technology into operational service later this year, after disclosing a surprise order for 372 vehicles. All 186 two-vehicle RQ-16A Micro Air Vehicle systems, which includes 93 ground stations, will be delivered between June and November, as the USN rapidly deploys the new hover-and-stare asset to help explosive ordnance disposal teams search for improvised bombs

"That's fast and, based on our experiment with supporting an in-theatre assessment, we have been standing up a production capability to meet those kinds of demands," says Vaughn Fulton, Honeywell's MAV programme manager.

The 11kg (25lb) RQ-16A will join the USN's growing fleet of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Although the slowest of the US services to embrace unmanned aviation, the USN plans to acquire a portfolio of five classes of UAS. But its newest priority should not displace a pending decision to buy a Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system, or a long-term plan to acquire a fleet of small tactical vehicles. "The planned RQ-16A acquisition will not result in any changes to plans for other UAS procurements," says the US Naval Air Systems Command.

The Honeywell-developed Micro Air Vehicle, funded by DARPA, have been one of the more successful UAV projects under FCS, surviving cuts that killed two of the four classes of UAVs envisioned for the massive Army modernization program.

Update:

A reader e-mailed me to say: "MAV was developed as part of a joint ACTD, that started in the beginning of CY 2002. The program was well under way before FCS reared its head. The MAV is not part of FCS. FCS is developing a CL I UAS and it is not MAV. FCS has continuously tried to claim success by taking credit for other people's programs. GAO is right on track on uncovering the truth about FCS."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/hovering-drones.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 11:23am

Predators Prowl Pakistan?
By David Axe January 30, 2008 | 9:01:00 AM



Did an American Predator drone flying from Afghanistan launch the missile that killed twelve suspected insurgents in remote Pakistan on Tuesday? The A.P. weighs in:

Tuesday's missile strike happened in Khushali Torikhel, a village in North Waziristan about 40 miles east of the border, local officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to journalists.

A resident said an armed drone may have carried out the strike.

"We could see a small, white plane flying over the village for the past several days," villager Dildar Khan said.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said he had no information about any missile strike.

The government often uses airstrikes to attack militants in areas that its ground forces and artillery cannot reach, but some of the aerial attacks near the border in recent years are believed to have been launched by missile-armed U.S. drones flying from Afghanistan.

Authorities in both the U.S. and Afghanistan have denied knowledge of such operations.

If it was a Predator that fired that missile, it wouldn't be the first time a U.S. drone has carried out hush-hush attacks in a country where we have no formal military presence. In 2001 a CIA Predator killed Abu Ali, the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/predators-prowl.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2008, 11:26am

Big Hurdles for Army's Tiny Drones
By Noah Shachtman February 01, 2008 | 10:24:00 AM



The most popular drone in the military's unmanned air force is having problems, according to the Pentagon's chief of testing.

Three-foot long Raven unmanned aerial vehicles make up 2800 of the U.S. military's 3200 flying 'bots, logging tens of thousands of flight hours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Defense Department director of operational testing and evaluation’s latest annual report raises concerns about the “operational suitability” of the small UAV, Inside the Army notes.

Although the DOD testers found the system to be “operationally effective,” the report notes that a Raven-equipped unit “cannot sustain itself in prolonged combat and the [air vehicle] is not reliable.” The Pentagon’s testing chief goes on to say that [a previous] 2006 test scenario itself was not operationally realistic: “The test did not dictate that the unit sustain 24-hour combat operations, and the forward repair area was artificially co-located with the infantry unit. These test artificialities provided an overly optimistic estimate for operational availability.”

Now, the testing office is famously prickly when it comes to drones. This year's report also criticized the highly-regarded, high-flying Global Hawk drone. Back in October 2001, the office declared the Predator UAV to be not "operationally effective or suitable." It went on to become one of the most widely-hailed weapons of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Billy Ellis, the Army's product director for the Raven, told Inside the Army that “we have not seen the operational readiness rate drop below 93 percent.” He also said that the small drones may have flown as many as 150,000 hours last year.

That, I have a hard time believing. Although thousands of the UAVs have been purchased, many of them sit on the shelves in Iraq, largely unused. It can take as long as two days to get air clearance for the Ravens to fly. And insurgents don't usually stay in one place that long.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/big-hurdles-for.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 3, 2008, 9:31pm

Army Seeks Fountain of Youth in Body's Powerhouses
By Noah Shachtman January 28, 2008 | 1:52:00 PM



The hip-hop world has been all a-flutter, lately, over accusations that 50 Cent and Mary J. Blige took human growth hormone, or HGH, to get big and stay youthful. Army scientists want their soldiers to stay strong and spritely, too. But they're taking a slightly different approach, in a new program for "Optimized Human Performance." Instead of HGH, the Army is looking for its fountain of youth in mitochondria -- the body's powerhouses, which turn sugars into energy.

"The modern Army is constrained by biology. Highly qualified and very experienced soldiers routinely leave the Army because they are old," a new military request for proposals complains. These long-time soldiers, alas, are finding that "their physical and/or cognitive performance capabilities are significantly less than that of a 20 year old."

The biological basis of this reduction in performance capability may be an injury, but in most cases is simply due to the reduced efficiency of old mitochondria, resulting in reduced levels of energy (adenosine triphosphate) provided to the body to power cognitive and physical tasks.

The ability to stimulate mitochondrial energy production would extend the time that soldiers remain fit for duty, boost soldier physical and performance capabilities, and expand the age range of suitable recruits. It would also eliminate the current dichotomy of the ideal soldier being optimized both for youth (high performance capabilities) and experience.

"The past twenty years have seen a revolutionary breakthrough in understanding how mitochondria function," the Army adds. And military-funded scientists have tried to take advantage of that increased knowledge, researching new ways to use mitochondria to give soldiers more strength and stamina.

Oxford University biochemists look for ways to get mitochondria to feed on fats, instead of sugars -- without all the nasty side-effects of a constant cheeseburger binge. If the scientists are successful, small rations of the ketone cuisine could boost a soldier's stamina, and maybe even keep him nourished for days at a time.

Lan Bo Chen, a pathologist at the Dan Farber Cancer Institute in Cambridge, MA, combined green tea extract with a B-vitamin cocktail for a drink boosts the overall production of mitochondria. In series of trials, high-performance cyclists saw a small, but significant, increase in their times. The Army is now testing the drink out in its Natick, MA Soldier Systems Center.

In contrast, this new Army program has much more far-reaching goals.

The world contains approximately 4.2 billion people over the age of twenty. Even a small enhancement of cognitive capacity in these individuals would probably have an impact on the world economy rivaling that of the internet.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/armys-age-retar.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 3, 2008, 9:37pm

Army Looking for Infrared Smoke Screens
By Noah Shachtman January 30, 2008 | 2:57:00 PM



You only need to have played Spy Hunter once or twice to realize how awesome it is to be able to throw up a smoke screen. But these days, even relatively-unsophisticated bad guys can have thermal viewers and heat-seeking missiles. Which is why the Army is looking for a smoke screen that will hide soldiers in the visible and infrared regions of the spectrum. "Breakthroughs in vapor phase synthesis and nanotechnology," may be needed to pull off the trick, the Army warns.

In the history of smoke and obscuration in the US military, there has not been any development of an obscuring material that would work in both the visible and infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. The military uses separate munitions for each region of the spectrum; for the visible region, we use the L8 grenade, AN HC grenade, titanium dioxide hand grenade and the M76 smoke generator, for the infrared region, we use the M76 launched grenade. There are many scenarios where having one type of munition for both the visible and infrared regions is desirable...

The material should be effective in both the visible and infrared regions, with an extinction coefficient value (a measure of the screening/obscuring performance) equal or greater than that for the current material, which is 5 m2/g...

"Intensive chemistry and material science will be needed to fabricate an effective material," the Army cautions. "Updated technologies and breakthroughs in vapor phase synthesis and nanotechnology may assist in developing a successful material," as well. However, if the project goes as planned, it'll go towards "improved obscuration materials for use in grenades, mortars, and generators," the Army notes. The smoke's use in Bond-esque cars was not mentioned, oddly.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/ir-smoke-screen.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 3, 2008, 9:41pm

America's Army Game = Brainwashing?
By David Axe January 29, 2008 | 10:29:00 AM



"Even in the United States, the belief that the Defense Department uses the America’s Army game series as a military recruitment tool is controversial," blog GamePolitics notes. "It’s probably not surprising, then, that Empowered Muslim Youth, an Islamic blog, accuses America’s Army of “brainwashing.”

"These visual games are a perfect opportunity to psychologically prepare and even mentally train children to fight in battle," EMY contends. "There is no doubt that this [is a] well-thought tactic, issued by high-ranking govermental officials."

Yes, but aren't we forgetting that the game also helps educate America's dumb-ass youth in basic skills, thus helping save lives?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/army-game-worri.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 3, 2008, 10:49pm

Contagious Fear: Mass Sociogenic Smell Weapon
By David Hambling January 28, 2008 | 8:26:00 AM



Fear really can be contagious. And while the human fear/alarm pheromone may have something to do with it, we may also be hard-wired to react to certain smells - which may have implications for a new style of nonlethal weapon.

There was a dramatic demonstration of the effect in Carancas, Peru last year on September 15th, a story I reported for Flipside magazine. A fireball hurtled out of the sky and blasted out a crater thirteen meters across. According to witnesses, the crater filled with boiling liquid and noxious gas poured out.

Up to six hundred people were said to be affected, including seven police officers who had to be taken to hospital. An official said that fumes from the crater caused "nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headaches and stomach pain."

There were many theories about what had happened, ranging from a failed missile test with toxic fuel leakage to a crashed spy satellite or volcanic activity. However, US meteorite hunter Michael Farmer soon arrived on the scene and confirmed that the crater had been caused by a meteorite. The noxious gas was the result of the impact.

"The smell was caused by triolite, an iron sulphide, which when burned, smells like firecrackers," says Farmer. "Imagine a stone of about ten tons, and how smelly that would be. When it landed in the water, the heat of the impact and friction of the stone slamming into the ground, would have converted the surface triolite when mixed with water, into sulphur dioxide."

"It smelled bad," he added, "strong enough to sicken people. Pretty soon everybody is terrified and gets sick."

The combination of smell and fear is frequently the trigger for outbreaks of mass illness. A report on mass sociogenic illness records several such cases:

- On 8 July 1972 in Hazelrigg, England, stench from a pigsty may have triggered an outbreak of stomach pain, nausea, faintness and headache at a schoolchildren's gala;

- A 1994 episode of breathing problems among 23 students in a female dormitory at an Arab school in the United Arab Emirates was triggered by a ‘toxic fire’ that turned out to be the harmless smell of incense;

- An outbreak of breathing problems in male military recruits at their California army barracks in 1988 happened when the air was laden with a heavy odour from brush fires and mistaken for toxic fumes. A chance event combined to worsen the situation. Some recruits were ‘resuscitated’ in the early confusion because medics had wrongly assessed their conditions to have been more serious. These factors created more anxiety and further breathing problems.

In each case these outbreaks of sociogenic illness – or "mass hysteria" to use the old-fashioned term still favored by some media – happened when a group of people interpreted an innocuous smell as something harmful. Now, the US Army has been researching 'malordorants' for some years, as described in the 2001 New Scientist article Stench Warfare:

The US Army wants a stink to drive away enemy troops or hostile crowds and to enforce no-go zones around sensitive military installations. It could also help peacekeeping forces keep warring factions apart by creating stench-filled exclusion zones. Police forces would have plenty of uses for a stink bomb, too. It would be ideal for ending a siege without firing a shot, or for dispersing rioters or even marking the ringleaders so they can't escape into the crowd.

The interesting thing about the various chemical mixtures is that although they are not harmful, they get a very strong reaction. US Government Standard Bathroom Malodor (originally formulated to test the deodorant power of cleaning products) sounds truly intolerable:

The smell is so awful that some volunteers began to scream and curse after just a few seconds' exposure. Even though the smell is quite harmless, almost everyone thought it would damage their health.

It's easy to see how using this type of malodorant as a nonlethal weapon could produce a mass hysteria reaction. A crowd that believes that they're being attacked with frightening and unknown chemical weapons is apt to panic. Outbreaks of breathing difficulties and collapsing of the sort described above are entirely possible.

On the one hand, this is a bonus for the malodorant weapon, making it far more effective even though it has no actual medical effect. On the other hand, it's a big problem. How can you persuade people that it's harmless when everyone is toppling over and going into spasm? And where does liability lie when the weapon itself is innocuous but crowds scare themselves sick? I can see the legal actions from this one keeping some law firms going for years.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/contagious-fe-1.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 4, 2008, 6:34am

How China Loses the Coming Space War
By Noah Shachtman January 10, 2008 | 10:54:00 PM

A year ago to the day, China knocked a weather satellite out of orbit, and threw the international community into panic. Some figured the satellite-killer test was the harbinger of a future war in space -- the kind of conflict that could cripple a tech-dependent United States military. Geoffrey Forden, PhD -- an MIT research associate and a former UN weapons inspector and strategic weapons analyst at the Congressional Budget Office -- examines the possibilities of an all-out Chinese assault on American satellites.

High above Asia, as the bars and clubs of Beijing begin to fill up at the end of another work day, a US early warning satellite spots the tell-tale plume of a missile streaking out of the wastes of Western China. Warning bells sound all through the Pentagon. Tensions have been running high between China and the United States, as the two countries struggle to resolve the latest installment of the Taiwanese crisis. And China has had a run of unprecedented activity in space: the past two days have seen China launch four large missions into deep space, three within the last six hours.. Fortunately, a high-resolution American spy satellite will be over that second launch site within minutes, giving the US a unique ability to determine what is going on. But even though tasking orders are given to photograph the suspected launch site, none are returned. The satellite, code-named Crystal 3, no longer responds to commands. Within minutes, US Space Command reports that four NAVSTAR/GPS satellites—used to guide American drones and precision bombs—have stopped broadcasting. China’s space war against the United States has started.


See enlargement: http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/chinese_asat_flyaround.gif

For years, the American armed forces have worried about an attack on US satellites; this could be how it begins. The United States military has become increasingly dependent on space. It uses photo-reconnaissance satellites to observe potential adversaries, GPS satellites to guide munitions with pin-point accuracy, communications satellites to handle the flow of information into and out of a theater of operations, and early warning satellites to detect and track enemy missile launches to name just a few of the better known applications. Because of this increasing dependence, many analysts have worried that the US is most vulnerable to asymmetric attacks against its space assets; in their view US satellites are “sitting ducks” without any sort of defense and their destruction would cripple the US military. China’s test of a sophisticated anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon a year ago, Friday -- 11 January 2007, when it shot down its own obsolete weather satellite -- has only increased these concerns. But is this true? Could a country—even a powerful country like China that has demonstrated a very sophisticated, if nascent, ability to shoot down satellites at all altitudes—inflict anything close to a knock-out blow against the US in space? And if it was anything less than a knock-out, how seriously would it affect US war fighting capabilities?

The answers to these questions should influence how the US responds to the threats China’s ASAT represents. There is at least one way to answer these questions: “war-gaming” a massive Chinese attack on US satellites, where China is only limited by the laws of physics and the known properties of their ASAT, and see how much damage could be done. Such an exercise also reveals what the US could do, and what it could not do, to minimize the consequences. The results of my calculations are reported here. They assume that China launches a massive attack and that everything works exactly as planned: every ASAT launches, the US does not respond until after the attacks are launched even though it will have overwhelming evidence ahead of time, and every ASAT hits its target. Thus, this is a worst case scenario for the United States. In the end, we'll show, the US would still has sufficient space assets to fight a major conventional war with China, even after such an attack. America's military capabilities would be reduced, for a few hours at a time. But they would not be crippled. Back in 2001, a commission lead by Donald Rumsfeld warned of a "space Pearl Harbor," a single strike that could cripple America's satellite network. It turns out, there is no such thing.

Let's start with what we know about China's ASAT capabilities today. And we know quite a bit. Because there are few, if any, secrets in space. Amateurs around the world track most, if not all, of the classified US military satellites from their backyards, posting their positions on the internet. NORAD,is capable of tracking objects as small as four inches across. In fact, NORAD's measurements of the debris caused by China’s January 2007 test were posted on the web. In the case of the Chinese test, the orbital tracks of that debris can be used to reveal the capabilities and limitations of China’s ASAT weapon by reconstructing the collision -- much like forensic scientists reconstruct a crime scene. By backtracking the debris to the point where they all converge, we can determine the two most important aspects of the Chinese ASAT: how China destroyed that satellite, and just how capable its satellite-killer really is.

The interception was almost head on at a combined speed of almost 18,000 miles per hour. The pieces of debris wound up with the greatest speeds—much higher than the original satellite. This means that China accomplished the most sophisticated of space maneuvers: a hit-to-kill interception, the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet. This is equivalent to what the US is trying to develop in its national missile defense system and is much more sophisticated than the ASAT the Soviet Union was working in the 1980s: little more than a space mine that slowly snuck up on its target and detonated near by.

We also know that the ASAT was highly maneuverable. Yes, the target satellite’s orbit was known well ahead of the interception. However, that does not mean that the satellite’s position was known well enough that the ASAT did not need to steer itself to hit the target. In fact, it is very likely that the interceptor needed to maneuver at high speeds, perhaps as much as six times the acceleration of gravity, to hit its target.

The orbital speed of the target satellite, which is determined by its altitude, also provides us with significant insight into the interceptor’s capability. The closing speed of the interception, which is a combination of the target satellite’s orbital speed and the speed of the interceptor, determines how much time is available to make final adjustments. For instance, just one second before the collision on January 11th, the interceptor and target were five miles apart. During that one second, the interceptor had to make any final adjustments to its trajectory to hit a target smaller than six feet across. Any decrease in the closing speed makes the attack that much easier. Since orbital speeds decrease with increasing altitudes, the Chinese interceptor would find it considerably easier to hit a target in higher orbit.

Finally, the interceptor needed to track its target, so that it could determine where it should move to place itself in front of the obsolete weather satellite; we have a good sense of how that was done, too. The most likely method it employed to track the oncoming satellite was an on-board telescope using visible light. Locking onto a target this way -- as opposed to focusing on the infrared light emitted by the heat of the target, the way the US missile defense interceptor does -- imposes significant limitations on the system. In particular, until it develops a far-infrared capability, which is probably decades away, its ASAT will be forced to attack satellites while they are in bright sunlight. Indeed, even though the site from which the interceptor was launched was cloaked in darkness, the target satellite was high enough to be brightly illuminated by the sun. Until China does develop better sensors, this imposes a very severe constraint on how and when it could attack other satellites: it must wait to attack low Earth orbit satellites when they are in bright sunshine. Attacks against satellites in significantly higher orbits, such as GPS or geostationary satellites, are less constrained by this requirement since they are almost always in direct sunlight.

China has informally stated a number of times that it will “never do this again.” But after having paid a very high price for testing the system once, both in resources and in political capital, it seems unlikely that they would abandon it altogether. Fortunately for China, it can continue to develop the system—including its on board tracking, guidance, and control systems—in the guise of a missile defense system. Such interceptions could be arranged at similar, or even greater, closing speeds as the January 2007 test. Only now, China could arrange to have both the target and the interceptor collide when they are both in downward portions of their trajectories, much like the US does during its missile defense tests. That way, they can test their system again – without creating orbital debris that might harm their own and other nation’s satellites.

If China and the US are going to come into armed conflict with each other in the next several decades, it will almost certainly be over the status of Taiwan. China has, for instance, indicated that it would be willing to use force if Taiwan took steps to formalize its independence from the main land or otherwise prevent its eventual reunification under the rule of the People’s Republic. In such a scenario, it is entirely likely China could consider trying to negate or drastically reduce the US ability to use space at a tactical level.


See enlargement: http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/106/gpsconstellation1342aafho2.jpg

But China could not launch the massive attack required to have anything like a significant effect on US ability to utilize space without months of careful planning and pre-positioning of special, ASAT carrying missiles around the country. It would also have to utilize its satellite launch facilities to attack any US assets in deep space: the GPS navigation satellites and communications satellites in geostationary orbit. Most importantly, it would have to time the attack so as to hit as many US satellites as simultaneously as possible. And, despite all that movement, Beijing would somehow have to keep the whole thing secret. Failure to do so would undoubtedly result in the US attacking the large, fixed facilities China needs to wage this kind of war before the full blow had been struck. Even if the United States failed to do so, China would undoubtedly plan for that contingency.

Based on the orbits of US military satellites determined by the worldwide network of amateur observers, there appears to be a large number of low Earth orbit military satellites over China several times each week. To hit them, China would have to preposition its ASAT-tipped missiles and their mobile launchers in remote areas of China, one position for each satellite. (If reports of low reliabilities for these missiles are correct, two or more missiles might be assigned to each satellite.) Furthermore, these positions are really only suitable for a particular day. If China’s political and military planners have any uncertainty at all about which day to launch their space war, they would need to pre-position additional launchers around the country. Thus, attacking nine low Earth orbit satellites could require as many as 36 mobile launchers—enough for two interceptors fired at each satellite with a contingency day if plans change—moved to remote areas of China; areas determined more by the satellite orbits than China’s network of road. (As will be discussed below, nine is about the maximum they could reasonably expect to hit on the first day of the space war.)



At the same time that China would be trying to covertly move its mobile missile launchers around the country, it would also have to assemble a fleet of large rockets -- ones normally used for launching satellites. The more large rockets China uses for this task, the more deep-space satellites it can destroy. At present, however, China only has the facilities for assembling and launching a total for four such rockets nearly simultaneously. Two would have to be assembled out in the open where they could be observed by US spy satellites and two could be assembled inside a vertical assembly building during the 18 days it takes to stack and fuel the Long March rocket’s stages while preparing to launch. [See right.] Even the two assembled indoors would need to arrive by train and eventually would have to be moved, one after the other, to the launch pad. Each of these rockets, usually reserved for launching satellites into geostationary orbits, could carry three to four interceptors and their special orbital maneuver motors to attack either US navigation satellites, at about 12,000 miles altitude, or communications satellites at about 22,000 miles.

Four days prior to the attack, China would launch the first of its Long March rockets carrying deep-space attack ASATs; the same launch pad would have to be used for the second rocket stacked inside the vertical assembly building. As the technicians renovated that pad, the first rocket’s payload would circle the Earth in a parking orbit at about 200 miles altitude waiting to be joined by the other deep-space ASATs. This would appear to be a tell-tale sign of an impending strike. But China could explain the delay to the international community by claiming that the third stage, intended to take the payload it its final altitude, had failed to fire and that they were working on it. Roughly six hours before the first the attack on the US’s low Earth orbit military satellites, the other three Long March rockets would have to be fired since it takes roughly that long to get their payloads up to their target’s orbits. Delays or failures to launch any of these rockets would strand their interceptors on the launch pad and subject them to possible retaliatory bombing by the US.

If all goes as planned, China would have launched between 12 and 16 ASATs, each capable of destroying a strategically important deep-space satellite. However, the United States military has many, many more deep space satellites. There are, as of December 2007, 32 functioning GPS navigation satellites even though the original design calls for only 24. [See above, left] In addition, the US has 23 military communications satellites, six early warning satellites that observe missile launches, and six surveillance satellites—most of which detect and monitor electronic transmissions of potential adversaries but one, apparently capable of photo-reconnaissance — in geostationary orbit. These satellites are reinforced by a private network of 90 commercial communications satellites, owned and operated by US corporations, that presumably could be used to replace destroyed military communications satellites. (Eighty-four percent of the space communications to military forces in the Iraqi theater of operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom used commercial satellites.) On top of that, there are 75 civilian and the 64 military/civilian communications satellites in low Earth orbit— although they do not have the same transmission capacity as the geostationary satellites. The United States may be the country most dependent on space for its military activities. But it is also the least vulnerable, because of the tremendous redundancy of its space assets.

Of course, China does not have to destroy all these satellites to seriously hamper US military efforts in the Taiwan Straits. It would only have to destroy those satellites that have a direct line of sight to the conflict: this includes eight military and 22 US civilian communications satellites in geostationary orbits. Nevertheless, China would have to choose between attempts to destroy the satellites that guide US precision guided bombs and those satellites which relay the orders to drop those bombs. It simply cannot launch enough ASATs to destroy both systems.

But does China have enough to wipe out even a single set of American satellites? Let’s examine the possibilities:

Attacking Navigation Satellites
You need a launch pad to attack a target in deep space, like an American GPS satellite. China has just three of these pads. This really restricts China’s offensive capabilities in space. Assuming that China devotes all its deep-space ASATs on GPS satellites, it could destroy at most 16 satellites. At the current time, with 32 functioning navigation satellites, that would still leave 16 satellites still working. Over a period of years, the debris from those collisions would represent a significant threat to more than those satellites immediately attacked. They would pass, time and time again, through the belts of debris that resulted from the interceptions. However, it would probably take longer than the military conflict China initiated with these attacks before additional satellites were destroyed by subsequent collisions.

Usually, there are about nine GPS satellites over China at any given time. If China somehow managed to destroy all of these, it could eliminate America's use of precision-guided munitions—for a few hours, until the orbits of other GPS satellites take them over the Taiwan Straits. Quite quickly, the constellation’s other 23 satellites would fill in the gap due to their normal orbital movement. Even if it destroyed 16 satellites, China could still only interrupt GPS over the Straits for about eight hours. During the other 16 hours there would be the four or more satellites present over the target area for bombing runs, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flights, and ship tracking. This pattern of eight hours off followed by 16 hours when GPS could be used would be repeated every day until new satellites are launched. This outage would certainly cause difficulties; GPS not only guides American precision bombs – it helps pilot UAV spy planes, and monitor ships. US casualties might increase , with air crews forced to fly missions during daylight hours – and conduct some of the "dull, dirty, and dangerous" missions now flown by robotic planes. It's a situation no American commander would want to face. But it would not be a catastrophic one. And it would not eliminate precision weaponry, UAVs, or any other American activity that depends on GPS.

Keep in mind, this is the worst of the worst-case scenarios. It is highly unlikely that China could remove all the satellites over the conflict area at the same time. After all, attacking 16 satellites, all in different orbits with ASATs launched on just four different rockets involves some fairly complex orbital maneuvers. A much more likely scenario is that, at best, China could destroy four GPS satellites in the initial wave followed roughly seven hours later by four more, a third wave at roughly 45 minutes after that, and the final wave two hours later. Thus, the GPS attack is spread over ten hours and never eliminates all the satellites visible over the area of conflict at the same time. This Chinese attack on US navigation satellites would not eliminate or even significantly degrade the US’s ability use precision-guided munitions..

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 4, 2008, 6:35am


Attacking Communications Satellites
While it is possible for China to eliminate the eight US military communications satellites in geostationary orbits that can broadcast to the Taiwan Straits, Beijing does not have enough the lauch capacity for as many ASATs as it would take to eliminate all 22 civilian communications satellites that could also be used. However, not all of these satellites have equal capacities for transmitting information; it might be possible for China to destroy enough of that capacity to limit the US military.

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, US armed forces sent and received a tremendous amount of information via satellite. This included video conferencing between the Pentagon and the commanders in the field, satellite photographs downloaded to operations planners, orders directing jets where to drop their bombs, and soldiers emailing their families back home. At its peak, all of this added up to about three billion “bits” per second, a tremendous amount of information. Bandwidth was – and continues to be – a premium on the battlfield, particularly at the tactical level. And the appetite for information is only increasing. But the total amount of information transmitted over satellites is certain to increase by the next time we go to war; perhaps it could triple or even quadruple to twelve billion bits per second in the next ten years.

Assuming that the eight military communications satellites are destroyed first, that leaves at most eight ASATs to destroy the eight most capable civilian communications satellites. If these eight are removed, then there is still a total capacity of over 14 billion bits per second in US owned and operated civilian communications satellites. Thus, there should be enough transmission capacity for our military -- even if the demand for satellite communications increases by a factor of four. And the US military is used to using civilian satellites, as the 2003 invasion of Iraq showed. The vast majority (84%) of all military communications into and out of the theater of operations went through civilian satellites.

Attacking Early Warning Satellites
The United States has five satellites in geostationary orbit that detect missile launches using the heat released from their exhaust plumes. These satellites are primarily used to alert US nuclear forces to massive nuclear attacks on the homeland. However, in recent years, they have played an increasing role in conventional conflicts, such as both Gulf Wars, by cueing tactical missile defenses like the Patriot missile defense systems that gained fame in their engagements with Saddam’s SCUD missiles. Because of this new use, China might find it useful to attack them with ASATs. Since there are only five of them, China could destroy the entire constellation but at the cost of diverting some of the few available deep-space ASATs from other targets. Of course, China would not have to attack all five but could limit its attack to the three that simultaneously view the Taiwan Straits area.

If China did decide to destroy these early warning satellites, it would greatly reduce the area covered by US missile defenses in Taiwan against SCUD and longer range missiles. This is because the area covered by a theater missile defense system is highly dependent on the warning time it has; the greater the warning time, the more effective the missile defense system’s radar is. Thus a Patriot battery, which might ordinarily cover the capital of Taiwan, could be reduced to just defending the military base it was stationed at. Some analysts believe that China would gain a tremendous propaganda coup by having a single missile make it through US defenses and thus might consider this use of its deep-space ASATs highly worthwhile even if it could not increase the probability of destroying military targets. On the other hand, China would run a tremendous risk of the US believing it was under a more general nuclear attack if China did destroy these early warning satellites.

Throughout the history of the Cold War, the US has had a policy of only launching a “retaliatory” nuclear strike if an incoming attack is detected by both early warning satellites and radars. Without the space leg of the early warning system, the odds of the US misinterpreting some missile launch that it detected with radar as a nuclear attack would be greatly increased even if the US did not view the satellite destruction as a sufficiently threatening attack all by themselves. Such a misinterpretation is not without precedent. In 1995, Russia’s early warning radars viewed a NASA sounding rocket launch off the coast of Norway and flagged it as a possible Trident missile launch. Many analysts believe that Russia was able to not respond only because it had a constellation of functioning early warning satellites. Any Chinese attacks on US early warning satellites would risk both intentional and mistaken escalation of the conflict into a nuclear war without a clear military goal.

Attacking Low Altitude Satellites
China would launch its first attack against a US electronic intelligence satellite in low Earth orbit minutes before the first wave of deep space ASATs hit their targets. The same type of ASAT used to target the deep-space satellites could also be launched on short range missiles from Transporter-Erector-Launchers (TELs). These are 22-wheeled vehicles that look very similar to tanker trucks. They're more sophisticated than the mobile launchers that Saddam used during the first Gulf War to launch SCUDs toward Israel and Saudi Arabia but would be no easier to find and destroy.

The exact order of attacks will depend upon the specific day and hour chosen but a typical attack might involve a first launch against a Lacrosse signals intelligence satellite followed within seconds by another, this time against a Keyhole 11 high-resolution spy satellite. Moments later, three ASATs would be launched against small groups of three NOSS satellites that the Navy uses to locate an adversary’s ships at sea. These travel around the Earth in closely spaced groups of either two or three satellites and triangulate on the radio signals emitted by warships. During a span of about twenty minutes, China could attack and destroy a total of nine US military satellites in the scenario considered here. Inevitably, however, there would eventually be a lull in satellite crossings because of the random clumpings of satellites along their orbits.

If the United States does nothing to protect itself, such as change the orbits of its lower altitude satellites, China could continue to shoot down military satellites as they come over the horizon using pre-positioned ASATs. It is highly unlikely, however, that the United Sates would simply roll over while these attacks took place. Even today, with no formal satellite defenses, we could be fairly effective at stopping the destruction of our satellites.

Nevertheless, the loss of those satellites that were destroyed would be significant. It would increase the “revisit” times between spy satellites, which might not matter so much for reconnaissance satellites in a tactical setting. The loss of a significant fraction of the Navy’s enemy ship surveillance system, however, might be more important in battles around the Taiwan Straits. Without timely determination of enemy locations, the US would have to increase the number of aircraft devoted to scouting -- and subsequently
decrease the number of combat missions -- as these planes are diverted.

If China was to attack the strategically important deep-space satellites it would give the United States at least an indication of the impending attack two or more weeks prior to launch as it assembled its Long March rockets on their launch pads. There could be few other reasons for China to assemble so many rockets at its satellite launch centers for near-simultaneous launches. The US could, if it wished to initiate hostilities, destroy the rockets before they were launched using either stealth bombers or cruise missiles. Alternatively, it could wait and use its National Missile Defense interceptors—which have an inherent ASAT capability—to shoot down the first group of deep space ASATs as they wait for D-day in their parking orbit.

Once on their final trajectory, however, there is little or nothing the US could do to prevent them from striking their targets. It would be impossible, for instance, to move the targeted satellites out of the way in the final moments before the collision. The Chinese ASATs are known to be capable of very high speed maneuvers and trying to move a GPS or communications satellite to avoid a collision would require such dramatic changes in velocity as to shear off their solar cell panels and antennas. Having “protector satellites” in orbit near strategically important targets would also be counter productive. If such protectors raced out and destroyed an approaching ASAT they would simply create a shotgun blast of debris that would continue to circle the Earth and would every twelve (if attacking a GPS satellite) or 24 hours (for a communications satellite as the target) have another chance of colliding with its target. Time, in this case, is very much on the side of the attacker.



[Above: An example of the “shotgun” blast of debris that is created if the ASAT is destroyed before it hits its target. On the first pass, a “defender” satellite intercepts the ASAT (shown in red) as it approaches the NAVSTAR/GPS satellite (in this case NAVSTAR 59). The debris created by this collision continues in the original orbit but spreads out each pass.]

Since China doesn't have enough deep-space ASATs to stop communications -- or even prevent GPS being used during most hours of the day -- Beijing might not even attempt to attack those targets. Which means the United States wouldn't have much of warning, to prepare for the onslaught. In that case, it is almost certain that China could destroy a number of surveillance and signals intelligence satellites in low Earth orbit before the US could take action.

If we assume that the US chain of command takes an hour, due to bureaucratic inertia, to react, China could destroy a total of nine such satellites before the US responds in the specific case examined here. This includes two out of the three functioning Keyhole high resolution photo-reconnaissance satellites, one of the three Lacrosse signals intelligence satellites in orbit, and six of the 15 NOSS satellites that the Navy uses to locate enemy ships at sea. This represents billions of dollars lost and, more important, a large fraction of the US space assets in low Earth orbit that could have been used in the subsequent conflict.

At that point, however, the United States could effectively stop China’s attack simply by changing the remaining satellites’ orbital speeds by as little as 200 mph (they are typically moving at over 16,500 mph). This very small change will have a large effect in the position of the satellite the next time it crosses over China; effectively putting the satellite out of range of the pre-positioned ASAT launcher. This is not an excessive change in speed and, unless the satellite is very close to the end of its operational life, is well within the capability of its onboard fuel supply. Furthermore, it does not have to change its speed very rapidly the way a deep-space satellite would have to in order to avoid collision in its final moments. Instead, this relatively small velocity change has tens of minutes or even hours to change the position of the satellite before the next time it crosses over China. During this time, it is steadily moving away from its original position so that it could be hundreds of miles from where China thought it was going to be.

While it is possible that the pre-positioned ASAT missiles could still reach their target even after it had changed, they would not know where, exactly, to aim the missile. Instead, they would have to perform a radar search for the satellite in an ever expanding volume of space. This volume quickly becomes too large for even the most powerful of mobile radars. In fact, it would take a fairly large (perhaps 50 feet in diameter) to detect the satellite during its next pass and China does not have a lot of those radars. So most, if not all, of the satellites remaining after the first hour would be safe for the next 24. During that time, the United States could try to destroy all of China’s fixed radars that are capable of tracking the satellites in their new orbits. (In other words, it does not matter how many additional ASATs China has to shoot at low Earth orbit satellites; a very different circumstance than the deep-space ASATs.)

This might, however, prove difficult; especially those facilities in the center of China that are out of reach of Tomahawk cruise missiles. Currently, only B-2 bombers could reach those sites with any chance of success and timing might prove difficult if they need to transit other countries during night time. A Global Strike capability, such as a conventionally armed Trident missile, might ease this task. Of course, even if all the radars are destroyed, China could still use optical telescopes to determine the new positions of the satellites but these methods are too slow to be used for aiming the ASAT missiles. And even then, China would have to spend days repositioning its mobile ASAT launchers, a task that would probably take several days and would extend the time the US could use for hunting down and destroying Chinese assets.

The short-term military consequences of an all attack by China on US space assets are limited, at most. Even under the worst-case scenario, China could only reduce the use of precision-guided munitions or satellite communications into and out of the theater of operations. They would not be stopped. China could destroy a large fraction of strategic intelligence gathering capabilities; but not all of it. With a greater than normal expenditure of fuel, the remaining US spy satellites could continue to survive their crosses over China and photograph Chinese troop movements, harbors, and strategic forces but, of course, at a reduced rate. The war would, however, quickly move into a tactical phase where the US gathers most of its operational photographs using airplanes, instead of satellites. US ships and unmanned vehicles might, theoretically, have difficulty coordinating, during certain hours of the day. Most of the time, they would be free to function normally. China’s space strike would fail to achieve its war aims even if the United States failed to respond in any way other than moving its low Earth orbit satellites.

When it warned of a space Pearl Harbor, the Rumsfeld space commission was afraid that a lesser power could launch a surprise attack that would wipe out key US strategic assets and render the US impotent. This is what Japan tried, but failed, to do at the start of World War II. And much like Japan’s failure to destroy the US carrier fleet, a Chinese attack on US satellites would fail to cripple our military, China’s strategic goal in launching a space war.

But if the short term military consequences to the United States are not that bad, the long term consequences to all space-faring nations would be devastating. The destruction of the nine satellites hit during the first hour of the attack considered here could put over 18,900 new pieces of debris over four inches in diameter into the most populated belt of satellites in low Earth orbit. Even more debris would be put into geostationary orbit if China launched an attack against communications satellites. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the debris from each satellite would continue to “clump” together, much as the debris from last year’s test. However, over the next year or so—well after the terrestrial war with China had been resolved—the debris fields would fan out and eventually strike another satellite.

These debris fields could easily cause a run-away chain of collisions that renders space unusable -- for thousands of years, and for everyone. Not only is this a quickly growing and important sector of the world’s economy (sales of GPS receivers alone reportedly exceeds $20 billion annually), but space is also used for humanitarian missions such as forecasting floods in Bangladesh or droughts in Africa. We cannot allow space to be forever barred to our use for what turns out to be a very minor military advantage. If the military utility of attacks in space are so minor; if the active defense of space assets is impractical, counterproductive, and unnecessary; and if the danger resulting from the consequent debris affects all space-faring nations for thousands of years to come, it is clear that diplomacy is in every country's interest.

The first step the United States should take is a simple declaration that we guarantee the continued flow of information to any country whose satellite is destroyed by an ASAT. We could do this using either our military or civilian-owned satellites. After all, if the space assets of the United States are not vulnerable to attacks because of the inherent redundancy, the same cannot be said of China’s other potential regional competitors such as Australia, India, or Japan. Each of these countries has only a handful of satellites that could be quickly destroyed if China chooses to attack them. This declaration would effectively eliminate any military advantage that a country might get from attacking its neighbors limited fleet of satellites. After that, we should adopt the code of conduct that is being developed by the Stimson Center that establishes “rules of the road” for responsible space-faring nations. Finally, we should work toward a treaty banning the future testing of these most dangerous of anti-satellite weapons: the so-called "kinetic kill interceptors" that create such large amounts of debris. It'd be a first step towards containing the worst effects on war in space.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-ch-1.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-ch-2.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 2:22am

China's Subs Go to Sea . . . Sort of



While American press reports continually headline China's buildup of naval forces, in reality there is only one warship category in which the Chinese Navy is superior to the U.S. fleet -- diesel-electric submarines. In no other category is the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy even close to U.S. Navy force levels or capabilities.

The Chinese have an estimated 55 diesel-electric submarines in service, including several modern, Russian-built Kilo-class units. In addition, China is building advanced conventional as well as nuclear-propelled torpedo attack submarines. (The U.S. Navy now operates only nuclear-propelled attack submarines -- 55 SSNs are in commission.)


SSN774 Virginia-class Fast Attack Submarine

Non-nuclear submarines are difficult to locate -- if operated by competent crews -- especially in coastal or littoral waters. In those areas the advanced submarine detection systems developed by the U.S. and other NATO navies during the Cold War have limited effectiveness because of shallow depths and the massive noise put into the water by coastal shipping, fishing craft, offshore oil drilling rigs, and other sources.

However, China's conventional submarines, like their nuclear-propelled units, spend little time at sea. Researcher Hans M. Kristensen, writing for the Federation of American Scientists, reports that China's "55 general-purpose submarines conducted a total of six patrols during 2007, slightly better than the two patrols conducted in 2006 and zero in 2005."

The patrol information was obtained from the U.S. Navy. Kristensen continued, "Just what constitutes a Chinese 'patrol' is secret, according to the U.S. Navy…."

This writer has learned that such patrols have a maximum of about 30 days with the boats averaging a speed of four or five knots while on patrol. Still, these patrols have demonstrated that the submarines can locate U.S. ships, as evidenced by the surprise of U.S. officials when the carrier Kitty Hawk (CV 63) encountered a Song-class diesel submarine. Obviously, diesel boats cannot effectively track U.S. warships, but could probably be guided to such intercepts by reconnaissance aircraft or satellites.

Little is known about the operations of China's nuclear torpedo-attack submarines (SSN). However, according to reliable sources, neither the first Chinese ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) of the Xia design, launched 25 years ago, nor the new Jin-class SSBNs launched since 2004 have undertaken a patrol. Indeed, reportedly the Chinese still do not have an operational submarine-launched ballistic missile for those craft.

Rather, it is the non-nuclear submarines that should be of major concern to U.S. and allied naval planners who wish to operate in Far Eastern waters.

-- Norman Polmar
February 6, 2008 06:03 PM

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003989.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 2:31am

Sub Snoops for the Future



This month’s issue of the Navy League’s Seapower Magazine has a special report on an autonomous web of underwater robots that the Navy hopes will be operational by 2015. The Office of Naval Research-led project will imbue “underwater vehicles with the ability to sense and independently adapt to everything from ocean currents to hostile enemy subs.”

ONR chief Rear Admiral William Landay said, “If we can sense that, get the vehicles to understand that, get the vehicles to adapt to that, then they are in the position where they really are starting to dominate the battlespace.”

This net has been labeled “PLUSNet” and, the article explains, is comprised of a “variety of autonomous underwater vehicles and sensor technologies":

Seahorse: A platform that can easily drift while maintaining a sensing mode. Will be equipped with a high-frequency billboard sensor array on its port and starboard {left and right to you landlubbers} sides for maximum coverage.

Bluefin-21: Uses a buoyancy engine to allow drifting and bottoming modes of operation. Combines acoustic sensing capability with mobility to allow adaptive search behaviors under autonomous and supervised control.

Seaglider: An energy-efficient glider for environmental sampling while functioning as PLUSNet’s communications backbone. When a glider receives an urgent acoustic message, Seaglider will alter its flight profile to rapidly surface and transmit ashore.

Slocum Glider: A long-range deep ocean glider designed to cruise in a vertical saw tooth plane, the Slocum Glider will employ an acoustic towed array, enhance adaptive environmental sampling and sensing, and will support network communications.

X-Ray Glider: The world’s largest underwater glider, it will offer a higher speed and greater load-carrying capacity than existing gliders, boasting acoustics and electric filed sensors, along with acoustic and satellite communications capabilities.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003319.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 2:34am

Subs in the GWOT


(Photo: One of three Russian-built Kilo Class submarines in service with the Iranian Navy.)

The Global War on Terror has gelled as a bloody slugfest in which information is power and perceptions are everything. Many terrorist activities take place in or near coastal population centers, span littorals, and transit oceans and seas. This new type of fighting –- assymetric and amorphous –- has required the constant updating of traditional submarine missions and the definition of whole new missions. Many of these taskings were virtually unheard of in their present guise as recently as 2000, but now are increasingly commonplace. And beneath a cloak of deep secrecy, the Silent Service “brings home the bacon” time after time.

The proliferation of modern diesel boats, some equipped with air-independent propulsion, has shifted the emphasis of anti-submarine warfare in the early 21st century. The strenuous perfecting of the difficult shallow-water and blue-water ASW tasks continues apace, not only to protect our military and commercial shipping assets underway, but also to prevent terrorists and rogues from traveling “from their littorals to our littorals.” Cooperative multi-national exercises demonstrate that the best weapon against an enemy diesel sub continues to be an American nuclear sub.

Because the opposition in the war against terror consists of sub-state and trans-state bad actors, aided sometimes by regimes or factions within pariah states, the mapping of hostile command and control infrastructures –- which redesign themselves constantly and relocate frequently -- is particularly important. For the same reason, unconventional weapons of mass destruction indications and warnings need high priority. These intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions are roles for which U.S. Navy subs proved decisive against the USSR, a legacy of skills and achievements directly relevant to combating global Islamofascism.

The anti-surface warfare mission has taken on new dimensions, too, from brown water through green water to blue water. Piracy is a significant detriment to worldwide good order and thriving commerce. Modern pirates operate in littoral areas that are frequently hotbeds for terrorism; their activities and personnel overlap. Suppressing piracy yields dividends against terror. One means of unconventional WMD delivery is a cargo ship. Al Qaeda reportedly controls as many as two dozen vessels worldwide. Constantly monitoring, tracking, and taking down terrorist “Q-ships” is vital. Terrorism gets funds from illicit traffic in drugs, conventional weapons, and human beings. Interdiction of contraband trade provides an immediate, powerful way to sever enemy logistics, disrupt enemy attacks, and produce indispensable intelligence to plan more counter-terror efforts. Subs are ideal for quietly staking out and policing the nautical communications arteries used by evildoers, helping efficiently vector in surface and airborne forces as required.

Especially when equipped with next generation undersea and aerial mini-vehicles, nuclear subs possess unique capabilities to clandestinely identify, eavesdrop on, trail, and even interdict a broad spectrum of threats. Their crews provide our nation with sustained covert access into very shallow waters seamless with all-weather presence out to far past any international limits. The Silent Service perfected indispensable skills in the Cold War, and beneath a cloak of deep secrecy is plying them urgently, daily, during the Global War on Terror.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003931.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 2:36am

South Africa Has Subs, Needs Submariners



The South African Navy's submarine force is unable to operate all of its new Manthatisi-class submarines because of funding and people problems. The Navy has taken delivery of two submarines of this class with a third scheduled for delivery in May 2008.

The Navy is, reportedly, able to keep only one of the Manthatisis-class boats in service at this time. Because of this, some government officials have called for cancellation of the third submarine. However, at this stage of the program the refusal to accept the third unit could lead to very high cancellation costs.

The Navy has launched a recruitment drive to replenish its ranks, according to senior naval officers.

The South African problem is similar to that being faced by the Australian Navy, which in 2007 reportedly had only two of its six Collins-class submarines ready for sea. The lack of available crews for the other submarines is part of a hemorrhage of trained personnel from the Australian Navy, which has a nominal strength of just under 13,000 men and women. The loss of highly trained submariners has been especially difficult for the Navy, which is losing trained personnel to high-paying civilian jobs.

(The Australian Navy procured six diesel-electric submarines of the Collins class between 1996 and 2003, although their entry into service was delayed several years because of software integration and systems problems. Those submarines are armed with U.S. Mark 48 torpedoes and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.)

The Manthatisis-class submarines are German designed and built Type 209/1400 undersea craft with a submerged displacement of about 1,600 tons. Each submarine is armed with 8 21-inch bow torpedo tubes and can carry 14 torpedoes. At this time there are no provisions for the submarines to launch anti-ship missiles, which are being provided to numerous Third World submarines.

Last fall the Manthatisis participated in a NATO exercise. Reportedly, she escaped a task group of six ships hunting the submarine while (theoretically) sinking all of the "hunters."

The new South African submarines are intended to replace the Navy's French-built Daphne-class submarines. Three of these 1,040-ton submarines -- the first South African undersea craft -- were delivered in 1970-1971. One of the trio has been laid up in reserve to compensate for the first deliveries of the Manthatisis-class submarines.

South Africa, with some 4,700 active naval personnel, also has four modern, German-built missile/anti-submarine frigates, seven Israeli-built missile craft, and a large number of mine, patrol, and auxiliary units.

-- Norman Polmar

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_bubbleheads_etc.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 2:38am

Who's Cutting the Cables?



Uh oh, folks! Maybe it is time to be more concerned about terrorists cutting those undersea cables in the Middle East.

CNN and the International Herald Tribune both report that, early today (Friday) local time, another cable was cut, this time in the Persian Gulf, about 35 miles off Dubai.

The ambiguity in previous news reporting about whether one or two fiber optic cables were cut in the Med on Tuesday, and whether they were cut in the same place 8 miles off Alexandria or at opposite ends of the Med at the same time, has been replaced by a much worse conundrum. It’s not at all ambiguous now that at least two distinct cables were cut about 250 miles apart, on opposite sides of the huge Arabian Peninsula landmass.

What could possibly account for such sudden and nearly crippling impairment of Internet access, e-mail, and phone lines? Granted it’s still early hours as of this writing, but a Dubai telecom executive told AP that the cause hadn’t yet been identified, and this latest service outage was “very unusual.” Congestion in the Middle East and parts of India has gotten severe, following so quickly after the break(s) on Tuesday. (If you think the U.S. is immune to these problems, remember how dependent American businesses and consumers are on support outsourced to India.)

I’d rule out seismic activity for sure: Any tectonic event so widespread would have turned up on scientific instruments.

A sheer coincidence is at this point pretty hard to swallow: Major trunk cables seldom go out individually, let alone in widely dispersed pairs or triplets like this. (The last such serious problem, in 2006 off Taiwan, was indeed caused by an earthquake –- but the cause was understood immediately, exactly because of seismograph readings.) OK, dragged anchors by ships near Alexandria may well be what happened there. But dragged anchors within the same week in totally different bodies of water? For “storms plus stupidity” to strike twice in three days seems pretty odd, even if the same weather system was involved.

So once again, we need to ponder the possibility that these cable cuts were intentional malicious acts. And even if the first incident was just an innocent but damaging accident, the second, off Dubai, could well be a terrorist “copy cat” event.

Regardless of specific causes, international Internet service already impaired by the cable break earlier in the week is now even more disrupted in the volatile Middle East, with effects being felt on continents far from the site of the cable breaks. Which is scary.

-- Joe Buff

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003979.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 2:39am

Rail Gun Test Shot



This is a 7 lb projectile developing 10 megajoules (7.3 million foot-pounds) of energy. The flames are plasma (ionized gas) that was created by the thermal energy released by the shot.

Submitted By: USN

http://shock.military.com/Shock/images.d....t=161209&page=1

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 2:43am

The things you find when you dig about in someone else's backyard:

Iraqi Stealth Aircraft Discovered



In July of 2006 U.S. forces discovered 30-40 aircraft, including the MiG-25 pictured here buried in the sand at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad

Submitted By: USAF

http://shock.military.com/Shock/images.d....t=160957&page=1

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 3:41am

How to Refuel a Nuclear Carrier




USS Reagan out for a Spin



USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) conducts rudder checks as part of a battle readiness inspection.

Submitted By: MC2 M. Jeremie Yoder

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 7, 2008, 9:42am

The End of the Underwater Exploding Goat



From Military.com's headlines this morning:

The British military said Feb. 6 it will no longer use goats in experiments to gauge the risks of evacuating a submerged submarine.

The tests, conducted for years by the Ministry of Defense, involved herding the animals into a special chamber and then drastically changing the air pressure.

Defense minister Derek Twigg said the tests, which were suspended in March 2007, had provided valuable safety information to submarine crews. But a review concluded that no more experiments were needed, though the military said in a statement it could revisit the issue.

The tests were meant to simulate what sailors would experience should they need to evacuate a submerged submarine. The difference in pressure between the deep sea and the surface can cause fatal decompression sickness, often referred to as the bends.

Goats were chosen because of their physiological similarities to human beings.

Six goats died in the experiments between 2000 and November 2006, and 122 others were slaughtered afterward.

Animal rights groups complained about the tests for years, saying they were cruel and unnecessary.

QinetiQ Group PLC, which ran the tests on the government's behalf, said the tests were conducted in a facility on Britain's south coast, but declined to elaborate.

No statement from the Naval Academy mascot, but we can assume that, in spite of his support of submarine safety, Bill is good with this decision.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003991.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 9, 2008, 3:02am

AFRL Funding Laser Effects Research

Detachment 8 of the US Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM is funding research to better understand and predict “the effects of lasers on various threat targets.” This is useful from a number of perspectives: ballistic missile defense, discussion of concepts like a laser-firing Mk15 Phalanx system or SkyGuard system to protect against rocket attacks such as the ones Israel experiences regularly, the use of modulated lasers to protect commercial aircraft, potential laser threats to civil targets, and more.


THEL/Skyguard concept


Conventional Mk15 Phalanx system

The specific contracts include:

Feb 4/08: Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. of Boulder, CO received an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for $42 million for research and development under a BAA entitled “Laser Effects Vulnerability Research” (LEVR). At this time $640,521 has been committed (FA9451-08-D-0161).

“This effort shall balance both analytical modeling and experimental tasks to accurately predict the effects of lasers on various threat targets. Laser vulnerability assessments on space, tactical/ground, and missiles, systems, subsystems and components shall be completed to accurately predict the consequences of lasers interaction with these targets. This effort shall mature and enhance current capabilities by developing and improving AFRL’s Missile Assessment Center Codes and databases, research the vulnerability of the aforementioned systems and subsystems, and assess the lethality of potential laser weapon concepts against these systems.”

Feb 1/08: Boeing-Lasers and Electro-Optical Systems Technical Services of Albuquerque, NM received an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for $49 million to provide support for the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate, Laser Division. At this time $3.8 million has been committed (FA9451-08-D-0179). Boeing will offer assistance:

”...in laser technologies for in-house laser development and laser vulnerability affects testing programs, as well as, a comprehensive solution to laboratory operation and maintenance of laser facilities…. This includes the preliminary design, limited fabrication, installation, modification, management, operation maintenance, and documentation of laser devices and systems, as well as, test planning, test performance, and data analysis of all laser devices and system testing.”

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/AFRL-Funding-Laser-Effects-Research-04717/

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 9, 2008, 3:53am

Name The Next Generation Bomber!
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 2/8/2008 11:00 AM

The USAF FY2009 budget, as Amy Butler has reported, does not include any money for the Next Generation Bomber. It does, however, include this very informative schedule:



Forget asking any DC analysts for comment. Instead, let's turn to Lewis Carroll:

He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.

"What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?"
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
"They are merely conventional signs!

"Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave Captain to thank:
(So the crew would protest) "that he's bought us the best--
A perfect and absolute blank!"

And by one of those wonderful coincidences, those lines are from the Hunting of the Snark, and it so happens that the SM-62 Snark was the last unmanned strategic weapon system out of Northrop, and it's a fair bet that the white space in the chart is where the black-world NGB demonstrator goes, and that (given the scrambling to close ranks by Lockheed Martin and Boeing) Northrop Grumman has the contract.



The Snark is often dismissed as a failure, by the way; but it was incredibly ambitious, and its astro-inertial navigation system (conceived in 1945 and using an electro-optical star tracker and an analog computer to update an inertial platform) was indispensible to aircraft like the B-2 and SR-71 until the days of GPS.

I think Snark II is a good name for the new X-bomber. Or possibly Boojum, on the grounds that anyone who sees it and does not have the appropriate clearances will softly and suddenly vanish away.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/def....2-9fb1f3 3fd878

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 9, 2008, 6:20am

A few thoughts for the coming Space War:

Seven Habits of Highly Effective Spaceship Captains



If you want to learn good organization skills, look no further than some of the best leaders in the universe: the captains of spaceships. They may be fictional, but they have skills that translate into the real world. After all, you'd follow Admiral Adama into battle, and trust Malcolm Reynolds to have your back. Now you can learn the seven greatest leadership lessons we gleaned from watching shows like Futurama and Firefly.

1. The Prime Directive is just a suggestion.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the Enterprise wasn't as swashbuckling as he predecessor Captain James T. Kirk, simply because he actually wrestled with breaking the Prime Directive instead of ignoring it entirely. The Prime Directive states that humans shouldn't involve themselves in the affairs of less developed planets, for fear of messing up their cultures with ultra-advanced tech. While Picard often considers the importance of the Prime Directive in his decision-making, he refuses to be bound by it. Lesson learned? Rules are made to be broken.

2. Always shoot first.
Every good leader should be willing to do what he or she asks of her team. One of the reasons for the loyalty of the ragtag crew of Serenity, the ship Malcolm Reynolds captains in Firefly, is that Mal will throw himself into battle to protect his team. Whenever he has a crazy scheme or rescue mission in mind, he takes the first plunge. Lesson learned? Show your crew that you're willing to take a bullet for them, and they'll do the same for you.

3. Don't be afraid to hook up with a cute spaceman.
We love Leela on Futurama not just because she's the only person on her ship with any kind of sense, but because she also lets her long, purple hair down once in a while. She's always tangling with spacemen and getting mixed up with strange alien pets. And that's one good reason why her goofy crew would follow her to the ends of the galaxy -- well, if she had enough beer. Lesson learned? A good leader has to get laid once in a while, and she shouldn't be ashamed of it.

4. When you're about to go genocidal, get a second opinion.
Admiral William Adama from the new Battlestar Galactica is one of the best leaders we've ever seen. He's gotten a group of a few thousand humans halfway across the galaxy, despite the fact that they're being pursuit by a group of homicidal, erotically obsessed cyborgs. He's had to deal with incredible loss and sheer terror, and he always keeps his head. He is also truly humane. How does he keep it together without going all Admiral Cain on everybody's ass? By sharing his power with President Roslyn as well as his circle of trusted officers and advisers. Without their guidance, the Galactica and its fleet might have turned into a bloodthirsty military fleet, instead of what it is: a mostly-civilian group with a (sort of) free press and even elections. Lesson learned? True leaders do not ever make decisions alone.

5. Just because you have a crappy ship doesn't mean you're a loser.
Everyone knows that Han Solo, captain of the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars, is piloting a souped-up bucket. And yet his seemingly-crappy ship is probably the very best thing for helping out a group of covert resistance fighters like Obi Wan and Luke. Plus, he knows his ship so well that he can totally slam those Stormtroopers in their McFighters. Lesson learned? Every crappy PC is a lean, mean Linux box waiting to be born. Oh, and in case that didn't make sense: It's not the tools; it's what you do with them.

6. Freedom fighters make good teammates.
Say what you will about Captain Janeway on Voyager, but she made a smart decision early on to integrate her Federation team with a group of subversive Maquis who got stuck with them out in the Delta Quadrant. Another captain might have kept the Maquis separate from the Federation types, but Janeway integrated them and gave them Federation ranks -- much to her good fortune. She got a great Chief Engineer and First Officer out of the deal. Lesson learned? A little subversion goes a long way.

7. There is always somebody out there who can bend spacetime better than you can.
In Iain M. Banks' novel Excession, the Ship Sleeper Service (which is an AI that captains itself, thank you very much) discovers that its amazing, human-dwarfing brain is nothing compared to the "excession," a phenomenon that none of the Ships can understand. The excession exists in subspace, and looks like a giant something that could be a gateway to another dimension, perhaps, or a ship from the edges of the universe. Meeting the excession, for the Ships, is a very humbling experience. They realize that they are not as omnipotent as they realized, that that there are intelligences out there far more profound than their own. Lesson learned? No matter how in control you are, always be ready for something for which you're completely unprepared.

http://io9.com/353543/seven-habits-of-highly-effective-spaceship-captains

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 9, 2008, 6:31am

Israel Mulls Viagra-Style Drugs to Keep Pilots Up (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman February 08, 2008 | 12:57:00 PM



Air Forces all around the world drug their pilots, to keep 'em alert. A new Israeli military report says the "Viagra family of drugs" might be the best pills for the job. Seriously.

"Military researchers believe the ingredients that allow improved blood flow for men suffering from sexual problems may help flyers operating at very high altitudes," the Times of London reports.

The proposal, to be presented to the air force by a retired general, developed from a study by Israeli doctors among mountain climbers scaling Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, according to Bamahaneh (“On the Army Base”), an official military magazine. The study found that tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, a Viagra-like antiimpotence drug, helped climbers to ward off fatigue and dizziness at greater heights.

With combat pilots operating hi-tech equipment in low-pressure environments, doctors believe the drug could enhance their operational abilities.

“The Viagra family of drugs is considered effective in these conditions because when there is a long shortage in oxygen it leads to high blood pressure in the lungs, and the drugs help fight that,” a military medical officer told the weekly magazine.

UPDATE: There's just one teeny-tiny problem with the plan, as our friend B.W. Jones reminds us: Viagra, Cialis, and the like might just make you go blind in the long run.

For decades, the armed forces around the globe have tried all sorts of ways to keep its soldiers and pilots awake. During World War II, American, German, Japanese, and British troops were all issued rations of amphetamines. In the early days of the Afghanistan war, these "go pills" were blamed for a particularly ugly "friendly fire" incident. A newer drug, modafinil, is now being pushed in the U.S. military as a safer alternative.

DARPA, the Pentagon's way-out research arm, is funding scientific studies into more exotic answers to combat the effects of sleeplessness. Columbia University psychologists, working under a DARPA grant, are keeping people awake for 48 hours straight -- and then zapping their brains with focused magnetic waves, to keep their cognitive capacities intact. The researchers recently published a study showing that the transcranial magnetic stimulation was able to "improve the working memory performance" of the sleep-deprived. Lexicon Genetics has found genetic targets in mice that seem to make sleep itself more restorative, enhancing learning and memory. And Wisconsin professor Giulio Tononi is breeding a strain of fruit flies that gets by on just a third the normal amount of sleep.

So, which is scarier: Fruit flies bred to pull all-nighters, or fruit flies pumped up with Cialis?

UPDATE 2: And let's hope our pilot buddies don't run into this problem.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/israel-mulls-vi.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 9, 2008, 7:32am

Pentagon Plots Sim Iraq for Propaganda Tests
By Noah Shachtman February 08, 2008 | 8:01:00 AM



The Office of the Secretary of Defense is trying to figure out how to beat jihadists in the propaganda war. One tool they figure could help: a computer model of "Human, Social, and Cultural Behavior" in Middle Eastern locales. OSD isn't the first arm of the Pentagon looking to build its version of Sim Iraq. But this is the first one I've heard of that focuses in on the touchy subject of strategic communications.

The OSD's new "Human, Social, and Cultural Behavior Modeling" program is looking for ways to combine "game-based, agent-based, [or] systems dynamics" sims (and maybe even "cellular automata") into a virtual country close enough to real that it can "validate and verify interactions against real world scenarios."

By running these Sim Iraqis around, OSD hopes to get a better understand of:

how people communicate; what avenues of communication are traditionally trusted; who in that culture holds power and influence; how do tribal and trade associations interact; and where/how can societal behaviors contribute to options for stability and reduction in conflict potential.

These models are also supposed to "provide greater insight into how strategic, operational, and tactical operations may be impacted by individual and group socio-cultural dynamics." Specifically, OSD would like the pixelated place to help with:

identify[ing] how media and information propagation affect beliefs and behavior within individuals, groups, societies, states, and regions. Additionally, proposals shall address the development of dynamic and semantic media and rumor propagation models/social network models.

And that's just for starters. When the program is over, OSD hopes, it will have "generate[d] a universal meta-language that is meaningful to the user communities and is relevant to the socio-cultural ‘space’ supported by the underlying models."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/pentagon-wants.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 9, 2008, 9:47am

DARPA 2009: Brains-on-a-Chip, Transparent Displays
By Noah Shachtman February 07, 2008 | 3:01:00 AM



Brains-on-a-chip, robotic rescue choppers, see-through displays -- those are just a few of the projects that the Pentagon's mad science division has hatched up for next year.

Earlier this week, DARPA, the Defense Department's way-out research arm, submitted its $3.29 billion budget for the 2009 fiscal year. In it are dozens of new programs -- one more far-reaching than the next.

A particularly wild project is Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics, or SyNAPSE. "The program will develop a brain inspired electronic 'chip' that mimics that function, size, and power consumption of a biological cortex," DARPA promises us. "If successful, the program will provide the foundations for functional machines to supplement humans in many of the most demanding situations faced by warfighters today" -- like getting usable information out of video feeds, and starting tasks. The agency is looking to spend $3 million next year, to get started on its faux brain effort. My guess is that it will take considerably more cash to get it done.

The "Nightingale" program aims to put together the building blocks for a "fully autonomous" flyer that could some day serve as both an unmanned ambulance-in-the-sky and as a robotic search-and-rescue chopper. Looking for, picking up and stabilizing the wounded are dangerous, complicated jobs. But, by squeezing "integrated life support capabilities into a small unmanned (or optionally piloted) air vehicle," DARPA thinks Nightingale could keep some soldiers out of harm's way. Not only would the drone search for the missing and wounded. This "low cost, high availability air ambulance" could be deployed near the warzone, to get casualties to combat hospitals in a hurry.

Of course, making this a reality won't be easy. "Technical challenges include intelligent autonomous flight behavior, sensor integrated guidance and control to enable flight in complex terrain, fully autonomous selection...of suitable landing locations, dual mode (ground and flight) propulsion, collaboration/coordination with human combat medics and safe and rapid autonomous launch and return to advanced medical facilities."

Just about everything, in other words.

And that isn't the only new robot project DARPA has in mind for 2009. There's a $4 million effort to start work on a "robotic naval vessel to operate for years with minimal human interaction." $4.5 million to build a teeny-tiny, unmanned Osprey that can perch on a rooftop, and silently spy on foes. Another $4 million to arm small drones with an "inexpensive, low weight precision munition that is effective against soft targets," including individual people. And $2 million for a walking "tetrapod" to carry soldiers' gear. (That sounds like our favorite robot, the eerily lifelike, four-legged BigDog.)

DARPA is also looking to spend $5 million next year on laser-guided bullets -- ammo steered by beams of coherent light, and able to turn on a dime. If the program works as planned, the agency promises, "it will make every shooter with any .50-caliber weapon" into "a precision sniper at greater than 2 kilometer range."

Another $3 million will go towards spotting rocket-propelled grenades -- before they're launched, somehow. DARPA doesn't elaborate how the trick would be pulled off, only that it would involve "cognitive swarm recognition technology." In phase one of the program, DARPA boasts, the system will be capable of "detection rates greater than 95%."

DARPA is also looking to spend $3 million next year on "transparent displays." How would you make those? Simple... By "exploiting the optical plasmon phenomenology characteristics of nanoscale structures." (Contact DANGER ROOM HQ immediately in you can translate.) These new gadgets will replace existing models "in a host of applications, such as canopy- windshield- window-integrated... and new, light-weight avionics displays." Soldiers today have to use clunky monocles or PDAs -- if they use anything at all -- to get data on the run. DARPA figures this project might lead to "integrated helmet display visors, bringing the digital battle space to the individual warfighter."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/darpa-2009-brai.html#more

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 9, 2008, 9:56am

Iran's "Stealth" Fighter: Real or Make Believe?

Iran is back at making fantastic claims about its domestically built weapons. The latest announcement, via the Iranian regime-run Tehran Times, touts the beginning of the manufacture process of a newly developed "stealth" fighter--locally made, of course:

Air Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said here on Monday that Iran has launched the project to manufacture stealth aircrafts. “We have finished the design of stealth aircraft which cannot to be detected even by advanced radar systems, and the primary stages of its manufacture have started,” Miqani told reporters in a news conference.

The "stealth" program cannot be verified, but the regime has a long history of making outrageous claims about the capabilities of the domestic defense industry.

The Islamic Republic's Air Force touted the Lightning, or Azarakhsh, as a fighter comparable to the U.S. F-18 in August 2006. In reality the plane is a refurbish/re-engineered version of the 40-year-old U.S. F-5 export fighter.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps touted a home-made "supersonic torpedo" with a top speed of 233 miles per hour in April 2006. "Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed," said General Ali Fadavi, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard. The reality is this was a remanufacture of the Soviet-era VA-111 Shkval torpedo.

During the same timeframe, Iran claimed it developed stealthy ballistic missiles capable of deploying multiple warheads. This "advanced" missile appears to be the Soviet SS-26 theater ballistic missile.

In perhaps the most humorous example of Iranian-made "stealth" technology, in April 2006 the military touted its stealthy "super-modern flying boat" (which looks anything but). "Due to its advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can detect it. It can lift out of the water," Iranian state television reported. The flying boat, called the Great Prophet, was "all Iranian-made and can launch missiles with precise targeting while moving." This boat is so "super-stealthy" it hasn't been seen deployed in the Persian Gulf since the announcement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TW....hter_latest.asp

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 10, 2008, 11:29am

Air America's Black Helicopter

The secret aircraft that helped the CIA tap phones in North Vietnam.

By James R. Chiles


BLACK HELICOPTERS ARE A FAVORITE FANTASY when conspiracy theorists and movie directors conjure a government gone bad, but in fact, the last vehicle a secret organization would choose for a stealthy mission is a helicopter. A helicopter is a one-man band, its turbine exhaust blaring a piercing whine, the fuselage ski’s vibration rumbling like a drum, the tail rotor rasping like a buzzsaw.



In the last dark nights of the Vietnam War, however, a secret government organization did use a helicopter for a single, sneaky mission. But it was no ordinary aircraft. The helicopter, a limited-edition model from the Aircraft Division of Hughes Tool Company, was modified to be stealthy. It was called the Quiet One—also known as the Hughes 500P, the “P” standing for Penetrator.

Just how quiet was the Quiet One? “It was absolutely amazing just how quiet those copters were,” recalls Don Stephens, who managed the Quiet One’s secret base in Laos for the CIA. “I’d stand on the [landing pad] and try to figure out the first time I could hear it and which direction it was coming from. I couldn’t place it until it was one or two hundred yards away.” Says Rod Taylor, who served as project engineer for Hughes, “There is no helicopter today that is as quiet.”

The Quiet One grew out of the Hughes 500 helicopter, known to aviators in Vietnam as the OH-6A “Loach,” after LOH, an abbreviation for “light observation helicopter.” The new version started with a small research-and-development contract from the Advanced Research Projects Agency (now the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in 1968. The idea of using hushed helicopters in Southeast Asia came from the CIA’s Special Operations Division Air Branch, which wanted them to quietly drop off and pick up agents in enemy territory. The CIA bought and then handed over two of the top-secret helicopters to a firm—by all appearances, civilian—called Air America. Formed in 1959 from assets of previous front companies, Air America was throughout its life beholden to the CIA, the Department of State, and the Pentagon.

The Quiet One’s single, secret mission, conducted on December 5 and 6, 1972, fell outside Air America’s normal operations. The company’s public face—what spies might call its “legend”—was that of a plucky charter airline delivering food and supplies to civilians in Laos, and flying occasional combat evacuation missions in Laos and South Vietnam. While it did substantially more than that, and at considerable peril (217 of its employees died in Laos), Air America crews did not make it a practice to fly deep into North Vietnam.

The mission was intended to fill an information gap that had been galling Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under President Richard Nixon. Negotiations to end the 11-year war had begun in March 1972 but stalled in part because South Vietnamese leaders feared that North Vietnam would invade not long after U.S. troops left. A five-month Air Force and Navy bombing campaign called Operation Linebacker had brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table in Paris that October, but even that campaign could not force a deal. Kissinger wanted the CIA to find out whether the North Vietnamese were following the peace terms or just using them as a smokescreen for attack plans.

From its intelligence work a year earlier, the CIA knew about a weak point in the North Vietnamese wall of security: a telephone line used by the country’s military commanders, located near the industrial city of Vinh. A patrolled bicycle path ran alongside the string of telephone poles, but at one spot, about 15 miles southwest of Vinh and just east of the Cau River, the phone line went straight up a bluff, over a ridge, and down the other side. The terrain was too steep for bikes, so the path followed the river, which flowed around the bluff, rejoining the telephone poles on the bluff’s far side (see hand-drawn map, p. 67). This would be the best place to drop off commandos to place a wiretap.

Because the Vinh tap would be sending its intercepts out of North Vietnam, across Laos, and into Thailand, it would need a solar-powered relay station that could catch and transmit the signal, broadcasting from high ground. The station would be within earshot of enemy patrols, so both the tap and relay would have to be dropped in by helicopter—a very quiet one.

Disturbing the peace

The Hughes Tool Aircraft Division had started working on such a helicopter in 1968; that year an affluent suburb of Los Angeles had bought two piston-powered Hughes 269 helicopters for police patrols. Citizens soon called to complain about the noise of the low-flying patrols, and the city told

Hughes to either make them quieter or take them back. An emerging market for police patrols was at stake. Engineers at Hughes identified one of the worst of the noisemakers: the tail rotor. By doubling the number of blades to four, Hughes was able to cut the speed of the rotor in half, which reduced the helicopter’s noise.

Coincidentally, the Advanced Research Projects Agency was hunting for contractors who could cut noise from military helicopters of all sizes. After hearing about Hughes’ work on the police helicopters, ARPA offered the company $200,000 in 1968 to work similar magic on a Hughes OH-6A light helicopter. Hughes Tool made a short movie about the modifications, which included a new set of gears to slow the tail rotor, and showed it to ARPA. “ARPA came back and offered a blank check to do a Phase Two of the program with no holds barred,” recalls Taylor, the project engineer. “Each and every noise source in the helicopter was to be addressed in an attempt to reduce the signature to an absolute minimum.” ARPA gave the project the code name Mainstreet. Even before work was fully under way, the CIA ordered two (later registered as N351X and N352X) for use in the field. Test flights began at Culver City, California, in 1971, followed by a brisk training program for the U.S. instructor-pilots who would later train mission pilots.

Flights of the Quiet One included low-level work at the secret Air Force base Area 51 in Nevada and touchdowns on peaks in California to familiarize pilots with close-quarters maneuvering and landing in darkness. Pilots needed at least eight hours to get comfortable with steering by sole reference to the comparatively narrow view of the forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera, which was mounted just above the skids. Says Allen Cates, an Air America pilot who flew one in 1973: “When you saw a person, it was like looking at a photo negative. Or you’d see just the hood of a car, glowing from heat off the engine block…. And when you were landing, a blade of grass looked as big as a tree.”

The slapping noise that some helicopters produce, which can be heard two miles away or more, is caused by “blade vortex interaction,” in which the tip of each whirling rotor blade makes tiny tornadoes that are then struck by oncoming blades. The Quiet One’s modifications included an extra main rotor blade, changes to the tips on the main blades, and engine adjustments that allowed the pilot to slow the main rotor speed, making the blades quieter (see “How To Hush a Helicopter,” p. 68). The helicopter also had extra fuel tanks in the rear passenger compartment, an alcohol-water injection system to boost the Allison engine’s power output for short periods, an engine exhaust muffler, lead-vinyl pads to deaden skin noise, and even a baffle to block noise slipping out the air intake.

The extensive alterations did not blank out all noise, Taylor says. Rather, they damped the kinds of noise that people associate with a helicopter. “Noise is very subjective,” he says. “You can reduce the overall noise signature and an observer will still say, ‘I can hear it as well as before.’ It’s related to the human ability to discriminate different sounds. You don’t hear the lawnmower next door, but a model airplane is easily heard. It has a higher frequency and seems irritating.”

Hughes shipped the two Quiet Ones to Taiwan in October 1971. Under the CIA’s original plans, the Vinh wiretap mission would be flown by pilots from the Taiwanese air force’s 34th Squadron. This would offer the United States some deniability, however flimsy, if any of the helicopters were captured. The pilots’ U.S. instructors included two veteran helicopter pilots with experience flying low-level missions in Vietnam: Lloyd George Anthony Lamothe Jr. and Daniel H. Smith. The two had joined Air America six months earlier for that purpose.

The decoys arrive

Meanwhile, Air America’s fleet in Thailand accepted delivery of two more Hughes 500 models—standard ones—and used them for air taxi operations. The job of these plain-vanilla Loaches was to distract attention from the Quiet Ones before they even landed in Laos. Loaches were common in Vietnam but not in Laos, so Air America needed to start using them in full view of North Vietnamese sympathizers. That way, if an enemy observer later saw the modified Loaches flitting past on a moonlit night, he might not consider the event worthy of comment.

Initial flight training on the Quiet Ones, conducted in Taiwan, was complete by June 1972. The two helicopters and their gear traveled on a C-130 transport to an isolated airstrip in Thailand called LS-05. Mechanics pulled them out, swung the rotor blades for flight, and filled the tanks, and the two helicopters flew by night to an even more obscure base, a secret one in southwest Laos known to insiders as PS-44. PS stood for “Pakse Site,” a reference to the garrison town of Pakse, 18 miles to the southeast. PS-44 had been built to house Laotian commandos and the aircraft that flew them around. Its dirt strip and three tin-roof buildings sat on the edge of a plateau, surrounded on three sides by steep ground that was unusual for its expanses of bright beach-like sand, eroded from nearby cliffs of white sandstone.

It appeared to be far away from everything, but it was not far from the enemy. By late 1972, units of the North Vietnamese army were ensconced 20 miles to the north. To offer some peace of mind, the CIA had Air America keep a turbine transport helicopter, the Sikorsky S-58T “Twin Pack,” handy for evacuations. More reassuring, the terrain was so steep and overgrown that the enemy could have stormed it from only one direction: the west. The base also relied on a perimeter of six guard posts staffed by Laotian soldiers, and reinforcements could have been called in from a base lying southwest, along the Mekong River.

No pictures allowed

Cameras were discouraged at PS-44, and photographing the Quiet One was strictly forbidden. Crews already knew the risk of telling tales in the bars and brothels of Southeast Asia, but even inside the base, the code of silence persisted. “You just

didn’t come up and introduce yourself at PS-44,” says Dick Casterlin, an Air America pilot who came to the base often. “Nobody talked about their personal background or where they were from.” Men who worked closely for months knew each other only by first names or nicknames. The CIA itself had its own nickname at PS-44: The men called it simply “the Customer.”

Casterlin flew an S-58T helicopter during some of the wiretap attempts, accompanying the Quiet One in order to rescue the wiretap teams if that became necessary. Casterlin had a security clearance for special missions, but even he wasn’t told where the CIA had hidden the Quiet One.

According to base manager Stephens, the Quiet One was kept out of sight about 600 yards northwest of PS-44’s main building, reachable down an unmarked, narrow forest trail. Because of the distance, the forests, and the quieting gear, the helicopter couldn’t be heard from the porch of the base’s main building unless it was flying overhead. Even then, at night, it sounded like a far-off airplane. The helicopter had its own hangar so Soviet spyplanes and satellites could not get a look at the peculiar profile produced by the extra main rotor blade, a tail rotor with blades in an odd scissored configuration, and big muffler on the rear fuselage.

Between June and September, Lamothe and Smith tried to train the Taiwanese crews to fly the mission, but after months of poor performance by the trainees—including a botched night landing that demolished one of the two Quiet Ones—and bickering over who would be the chief pilot, the CIA managers got fed up and sent the whole contingent home. Lamothe and Smith prepared to fly the mission themselves.

At the same time, the agency placed the project under new management. James Glerum arrived in Pakse to direct operations. Glerum had been the CIA’s assistant base chief at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base when the Quiet Ones landed in Laos. The new assignment demonstrated how urgently the state department wanted the wiretapped information, according to Air America chief helicopter pilot Wayne Knight. Glerum, he says, was a CIA “super-grade,” outranking many careerists at headquarters.

Soon after his arrival, Glerum quizzed Smith and Lamothe on their cover story. When he realized they had none, he provided them with false identities and a story to go with them in case of capture.

More help came from Air America, which was offering up its best aircraft (the term used was “gold-plated”) and its most experienced men to support the mission. One was Thomas “Shep” Johnson, a rangy Idahoan with a background in smoke-jumping. Johnson had started with Air America in its first year, 1959, rigging bundles with parachutes and pushing them out of aircraft. A year before, he had been one of only three men to survive a North Vietnamese attack at another Laotian air base. Johnson’s main responsibility was to train a squad of eight Laotian commandos for the Vinh wiretap mission. For years, the commandos had been fighting communist forces and had reported on enemy traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in eastern Laos. A group of 100, they lived in a separate part of PS-44 and manned the perimeter.

The CIA had hoped to get the wiretap in place before monsoon season, but a series of mishaps and equipment malfunctions, compounded by the monsoons starting early, delayed the mission. “We had a string of unbelievably bad weather,” says Glerum. “Normally, November to January is the rainy season. It had started right as I got there [in October].” Twice Lamothe and Smith took off from PS-44 to fly the wiretap mission, refueling in eastern Thailand and heading into enemy territory, only to turn back after running into clouds in the passes or fog at the wiretap site. “The preparation for the mission was a very hectic time,” says Stephens, “but it also seemed like it dragged on forever.”

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

Hughes technicians toiled over the troublesome infrared camera; problems with it had forced cancellation of an October 21 attempt. “The FLIR [forward-looking infrared] required a lot of work,” recalls Glerum. Other gadgetry included SU-50 night-vision goggles (their first use in Laos), which worked only when the moon was a quarter to a half full. The helicopter also had a long-range navigation system (LORAN-C).

Any mishap during the night flight into North Vietnam, particularly while the crew maneuvered among trees and telephone poles, would doom the mission and probably its participants. By day Lamothe and Smith studied photos and maps marking the stealthiest route to the target. By night they practiced by using LORAN to navigate from the hangar to a nearby training ground they called the Hole. The topography of the Hole was an “astonishingly accurate duplicate” of the actual wiretap site, according to Glerum. Flying into and out of it was “no problem in the daytime, [but] it could be a bugger at night,” recalls Casterlin. Smith and Lamothe dropped the commandos near a simulated telephone pole (a tree stripped of branches and equipped with a cross arm) and flew to a pre-selected tree, where they laid out the radio rig called the spider relay.

The spider relay was to be deployed as the helicopter hovered over a tree. With its solar panels, electronics boxes, and antennas sprung open to a width of almost 10 feet, the relay perched atop the branches with a fishnet-like webbing. It was nearly impossible to see from the ground. The relay could be folded into a compact package that fit between the helicopter skids, but there was so little ground clearance left after it was attached, the pilots could land only on a hard, flat surface.

When each night’s practice was complete, Lamothe and Smith flew back through the darkness to the concrete landing pad, which was shaped like an old-fashioned keyhole. The approach to landing was memorable because the Quiet One used no landing lights; it relied on an infrared floodlight on the nose. The light cast an eerie, ruddy glow.

Some of the biggest threats to mission success came not from North Vietnamese army spies but from plain bad luck. One flight opportunity was lost when a scorpion bit a wiretap team commando, setting off an allergic reaction. On one of the training flights at the Hole, after Lamothe and Smith deployed the spider relay used for practice, it slid off the branches and crashed to the ground, with pieces scattering. Training for the mission could not proceed without the relay, and joyful speculation spread among the ranks: It would be a month or more until a new spider could come from the States, so the men could go on leave.

But no: Stephens flew to the spot by helicopter, slid down a rope, and helped technician Bob Lanning bag up the pieces. Back at camp, Lanning laid them out on a floor and said he could get the relay working if he had some new parts. “Jim Glerum sent a cable,” says Stephens, “and in three days we had the parts by courier. Bob worked two and a half days, almost nonstop, and put it back together. So we only lost a few days.”

With the moon entering the favorable phase, the rescue crews moved to a forward staging base in eastern Thailand while Lamothe, Smith, and the Quiet One remained at PS-44. An attempt was scheduled for the night of December 5, amid rising doubts among Air America veterans as to whether the scheme would ever work.

That night, the Quiet One flew to a refueling base at the Thai-Laotian border, where it met a de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter with the Laotian commandos. Two commandos with guns and the wiretap equipment climbed aboard the Quiet One, and the rest stayed on the Otter with parachutes and more guns in case they were needed for a rescue. Accompanied by an armed Twin Pack flown by Casterlin and Julian “Scratch” Kanach, the Quiet One set course for the northeast. The Twin Pack broke away at the North Vietnamese border and took up a slow orbit over Laos, out of radar range but on call if needed. Despite the Twin Pack’s readiness to play the rescue role, security was as tight as ever. “I did the LORAN navigation, but I didn’t have the coordinates of the wiretap location,” Casterlin says. “I assumed they’d tell me if I needed to know, or maybe Scratch knew.”

Leaving the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and without being targeted by the anti-aircraft defenses along it, Lamothe and Smith climbed to cross the Annamese mountains, then dropped to follow the nap of the earth, following streambeds when possible. When the pilots identified the wiretap spot, they hovered, and the two Laotian commandos jumped a few feet to the ground.

Lamothe and Smith then flew west across the Cau River to a 1,000-foot-high mountain to set the spider relay. Finding the ideal tree for the relay had taken months of intense photo-reconnaissance work. The tree had to be tall, on high ground with a clear view of the western horizon, and flat at the crown. An Otter orbited over a receiver relay, which was already in place atop another mountain halfway into Laos. Inside the Otter, technicians were watching an oscilloscope measure a test signal from the spider relay.

Meanwhile, the Laotian commandos at the wiretap site found that the poles were concrete rather than wood, so they couldn’t use their pole-climbing boots to get up them or a stapler to attach the antenna. The men shinnied up instead. After splicing into the phone wires, they put the tap in place; it was concealed in a glass insulator of the same color used on the French-built line. The commandos began taping up the short-range antenna and installing narrow solar panels atop the pole’s cross-arm. This would power the tap’s transmitter.

When Lamothe and Smith heard from the Otter that the Thai oscilloscope was getting a clear signal from the spider relay’s transmitter, they threw a switch that released the last cables connecting the spider relay to the helicopter and flew the Quiet One to a streambed to wait for the commandos to finish attaching the solar panels. At the scheduled time, Smith restarted the helicopter’s turbine; he picked up the commandos at the wiretap site and the team returned to Laos without incident. Those listening to progress reports at PS-44, Udorn, and the Lima 40A refueling site were pleasantly startled to hear that the crew was on its way back and the tap was in place without a firefight, recalls Wayne Knight.

“What makes the Vinh tap so special is that they pulled it off,” Knight says. “It had to be right the first time.”

DISAPPEARING ACT

Lamothe and Smith left the Quiet One at PS-44 and flew to the CIA’s regional office at Udorn by conventional aircraft. Much celebration at ensued there—perhaps too much. During the subsequent R&R, someone at the Wolverine Night Club in town bit off part of Smith’s ear. If a reprimand for attracting attention was ever entered in Smith’s secret personnel file, it didn’t matter: The CIA had no plans to send the Quiet One up again, and within a week all the Americans connected with the mission and their equipment were on their way out of Laos.

Recollections differ on how long the Vinh tap worked—perhaps one to three months—and why it went silent. But allegedly it yielded enough inside information from the North Vietnamese high command to help nudge all parties to sign a peace pact in late January 1973. Exactly what Kissinger eavesdropped on remains classified.

“I was not aware of any specifics Kissinger and company were looking for,” Glerum says. “Since the land line [at Vinh] was understood to hold the command channel, virtually anything would have been welcome.”

The one flyable Quiet One relocated to California. Air America pilots Allen Cates and Robert Mehaffey trained on it at Edwards Air Force Base, achieving proficiency in early 1973. Then, before any special-mission training began, and with no explanation, Cates and Mehaffey were sent back to their old piloting jobs at Air America. Mechanics pulled most of the special features out of the Quiet One, and its trail of insurance and registration papers ends in 1973, after it was transferred to Pacific Corporation of Washington, D.C., a holding company used as a screen for CIA-backed companies and assets.

“The agency got rid of it because they thought they had no more use for it,” says Glerum. At least one of the ex-Quiet Ones surfaced years later at the Army’s Night Vision & Electronic Sensors Directorate in Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

But according to the participants, no more were built. It’s puzzling why the CIA did not keep a stable of Quiet Ones, at least while the technology remained under wraps. And it remained a secret for more than two decades, until Ken Conboy and James Morrison told the story in their 1995 book Shadow War.

But there were valid reasons for dropping the Quiet One from the spymasters’ catalog.

“In the long run, the 500P was not the best for setting wiretaps,” says Casterlin. “It was not good for high-altitude work.” It was a light helicopter and had to be loaded with gear that cut into its payload capability and operating altitude. The Twin Pack was much louder but also simpler to run and more powerful, so Air America used it for later wiretap missions in North Vietnam. At least one tap, placed on the night of March 12-13, 1973, was successful.

Some of the Quiet One’s innovations did show up on later helicopters, including the Hughes AH-64 Apache, which has a scissor-style tail rotor. And Hughes engineers’ interest in modifying the tips of the main rotor blades to cut the slapping noise caused by blade vortices has been taken up by other experts. Aerospace engineer Gordon Leishman and his team at the University of Maryland, for example, are developing a blade with curved tubes at the tip to divert the air, thereby countering vortex formation. But, thanks to its many unusual modifications, the 500P still holds the title that Hughes gave it in April 1971: “the world’s quietest helicopter.”

http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2008/february-march/the_quiet_one.php?page=1

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 10, 2008, 11:43am

'Invisible' Material Key to DARPA Dream Display
By Noah Shachtman February 09, 2008 | 12:32:00 PM



Reason # 573854961875 why I love blogs. The other day, in a post about DARPA's new projects for 2009, I mentioned that the agency wanted to work on transparent displays.

How would you make those? Simple... By "exploiting the optical plasmon phenomenology characteristics of nanoscale structures." (Contact DANGER ROOM HQ immediately in you can translate.)

Now, lo and behold, we've got a translation. And it makes all kinds of sense, believe it or not.

BW provides us with a relevant paper, and then explains:

Metamaterials can shape visible light and other wavelenths (sound, microwaves etc..). Metamaterials have tended to be metals with particular patterns. The wavelengths interact with the patterns and can be guided by them to make things invisible or to give wavelengths negative indexes of diffraction (enabling superlenses for better microscopes).

Metamaterials can also be made out of non-metals but to effect visible light would need to have nanoscale dimensions (nanoscale structures part).

Plasmons are what are interact[s] with the metamaterial to create the effect.

Plasmons :The quanta of waves produced by collective effects of large numbers of electrons in matter when the electrons are disturbed from equilibrium. Metals provide the best evidence of plasmons, because they have a high density of electrons free to move.

Got it. In fact, we've covered metamaterials a bunch of times here. They're what's behind the science of real-world invisibility cloaks, sonic dampeners, and maybe even levitation.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/invisible-mater.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 8:16am

Ohio Now Safe From Bogus Bio-Threats
By Jason Sigger February 11, 2008 | 2:59:00 PM



The Ohio National Guard is excited. They've got one of the first Biological Integrated Detection Systems (BIDS) - a modified Humvee, for spotting nasty agents, featuring the Joint Biological Point Detection System. If only they knew what to do with it...

“Whether you have thousands who die or zero depends on your detection ability; and you have the best,” [Col. Daniel] Berry said. “Ohio is now on the forefront of chemical detection and protection.”

Er, I think you mean biological detection, Colonel. But, hey: chem, bio, no big difference, right? Anyway, about four years ago, the Defense Department decided that the Army needed a dozen BIDS companies - not to deploy overseas with the troops, as the vehicle is designed to do, but rather to "protect the homeland" from bioterrorists. I guess they're just coming into the field now (you know, lag time between getting the funds into the budget and then actually spending them).

Colonel Berry's melodrama aside, biodetection systems - very expensive systems requiring some specialized training - need to be situated at the right place, operating at the right time, and will work only if that the bioterrorist uses one of the ten agents for which you have the proper assays. That is, if there ever is a bioterrorist who uses his agents outdoors using an aerosol sprayer in a quantity large enough to allow one of the detectors to grab a sample and identify it (as opposed to indoors, through the mail, etc). Ironically, the Army stationed a number of BIDS vehicles around the Pentagon after 9/11, with people arguing for weeks whether the system would actually work in the event of a bioterrorist incident.

Using biodetection systems for homeland security is a lousy idea; the high cost of operating and sustaining the much simpler BioWatch system year 'round - with all its faults - ought to be an indicator. For a battlefield where you expect a weaponized agent in a specific location, it makes sense. They don't make sense for the homeland security scenarios. But you know how it is. Someone in the Office of the Secretary of Defense gets a brainfart, next thing you know, people are falling all over themselves to get a piece of the credit. Now we're going to have a few hundred million dollars in gear out there in the Guard units, sitting in the depots, looking pretty. All because someone thinks it's a matter of if, and not when (six years after the Amerithrax incident).

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/the-guard-gets.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 8:22am

Predicting Terrorist Attacks
By Sharon Weinberger February 11, 2008 | 12:50:23 PM



An increasing number of contracts are being given out by the Pentagon with the seemingly Quixotic goal of predicting human behavior. For example, there's the Integrated Crises Early Warning System, which looks at modeling potential political instability. But what about predicting terrorist events? A team led by the University of Alabama in Huntsville is looking at using computer models to forecast future attacks. Researchers at the university are working with a private company on a six month Air Force contract.

"One way to combat these attacks is to identify trends in the attackers’ methods, then use those trends to predict their future actions," said UAHuntsville researcher Wes Colley said. "Some trends from these attacks show important day-to-day correlations. If we can draw inferences from those correlations, then we may be able to save lives by heightening awareness of possible events or changing the allocation of our security assets to provide more protection."

There are at least two main barriers to this sort of research. First, you need data, or more precisely, accurate data, otherwise it's "garbage in, garbage out." And second, you need models that work. This is how the researchers are approaching the problem:

A four-step process was used in this research, according to Colley. Researchers reviewed the behavior signatures of terrorists on 12,000 attacks between 2003 and mid-2007 to calculate relative probabilities of future attacks on various target types.

The four steps were: create a database of past attacks; identify trends in the attacks; determine the correlation between attacks and use analysis to calculate the probabilities of future attacks and their location.

The goal was not to try to predict exactly when and what type of attack was going to happen next, but rather, which target types were more likely to be attacked next, according to Colley. “Our research won’t predict that an attack targeting civilians at a public market will take place tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.”

The purpose of the models, the researchers reasonably argue, it to provide commanders in the field with information that could be used for planning. So, it's not a crystal ball. The hope is that even general models, if accurate, would be useful. The question is, how useful? Human behavior is subject to hundreds of variables.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/predicting-terr.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 8:45am

Use This Picture Frame to Spy on Your English Wife
Posted by Joel Johnson, February 11, 2008 5:05 AM



Oh, this is shady: a picture frame with a built-in microphone and a GSM phone. Call into the number assigned to the picture frame's SIM and listen in at any time, with stand-by time of up to two weeks.

It's £130 and includes a SIM card, but no service plan is mentioned. Presumably you could use any SIM and any service. The seller is in the UK and GSM frequencies are not listed, so I'm not sure if it'll work in the US.

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/02/11/use-this-picture-fra.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 8:48am


Surveillance Vest Transmits Video Evidence Via 3G



With advanced wireless technology, wearing a wire no longer means having a voice recorder or short-range radio transmitter strapped to your chest.

This 3G-equipped surveillance vest can transmit a live feed anywhere in the world. There is also a panic button and GPS, which is handy when the Bad Guys notice a massive battery pack stuck to your back. The vest even has a built-in compact flash recorder for evidence if you lose cellular reception or backup doesn't arrive in time.

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 8:53am

Maligned aircraft finds redemption in Iraq, military says

From Mike Mount
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Once derided as a white elephant, the U.S. Marine Corps' tilt-rotor aircraft, the V-22 Osprey, is proving its mettle in Iraq, military officials said.

The Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a plane, was designed to replace the Corps' aging and less-capable helicopter fleet.

But a series of accidents involving the planes left 30 people dead from 1991 to 2000, and critics said the Osprey never would be able to replace the Vietnam-era CH-46 Sea Knight, which was the Corps' airlift workhorse.

The military, which has ordered 360 of the aircraft, said the 10 deployed to Iraq are doing what they are supposed to do -- carrying troops faster, farther and safer than the copters can.

Last September, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 left for Iraq's western Anbar province on the first deployment of the V-22.

Since then, the planes have logged more than 2,000 flight hours, initially doing routine cargo and troop movements from base to base in an area about the size of South Carolina.

In December, commanders gave the planes a more risky mission called "aero-scout" in which a group of V-22s flies into a relatively unsecured location and drops off Marines for a search mission.

The planes sit on the ground until the Marines load up and then fly off to somewhere else for another mission.

The Osprey's speed has been a lifesaver, too, squadron officials said.

For instance, they said two V-22s were dispatched to fly a more than 130-mile round trip in the remote western desert to pick up a wounded Marine and get him to a hospital. The planes were able to do so in an hour, something no helicopter in the Marine inventory could do, squadron officials said.

Commanders in Iraq have allowed little media coverage of the V-22s since their arrival, wanting to get crews used to their mission and to keep insurgents from targeting the planes for propaganda purposes. The planes have not come under direct fire, officials said.

Critics said the plane is lightly defended, with only one rear-mounted gun.

But Marines said the Osprey has enough power and speed to get out of a hostile zone faster than any helicopter, and the aircraft can fly higher, allowing it to be out of range of shoulder-fired missiles.

The Osprey seems to have become a favorite of commanders who need to get to places quickly, including Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq. Petraeus used one to fly around the country on Christmas Day to visit troops.

"Gen. Petraeus flew in the jump seat and was very impressed by the aircraft's capabilities," according to Col. Steve Boylan, a spokesman for the general.

"The rate of climb is exceptional, and it can fly about twice as fast as a Black Hawk [helicopter], without needing to refuel as frequently," Boylan said. "Beyond that, its automatic-hover capability for use in landing in very dusty conditions, even at night, is tremendous."

Petraeus chose the Osprey for that mission because it was the only aircraft in the inventory that could fly around the country without refueling and not rely on runways, Boylan said.

Despite glowing remarks from troops in Iraq, the planes have an overarching reliability problem, according to critics.

"The Marines will tell you it's a new plane, and all new aircraft have problems, but it's not a new plane; it's been around for a long time now," said Philip Coyle, former chief of the Pentagon's weapons testing division.

"It seems like every time one problem is fixed another one comes along, and I just don't think the program will be able to get over that."

Marines contend the planes have performed well, with six to eight aircraft out of 10 available at any one time.

No serious reports of mechanical problems have been reported with the planes in Iraq, according to Marine Corps officials in Washington, and a shortage of spare parts has been alleviated.

Critics such as Coyle said they aren't convinced the planes are the answer for the Marines.

"It has flown more than 2,000 hours in Iraq, but most of that has been carefully coordinated to minimize the risks," he said.

"The program is like a bad poker hand. They keep putting money into it when they should have spent it on a new helicopter system."

The Marine commands in Washington and Iraq said they do not let the critics faze them.

"As with any first-time deployment, new lessons are learned every day," one Marine deployed with the Osprey squadron said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/02/08/osprey/index.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 9:04am

Flying Saucer Drone in Military Showdown
By Noah Shachtman February 11, 2008 | 10:18:40 AM

British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have been having a tough time -- largely because they don't have fleet of robotic flying saucers, watching over them.



That's the argument (kinda sorta, more or less) of the circular drone makers at GFS Projects, who make miniature, remotely-operated flying saucers. Here's a video of one in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzQYo5P3xN4

Hot on the heels of a research contract with the U.S. Army, GFS' saucermen are turning their sights to the British Ministry of Defence, which is holding a "Grand Challenge" for robot-makers this August. The goal: build an "autonomous or semi autonomous system designed to detect, identify, monitor and report the position of a wide range of threats within a complex military urban environment, including within individual buildings."

GFS plans to enter the competition, pairing one of its new, 31-inch diameter robotic saucers with an unmanned ground vehicle for urban surveillance, Flight International reports.

The UFO-esque craft relies on the so-called "Coanda Effect," to fly. In the 1930s, pioneer Henri Coanda. observed that the flow of air will follow a curved surface, rather than just continue in a straight line. That led engineers to increase the lift -- the vertical motion -- of most aircraft, which are slightly curved. But it's also inspired more than a few tinkerers to try to build a completely curved plane -- an honest-to-God flying saucer. Few of these circular machines have made it out of testing, though. We'll see if GFS can change that.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/flying-saucer-d.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 9:32am

Navy Research Paper: 'Disrupt Economies' with Man-Made 'Floods,' 'Droughts'
By Noah Shachtman February 11, 2008 | 11:29:00 AM



A recently-unearthed U.S. Navy research project calls for creating mad-made floods and droughts to "disrupt [the] economy" of an enemy state.

"Weather modification was used successfully in Viet Nam to (among other things) hinder and impede the movement of personnel and material from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam," notes a Naval Air Warfare Weapons Division - China Lake research proposal, released last month through the Freedom of Information Act. But "since that time military research on Weather Modification has dwindled in the United States."

The proposal suggests a study of the latest weather manipulation techniques, to "give the U.S. military a viable, state-of-the-art weather modification capability again." With that in hand, American forces would be able...

(1) To impede or deny the movement of personnel and material because of rains-floods, snow-blizzards, etc.

(2) To disrupt economy due to the effect of floods, droughts, etc.

The proposal is undated. But it's pretty clearly from the Cold War. Not only is "the Soviet Union (Russia)" mentioned. The money is also relatively small, by today's standards -- less than a half-million dollars, over two years. (NB: The proposal post dates 01/92.)

A military in-house newspaper calls "weather modification" an "area of China Lake preeminence. Between 1949 and 1978, China Lake developed concepts, techniques, and hardware that were successfully used in hurricane abatement, fog control, and drought relief. Military application of this technology was demonstrated in 1966 when Project Popeye was conducted to enhance rainfall to help interdict traffic on the Ho Chi Minh Trail." Here's a picture of China Lake's "Cold Cloud Modification System":



In 1980, the United States ratified a treaty banning military weather manipulation. But every once in a while, someone in the armed forces floats the idea of doing it again. "Our vision is that by 2025 the military could influence the weather on a mesoscale [theater-wide] or microscale [immediate local area] to achieve operational capabilities," a 1996 Air Force-commissioned study reads.

Today, Chinese officials are trying to figure out ways to keep it from raining over Beiing, during this summer's Olympics.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/navy-research-p.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:16am

New toys from TASER:

TASER X12



http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERX12.aspx

TASER XREP



Introducing the TASER XREP – the eXtended Range Electronic Projectile. XREP is a self-contained, wireless projectile that fires from a standard 12-gauge shotgun. It delivers the same Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) bio-effect as our handheld TASER X26, but can be delivered to a distance of up to 100 feet, combining blunt impact with field proven TASER NMI.

The core technology that made the XREP possible is the XREP engine. A stunning engineering achievement, the XREP Engine provides the same bio-effect as our field proven X26, but from an electronics package that weighs only 2.4 grams and consumes less than one tenth of a cubic inch. In order to achieve a wireless projectile, the battery is fully integrated into the chassis and autonomously provides the power to drive the XREP engine for its full 20-second cycle.



The XREP comes pre-packaged in shell that is compatible with existing 12 gauge launchers. The transparent shell ensures officers properly identify the XREP prior to loading it in the shotgun.

As the TASER XREP is deployed, a rip cord attached between the shell and the projectile activates the projectile. Once activated, the TASER XREP is “live” as it comes out of the barrel. The XREP autonomously generates incapacitating Neuro Muscular Incapacitation for 20 continuous seconds -- enough time to close the distance and take the offender into custody without risking injury to officers.

Not only does the XREP incorporate a revolutionary electronic payload, the XREP also incorporates a radical new spin stabilization technology to maximize accuracy. As the XREP leaves the barrel, 3 torsion spring fins deploy, causing the projectile to spin, even when launched from a smooth bore, providing superior accuracy and flight stabilization. The TASER XREP launch velocity is approximately 300 feet per second.

The nose assembly of the XREP contains 4 forward facing barbed electrodes and the collapsible electrode cowling. On impact, the forward facing barbed electrodes attach to the body of the target.

The energy from the impact breaks a series of fracture pins that release the main chassis of the XREP which remains connected to the nose by a Kevlar reinforced fiber. As the chassis falls away, 6 cholla electrodes automatically deploy. Named after the famous desert cactus, the cholla electrodes penetrate clothing to deliver the TASER XREP’s powerful NMI over a greater body mass.



Another innovative and unique feature of the XREP nose is the reflex engagement electrode. A normal reaction to the pain of a projectile impact is for the subject to grab at the impact site. If the subject tries to grab or disconnect the XREP projectile, the reflex engagement electrodes complete a circuit allowing TASER NMI to discharge from the Nose Electrodes, through the subject’s body, out to the hand that grabbed the XREP. This creates a significant spread that allows the XREP pulses to affect a large body mass, causing overpowering Neuro Muscular Incapacitation.

To maximize incapacitation, the XREP engine incorporates a microprocessor controlled optimal electrode selection technology. Twenty times per second, the XREP Engine checks for the best electrode connection to maximize the contact spread and achieve greatest incapacitation. If the Cholla or Reflex Engagement electrodes make contact, the XREP engine automatically delivers NMI impulses from the nose electrodes to the selected electrode. In fact, if the subject even grabs the tether, a live hand-trap wire makes a connection and the NMI effect is delivered through the hand, preventing the subject from letting go. If none of the preferred electrodes are in contact, the XREP delivers its impulse across the front electrodes, creating a painful stimulus to distract, disorient, and entice the subject to grab for the XREP making a hand connection, or to move in reaction to the pain which can help the cholla electrodes on the main chassis to engage.

The XREP will be released into a pilot field test phase in the fall of 2007. The pilot stage is expected to last 6-12 months before full production release.

TASER XREP: The most technologically advanced projectile ever fired from a 12 gauge shotgun.

http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx

See also:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/taser-goes-wire.html#previouspost

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:21am

Fire Any Rifle, 'Round a Corner
By Aaron Rowe February 04, 2008 | 3:32:00 PM

Aimpoint has developed a new tool that makes it easy to shoot any military rifle from behind cover. The Concealed Engagement Unit is essentially a small periscope that sits behind their trademark red dot sight.



At a media event before the 2008 Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show in Las Vegas, I was able to give it a try. My verdict: it rocks at close range.

Unlike the CornerShot, which only works with a limited variety of weapons, the CEU is elegantly simple and can be paired with full-power hardware. The best feature: It is held in place by a snug ring and can be twisted around or pulled out of the way at any time.



http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/aimpoint-makes.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:26am

Brawny New Bunker Buster: 'Divine Thunderbolt'
By David Hambling February 04, 2008 | 2:39:00 PM



The latest addition to the Air Force's arsenal of bunker busters is a 5,000lb weapon with formidable penetrating power. If you're going to attack the hardest of targets, you've got two options: go for the weak spot, like the Air Force's Portal Defeat program does; or simply to use the biggest, hardest bomb possible striking at high speed for maximum force. And that means the BLU-122.

It replaces the BLU-113, a weapon with a rather colorful history. During the 1991 Gulf War it was discovered that shelters being used by some Republican Guard units were proof against existing bunker busters. The call went out to build something bigger and better -- and fast. In the absence of any suitable alternative, old eight-inch howitzer barrels were pressed into service and became the bomb's body. This crude but effective expedient resulted in a bomb which can go through twenty-two feet of concrete or a hundred feet of dirt. Details of the replacement have been scanty -- until now.

Designated the BLU-122, the new weapon is similar in size and shape to the BLU-113, but has been upgraded all 'round. Specifically, instead of being made out of an old gun barrel, the casing is now a custom-built ES-1 steel shell with much greater robustness. (Interestingly, ES-1 was specifically developed by the Air Force for just this sort of application). The fill has been enhanced: instead of 625 lbs of Tritonal mix, it contains 780 lbs of AFX-757, a thermobaric explosive which is both less sensitive and significantly more powerful. And the hardened nose has been modified to a shape known as 2.4 Triconic to give increased penetration through rock and concrete.



A series of tests of the BLU-122 were carried out under the catchy codename of Divine Thunderbolt,. And they included mounting the bomb on a rocket sled and running it into a stack of concrete blocks (pictured). The bomb's physical improvements seem to work well, with penetration inproved by some 20%-22% , which suggests that it can go through something like twenty-eight feet of concrete.

The explosives performed well: based on overpressure, the BLU-122 produced 70% greater blast than the earlier BLU-113.

However, the Achilles heel is the fuzing. As DANGER ROOM previously noted, the US has problems with hard target fuzes and looks like importing German technology for the job. But, as reported in the Divine Thunderbolt test report,

We Need A Hard target Fuze!....Portion Of BLU-122 Target Set Does Not Have A Capable Fuze

Until that particular problem can be resolved, the BLU-122 will not be quite as impressive at it looks.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/bigger-better-b.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:40am

Air Force's New Skipping, Bouncing Bombs
By David Hambling February 04, 2008 | 2:38:00 PM



If you want to break into a house, then the smart approach is not to shoulder-charge the thickest wall. It's much easier to kick down the door. The same goes for attacking bunkers: taking a sledgehammer approach to smashing through to them is not as smart as going through the main entrance. My article in this month's Defense Technology International describes the Air Force's new tools for "kicking down the door" and attacking tunnel entrances.

The big challenge is that the weapon needs to be going horizontally rather than vertically. The answer is a technique that was used in WWII – skip bombing.

The bomb is skimmed across the ground like a stone skipping on water. Although this was most notably done using Barnes Wallis' famous Upkeep "'bouncing bombs" to attack German dams, but a smaller version called Highball was developed to hit ground targets such as tunnels.

The same tactic was adopted by the US aviators in the Pacific using standard bombs:

Originally assigned to Australia as General Kenney's aide, Major Benn approached Kenney early in August with the idea of low-level skip bombing, a radical departure from the traditional Air Force doctrine of high-altitude attack. The R.A.F. had used skip bombing successfully and the U.S. Armament School at Elgin Air Field had tested the concept on a training level. Kenney became fascinated with the possibilities and gave Major Benn command of the B-17s of his 63rd Squadron to experiment with the method on a sand bar, and later on a wrecked ship in Port Moresby's harbor.

Using this approach required the hair-raising approach of flying into the teeth of enemy flak at low level, but it certainly proved effective:

...approaching the ship from 2,000 ft., then dropping down to an altitude of 200 to 250 ft. (maintaining the air speed of 200 to 250 m.p.h.) and releasing the bomb --equipped with a 4 to 5 second delay fuze-- 60 to 100 ft. away from the target was the way to do it. Thanks to the efforts of these men, the percentage of targets hit increased from less than 1% to 72%.

In fact the skipping technique goes back much further than WWII -- it was used by Napoleonic artillerymen to increase the lethality of cannonballs, bouncing them into enemy troop formations at head height.

Modern-day skip bombing is going to be carried out at higher speed and from higher altitude than the WWII variety, and this requires a special sort of bomb – the BLU-121/B:

Three particular features help to carry out the mission. First is the casing: a new ultra-hard type of steel called ES-1c developed at Eglin. Previously, the 'gold standard' for steels with high strength and toughness was Aermet 100. It alloys steel with nickel, chromium, molybdenum and cobalt, producing a metal that it hard but not brittle. Aermet 100 is very expensive (around $10/lb), which has limited its use. ES-1c used cheaper materials, incorporating vanadium and tungsten, and does not require a proprietary process to manufacture. Tests indicate that it should match or exceed Aermet's abilities.

The BLU-121/B also has a new thermobaric explosive filler, designated AFX-757. Crucially for this role, the explosive is highly insensitive: it will not be set off when the bomb skips on the ground or when it impacts a blast door, but only when detonated by the fuze. It produces a powerful blast of longer duration than standard explosives. This type of blast is highly effective at propagating through tunnel complexes.

Finally, the guidance software incorporates new algorithms for skip bombing. Details of exactly how accurate the weapon is are classified, but it seems to be well capable of hitting a standard portal.

And if one bouncing bomb is not enough to break the door down, my article in DTI goes on to describe another twist: new guidance software whith will allow the Air Force to hit the target with six skipping bombs at the same time: "The desired end result is to cause the multiple warheads to act as one large explosive charge by detonating the independent, closely spaced warheads simultaneously." That should do the trick...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/air-forces-new.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:45am

SHOT Show: Pistol-Stoppin' TurtleSkin Armor
By Aaron Rowe February 04, 2008 | 10:02:39 AM

TurtleSkin may be the most unique body armor on display at the 2008 SHOT show. Although its name evokes the highly-controversial Dragon Skin, and it is a type of 'soft plate' protection, the new vests are designed to stop icepicks and pistol rounds -- not rifle bullets and shrapnel.



For several years, Warwick Mills has been making puncture-resistant gloves. Recently, they began manufacturing vests that combine a mosaic of interlocking metal tiles with the bullet-resistant fabric dyneema. The result: a product that is fantastic at stopping knives and may offer a bit more protection than garden-variety level IIIA armor.



http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/turtleskin-body.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:49am

DARPA Wants Supercharged Spy Cams
By Noah Shachtman February 04, 2008 | 8:40:00 AM



The Pentagon has a whole array of tools to snoop on its enemies. But those darn "Military Threats in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) use deceptive techniques to deny discovery by reconnaissance and surveillance sensors," a Defense Department document bemoans. So DARPA, the military's way-out research arm, has a slew of new programs to beef up its spy sensors.

Dynamic Multisensor Exploitation, or "DYME," aims to combine cameras, radar, and acoustic sensors to better find bad guys as they move through urban canyons, and along coastal waters.

Multiple sensor[s] ha[ve] been useful in defeating camouflage, concealment and deception when the threats are stationary, and the multiple sensors can efficiently detect target features to reduce the false classification of threat types. These techniques have not been demonstrated for small threats (dismounts and vehicles) in difficult environments, and when the threats are mobile.

So "new technologies are needed," DARPA says, especially "in discrimination of threats from cultural and civilian objects."

The goal of "Building Labels for Urban Environments," or "BLUE" (you gotta love these acronyms), is to automatically label the structures seen in surveillance video. "Urban areas include many buildings of various types: hotels, stores, offices, apartments, fire stations, hospitals, restaurants, places of worship, etc." And many of those structures look a whole lot alike. "This poses a significant technical challenge for automated object recognition systems, which exploit patterns of visual features in still images."

How could BLUE tell the buildings apart?

Well, maybe spy drones could stare at a structure, and look at the people and vehicles moving around it for clues. "Successful technical approaches may transition to the system developed on the DARPA Urban Reasoning and Geospatial Exploitation (URGENT) program."

The Combat Video Analysis Engine (no acronym, alas) would use "computer vision, machine learning and probabilistic models to detect and recognize complex threats and suspicious activities without identification of specific individuals."

Although massive quantities of aerial and ground video are available from military operations, automatic analysis of this data is generally limited to detection and tracking of objects and simple event recognition... Furthermore, the algorithms must operate on low resolution video (greater than 10 cm per pixel) from which identification of individuals is not possible.

DARPA is seeking methods to detect threats against US forces that can overcome these challenges while processing full motion combat video in real time. Activities of interest should be detected without assuming that objects are identified or accurately tracked through the duration of the activities.

Sounds like a safe assumption. Good luck, spy boys!

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/darpa-wants-sup.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:57am

Taser-Proof Body Armor?
By Noah Shachtman February 06, 2008 | 9:18:00 AM

Taser-proof gear isn't just for mouthy college kids anymore. Point Blank Solutions, Inc -- the guys who make the military's Interceptor body armor -- "has entered a marketing agreement with G2 Consulting to market a line of electroshock weapon protection systems," notes Defense Update.

According to Point Blank, until G2's patented ThorShield technology, there has been no protection for officers if their weapon is turned against them. ThorShield works by providing a highly conductive specialized layer of fabric that ensures the electric current discharged from the weapon flows through the lining rather than the body. The protective material can be applied to officers' garments and equipment such as body armor, shirts, jackets, training suits, gloves, and hats. Point Blank plans to integrate the ThorShield into its body armor products.

Here's the video of the ThorShield in action, if you missed it before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y__ZmYhtbzo

The real question is: "Will it stop the Taser X12?"

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/taser-proof-bod.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 10:58am

Spooks Eye Second Life
By Noah Shachtman February 06, 2008 | 2:47:10 PM

Second Life isn't just for phallus showers and empty virtual stores any more. Intelligence officials believe it may be evolving into a fine place to spy.

I was called a philistine and worse for suggesting that virtual worlds like Second Life were anything but digital paradises where people were able to free themselves of pesky meat-space hindrances to inter-personal joy like their middling looks or inadequate personality. Today brings with it a small bit of vindication:

Intelligence officials who have examined [virtual worlds] say they're convinced that the qualities that many computer users find so attractive about virtual worlds -- including anonymity, global access and the expanded ability to make financial transfers outside normal channels -- have turned them into seedbeds for transnational threats.

This makes sense, at least in theory: if you are able to sufficiently enhance the ability to recruit and train operatives in an environment where distance, time and physical security do not matter, you've ratcheted up the threat level. Some people say you can't learn to build bombs online; I say you can do surgery via the 'Net so don't tell me what cannot be done.

In light of all the hubbub about electronic surveillance by the government, the next question on your mind should be: are the spooks going to be invading the virtual world? Well, given that the government is not exactly going gangbusters, recruiting human spies in the physical world, the idea that the CIA will be flooding the zone with virtual case officers is probably not a pressing one. Still, with future generations of agent handlers having grown up using using such technology, the fact that you can pull a tour of duty in cyberspace could be a boon for recruiting.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/i-was-called-a.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 12, 2008, 11:02am

Picture: Israeli Robot Crushes Suicide Bomber (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman February 05, 2008 | 12:59:00 AM

A pair of suicide bombers struck in the Israeli town of Dimona yesterday -- the first strike of its kind in more than a year. Once it was all over, a bomb disposal robot removed one of the attacker's jacket, to make sure there were no more explosives on him. (His bomb failed to go off, and police shot and killed him.) Then the machine rolled over him, to double-check. The likely NSFW picture is after the jump.



There's something else odd about this picture. Look at the end of the robot's arm: Is that a weapon I see?

UPDATE: Sam Jaffe write in to say that the weapon on the robot "fires a metal slug into explosive material. I've seen video of it being used on a carbomb at the height of the 2nd intifada. If it works, the robot gives up the ghost -- Israel's version of suicide bombers."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/israeli-robot-c.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 13, 2008, 8:49pm

I Was a Sonic Blaster Guinea Pig
By Sharon Weinberger February 13, 2008 | 9:30:00 AM



Last week, I was sitting in a hotel bar in Jerusalem when a fellow passenger on my tour told me there was a guy with us selling a supposedly less-lethal weapon.

"It works with sound frequencies," he said. "It'll make you a sick."

A puke ray? An honest-to-God puke ray? Right here in Jerusalem?

Well, more like a sonic blaster. Dr. Maurice Goldman, a retired dentist, is the U.S. managing director for Inferno, a line of products that markets itself as a "sound barrier." The primary effect of the device, which sounds like a loud siren, is to force people to leave the protected area, he says. However, if the intruder doesn't leave immediately, Inferno's effects include "vertigo, nausea, and pain in the chest."

The unit is made in Sweden, but Dr. Goldman has already sold a couple units to U.S. Special Operations Command, and he's hoping soon to close a contract with the U.S. State Department, which would use the device in embassies. He also offered to let me try it out.

My old rule was: never volunteer to to be a test subject for a less-lethal weapon (or a lethal one for that matter). Life is short enough as it is, and my hearing and vision are important to me. But since breaking that rule over the summer with the "pain ray," the Pentagon's Active Denial System, I thought, well, why not?

Two days later, we sat in a hotel office, with Dr. Goldman (pictured above), holding the device. The version of Inferno he was demonstrating looked a bit like a long, slim speaker. You can't take a pair of nail scissors on a plane these days, but Dr. Goldman has traveled around the world with Inferno and has had few, if any problems, boarding aircraft.

First, I dispatched Nathan, my husband, out of the room, using the logic that if it really did make us sick, one of us should be spared. Then I realized I needed pictures, so I called him back in, and without warning, Goldman turned the Inferno on. I'm not sure words can do justice to what can only be described as the most unbearable, gut-wrenching noise I've ever heard in my life. I screamed a few expletives, Nathan almost dropped the camera, and Dr. Goldman turned it off.

Here's how it works: Inferno uses four frequencies spread out over 2 to 5 kHz. The idea behind it is that unlike a regular siren, these particular frequencies have a uniquely disturbing effect on people (and presumably cats, dogs and any other living thing). At 123 dB, it's loud, but not significantly louder than any other alarm system. The advantage, according to Dr. Goldman, is the combination of frequencies. The human ear just doesn't like it. I agree, I really didn't like it.

How did I feel after the impromptu test? Nauseous, dizzy, or in pain? Hard to say, but Nathan looked pretty unhappy with me for the next hour or so. In fact, he still grumbles a bit when I mention his unwitting recruitment as a camera man/guinea pig. Love hurts.

Summary verdict: Being a guinea pig for a sonic ray was truly a whole lot worse than being a guinea pig for the pain ray. I would happily volunteer again to be hit by the Pentagon's pain ray. It was fun, like being Bugs Bunny dancing around when Elmer Fudd tries to shoot him. I never, ever again want to be hit by the Inferno.

But here's the question: what does a really unbearable sound do to a person? The Active Denial System appears to effectively prompt people to get out of its way. The Long Range Acoustic Device, a hailer, was famously used to thwart a pirate attack. But there is considerable debate over whether LRAD, when used as something other than as a warning device, is more effective than any other loud speaker.

In other words, will the Inferno work better than just a loud noise? For example, when I've accidentally set off my ADT alarm at home, it's pretty damn annoying, and according to web references, it's 120 dB. Inferno counts on the unique frequency spread to make it work better, but what does better mean? Does that mean a criminal/terrorist/insurgent will stop what they're doing?

The trick with acoustic weapons is demonstrating that there is a unique, deterrent effect on humans. Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory, as we've written here earlier, is planning to test at ranges of about 130 dB to see if sound can have a deterrent effect. It would be interesting, in my view, to test whether louder is better, or whether, as Dr. Goldman says, that the frequency combination is better. The problem in all these areas is the lack of test data. Dr. Goldman notes that the only human tests on Inferno were done informally with workers in South Africa (the workers, who were promised money for sitting through an Inferno blast, didn't last more than a few seconds, he says).

Will Inferno be the next sonic blaster? Dr. Goldman knows it's an uphill battle to break into the security market, but he's confident that Inferno could be used for everything from alarms systems and prison riot control, to law enforcement and personal protection. Other applications, like maritime self-defense, are also possible. "Right now, I'm having fun," he says.

Update:

In answer to a few of the comments below, yes, earplugs, or any other hearing protection device would mitigate the effects of Inferno. In my case, just covering my years with my hands helped a lot.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/i-was-a-puke-ra.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 13, 2008, 8:51pm

Critics Attack Sonic Youth Blaster
By Sharon Weinberger February 13, 2008 | 3:00:00 PM

Sonic blasters are all the rage these days, but one device used in the United Kingdom that specifically targets teenagers is attracting criticism, reports CNN:



The Children's Commissioner for England, who oversees children's rights, has called for a ban on the ultra-sonic gadget, known as "The Mosquito," which disperses young people by emitting sharp, piercing sounds.

The device causes discomfort to younger ears by exploiting their ability to hear very high frequencies -- a power which declines once they reach their 20s.

But human rights groups say the machine infringes civil rights and creates a divide between young and old.

Launching the "Buzz Off" campaign, England's Children's Commissioner Al Aynsley-Green said: "I have spoken to many children and young people from all over England who have been deeply affected by ultra-sonic teenage deterrents."

Apparently, the devices are popular with everyone from shop keepers to police.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/critics-attack.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 13, 2008, 8:55pm

DARPA: Fake Brains, ASAP
By Noah Shachtman February 12, 2008 | 2:23:00 PM



The Pentagon's mad science division is in a hurry to start making brains-on-a-chip. According to DARPA's recently-released budget, the Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE) program isn't set to being until the next fiscal year. But the agency is already ramping up preparation for the program, which promises to "develop a brain inspired electronic 'chip' that mimics that function, size, and power consumption of a biological cortex."

DARPA is holding a workshop next month for potential SyNAPSE researchers. And its providing a preview of just how challenging it'll be, to piece together a faux brain.

As compared to biological systems, today's intelligent machines are less efficient by a factor of one million to one billion in real world, complex environments. The key to achieving the vision of the SyNAPSE program will be an unprecedented multidisciplinary approach that coordinates aggressive technology development in the following technical areas: 1) Hardware; 2) Architecture; 3) Simulation; and 4) Environment. Hardware includes neuromorphic electronics with novel, high density, plastic, synaptic components; Architecture includes neuromorphic design from microcircuits to complete system; Simulation includes large-scale digital simulation of neuromorphic circuits and functional neuromorphic systems; and Environment includes virtual training, testing and benchmarking for neuromorphic systems.

So you better get going, brain-builders.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/briefly-the-vis.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 13, 2008, 8:59pm

U.S. May Shoot Down Errant Satellite
By Sharon Weinberger February 12, 2008 | 4:43:09 PM

The U.S. spent around a billion dollars on a dud spy satellite, and now, the military is considering plans to shoot it down. That's right, the Lockheed Martin-built satellite that is floating around in space -- soon to re-enter Earth's atmosphere -- may be shot out of the sky.

Now, if a missile defense test costs on average between $80 and $100 million, I'd have to guess that Operation Broken Satellite (okay, I made that up) would be something in the general price range of the tens of millions of dollars. Heck, why don't they just use the missile defense system, which is supposed to be kind of, sort of deployed (or deployable), to blow it out of the sky.

This is high comedy, I mean, suppose they miss?



Anyhow, Aviation Week & Space Technology has a fascinating story on the life and coming death of this errant satellite:

The concern is that the spacecraft carries a full tank of hydrazine - a toxic propellant - that would have been used to reposition the satellite in orbit. Government analysts say the odds are that the tank will crack open during re-entry or than it will land in the ocean, which makes up 70% of the area where the breaking up satellite might land. There also is concern in some quarters that debris could reveal U.S. national security secrets if recovered by other nations. It is expected to re-enter the atmosphere late this month or in early March.

Analysts at the Missile Defense Agency and NRO have put hundreds of hours into analysis and have studied closely the accuracy of surveillance capabilities of U.S. radars in Japan, Alaska and possibly elsewhere to give more targeting options to those assessing the danger of the satellite falling to Earth.

A senior official with insight into the planning says that a rumor that the satellite carried a small, nuclear generator is "absolutely and totally incorrect." However, government agencies including MDA and NRO "are studying options that include" hitting the satellite with a weapon so that it breaks up in space - and ruptures the hydrazine tank -- before beginning its descent.

A nuclear generator? Wow, and I thought I kept up on my satellite technology conspiracy theories. Anyhow, I'm guessing that, in fact, the U.S. is concerned about spy sat technology falling into the wrong hands, because in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that the NRO spends all day worrying about a satellite, even a toxic one, falling in somebody's backyard. But hey, I could be wrong.

Update:

My bad, DANGER ROOM's Kris Alexander (and a couple commenters) have noted that that having a small nuclear generator is hardly a conspiracy theory. It's been used on a number of spacecraft.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/us-may-shoot-do.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 13, 2008, 9:03pm

Los Alamos: 19 Nuke Violations, 57 Classified Info Breaches in Five Years
By Noah Shachtman February 12, 2008 | 10:53:00 PM



There have been so many security and safety meltdowns at Los Alamos over the last five years, it's hard to keep 'em all straight (well, at least the ones that don't involved meth labs). But now, the investigators at the Government Accountability Office have put a half-decade of scandals into a single document. John Fleck runs down the tally:

* Fifty-seven security incidents "involving the compromise or potential compromise of classified information"
* Nineteen violations of rules meant to protect against nuclear accidents;
* Shoddy accounting for nuclear materials; and
* Management problems that delayed and drove up the cost of two major nuclear research machines.

"Some of the problems have been reported before," Fleck adds. "But many of the revelations, including the nuclear safety violations, are new."

A Los Alamos spokesman welcomed the Government Accountability Office report, noting improvements since a new corporate management team took over in June 2006...

The report's authors were also not so sanguine about the suggestion that progress was being made. "In our view," the investigators wrote, "this short period of time is not sufficient to provide a basis for meaningful trend analysis."

Furthermore, some of the problems highlighted in the report happened after the new management took over. In July 2007, for example, a lab area was found to contain 40 percent more nuclear materials than allowed by safety regulations.

In September 2007, key plutonium operations at Los Alamos had to be shut down because of safety concerns.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/its-been-a-bad.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 15, 2008, 7:24am

Computer Models To Provide Better Intelligence For Army

ScienceDaily (Feb. 14, 2008) — Adversaries the U.S. currently faces in Iraq rely on surprise and apparent randomness to compensate for their lack of organization, technology and firepower. If one could find some method to their madness, however, the asymmetric threat could be made significantly less serious, according to scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

These UAHuntsville scientists hope to help provide a better intelligence posture on these asymmetric threats by developing computer models that identify trends in the behaviors of the adversaries.

“One way to combat these attacks is to identify trends in the attackers’ methods, then use those trends to predict their future actions,” said UAHuntsville researcher Wes Colley said. “Some trends from these attacks show important day-to-day correlations. If we can draw inferences from those correlations, then we may be able to save lives by heightening awareness of possible events or changing the allocation of our security assets to provide more protection.”

UAHuntsville teamed with a Virginia-based company, Mymic LLC, to receive an Air Force contract for the six-month study.

A four-step process was used in this research, according to Colley. Researchers reviewed the behavior signatures of terrorists on 12,000 attacks between 2003 and mid-2007 to calculate relative probabilities of future attacks on various target types.

The four steps were: create a database of past attacks; identify trends in the attacks; determine the correlation between attacks and use analysis to calculate the probabilities of future attacks and their location.

The goal was not to try to predict exactly when and what type of attack was going to happen next, but rather, which target types were more likely to be attacked next, according to Colley. “Our research won’t predict that an attack targeting civilians at a public market will take place tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.”

Instead, he said military commanders could make choices from various options to reduce risk. “A commander with limited intelligence and security assets can concentrate resources at those locations that have higher probabilities of attack.”

This study considered two aspects of each attack: the target of the attack, and the time of the attack. Using careful statistical techniques, the team identified correlations between attacks on various target types as a function of time. For instance, if there were an attack on a government target, that somewhat increased the chance of an attack on a police target over the next several days.

Armed with this knowledge, commanders could allocate greater than usual resources to protect police assets more carefully for several days after an attack on a government target. The team also observed other significant correlations such as attacks on civilian targets with other attacks on civilian targets.

One finding that surprised Colley involved sectarian violence. He said when members of the Shiite sect would attack a Sunni, other attacks on Sunnis were likely to follow. However, the converse was not true. When Sunnis attacked Shiites, there was no greater incidence of a follow-on attack than normal. Also, there seemed to be little evidence of regular retributory attacks from one group on the other, although that dataset was too limited say for sure.

“Despite many difficulties with the dataset, we did find that our trend analysis very successfully provided enhanced predictive capability when compared to the broader attack rate,” he said. “Our concept has proven successful in identifying trends and correlations in the attacks.”

Colley said the university is seeking additional dollars to further develop the concept with more complete and reliable data. “Ultimately, we were limited by the data, which we gleaned from public Internet sources. Their information, particularly with respect to attack location, was hit-and-miss, at best. With more and better data, perhaps including classified data, we expect a dramatic improvement in the predictiveness of our method.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211220251.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 15, 2008, 10:51pm

U.S. Set to Destroy Crippled Satellite Before It Contaminates the Atmosphere

The Pentagon says rocket fuel from plummeting rogue satellite poses a health threat

By Larry Greenemeier

The U.S. military plans to try to blast a malfunctioning satellite out of the sky by the end of the month to prevent the bus-size hunk of metal from leaking highly hazardous fuel into the atmosphere as it falls to Earth. The U.S. Department of Defense says the Navy will use surface-to-air missiles to knock it out sometime after February 20, when the space shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to return from its mission to the International Space Station.

The satellite, launched by the National Reconnaissance Office in December 2006 is not expected to hit a populated area, James Jeffery, deputy national security advisor, said yesterday during a press conference. But he added that President Bush decided to it should be destroyed to prevent leakage of highly toxic hydrazine fuel on its return. (For a transcript of the press conference, click here.)

In late January the U.S. government notified other nations that the satellite was unresponsive and would make an uncontrolled reentry later this month or in early March. Now the Navy is planning to intercept it prior to reentry at about 150 miles (240 kilometers) altitude, so that the unused hydrazine will be dispersed before it reaches the atmosphere. The weapon of choice: three modified Standard Missile (SM) 3 surface-to-air missiles launched from Aegis ships located somewhere in the North Pacific (the military would not be more specific). The window for shooting down the satellite opens in the next three or four days and will remain open for as many as eight days, according to Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Defense Department estimates that if the satellite is not intercepted, a sizable 2,800-pound (1,270-kilogram) chunk (about half its total weight) will survive reentry. The vehicle's 20-inch (50-centimeter) round fuel tank holds about 1,000 pounds (450 kilograms) of hydrazine that would have been spent during a successful mission; it was not, however, because ground control lost contact with it soon after launch. The Washington Post reported today that the shuttle Columbia contained a canister of hydrazine when it ripped apart during reentry over Texas in 2003, but that most of the toxic fuel had already burned because the doomed shuttle had nearly completed its mission.

Cartwright said that if the satellite is not shot down, its hydrazine could disperse over an area roughly the size of two football fields. He noted that anyone who inhaled the chemical, which can severely damage lung tissue, would need medical attention.

Military officials refused to release certain details—insisting that information such as the manufacturer, mission and price tag of the failed satellite is "classified." But they insist that the strike against the vehicle is not an effort to keep debris that survives the impact from falling into the wrong hands and divulging military secrets.

Cartwright positioned the situation by saying, "the worst that could happen is that we miss" (although this doesn't take into account the impact that failure could have on the environment). "If we hit the hydrazine tank, then we've improved the potential to mitigate that threat," he added. "The regret factor of not acting clearly outweighed the regret factor of acting."

The largest uncontrolled reentry by a U.S. spacecraft was NASA's abandoned 91-metric ton (200,600-pound) Skylab space station in 1979. China sparked international outrage last year when it was discovered that it had used a ground-based ballistic missile to destroy a target satellite about 600 miles (375 kilometers) above Earth. The U.S., Japan and Australia expressed concerns that China was demonstrating its ability to shoot down spy satellites and the destroyed vehicle's debris is hazardous to other orbiting spacecraft. The U.S. is hoping its concern over its errant satellite's fuel will obviate international criticism.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=destroy-crippled-satellite

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 15, 2008, 10:57pm

Experts suspicious of 'splatellite' plan

The US government's decision to shoot down its errant spy satellite has met with concern.

Geoff Brumfiel


The US navy plans to shoot down an errant satellite with an SM-3 missile.The US navy plans to shoot down an errant satellite with an SM-3 missile.US NAVY PHOTOS

A plan by the US government to shoot down an out-of-control spy satellite has been described as a cynical tit-for-tat move in response to China doing the same last year. Scientists and arms-control experts fear that the operation will create damaging debris and weaken international efforts to ban space weaponry.

On 14 February, officials from the Pentagon, White House and NASA announced plans to use a ship-based missile to strike the satellite as it passes roughly 240 kilometres overhead. The satellite, which belongs to the National Reconnaissance Office in Virginia, dropped out of control after its launch in December 2006, and would re-enter Earth’s atmosphere around early March if no action were taken.

The strike is necessary to prevent the dispersal of around 450 kilograms of hazardous hydrazine thruster fuel onboard, according to James Jeffrey, assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser. If the fuel survived re-entry, it could be dispersed over an area of roughly 20,000 square metres, although “the likelihood of the satellite falling in a populated area is small,” he says. “Nevertheless, if the satellite did fall in a populated area, there was the possibility of death or injury to human beings.” The Pentagon denies that the shoot-down is to protect classified technologies on the satellite.

But scientists familiar with both satellite re-entry and the US missile defence system question the decision. The chances that the tank, which is 1 metre in diameter, will survive and strike land are extremely small, says Geoffrey Forden, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. “Most likely it will land in the ocean,” he says. The reasons given for the plan “don’t sound too credible to me”, he adds. “I think they’re doing it mainly to tell the Chinese that we can blow up a satellite too,” says Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “This gives the US cover to carry out a test.”

The firing will probably take place in the coming weeks, although not before the return of the space shuttle Atlantis, which is expected back from the International Space Station on 20 February. David Wright, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says that he believes the station could be vulnerable to debris. But NASA administrator Michael Griffin says he is “very comfortable” with the decision.

Hitting the satellite could have serious consequences. In January last year, when China used an interceptor to destroy one of its own, obsolete weather satellites, the test littered more than 100,000 debris fragments throughout low-Earth orbit. Much of this hazardous debris will remain there for decades, posing a risk to other satellites.

The errant US satellite is at a much lower orbit than the Chinese one was, and therefore debris would be shorter lived and less likely to cross the path of other spacecraft. But it is also at least 2.5 times larger than the Chinese one, so it will create more debris. Furthermore, the cloud could behave unpredictably, says Wright.


The projected interception point between the orbit of the out-of-control National Reconnaissance Office satellite (red) and the ship-launched Standard Missile-3 (green). This can also be seen in Google Earth Credit: G. FordenThe projected interception point between the orbit of the out-of-control National Reconnaissance Office satellite (red) and the ship-launched Standard Missile-3 (green). This can also be seen in Google Earth Credit: G. Forden Google Earth

The government plans to destroy the satellite using a ship-launched Standard Missile 3, or SM-3. The missile is designed to use a kinetic kill vehicle to ram incoming ballistic missiles, destroying them before they damage US targets. It is a smaller and slower device than the ground-based interceptors located at Fort Greeley in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But it is better at intercepting targets, according to Forden. “They have had quite a bit of success with the SM-3,” he says.

Travelling at 3–4 kilometres per second, the device would smash into the 2,250-kilogram satellite, which itself will be moving at roughly 8 kilo­metres per second. “At these speeds it is like setting off a huge amount of high explosive at the satellite,” Wright says. Even without carrying explosives, the energy of the collision could boost fragments of the satellite into a higher orbit, creating hazards for other craft. “It sounds like a bad idea to me,” he says.

The announcement came just two days after Russia proposed a treaty, backed by China, to ban the use of space weapons — including those used to destroy a country’s own satellite — at an international conference on disarmament in Geneva, Switzerland.

The proposed US shoot-down would have far-reaching diplomatic implications. “If you do this,” says McDowell, “you have converted your missile-defence system into a missile-defence and anti-satellite system.”

“It would reinforce people’s sense of the United States as being irresponsible,” says Rebecca Johnson, executive director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy in London. The United States has blocked a ban on space weapons for more than a decade on the grounds that it would interfere with its right to develop a missile-defence programme. Using that system to destroy an orbiting satellite would probably anger countries such as Russia.

McDowell says he thinks the shoot-down, following in the wake of China’s test last year, will dramatically weaken already floundering efforts for a ban on space weapons. That in turn could be hazardous for satellites everywhere. “Just because the Chinese were idiots, doesn’t mean that we have to be bigger idiots,” he says.

Additional reporting by Rachel Courtland.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080215/full/451870a.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by deborah on Feb 15, 2008, 11:07pm


Quote:

U.S. Set to Destroy Crippled Satellite Before It Contaminates the Atmosphere The Pentagon says rocket fuel from plummeting rogue satellite poses a health threat By Larry Greenemeier The U.S. military plans to try to blast a malfunctioning satellite out of the sky by the end of the month to prevent the bus-size hunk of metal from leaking highly hazardous fuel into the atmosphere as it falls to Earth. The U.S. Department of Defense says the Navy will use surface-to-air missiles to knock it out sometime after February 20, when the space shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to return from its mission to the International Space Station. The satellite, launched by the National Reconnaissance Office in December 2006 is not expected to hit a populated area, James Jeffery, deputy national security advisor, said yesterday during a press conference. But he added that President Bush decided to it should be destroyed to prevent leakage of highly toxic hydrazine fuel on its return. (For a transcript of the press conference, click here.)..... (continued) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=destroy-crippled-satellite

February 15, 2008
Satellite shoot-down shows missile muscle
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080215/NATION/190574197/1001

By Bill Gertz - The Pentagon's plan to shoot down a failed satellite with a missile defense interceptor in the coming days is aimed at preventing toxic fuel from reaching earth. But U.S. officials and experts said yesterday it would also signal that U.S. missile defenses can be used to counter China's strategic anti-satellite weapons.

China conducted its first successful test of an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon on Jan. 11, 2007, in what defense and military officials called a new strategic threat to the United States.

Bush administration defense and national security officials involved in interagency discussions on the satellite destruction plan said one reason for using the missile defense system against a space target would be to highlight its potential as an ASAT weapon. The Pentagon has been discussing ways to deter and counter China's ASAT weapon, which can threaten U.S. military and civilian communications, especially command and control systems involving satellites.

Publicly, however, officials who announced the plan yesterday sought to play down the ASAT capability.

The Greyhound bus-sized intelligence satellite failed shortly after launch in 2006. Intended to conduct both electronic eavesdropping and photographic intelligence-gathering, the satellite contains a large tank of unused toxic fuel called hydrazine. The fuel would pose a health risk if the tank survived re-entry and landed in a populated area. The satellite has been gradually moving closer to the atmosphere and could come down some time in the next several weeks.

Since the satellite cannot be maneuvered to fall into the ocean, the plan calls for firing a modified Navy SM-3 anti-missile interceptor from an Aegis battle management system equipped warship in the northern Pacific, as the satellite nears the atmosphere.

It will be the first time a missile defense interceptor will be used against a satellite, something that has not been attempted since the 1980s, when the Pentagon tested an anti-satellite missile from a jet fighter.

The administration began notifying the world community about the plan late last month, Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffries told reporters in announcing the plan.

Asked if the modified SM-3 will be viewed by some foreign states as an ASAT weapon, Mr. Jeffries said that whatever other nations might think, "the truth" is that the missile strike is meant to prevent the hyrdazine tank from landing in a populated area.

Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, made clear that the Navy interceptor, which is designed to hit ballistic missiles as they transit space, was picked because of its ability to hit targets in space.

"Does it have the kinetic capability? That's why we picked it. But you'd have to go in and do modifications to ships, to missiles, to sensors and they would be significant" before it could be an effective ASAT system, he said during the meeting with reporters.

"This is an extreme measure for this problem," Gen. Cartwright said. "It is not transferrable to a fleet configuration."

Gen. Cartwright was asked if the missile shot will show China a U.S. ASAT capability and he did not answer directly.

To configure the missile against the satellite, SM-3 software is being modified that will help guide its nonexplosive warhead to the satellite, which is traveling at about 22,000 miles an hour. Three missiles will be available for the satellite shot and if successful it will result in most of the debris burning up in the atmosphere over several weeks or a month.

China's ASAT weapon test, by contrast, used a ground-based missile to hit an orbiting Chinese weather satellite, and it left some 2,500 pieces of debris in a belt 527 miles in space that military officials say poses a danger to both manned and unmanned spacecraft.

U.S. military and national security officials said the Chinese ASAT test is part of China's asymmetric warfare capabilities and represents a new strategic weapon that could cripple the U.S. military in a future conflict by giving Beijing the capability to shoot down most low-earth orbit satellites.

The window for the shootdown could begin in the next three or four days and last for as many as eight days, Gen. Cartwright said.

Announcement of the plan comes as China and Russia renewed an international effort to ban weapons in space.

John Tkacik, a China specialist at the Heritage Foundation, said the proposed China-Russia agreement, if enforced, would prevent the missile shot against the satellite.

"We have a fleet of Aegis destroyers, including those in the Pacific, and the Japanese have several," Mr. Tkacik said. "The demonstration of these anti-mission capabilities against a satellite, regardless whether it is intended as a signal to China or not, will certainly get the attention of the Chinese."

Mr. Jeffries said President Bush authorized the anti-satellite blast because of concerns that if the satellite fell in a populated area "there was a possibility of death or injury to human beings beyond that associated with the fall of satellites and other space objects normally."

"Specifically, there was enough of a risk for the president to be quite concerned about human life," he said.

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 16, 2008, 11:00pm

US spy satellite plan 'a cover'



Russia has accused the US of using a plan to shoot down a broken spy satellite as a cover for testing an anti-satellite weapon.

The US said last week that it would use a missile to destroy the satellite, to stop it from crash landing.

Officials say the satellite contains hazardous fuel which could kill humans.

But Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites".

The US says the satellite lost power and communications shortly after it was launched in December 2006 and is now uncontrollable.

The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim
Russian defence ministry statement

It says the satellite is carrying more than 1,000lb (454kg) of hydrazine fuel in a tank which would survive re-entry, and the substance could be released as a toxic gas if the satellite crash landed.

The Pentagon said on Saturday that the window for the operation would begin on Wednesday, when the space shuttle Atlantis ended its current mission.

But Russia's defence ministry said the US had not given enough information on the reasons for the decision.

"Speculations about the danger of the satellite hide preparations for the classical testing of an anti-satellite weapon," a statement reported by Itar-Tass news agency said.

BROKEN SATELLITE
Owner: National Reconnaissance Office satellite
Mission: Classified
Launched: Dec 2006
Weight: 5,000lb (2,270 kg)
2,500lb could survive re-entry
Carrying hydrazine rocket fuel

"Such testing essentially means the creation of a new type of strategic weapons," it added.

"The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the US has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space," the statement continued.

The Russian defence ministry argued that various countries' spacecraft had crashed to Earth in the past, and many countries used toxic fuel in spacecraft, but this had never before merited such "extraordinary measures".

Toxic gas

The broken satellite had been predicted to reach the top of the Earth's atmosphere towards the end of February or early March and officials could not predict where it would land.

A US general said on Thursday that exposure to the hydrazine would have similar effects to inhaling chlorine or ammonia - a burning sensation in lungs and, if too close and too much, then possibly death.

He said that blowing the satellite up would disperse the hydrazine in space, leaving only small-scale satellite debris to fall harmlessly to Earth.

The Pentagon says it plans to shoot down the satellite using a modified missile from a US Navy ship in the Pacific.

Last year, China carried out a test using a ground-based ballistic missile to destroy a satellite in space, prompting international alarm and fears of a space arms race.

On Thursday, US General James Cartwright said there was no parallel with Beijing's actions as the Chinese satellite had been much further out from Earth, meaning its debris could be floating around for decades, endangering spacecraft.

He also denied claims that the main aim was to destroy secret parts.

Gen Cartwright said confidential components would be burned up in the atmosphere and, in any case, that would not be a reason for shooting down the satellite.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7248995.stm

Published: 2008/02/17 00:43:33 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 7:03am

Pentagon to Shoot Down Rogue Satellite (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman February 14, 2008 | 2:22:00 PM



We predicted it earlier in the week. Now it's confirmed: Despite cautionary notes from space security veterans, "the Pentagon is planning to shoot down a broken spy satellite expected to hit the Earth in early March," according to the AP. (Details of the plan, up here.) The good news, space experts tell DANGER ROOM, is that the orbital debris won't be all that bad. The problem is, the shoot-down might legitimize China's provocative moves, above the sky.

U.S. officials said Thursday that the option preferred by the Bush administration will be to fire a missile from a U.S. Navy cruiser, and shoot down the satellite before it enters Earth's atmosphere...

The disabled satellite is expected to hit the Earth the first week of March. Officials said the Navy would likely shoot it down before then, using a special missile modified for the task...

Shooting down a satellite is particularly sensitive because of the controversy surrounding China's anti-satellite test last year, when Beijing shot down one of its defunct weather satellites, drawing immediate criticism from the U.S. and other countries.

A key concern at that time was the debris created by Chinese satellite's destruction—and that will also be a focus now, as the U.S. determines exactly when and under what circumstances to shoot down its errant satellite.

The military will have to choose a time and a location that will avoid to the greatest degree any damage to other satellites in the sky. Also, there is the possibility that large pieces could remain, and either stay in orbit where they can collide with other satellites or possibly fall to Earth.

It is not known where the satellite will hit. But officials familiar with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris—some of it potentially hazardous—over several hundred miles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The satellite is outfitted with thrusters—small engines used to position it in space. They contain the toxic rocket fuel hydrazine, which can cause harm to anyone who contacts it.

There's a briefing at the Pentagon later this afternoon with deputy national security advisor James Jeffrey, Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman Gen. James Cartwright and NASA chief Michael Griffin. We'll get you word as soon as we're able.

In the meantime, veteran military space specialist Theresa Hitchens, with the Center for Defense Information, tells DANGER ROOM while she's not "all that concerned about orbital debris," she is "concerned about the political ramifications."

Under ordinary circumstances, The Aegis SM-3 interceptor missile -- the Navy's most likely weapon against the satellite -- can only reach 160,000 feet meters, so the debris won't stay up long, Hitchens notes. However...

Other folks (say China!) may see this as an ASAT [anti-satellite weapon] test, and as a response to the Chinese test last January. My own thoughts is that the Navy simply wants a chance to show off its Aegis anti-missile capabilities. Free test!!! But what do we say when the Indian satellite goes belly up, and they want to shoot it down. Then the Iranian "satellite?" Sigh. I guess the other question would be whether you make a bigger mess on the ground. If you are accurate and it falls in the ocean, fine. But it would be uncool to rain hydrozine down on the Japanese or the Haiwaians. (If the sat hit in one place at least you could get a warning in and hopefully get it cleaned up quickly; a bunch of pieces would be harder to deal with.) They must be pretty sure they can kill it over the water.

UPDATE: MIT space security expert Geoffrey Forden tells DANGER ROOM:

1) It would be very feasible to use a standard missile to shoot down the satellite. There is really very little difference between a satellite and a warhead except that a satellite has no counter-measures. In fact, I would claim that our hit-to-kill missile defense technology started with our 1985 ASAT test. You save a lot of money on targets if you get to re-use them if you miss (or intentionally fly-by the target) which both we and the Chinese did a number of times before our respective hits. (So we have come full circle!)

2) It would create a debris field but no where near the sort of debris catastrophe that China created last year. China created well over 2,600 large pieces of debris and hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces. It is likely that shooting down the spy sat would create a similar amount but they would all have much lower perigees. (roughly at most 250 km as opposed to 850 km for the China's test) That means that they would decay much, much faster. For instance, all the pieces of debris from the US ASAT test in 1985 decayed within roughly 20 years (they have all decayed by now. The only reason it took so long was because the target satellite was at 650 km, so you see how quickly the lifetimes change with altitude.) China's debris will be in orbit for thousands of years (and I mean that literally). Of course, some pieces could end up in orbits with very high apogees because of rare momentum transfers but they would still decay very quickly since their perigee would still be at 250 km.

3) It would not violate any treaty that I know of. In fact, the only thing China violated was that it did not warn people that it was going to do that. However, do we really want to legitimate China's ASAT test by doing this? Because if we did, China would automatically claim that this was the capability it was developing. (Which I don't believe for a minute.) Is the danger for the hydrazine really that great?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/the-pentagon-is.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 7:34am

Pentagon Unveils Rogue Spy Sat Shoot-Down Plan
By Noah Shachtman February 14, 2008 | 3:37:41 PM



Sometime in the next 11 days, a Navy cruiser is going to aim a missile just above the atmosphere, and try to take out a malfunctioning spy satellite before it crashes to Earth -- and maybe releases a toxic gas in the process.

Defense Department officials detailed the shootdown operation, in a briefing with reporters Thursday afternoon.

The 5,000-pound National Reconnaissance Office surveillance satellite was pronounced dead just a few hours after it was inserted into orbit, on Dec. 14, 2006. This January, the U.S. military realized that the satellite was beginning its descent down into the atmosphere, Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey noted. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be much cause for concern; objects of this size plummet into the Earth's atmosphere all the time. But this satellite contains a full tank -- over 1,000 pounds' worth -- of the rocket propellant hydrazine. And there's a small but real risk that the tank could rupture, releasing a "toxic gas" over a "populated area," causing a "risk to human life."

The chances of "hitting land or a person as a hunk" are low, added Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright. "What's different here is the hydrazine."

The plan is to fire a modified SM-3 interceptor at the satellite, "just prior to it hitting the Earth's atmosphere," Cartwright said. If the missile connects at that height, the collision would reduce the amount of debris that would be released into space; most of the satellite chunks would likely burn up in the air, within the first 10-15 hours, he noted. And a hit then would likely "slow the satellite down" so we can "put it in the ocean," Gen. Cartwright added. Some space security experts say that idea is "very feasible." Others are extremely skeptical.

Shooting down the satellite earlier might risk other objects in orbit, Gen. Cartwright said. And "once it hits the atmosphere, it breaks apart and becomes very difficult to engage."

The SM-3 missile that's supposed to do the job is at the heart of the most successful component of the American missile-defense program; unlike other, less reliable interceptors, the SM-3 has hit its targets in 11 of its last 13 tests. Two other Aegis cruisers, armed with similar weapons, will be on standby, in case the initial SM-3 fails to fire, or misses its target.

The takedown attempt could come as early as three or four days from now. After that, there will be a window of seven to eight days in which a shot will be possible.

As the AP notes, Cartwright said this will be an unprecedented effort; he would not say exactly what are the odds of success.

"This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft," Cartwright said.

After extensive study and analysis, U.S. officials came to the conclusion that, "we're better off taking the attempt than not," Cartwright said...

Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target; he noted that the missile's designed mission is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites. Other officials said the missile's maximum range, while a classified figure, is not great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.

"It's a one-time deal," Cartwright said when asked whether the modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S. anti-satellite weapon technology.

Gen. Cartwright cast the threat from the satellite in much less dire terms than Jeffrey did. The space shuttle Columbia had a "similar tank" of hydrazine, Gen. Cartwright noted -- one that "survived re-entry." Even if the hydrazine were released, he added, the effects would likely be mild -- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the doctor."

Nevertheless, Gen. Cartwright added, there was enough of a risk to attempt the shot. "The regret factor of not acting clearly outweighed the regret factor of acting," he said.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/some-time-in-th.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 7:41am

Skeptical About the Rogue Spy Sat 'Shot'
By Jeffrey Lewis February 14, 2008 | 4:41:22 PM



The 'shot' -- that’s what Ambassador James Jeffrey called the decision to use an an Aegis SM-3 to try to shoot down satellite USA 193 in the next 3-12 days.

Holding the aside the politics of this — which are terrible — the briefing on debris risk left me cold. I have to say that I am very, very uneasy about this decision — our missile defense tests have been heavily scripted to minimize debris creation and modeling of debris creation isn’t an exact science.

The burden of proof really should be on these guys to demonstrate that the risks to the ISS and other objects in space are minimal.

General Carwright, to his credit, provided enough technical information to model the intercept. David Wright is working on that right now — for those of you who can’t wait, the important numbers are:

1. The intercept will occur at 240 kilometers (130 nautical miles)
2. The mass of the satellite is 2,300 kg (5,000 pounds)
3. The mass of the interceptor is 20 kg. (From CBO)
4. The closing velocity will be 9.8 km/s (22,000 mph), suggesting a virtually head-on collision.

Other pertinent observations. At 240 km, the satellite should be traveling 7.8 km/s; the SM-3 has a burnout velocity of 3 km/s.

I am very worried about the debris creation — particularly the debris that the light-weight interceptor will kick into higher orbits when it hits the massive (bus-sized) satellite. Think, as Geoff Forden suggested, of a ping pong ball hitting a superball.

Virtually all the debris should come down quickly. Cartwright said 50 percent would come down within two orbits, with the rest coming down in weeks and months. That seems plausible, at first blush.

But those two orbits could be hairy and some of the debris will remain in orbit. Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, said there are “good times and bad times” to conduct the intercept, based on the position of the ISS but that “bad times are not all that bad” comparing the risk to an order of magnitude lower than flying the shuttle.

Last I checked, the Space Shutle's PRAN (probability risk assessment number, of complete loss of life) was 1 in 100. Extrapolating, there would be only a 1 in 1000 chance of wiping out the ISS.

Great.

Anyway, we should be able to get some real numbers in the next 24 hours.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/skeptical-about.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 7:46am

Inside America's Satellite-Killing Missile
By Noah Shachtman February 15, 2008 | 12:05:39 PM



The weapon that the Pentagon wants to use to shoot down a failing satellite is well-tested. But its one weakness could pose a problem, as the military tries to take out that satellite before it hits the atmosphere. Center for Defense Information missile specialist Victoria Samson explains...

Today, the U.S. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system uses the Standard Missile (SM)-3 to make what are known as "direct intercepts." That means there's no explosion in space. Instead, the SM-3 destroys its target by ramming into with lots and lots of sheer kinetic energy -- more than 130 megajoules worth, or "the equivalent of a 10 ton truck traveling at 600 miles per hour," it maker says. The missile uses two stages to get into near-space, and a third, kinetic warhead to strike. The interceptor finds its targets largely because its seeker has been programmed to look for a certain type of object. (The SM-3 Block1B, the upgrade to the current model, is supposed to have a two-color infrared seeker which presumably would increase its discrimination capabilities.)

Right now, the SM-3 has tested against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, and has made twelve intercepts out of fourteen attempts during testing. These intercepts have been made while the target is in space (tests have been at altitudes of over 100 miles), which provides it with a hot target against the cold environs of space. The most recent flight test intercept attempt by a U.S. ship occurred on Nov.6, 2007 and was a success.

Raytheon, which makes the interceptor, explains how it's supposed to work:

As a ballistic missile threat rises above the horizon, [the] ship’s radar acquires, begins tracking, and the weapon system begins calculating the engagement solution. Upon command from the ship’s weapon system, the SM-3 boosts out of the launcher and establishes radio communication with the ship. After MK 72 booster burnout, the MK 104 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) ignites. In-flight communications from the ship guide the missile toward the predicted intercept point. After MK 104 burnout and separation, the MK 136 Third Stage Rocket Motor (TSRM) ignites, propelling the third stage out of the atmosphere. Throughout its flight, the missile continues to receive in-flight target updates from the ship to refine the intercept guidance solution. The TSRM contains two separate pulses that can be initiated to optimize the engagement timeline. During flyout, the third stage pitches over and ejects the nosecone, exposing the SM-3 Kinetic Warhead (KW). Following TSRM burnout roughly 30 seconds before intercept, the SM-3 KW separates from the third stage and immediately searches for the target based on pointing data received from the ship. The KW acquires the ballistic missile warhead with its long-wavelength imaging infrared seeker. The KW’s Solid Divert and Attitude Control System precisely maneuvers the KW to enable a hit-to-kill intercept. As the KW closes on the target, it will identify the lethal payload area and shift its guidance aimpoint to ensure a lethal hit, destroying the target with more than 130 megajoules of kinetic energy, or the equivalent of a 10 ton truck traveling at 600 miles per hour.

But things have gone wrong. The primary cause of one of the few U.S. flight test failures is the new guidance control system, the Divert and Attitude Control System, whose ceramic components cracked during a test. This problem has not been remedied and is not being used in its most advanced mode. Which means that the SM-3's maneuverability against more demanding targets may be affected. Given how all of the tests so far have dealt with targets that we knew down to the smallest detail how they would behave in-flight, this means that it has not been tested against unknown targets that may require last-minute changes in its trajectory.

The Pentagon has, as of the end of 2007, 21 SM-3 interceptors. It's not like they have a huge inventory to draw upon. For this proposed shoot-down, the Pentagon is claiming that it will make modifications to three SM-3 interceptors so that they can look for the malfunctioning satellite. The modifications involve changing the software to target a satellite rather than a missile, David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists tells New Scientist. "This interceptor is really intended for missiles traveling at 3 to 4 kilometers per second; the satellite they're going to be shooting at has a speed of 7 to 8 kilometers per second."

But the change draws attention to one of the program's biggest flaws: if it doesn't know what to look for, it is unlikely to make an intercept (situational awareness is pretty slim). And since the tests to date have all been highly scripted, the system has not had any practice of on the fly (if you'll excuse the phrase) intercept attempts.

-- Victoria Samson

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/the-weapon-that.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 8:08am

Rogue Spy Sat, Sketched
By Noah Shachtman February 15, 2008 | 2:58:00 PM

What does America's rogue spy satellite look like? GlobalSecurity.org space security specialist Charles Vick has worked up a drawing. And, as one keen observer notes, "Charles is noted for being pretty accurate."



http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/rogue-spy-sat-s.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 8:15am

Experts Scoff at Sat Shoot-Down Rationale (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman February 15, 2008 | 4:34:00 PM



The Pentagon says it has to shoot down a malfunctioning spy satellite because of the threat of a toxic gas cloud. Space security experts are calling the rationale highly unlikely. "Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold," one tells DANGER ROOM.

Yesterday, Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey said the satellite's tank full of hydrazine rocket propellant was the main reason the military was planning to blast the orbiter. There's a small but real risk that the hydrazine tank could rupture, releasing a "toxic gas" over a "populated area," causing a "risk to human life."

But, as we noted yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright cast the threat from the satellite in much less dire terms. Even if the hydrazine were released, he noted, the effects would likely be mild -- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the doctor."

And that doesn't sound like much of a risk at all.

Especially when you consider that several other hydrazine-filled object have come crashing down to Earth. Not only did the space shuttle Columbia have a similar tank, which survived re-entry, with no toxic gas cloud. Several other hydrazine-laced objects have also crashed into the atmosphere, with no ill effects. Space researcher Ed Kyle notes that there were 42 major reentry objects for 2007, including 9 satellites -- at least one of which contained a form of hydrazine, UMDH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine).

In addition, roughly 8-12 upper stages that originally contained UDMH reentered during 2007. Some of these could very well have contained some residual propellant. [One particular] upper stage probably contained several hundred [kilgograms] of residual propellant, for example.

Which leads one military satellite observer to tell DANGER ROOM, "Everything they said made sense except for the reason for doing the intercept in the first place."

"The hydrazine tank is a 1-meter sphere containing about 400 liters of hydrazine. The stated hazard area is about 2 hectares, something like 1/10,000,000,000 of the area under the orbit," he adds. The potential for actual harm in unbelievably small. Which means the hydrazine rationale just doesn't hold up, literally not within orders of magnitude."

"The cynic in me says that the idea that this is being done to protect the lives of humans is simply a feel-good cover story tossed to the media," another veteran space security specialist adds. "It is true that hydrazine is very toxic and could result injury or death, but the odds of this happening are minuscule. The average person in American is many thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident than by any falling debris. In fact, no one has ever been killed by space debris (I have heard of one or two being struck but only minor injuries). So pretty much everything else you can think of (including getting hit by an asteroid/comet) is many times more likely than dying from this. Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold."

"There has to be another reason behind this," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, tells the Washington Post. "In the history of the space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space."

So what could that other reason be?

Our veteran space security specialist believes there are several. To him, the satellite shot is a chance for the military to try out its missile defense capabilities; a way to keep secret material out of the wrong hands; and a warning to the Chinese, after they destroyed a satellite about a year ago. He shared some educated guesses:

My first thought is that MDA [Missile Defense Agency] is always looking for ways to pimp their systems and provide further justification that they work. The upcoming change in Administration is almost guaranteed to result in missile defense losing the top-level advocacy that it has enjoyed for the last several years. Any additional missions and justifications that the missile defense community can provide would increase the likelihood of their systems (and budgetary power) surviving.

An additional reason could be that destroying the satellite would prevent any chance of another nation getting access to any of the potentially sensitive technology on board. However, I have heard from other sources that supposedly the NRO [National Reconnaissance Office - the country's spy satellite shop] is actually against the "shootdown" (and I hate that term - the satellite is not flying and is coming down regardless of whether or not it gets hit by a missile). Their absence at the press briefing could lend some weight to this rumor, although it could also be explained by the nature of the satellite and its still classified link to the NRO.

My real concern is that this is simply a knee-jerk reaction made by the Administration in response to the purported threat by the Chinese. Since the April 2007 ASAT [anti-satellite] test, there have been rumors and whispers going around that the Administration and like-minded individuals are looking for more sticks (instead of carrots) to use against China. While this "shoot down" is not a direct action against China, it would be a clear signal that the US can possess an active ASAT capability at any time if it so desires. That is a serious development as the previous US ASAT system using F-15s was mothballed in the 1980's.

There are many significant political ramifications that would happen as a result of this. The US has been berating the Chinese on their ASAT test but now demonstrate that it is okay as long as it occurs at a low enough altitude to prevent long-lasting debris and can "save lives". This is close to an implied "ok" for the US and other nations to conduct more ASAT tests, which could open another arms race. I am also certain that Russian and China would also see this as a slap in the face as they are trying to revive the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space treaty discussion and ban on space weapons. It would further negatively affect the relations between them and the US. Which could lead to increased tensions, arms buildup, etc etc etc. Nothing good for anyone outside of arms manufacturers and politicians that need a bogeyman to scare people into voting for them.

Oh, and [NASA Adminsitrator Mike] Griffin's presence at the briefing was also an indicator to me that they are trying to spin this as a safety issue and not a missile defense / ASAT test. NASA has absolutely nothing to do with US Strategic Command using a Navy missile to blow up a broken NRO satellite. This is a military/national security op from the start and the only reason you trot the NASA Administrator out is to try and convince people otherwise.

UPDATE: Regardless of the central rationale for the anticipated intercept of a dying satellite, the action almost certainly would offer the Pentagon useful data on conducting antisatellite missions, our own Jeffrey Lewis tells Global Security Newswire.

The dead U.S. satellite is to be struck at a significantly lower altitude than other space assets. However, that could prove even more of a challenge to the Navy than any future antisatellite operation because spacecraft on lower orbits typically travel at higher speeds, Lewis said.

The upcoming shot — using a sea-based Standard Missile 3 developed for regional and tactical missile defense — could thus prove to be a useful test for less demanding intercepts that might someday follow, he said.

“The higher a satellite is [in space], the slower it moves, more or less,” Lewis said. “This is a perfectly good ASAT test.”

...Asked if it would be fair for other nations to regard the Standard Missile 3 as an antisatellite-capable weapon if the upcoming mission is successful, Cartwright said it was “a fair question and a good question.”

However, he said, the Navy has implemented for this action a “one-time” modification to the three ships and missiles, which “would not be transferable to a fleet configuration.”

For their part, “the Chinese are going to use this to excuse their otherwise inexcusable test,” Lewis said. “And those other countries who we count on to create a norm against debris-creating ASATs will be less willing to help us” in that effort, he said.

That said, Lewis added, “maybe they’ll buy the hydrazine story.”

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/fishy-rationale.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 8:28am

Operation Rogue Satellite: The Latest
By Noah Shachtman February 16, 2008 | 10:21:49 AM



A bunch of new details emerged overnight about the planned shootdown of a dying spy satellite.

In the works since January. "The order to launch the crash program came Jan. 4... [with] a final go-ahead decision by President Bush this week," the AP reports.

The initial order was twofold: Assess whether shooting down the satellite with a missile was even possible, and at the same time urgently piece together the technological tools it would take to succeed.

In a matter of weeks, three Navy warships — the USS Lake Erie, USS Decatur and USS Russell — were outfitted with modified Aegis anti-missile systems, the ships' crews were trained for an unprecedented mission, and three SM-3 missiles were pulled off an assembly line and given a new guidance system.

Giant golf ball deployed. CNN says that "a floating X-band radar has to be modified to track the satellite's trajectory." That would be the massive -- and massively controversial -- Sea-Based X-Band Radar. The $815 million, 28-story, orb-like contraption has the ability, in theory, to tell which way a baseball is spinning -- from 3,000 miles away. But it's also proven to susceptible to the elements and high seas. The thing has been in and out of the repair shop for years.

Big bucks. "The attempt by the U.S. Navy to use an anti-missile missile to shoot down a potentially hazardous satellite will cost between $40 million and $60 million, Pentagon officials told CNN. "The missile alone costs almost $10 million."

Your chances of being hit by the falling satellite: one in a trillion. "Compared with, for example, a one in 1.4 million chance of being hit by lightning in the United States," the Discovery Channel notes.

FEMA to the rescue? "With an eye to the possibility that the missile effort will fail, the government has placed six rescue teams across the country to be prepared to act if the satellite hits the United States," according to the AP.

The spacecraft contains 1,000 pounds of hydrazine in a tank that is expected to survive re-entry and a fuel tank liner made of beryllium.

FEMA has prepared a guide for emergency responders that includes information about hydrazine and beryllium. The agency warns officials not to pick up any debris or provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to anyone who has inhaled hydrazine or beryllium.

Old news for NASA chief? Some were surprised to see NASA head honcho Michael Griffin helping plan this operation. They shouldn't be. Not only does he have to worry about what happens to the Shuttle and the Space Station. But he was "deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and worked on missile defense systems from 1986 to 1991."

Diplomatic action. According to the Washington Post, "the State Department sent cables to all embassies yesterday instructing diplomats to explain to foreign governments how the upcoming attempt to shoot down an out-of-control spy satellite is different from China's destruction of one of its orbiting satellites early last year."

Do or die for missile defense? The shootdown "carries opportunity, but also potential embarrassment, for the administration and advocates of its missile defense program," notes the NYT.

Often compared to hitting a bullet with a bullet, the shooting down of ballistic missiles with an interceptor rocket is difficult, as an adversary’s warheads would be launched unexpectedly on relatively short arcs — and most likely more than one at a time.


So it should be easier for the Standard Missile 3, a Navy weapon launched from an Aegis cruiser in the northern Pacific, to find and strike a satellite almost the size of a school bus making orbits almost as regular as bus routes around the globe, 16 times a day.

Should it succeed, the accomplishment would embolden those who champion even more spending on top of the $57.8 billion appropriated by Congress for missile defenses since the Bush administration’s first budget in the 2002 fiscal year.

It might even revive a dormant effort to focus the military on antisatellite operations, as well. Failure, on the other hand, would be cited as hard and fresh evidence for those who point to the futility of space-warfare programs.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/operation-rogue.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 9:18am

North Korea's China's New Air Defense: AK-47s
By Noah Shachtman February 14, 2008 | 10:36:25 AM

Okay. Can anyone come up with anything approaching a logical explanation for why the North Koreans Chinese have mounted AK-47s on their anti-air artillery? Anyone?



UPDATE: Several folks wrote in to say that those characters in the background are Chinese, not Korean.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/north-koreas-ne.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 9:44am

Jammers, Spy Blimps Battle Bombs
By Noah Shachtman February 14, 2008 | 1:35:35 PM



Tactics, not technology, may be making the difference in the fight against improvised bombs. But the military is still sending all kinds of gadgetry out into the warzones, to try top stop the weapons. The new annual report from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), has one of the most complete lists I've seen yet of the bomb-battling gizmos.

The most important gear, by far, are the radio frequency jammers, which keep radio-controlled improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from being detonated from afar. In fact, I have a feeling the government may be underplaying, a bit, the value of these tools in their public pronouncements. JIEDDO has been supplying three flavors of jammer: Duke, which is mounted on vehicles; Chameleon, an improved version; Guardian, which is worn in a backpack. Overall, JIEDDO has purchased 37,000 of things.

The group has also bought a bunch of different high-powered camera projects, to watch out for bomb-planters. They include:

* Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID), a blimp-based surveillance system.
* Eagle Eye, a four-tower system that combines radars and long-range day/night surveillance cameras into a base defense operations center.
* Ground-Based Optical Surveillance System (G-BOSS), an ultra-powerful camera, sitting on a big-ass tower, that can see minute details from a mile away, if memory serves right.

Then there are a bunch of gadgets that get attached to Humvees, Strykers, and other ground vehicles. Check 'em out, after the jump.

Route Clearance Blowers. Route clearance blowers are powerful air blowers mounted on the front of military vehicles and used to remove debris and enhance the identification of camouflaged IEDs. JIEDDO provided funding to the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) to procure 115 commercial off- the-shelf (COTS) route clearance blowers...

Interrogation Arms (IA). IAs provide a standoff capability and are used to probe for suspected IEDs. The mechanical arm provides a standoff of 25 feet and is equipped with a claw for digging and a metal detector and camera to identify IEDs. In FY07, ten IAs were mounted on RG-31s in Afghanistan and six were fielded for use on Huskies in Iraq.

Victim Operated IED (VOIED) Roller Systems. The VOIED Roller System is a mechanical device designed to defeat pressure-detonated IEDs. This year JIEDDO funded the procurement of several hundred VOIED roller systems [which] have significantly reduced effectiveness of individual IED attacks.

Driver’s Vision Enhancer Plus (DVE+). DVE+ is an infrared imaging driver’s device designed to enhance force effectiveness, particularly battlefield mobility, by assessing trafficability for combat and tactical wheeled vehicles during daylight, darkness, and in degraded battlefield conditions. This year JIEDDO funded the procurement of 1,000 DVE+ devices...

Vehicle Optics Sensor System (VOSS). VOSS is a vehicle-mounted stabilized day-and-night camera mounted on a 25-foot mast designed to enhance situational awareness in combat environments. JIEDDO funded the procurement of 70 VOSS systems in FY07. VOSS is a COTS system.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/route-clearance.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 9:47am

Improvised Bombs: Down in Iraq, Up in Afghanistan; Tech Barely a Factor
By Sharon Weinberger February 14, 2008 | 1:40:00 PM



There's good news in Iraq: improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against coalition forces in Iraq have dropped dramatically over the last year. Not only is the use of IEDs dropping off, but more IEDs are being found before they go off, and more Iraqis are alerting forces of possible attacks.

That's all good news, but as noted in the just released Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), while IEDs are declining in Iraq, "the opposite trend has been observed in Afghanistan." The report notes, "In that theater, an emboldened, increasingly aggressive enemy has increased the use of IEDs. The number of IEDs employed against U.S. forces in FY07 reached an all-time high, more than doubling over the last half of the fiscal year."

More interesting are the reasons cited for this turnaround. It's not a silver bullet technology, or frankly, anything specifically the JIEDDO has done (though no doubt it's contributed in some areas). Rather, the report points to four major factors:

1) "The decision of many local faction to support coalition force efforts."

2) "The sustained presence of coalition forces throughout the Baghdad security zones that have greatly reduced the monthly number of IED incidents in Baghdad."

3) "The success of numerous locally focused brigade and regimental-level operations against networks."

4) "Relentless efforts to disrupt the event chain which enables activities."

If operational tactics dealt the biggest blow to the IED threat, how, then, has JIEDDO contributed to the drop-off? Well, protective capabilities, which JIEDDO has supported, have played a role, the report notes, so too has better training. Also, JIEDDO has been involved in a number of efforts to disrupt IED networks (cited above as a contributing factor to the overall decrease). The reports notes that over the last year, insurgents have had to employ six IEDs to bring about one coalition casualty. On the flip side, IEDs that do go off have become more lethal, demonstrating how insurgents are adapting. But the report makes clear that it's military operations that have played the greatest role in this turnaround.

What hasn't worked? Well, nifty gimmickry doesn't always pan out. JIEDDO says over the past year it's canceled Alexis and Electra-C, systems that emitted wave forms to pre-detonate IEDs. They interfered with the counter-IED jammers. That's not good. Warlock Dragon, which uses high-power microwaves against IEDs, also ended up being something of a dud. Despite promising tests, it didn't work well in the field (because insurgents were using countermeasures, JIEDDO says).

Interestingly, although the report appears to place heavy emphasis on the success of things like attacking the IED network, counter-IED systems still gets the lion's share of JIEDDO funding ($2.57 billion out of $4.77 billion) for fiscal 2008. This could simply be because technology is cash-intensive, while efforts to attack the network are not. But, it's still an interesting data point.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/ieds-down-in-ir.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2008, 10:36am

US Not Set Up To Trace Nuclear Terrorist Device In Aftermath, Report Says

ScienceDaily (Feb. 16, 2008) — A terrorist nuclear explosion devastates Manhattan, but no group takes credit. The pressure on the U.S. president to retaliate is intense. Acting on sketchy information, the president orders an attack, but it turns out to be the wrong terrorists, in the wrong country. Things go downhill from there.

To avoid that and other nightmare scenarios, a group of 12 scientists with extensive nuclear expertise, headed by Stanford physicist Michael May, is urging an international push to improve the science of nuclear forensics.

May is a research professor emeritus and former co-director the Center for International Security and Cooperation. He also is the former director of the U.S. nuclear weapons design laboratory in Livermore, Calif. Other members have experience in nuclear intelligence and defense research. One member, Jay Davis, was a United Nations inspector in Iraq.

They say there is an urgent need for more nuclear detectives, armed with science PhDs and instilled with the instincts of an investigator. And those detectives will need training, advanced equipment and stronger ties to intelligence agencies, political leaders and law enforcement.

With the right mobile equipment, nuclear detectives could sift through the debris and the radioactive cloud of an attack in this country or elsewhere and quickly glean crucial information, the scientists argue in a 60-page report was discussed Feb. 16 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.

Using radiochemistry techniques and access to proposed international databases that include actual samples of uranium and plutonium from around the world, the nuclear investigators might be able to tell the president--and the world--where the bomb fuel came from, or at least rule out some suspects.

"Nuclear forensics can make a difference," May said in an interview.

But the U.S. capacity for such investigations has deteriorated since the end of the Cold War, when the capabilities were well supported at the nuclear weapons laboratories. "Presently available trained personnel are highly skilled, but there are not enough of them to deal with an emergency and they are not being replaced," according to May. "A program to refill the pipeline of trained personnel should be undertaken."

There's also a need for development of new equipment, both in the lab and on the street, which could provide a faster analysis during a crisis. The authors also recommend more coordination between scientists and law enforcement; even simple steps such as trading phone numbers could prove crucial. "You really want the top decision makers to know where to get information," May said.

The remnants of an atomic explosion carry a host of clues, even at the microscopic level, including crystal structures and impurities.

Uranium, for example, varies in isotopic composition and impurities according to where it was mined and how it was processed. Weapons-grade plutonium can be exposed during its production to different neutron fluxes and energies, depending on the particular reactor used. It is also possible to establish the length of time plutonium spent in the reactor.

In some cases, it may be possible for scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or Los Alamos National Laboratory to use their experience, intelligence data and software codes to reverse-engineer a nuclear bomb from its debris and learn telltale details of the design of the explosive.

These clues would not be the equivalent of fingerprints or DNA, May said, but would in most cases allow officials to at least rule out or in broad classes of possible sources.

Tracing bomb material to its source may be only the beginning of an investigation, rather than the end, as the authors acknowledge. Discovering that a terrorist explosive was made of uranium stolen from a specific site in Russia, for example, does not identify the terrorists, but it does provide a starting point, especially if there is suspicion that the bomb makers had inside help.

In their report, the scientists recommend that atomic sleuthing be applied also to radioactive materials seized by law enforcement agencies or border guards. Tracking the substances back to their source might prevent or deter attacks, they said. The authors note that the International Atomic Energy Agency's Illicit Trafficking Database contains 1,080 confirmed events involving illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials between 1993 and 2006.

Convincing the nuclear states to share database information about their own uranium and plutonium may be difficult, May said. He suggests that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has databases of its own, could play an important role.

Key recommendations from the report are listed below.

Advanced Lab and Field Equipment and Numerical Modeling

Forensics technologies need to be developed to allow for more rapid field measurements and accurate laboratory analysis. Also, improvements in numerical simulations that can provide weapon design information are needed.

Workforce Development

There are about 35 to 50 personnel working on nuclear forensics at the national labs, not enough to deal with an emergency, and many are reaching retirement age. A program to develop trained personnel should be undertaken that could include: funding research at universities, graduate scholarships and fellowships, internships at the labs and incentives that stimulate industrial support of faculty positions.

International Cooperation and Sample-Matching Database Development

The speed and accuracy of nuclear forensics would be significantly enhanced through a comprehensive global sample-matching database.

Exercises

The existing counter-terrorism exercise programs must test the actions, coordination, communications and policies that would be needed at all levels in the event of a nuclear detonation anywhere in the world. Exercises should be structured to illustrate the strengths and limitations of nuclear forensics, as well as to test capability and coordination in light of both the time urgent needs of the situation and also the ability to communicate to the public and manage expectations.

Review and Evaluation Groups

The U.S. Government should establish two panels of independent experts: one to systematically review, evaluate and keep records on the exercises recommended above; the other to advise the U.S. government in real time of the results of nuclear forensics and what they mean in the event of an emergency.

The report, Nuclear Forensics: Role, State of the Art, Program Needs, was written by a joint working group of the AAAS and the American Physical Society. The authors of the report are as follows.

* Michael May, Chair, Stanford University
* Reza Abedin-Zadeh, International Atomic Energy Agency (retired)
* Donald Barr, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
* Albert Carnesale, University of California-Los Angeles
* Philip E. Coyle, Center for Defense Information
* Jay Davis, Hertz Foundation
* Bill Dorland, University of Maryland
* Bill Dunlop, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Steve Fetter, University of Maryland
* Alexander Glaser, Princeton University
* Ian D. Hutcheon, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Francis Slakey, American Physical Society
* Benn Tannenbaum, American Association for the Advancement of Science

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080216142207.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 19, 2008, 1:36am

Search after Japan navy collision



A Japanese naval vessel has collided with a fishing boat east of Tokyo, leaving two fishermen missing.

The Atago destroyer hit the Seitoku Maru fishing boat early on Tuesday off Chiba prefecture's Nojimazaki Cape, splitting the boat in two.

Coastguard ships and helicopters were searching for the missing fishermen, officials said.

The Atago is one of several Japanese navy ships equipped with the high-tech Aegis radar tracking system.

"It is extremely regrettable that this sort of accident has happened," Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba told journalists.

"We must do all we can to search for and save the missing men and find out what caused it as soon as possible."

The two men, 58-year-old Haruo Kichisei and his son Tetsuhiro, had been out fishing for tuna, officials said.

It was the first serious accident involving a navy vessel and a civilian ship since a submarine and a fishing boat collided in Tokyo Bay in 1988, killing 30, Kyodo news agency said.

The Atago, the newest of Japan's Aegis-equipped vessels, was on its way back to the Yokosuka naval base from a training exercise in Hawaii when the incident occurred.

It and other vessels are key to Japan's missile defence shield, aimed at North Korea.

In December, a similar vessel armed with a Standard-3 missile defence system shot down a mock ballistic missile launched from a US base in Hawaii.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7252002.stm

Published: 2008/02/19 03:53:12 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 19, 2008, 1:50am

D-day for defective satellite


A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is launched from guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie as part of a Missile Defence Agency test.
Photo: AP Photo/US Navy

The US Navy will on Thursday make its first attempt to shoot down a defective spy satellite carrying 450 kilograms of toxic fuel, CNN reported.

The attempt will come a day after the US shuttle Atlantis is expected to land back on Earth - a key consideration in the plans.

Without an interception, the rogue satellite's decaying orbit could bring it back to Earth on March 6 with no way to predict where it may land.

The satellite has about 450 kilograms of hydrazine fuel, which could be lethal if inhaled in high concentrations.

Two unnamed officials told CNN on Monday the Navy wanted to leave as much time as possible for a second attempt in case the first one failed.

The plan is to bring down the satellite using a missile fired from a ship in the northern Pacific.

The event would be an all-time first, drawing on knowledge gained through anti-missile tests.

The precise targeting will require the missile to hit "just prior" to the last moment before the satellite enters Earth's atmosphere, so that some of the mass of the satellite will be burned up on reentry and the rest falls safely into the ocean.

The Pentagon lost communication with the satellite shortly after it was launched in December 2006, putting it out of reach of ground controllers.

The US has told Australia and a handful of other nations to be on standby for falling debris from the highly classified satellite, because there is a minute possibility of the strike misfiring and debris falling on land rather than water.

"The Australian government has been advised formally by the US government that the president (George Bush) has authorised the US Department of Defence to attempt to shoot down an inoperable satellite," a DFAT spokesman said yesterday.

"There is no suggestion at this stage that the satellite will land in Australia, but it is too early to predict where it might come down if the US is not successful in destroying it in space.

DPA, AAP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/dday-fo....3190801755.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 19, 2008, 9:15pm


Satellite shoot down call may come from Oz

From correspondents in Washington

February 20, 2008 10:20am


Battle stations ... the USS Lake Erie (during a missile launch off Hawaii) has been given the job of intercepting the rogue satellite.

* Defunct satellite could be shot down tomorrow
* Order could come from Gates in Australia
* Third missile ready in case first attempts fail

A US warship is moving into position to try to shoot down a defunct US spy satellite as early as tomorrow before it tumbles into the Earth's atmosphere.

And US Defence Secretary Robert Gates may be giving the shoot order from Australia.

Armed with two specially modified interceptor missiles, the USS Lake Erie has been given the job of intercepting the satellite over the Pacific, Pentagon officials said.

The Aegis cruiser is already in waters off Hawaii.

The USS Decatur, a guided missile destroyer, was carrying a third interceptor missile in case the first two attempts failed, defence officials said.

Another destroyer, the USS Russell, was still in port today.

Space shuttle Atlantis

The window for the intercept has been open since Sunday, but the Pentagon has waited for the space shuttle Atlantis to land first at the end of its current mission to the International Space Station.

The Pentagon is training a panoply of Aegis warships, radars and computerised command networks on the schoolbus-sized satellite.

Software changes have been made to the SM-3 interceptor missiles so that they will recognise a satellite in space instead of a ballistic missile - their normal programed target - officials said.

US Navy ships have intercepted ballistic missile warheads in this way in 12 of 14 tests.

But a navy official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity said the satellite posed a somewhat different problem.

Tracking problem

It is colder and moving through space at a much higher speed, which will make it more difficult to track than the ballistic missiles that have been intercepted with SM-3 missiles.

The Pentagon hopes to use the warmth the satellite absorbs from sunlight to track it as it descends.

The plan is to hit a tank on the satellite carrying the toxic propellant hydrazine, which officials say could pose a threat to humans if it survives re-entry.

"The system itself is very accurate, so hopefully that will translate into being able to hit the tank," said a defence official.

Mr Gates, who leaves tomorrow on a trip to Australia and South-East Asia, has been empowered by President George W. Bush to authorise the shoot-down.

"Based on the advice he gets he's prepared to do so from the road if necessary," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

General Kevin Chilton, the head of the US Strategic Command, will lead the operation.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23245208-2,00.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 5:45am

Report: IED Crisis 'Avoidable' With Armored Trucks
By Sharon Weinberger February 19, 2008 | 12:58:58 PM

A new report, written by Marine Corps whistleblower Franz Gayl, recounts in painstaking detail the missteps that delayed the fielding of bomb-resistant vehicles to Iraq. The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Case Study places the blame squarely on the shoulders of a "Byzantine" acquisition system that pushes bureaucrats to protect their own programs and priorities, rather than seeking out the best available option, the author alleges. The study, first reported by the Associated Press, also covers other technologies, such as nonlethal weapons, that Gayl says could have helped with counter-insurgency.



The most damning (and likely controversial) conclusion of the study, which "constitutes the personal views of the author," is that the delays in fielding MRAP fueled the improvised explosive device (IED) crisis:

The IED crisis was avoidable with MRAP. The rapid fielding of requested [the vehicles] would have neutralized one principle enemy advantage early on, as MRAP was the quickest means of making ineffectual the insurgent’s IED casualty-production... When SECDEF [Secretary of Defense] intervened in 2007 there was no end to the IED emergency in sight. In fact it had grown to one could no longer hope that newly arriving ISR [intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance] capabilities and planned personnel surges would have any effect in the near-term. Massive IEDs employed against vulnerable tactical vehicles served as some of the most damaging IO [information operation] weapons directed at U.S. public opinion. Televised images, along with the U.S.- verified casualty statistics, demoralized the public to the point that bipartisan Congressional concern and dropping presidential opinion polls began to threaten a premature withdrawal. Only one thing was certain, namely that MRAPs would dramatically reduce casualties from IEDs immediately when fielded.

Of course, MRAP is not the end-all, be-all. There's already been casualties from troops in an MRAP hit by an IED, and there's also been concerns that the Pentagon went overboard on MRAP orders. In fact, most observers say that it's the human element -- better infiltration of bomb-planting networks, and more support from Iraqis -- that has brought the IED number down.

Regardless of whether MRAP is a panacea, the report notes that the delays in fielding it demonstrate fundamental problems with the Pentagon's acquisiton system, a contention that many would agree with. Worse, the report argues, little has been done to change the underlying problems: "Unfortunately, no fundamental process changes have resulted at [Marine Corps Combat Development Command] MCCDC, process changes that might help guarantee that the same sorts of GCE challenges with MRAP and other needed capabilities are not encountered in future conflicts."

Re Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Case Study:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/franz_gayl__complete_mrap_study_archive.pdf

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/report-ied-cris.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 5:49am

Re Operation Splatellite:

Dying Satellite's Toxic Danger: Way, Way Low
By Jeffrey Lewis February 19, 2008 | 12:01:54 PM

I took an educated guess, when I wrote that the expected risk to the Space Station crew would "be surprisingly competitive with the expected risk to persons on the ground” from the falling satellite.

My friend, the geographer Tim Gulden, did the math and it turns out my suspicion seems quite plausible.

[Another DANGER ROOM friend, MIT's Geoffrey Forden, disagrees. He pegs the chances of the satellite's toxic hydrazine rocket fuel "killing or injuring a single individual" at three percent. But Forden spreads the world's 6.7 billion people evenly over the planet's land. Which, as we'll see in a second, may not be the best way to calculate these things. -- ed.]

Overall, Tim finds the chance that the satellite's debris will fall in an area with a population density of one or more persons per 1/4 hectare — about the size of the hydrazine contamination zone — to be no more than one-half of one percent. That’s about 5 chances in 1,000. The probability that the debris will come down in an area with 3 persons per quarter hectare is about 2 chances in 1,000.

———— Original Message ————
Subject: Risk from Hydrazine onboard USA 193
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:06:58 -0500
From: Tim Gulden
To: Nancy Gallagher, Jeffrey Lewis

I have done some really simple calculations of the risk of the hydrazine tank onboard USA193 [the designation for the dying satellite] actually landing in a densely enough populated area that people might be exposed. These calculations are based on the LandScan 2005 data set (developed by Oak Ridge National Labs): http://www.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/

The method here is to choose a threshold of population density and then see what percentage of the earths surface under the satellites orbit (between 58.5 degrees north and 58.5 degrees south) has a population density that high or higher.

The “contamination zone” for the hydrazine tank is stated as having a radius of about 27 meters — that is very nearly 1/4 of a hectare (which is an area 100 meters square).

The simplest thing to look at, then, is the percentage of the area under the orbit that has a density of 4 people per hectare or more. That corresponds to a very low density suburban type environment (one family every 100 meters on average). Approximately one half of one percent of the area under the orbit has this density or higher. That means that there are about five chances in 1000 that the tank lands in an area with this kind of density.

If we step the density up to a real urban density of 100 people per hectare, that is to say 25 people per contamination zone, this probability drops to about 0.02% or two chances in 10,000.

At 12 people per hectare, or 3 people per contamination zone, the probability is about 2 in 1000 — a risk of similar magnitude to the 1 in 1000 risk that NASA suggested for a debris strike from the interception hitting the International Space Station (and presumably killing its three crew members).

I am assuming that people stay where they live. The actual behavior of people toward this fallen object will matter a great deal more than it does with most falling debris. If people are inclined to move toward the tank, and stay near it, they could be killed even if it lands half a kilometer away. If, on the other hand, people are inclined to leave the area with the toxic smelling gas (apparently ammonia-like), then the people would not likely be killed even if they lived near enough to be exposed.

Another important caveat here is that these data are fine-grained, but not quite as fine-grained as would be ideal. The LandScan grid cells are 30 arc seconds square. At the equator, that translates to about 0.85 square kilometers. At the northern and southern extremes of the orbit it is about half a square kilometer. There are 100 hectares in a square kilometer and about 400 potential contamination zones in a kilometer. There are 100 hectares in a square kilometer and about 400 potential contamination zones in a kilometer. My calculations assume that people are evenly distributed within each cell — when in fact they are likely to be clustered. This would tend to drive the probability of hitting an occupied contamination zone downward. To the extent that low-density areas are typified by villages and extended family households, this could be really significant. I am guessing that clustering within cells could drive the probability of exposure down by a factor of 5 or more.

Of course, the error bars on both calculations are very large. The Space Station estimate is extrapolated from NASA Administration Mike Griffin’s comments about a space agency analysis that we cannot see for ourselves. Moreover, Tim did not model the probability that the tank remains intact — merely where it was likely to come down.

I continue to maintain that the Bush Administration should make public the real calculations of the risk. NASA published such estimates, by the way, for the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory — placing the probability that someone would be killed in an uncontrolled deorbit at 1 in 1,000. (Thanks to Yousaf Butt at the Union of Concerned Scientists for pointing this out.)

The unnecessary secrecy will feed the perception that Administration officials are being less than truthful about the President’s motivation for the intercept.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/spy-sat-risks-w.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 7:05am

Lewis: Don't Shoot the Spy Sat
By Jeffrey Lewis February 19, 2008 | 11:11:36 AM



Here's some advice for the Bush Administration, on the shoot-down of that dying spy satellite, USA 193: DON’T FREAKING DO IT.

This is bad policymaking. Take Joint Chiefs Vice Chair Gen. James Cartwright's explanation of the rationale for the decision to intercept the falling satellite:

At the end of this, just from my perspective, what to me was compelling as we reviewed the data is that if we fire at the satellite, the worst is that we miss, and then we have a known situation, which is where we are today.

This logic — “hey, why not?” — is always suspect. It reverses the burden of proof, placing the emphasis on those who oppose the intercept.

Yet, this is an “extraordinary” measure (General Cartwright’s phrase) against a “small” risk (his phrase again). Justifying it requires demonstrating not just that one risk is greater than another, but that we have high confidence that estimates of the risks are accurate and complete.

Holding aside my general worry that this Administration is not to be trusted with sharp objects, there are specific reasons to be skeptical of both the accuracy and the completeness of this Administration’s calculations. I strongly suspect that they are systematically discounting two types of hard-to-quantify risks — the possibility of error within the estimates and the political costs to conducting an anti-satellite intercept.

Worst Case Scenarios

The Administration, according to General Cartwright, compared the “worst downside” of intercepting. But read carefully, and the “wost” case appears to be that they miss — not that they are wrong about the debris estimates or how much debris would reenter with a successful intercept.

The real worst case is that they are wrong about those risks. Yet the possibility of that error is difficult to capture in models.

On the other hand, the Administration did consider the worst case for hydrazine: that the tank remains in tact, that it comes down in a populated area, that people don’t evacuate:

The worst scenario is that you have a person who either is not mobile or does not, for whatever reason, sense that they’re in danger, and therefore doesn’t take any action. But those variables are very difficult to put minutes or time to.

The comparison here is apples-to-oranges: worst case on the human health risks, median-case on the debris risk. The deck is stacked.

The Hydrazine Story

Yet, there are reasons to wonder whether we know, or are simply concerned, that the hydrazine tank will remain intact. NASA Administrator Mike Griffin indicated that the “analysis that we’ve done is as certain as any analysis of this type can be” that the tank “will survive intact” and the “hydrazine will vent.”

Well, one might ask how certain can one be in this business? “I mean, one can never be certain,” Griffin said elsewhere.

It is worth noting that, on January 30, 2008, General Gene Reneurt, Commander of U.S. Northern Command , discounted the risk from the hydrazine.

The satellite includes some small engines that contain a toxic chemical called hydrazine which is rocket fuel. But Renuart said they are not large booster engines with substantial amounts of fuel.

Guess he didn’t get the talking points.

The idea that the hydrazine might survive apparently comes largely from the experience of the Columbia. That experience featured heavily in the Valentine's Day presentation at the Pentagon, as well as a story by Aviation Week's Craig Covault indicating that data from the Columbia “are now being used operationally for the first time by Pentagon, NASA and NRO analysts to calculate better how much debris will survive…”

Whatever the probability that the hydrazine will survive and vent, it is less than 1. That probability must then be discounted by the probability that the tank will land near enough a person (let alone an immobile one) to cause human harm.

What About the Debris Risk?

We’ve had a great discussion in the comments over at ArmsControlWonk.com about the risk from debris. Simple models suggests a very large amount of debris, much of which comes down within a few orbits.

We’ve seen, however, that the NASA model pretty seriously underestimated the amount of debris created by the Chinese ASAT [anti-satellite] intercept. Most of the debris will be very short lived, but the risk to space assets may be higher, at least in the very short term, than NASA imagines.

Those risks are not negligible — Administrator Griffin stated that “risks to shuttle and station … are at least a factor of 10 smaller than risks we take just being in space anyway…”

That, to my mind, is strange way of looking at the problem — we take many risks to be in space. Yet astronauts chose those risks freely for their own reasons. The folks sitting on the space station — and to a lesser extent those who have paid for it — are do not have a choice about the risk they will now incur.

We haven’t seen hard numbers yet, but my suspicion — and it is just a suspicion — is that the expected risk to the ISS crew will be surprisingly competitive with the expected risk to persons on the ground even without considering the possibility that our debris estimates might be low.

Of course, that’s because they both round to zero.

The Politics of this Suck

I don’t know how to express the political risk. Not knowing the risk, however, is different from it being “zero” — which is how the Bush Administration, at best, seems to count it. At worst, some members seem to assign a positive value to conducting an ASAT test.

The Chinese will use this to excuse their January 2007 test and, perhaps, future ones. The Russians seem interested in playing along, too. I’d like to be able to argue that they’re wrong; That this is different.

I have argued, in the past, that we have a strong interest in constraining the development of debris-creating anti-satellite weapons. Sadly, our intercept will make that outcome harder to achieve, not easier.

Given the extremely small risk to people on the ground, as well as the three people in orbit, these risks — though difficult to quantify — almost certainly should dominate the discussion.

But what loser is going to go to bat for confidence building measures in outer space when there is a giant tank of hydrazine bearing down on a Cub Scout Jamboree and one really awesome, heroic chance to blow it out of the sky? Hell, I bet the thing explodes into fireworks with red, white and blue stars and streamers like over the Mall on the Fourth of July.

Let’s face it, supporting the shot is the “safe” thing to do. After all, the debris risk will probably work out ok, while we’ll never know if the satellite would have hit a populated area. The cost, in terms of space security, is so difficult to identify, that one can simply explain it away with facile counterfactuals. “Oh, the Russian’s were just looking for an excuse, they would have done it anyway.”

Can Cowboys Do Math?

But the safe decision isn’t always the wise one. My sense on this was captured by my friend Jonathan McDowell, who called the decision regrettable and, in a moment of frustration, added:

Clearly someone in the administration who has the instincts of a cowboy has decided this is the perfect excuse to rattle our sabres and show the Chinese that we have the same capabilities.

Of course, Jonathan could be all wrong. The way for the Bush Administration to dispel his skepticism, and mine, would be to publish the risk estimates — both of the debris risk to the ISS and the hydrazine risk to the population on the ground.

Let independent observers check the homework.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/after-a-getting.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 7:43am

Satellite Shoot-Down Set: Intercept Near Hawaii; Debris Cloud Over Canada (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman February 19, 2008 | 9:23:00 AM



As you probably know by now, the U.S. military is going to try to shoot down a dying satellite on Wednesday, around 10:30 PM eastern time (3:30 AM Greenwich Mean Time on the 21st), before it plummets into the atmosphere. That's right smack in the middle of a lunar eclipse, which should make the machine easier to track. Satellite-watchers have figured out where the Navy cruiser will take its shot -- and where the debris cloud is likely to go afterwards.

The red line represents the path of the satellite. The pink shape, bounded by blue lines, is the "restricted area" above the cruisers. (The military has blocked out almost the same area, 24 hours later, in case the first shot misses.) And those yellow splotches are Hawaii. As you can see, the Navy plans to take the satellite out over the Pacific. Which is not unexpected. Here's an animated graphic:



More startling, veteran satellite-watcher AT says, is where the debris cloud will go. "To my considerable surprise, it's on an ascending pass that will take the debris cloud across central Canada a few minutes later. Then across a bit of western Africa and eastern Australia." Here's the plot:



UPDATE: Zarya notes that this wasn't the only option of when to take down the satellite, designated USA-193. "The interception could have been set for a time when USA-193 was passing over the area in a southbound direction." That would be around 7:55 AM eastern (12:55 PM GMT) on the 21st. And on the first pass, at least, the debris cloud would appear to steer clear of densely-populated zones.

However, "there are some disadvantages in the southbound option," Zarya cautions. "The interception would occur in the Earth's shadow so optical tracking close to the event would not be possible, and the next few orbital passes overfly significant population centres," including "populated parts of Africa, the Middle East, southern Russia, other south Asian states, the Peoples' Republic of China, and Europe."



http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/sat-shoot-down.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 10:03am

18 February 2008
No New Nuke Scientists

Two non-profit groups, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Physical Society, voiced their concerns that too many government nuclear specialists are retiring and not enough young scientists are moving to replace them. From the Washington Post:

The pipeline of young researchers who could replace the nation's 35 to 50 nuclear specialists is almost empty, the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science said in a new report at the association's annual meeting in Boston. They called for an invigorated program of university-research funding, more graduate school and laboratory positions in related disciplines, and new incentives for industry support of university positions.

The study's authors, led by Michael May, director emeritus of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said that boosting U.S. nuclear forensics capability will help deter the black-market smuggling of nuclear materials or a nuclear detonation in a city.

Nuclear forensics can be used to trace the source components of a bomb to the government that produced them and potentially to the experts behind such an attack, subjecting them to the prospect of quick retaliation, the 64-page report said. "A credible . . . capability may deter some who are principally motivated by financial, rather than ideological, concerns," the report added.

I've heard this sentiment before, that the US government needs to "encourage" young folks into learning about nuclear weapons effects, or we'll fall behind in the ability to prepare and respond to nuclear weapons (to include terrorist nuclear incidents). I have a number of thoughts about this, the first being that I didn't think the business area of developing nuclear weapons and creating more rapid response units for nuke terrorism was all that vibrant. While we have seen both chemical and biological terrorism (and we don't have CB forensics experts), we haven't seen nuclear or even radiological terrorism. And yet we're supposed to be worried about this trend?

Somehow, I don't see bin Laden and his boys saying, "oh geez, we can't buy any nuclear bombs from Pakistan or Russia now that the US government has those cracker-jack nuke experts all over the place." If there are corrupt dealers of radiological material or nuclear weapons, I somehow doubt they are thinking of these materials being traced back to them, just as the drug smugglers and those dealing in slave trade aren't that worried about their products. They may be worried about the people they employ, but that's why we need the FBI and DEA, not so much these nuke experts. I'd rather see the money go to State and better outreach efforts to the Muslim world.

Both the APS and the AAAS want the Bush administration to fund more science and technology education opportunities - they have the idea that all our critical issues, from environmental to energy and national security, could be solved by bringing in and mentoring young scientists and engineers. Maybe. But more of a problem for those proponents of bringing young people into the National Labs is not just getting them trained in the nuclear sciences, but to get them to accept low-paying, boring government jobs instead of private sector jobs in nuclear technologies. I think that's the real obstacle.

http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/no-new-nuke-sci.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 10:07am

Lightning Gun Company: New Name, Old Game
By Sharon Weinberger February 18, 2008 | 12:20:00 PM



If at first you don't succeed, change names and start again. DANGER ROOM's favorite lightning weapons-maker, Ionatron, has announced it's changing names to Applied Energetics Co. and focusing on more than just lightning weapons. The Arizona Daily Star reports:

The former Ionatron focused on developing directed-energy products for the U.S. government. Last August, the company was awarded a $1 million contract from the Naval Surface Warfare Center's Crane (Ind.) Division, for technology to defeat improvised explosive devices.The new company, however, will broaden its reach to include manufacturing high- performance lasers, optical systems and guided-energy systems, executives said.

Actually, I kind of liked the name Ionatron; I thought it was the best thing going for the company. But I guess officials wanted to distance themselves from a history of shady deals, canceled contracts, and alleged insider trading. Oh yes, and as the Arizona Daily Star article also noted:

The name change also further distances the company from its past, which included a shareholder suit in July 2006 under different management alleging former executives made false statements about an anti-bomb device. The case, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is ongoing.

Don't worry, DANGER ROOM remains 100 percent committed to continuing coverage of the company formerly known as Ionatron.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/ionatron-new-na.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 10:20am

Report: Nonlethal Weapons Could Target Brain, Mimic Schizophrenia
By Sharon Weinberger February 18, 2008 | 9:14:00 AM



Of all the crazy, bizarre less-lethal weapons that have been proposed, the use of microwaves to target the human mind remains the most disturbing. The question has always been: is this anything more than urban myth? We may not have the final answer to this question, but a newly declassified Pentagon report, Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons, obtained by a private citizen under the Freedom of Information Act, provides some fascinating tidbits on a variety of exotic weapons ideas.

Among those discussed are weapons that could disrupt the brain, as well as my longtime obsession, the "Voice of God" device, which creates voices in people's heads. As the report notes, "Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard 'voices within one's head.'"

Voices in your head disturbing? Heck, yeah, considering it's something most people associate with schizophrenia. The age-old question is whether such a weapon is possible. According to the report, it's not only possible, it's already been demonstrated in crude form:

Because the frequency of the sound heard is dependent on the pulse characteristics of the RF energy, it seems possible that this technology could be developed to the point where words could be transmitted to be heard like the spoken word, except hat it could only be heard within a person's head. In one experiment, communication of the words from one to ten using "speech modulated" microwave energy was successfully demonstrated. Microphones next to the person experiencing the voice could not pick up the sound. Additional development of this would open up a wide range of possibilities.

....

This technology requires no extrapolation to estimate its usefulness. Microwave energy can be applied at a distance, and the appropriate technology can be adapted from existing radar units. Aiming devices likewise are available but for special circumstances which require extreme specificity, there may be a need for additional development. Extreme directional specificity would be required to transmit a message to a single hostage surrounded by his captors. Signals can be transmitted long distances (hundreds of meters) using current technology. Longer distances and more sophisticated signal types will require more bulky equipment, but it seems possible to transmit some of the signals at closer ranges using man-portable equipment.

If voices in your head aren't disturbing enough, the report also goes on to theorize about a microwave weapon that could use electromagnetic pulses to disrupt the brain's functioning. It would work through "a rhythmic-activity synchronization of brain neurons that disrupts normal cortical control of the corticospinal and corticobulbar pathways that disrupts normal functioning of the spinal motor neurons which control muscle and body movements."

This concept is still very theoretical, the report notes:

Application of electromagnetic pulses is also a conceptual nonlethal technology that uses electromagnetic energy to induce neural synchrony and disruption of voluntary muscle control. The effectiveness of this concept has not been demonstrated. However, from past work in evaluating the potential for electromagnetic pulse generator to affect humans, it is estimated that sufficiently strong internal fields can be generated within the brain to trigger neurons.

Sadly, there's little context for the report, which is dated 1998, and no specific references to current programs or research, if any, about such weapons.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/report-nonletha.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2008, 10:30am

Operation Splattellite delays:

Weather may delay satellite shot

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 11 minutes ago

High seas in the north Pacific may force the Navy to wait another day before launching a heat-seeking missile on a mission to shoot down a wayward U.S. spy satellite, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Weather conditions are one of many factors that U.S. military officers are taking into account as they decide whether to proceed with the mission Wednesday or to put it off, according to a senior military officer who briefed reporters at the Pentagon on condition that he not be identified.

The officer said the assumption had been that the mission would go forward Wednesday night, unless conditions are determined to be unfavorable. Earlier in the day, bad weather in the north Pacific was causing high seas, which may be a problem for the USS Lake Erie, a cruiser armed with two SM-3 missiles.

"We don't anticipate the weather being good enough today," the officer said, adding that conditions could improve enough in the hours ahead to permit it to go forward. A final decision would be made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Pentagon had been waiting until the space shuttle Atlantis returned to Earth before launching the missile.

"We're now into the window," the senior military officer said minutes after the shuttle landed at 9:07 a.m. EST.

He said the mission could go forward on any day until Feb. 29, when the satellite is projected to have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere, making it infeasible to attempt to hit it with the Navy missile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080220/ap_o....ySk8UXhFJms0NUE

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 12:11am


Direct hit on toxic satellite

From correspondents in Washington

February 21, 2008 03:51pm

* US navy missile hits falling satellite
* Satellite has toxic fuel on board
* Australia potentially at risk from debris

A MISSILE fired from a US Navy warship has hit a dying spy satellite 247km above the Pacific Ocean but it is not yet known whether the strike has nullified the threat of a toxic fuel landing in a populated area, the Pentagon says.

Australia is one of the countries that has been placed on alert because of the risk.

The SM-3 missile was fired from the USS Lake Erie in the Pacific at about 10.26 EST (2.26pm AEDT) and scored a direct hit on the bus-sized satellite, the Pentagon said.

The US Department of Defence (DoD) officially confirmed that the operation was a “success”.

“A network of land, air, sea and spaced-based sensors confirms that the U.S. military intercepted a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite which was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere,” the DoD said.

But the DoD said it would be some time before it was known if the toxic fuel would reach earth.

“The objective was to rupture the fuel tank to dissipate the approximately 1,000 pounds (453 kg) of hydrazine, a hazardous fuel which could pose a danger to people on earth, before it entered into earth's atmosphere.

“Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours.”

The DoD also said debris had already begun to enter the earth’s atmosphere, although most of it would burn up within 48 hours.

A defence official told the Associated Press that an initial view of the missile strike indicated it probably hit the fuel tank.

The Pentagon said last week that US President George W. Bush had decided the navy should try to shoot down the satellite because its tank of hazardous hydrazine could leak if it enters the atmosphere and reaches Earth.

Russia and China have expressed concern about the operation. The Russian Defence Ministry said it could be used as cover to test a new space weapon.

Washington has insisted the operation is purely to prevent people being harmed by the satellite's fuel load.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23251927-2,00.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 6:48am

I know they said they hit the rogue satellite today but before it happened we had this gem from DoD:

Pentagon Flack Flummoxed by Satellite Shooters
By Noah Shachtman February 20, 2008 | 11:36:28 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, the press secretary for the United States Department of Defense...

Q: On the missile launch itself, a lot of critics of missile defense will seize on a failure to hit the satellite as missile defense is flawed, and this is like a manhood test for missile defense in general... Is this a prove-out again of that concept?

MR. MORRELL: There have been many successful missile defense tests to date, which lead us to believe that the system works, and that we should be building upon it. So we are taking this step, as General Cartwright made abundantly clear last week, not to test our anti-satellite capabilities. We did that in 1985. Been there, done that...

Q: Pardon me if we've gone over this, but if we've already taken down a satellite, why not use the same techniques that we did in 1985?

MR. MORRELL: Listen, you're talking -- this -- I majored in English and -- I majored in government and English. I'm not familiar with how we take down satellites.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/pentagon-flack.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 6:51am

Rogue Satellite's Rotten, $10 Billion Legacy
By Noah Shachtman February 20, 2008 | 12:00:00 PM



That satellite that's due to be shot down this week was bad news, even before it got off the ground. The failed orbiter, USA-193, is widely believed to be part of a classified surveillance in space program known as Future Imagery Architecture, or FIA. And FIA is known as one of the biggest defense-technology boondoggles in recent history -- "perhaps the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects," The New York Times once wrote.

FIA was originally supposed to be a constellation of satellites using electro-optical and radar sensors to "gather clearer and more-frequent images -- even at night and when there is a cloud cover -- of enemy military activity than current satellites can,” the Los Angeles Times notes. Initially scheduled to launch in 2005, FIA looked like it might become the “most expensive program in the history of the intelligence community,” according to Globalsecurity.org.

When Boeing won the FIA contract, back in 1999, it was something of a coup. Lockheed was the country's big satellite builder, not Boeing. As the Los Angeles Times observes, the company "had little experience manufacturing satellites with optical lenses that can take close-up pictures from space of objects on the ground.”

So it's not surprising that Boeing's technology just plain didn't work. "Boeing’s initial design for the optical system that was the heart of one of the two new satellite systems was so elaborate that optical engineers working on the project said it could not be built," The New York Times writes. "Engineers constructing a radar-imaging unit at the core of the other satellite could not initially produce the unusually strong radar signal that was planned."

A torrent of defective parts, like gyroscopes and electric cables, repeatedly stalled work. Even an elementary rule of spacecraft construction — never use tin because it deforms in space and can short-circuit electronic components — was violated by parts suppliers...

“The F.I.A. contract was technically flawed and unexecutable the day it was signed,” said Robert J. Hermann, who ran the National Reconnaissance Office from 1979 to 1981 and in 1996 led the panel that first recommended creation of a new satellite system. “Some top official should have thrown his badge on the table and screamed, ‘We can’t do this system at this price.’ No one did.”

Boeing started burning through cash and dropping deadlines. “As early as 2002, the government had to reprogram about $625 million [and possibly as much as $900 million] from other intelligence programs … to get the program back on schedule,” Globalsecurity.org says. By 2005, an independent review board said propping up FIA "would require another $5 billion — raising the ante to $18 billion — and five more years," The New York Times notes.

After spending $10 billion on FIA, including about $4 or $5 billion in cost overruns -- the government finally had enough, taking the project away from Boeing, and giving it to Lockheed. In a final act of chuztpah, Boeing demanded $500 million in termination fees for ending the contract.

But, with Lockheed in the lead, the program hasn't exactly gone gangbusters. USA-193 was believed to be carrying the first of the FIA radar imaging payloads. But the satellite died shortly after it was lifted into orbit in December 2006. And the unhappy legacy of FIA continues.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/that-satellite.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 7:01am

Video: Satellite Shoot-Down Preview (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman February 20, 2008 | 5:39:00 PM

This week, the Navy is scheduled to shoot down a dying spy satellite. The folks over at Analytical Graphics and Applied Defense Solutions have put together a simulation of how it's likely to happen -- and where the debris goes afterwards.

See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSd5j8xEaKM

Analytical Graphics (AGI) works up these sorts of sims all the time, for scientific- and defense-oriented space programs. The trajectory for John Hopkins' exploration of Pluto was plotted with AGI's help, for example. "Every branch of the military" uses their software, AGI's Timothy Carrico says. The Air Force's 22nd Space Operations Squadron uses their products to help crunch collision-avoidance data for more than 80 satellites, according to Peter J. Brown at Via Satellite magazine. And AGI created a more accurate orbit determination system for the Naval Satellite Operations Center.

What makes the sims special is the injection of real-world physics. Unlike the zippy little animations you'll see on the evening news, every piece of debris in this satellite shoot-down model has been given its own mass, area, speed, velocity and drag.

Not every element of this particular model is hyper-realistic, however. AGI put together a sim based on the Pentagon's assertion that 50 percent of the debris would burn up in the atmosphere during the first two passes. The model was set up also for the north Pacific, generally -- not for the specific no-fly zone that the Navy has now carved out. [UPDATE: A new video, featured above, now has the missile launching from the proper place.] Debris is uniformly distributed (although changes in velocity and direction are more natural).

Still, this is about as realistic a simulation you're going to see -- until that Navy cruiser takes its shot.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/this-week-the-n.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 9:10am

'Seconds' per Day to Take Out Satellite
By Noah Shachtman February 20, 2008 | 5:55:29 PM



The U.S. military will only have seconds per day to shoot down an ailing spy satellite. And the decision to fire will be made by the Secretary of Defense himself.

At a Pentagon press conference today, an unnamed "senior military official" briefed reporters on the details on the satellite take out attempt. "Each day there will be one window," he said. "It will only exist for a matter of tens of seconds, and so you have to be at exactly the right place, exactly the right time, and all criteria have to line up exactly right."

Two factors will be proper lighting, and the orientation of the satellite. Officers would rather take the shot during the day, "so that we have the best chance of knowing what we did or didn't do." And they are looking for a time when the satellite is oriented "so that the following three revolutions [around the Earth] go over the water as much as possible or over unpopulated areas as much as possible."

As Global Security Newswire notes, there are all kinds of players, throughout the military, participating in the effort. "U.S. Strategic Command, based at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Neb., is set to command the satellite-destruction mission. The Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., led by the Air Force, would coordinate space-based sensor tracking for the intercept. Additionally, the Army-led Joint Integrated Missile Defense Team in Colorado Springs, Colo., plans to use large, ground-based radars and telescopes to observe the mission." And, of course, Navy cruisers are the ones who'll actually shoot the SM-3 missile at the satellite.

But, despite all the technical criteria, and despite all the layers of bureaucracy, it is the Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who is going to make the call whether or not to launch.



Q: Who is the person who makes the call, today’s go? And how long before the actual shot, before that seconds-long window, do you have to make that decision?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL: Command and control, as we refer to it, is always a challenge here. In the chain there are a series of no votes -- my words -- but people who can say stop because my criteria, weather, is not being met. There are very few yes votes, and the question is, where do you have that yes vote? The commander of U.S. Strategic Command will give the secretary of Defense a recommendation, and then the secretary of Defense will look at that recommendation, make a judgment based on it. He will have more than one opportunity during the day to do that because we keep re-looking at it through the day. So there are multiple opportunities. We'll have a point of no return, so to speak, that's down in the minutes area, and it will be based on whatever it is that has kept us potentially holding, if it were weather or something like that. But --

Q: Minutes as in 60 minutes, or minutes as in five minutes?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL: It could go down. It just depends. It depends on what criteria it is that's holding us back, how serious that criteria is and what the expectation of maybe being able to clear that criteria is. If we're swapping missiles, if we're just worried about wave height -- not just, but each one of them will be different. But we'll have the opportunity. But we'll get down to a point of no return, where we turn it over to the ship to execute....

Q: Can you explain exactly on what basis Secretary Gates would make a decision? I mean, that is to say, sort of why he's involved in the process? Once all your technical experts, you know, make a determination, what's left for him to decide?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL: He takes the advice of the commander at Strategic Command, who has pulled all of -- it's STRATCOM's job to pull all of the pieces together from all these agencies and all of the people who have an equity in the technical side of this thing as well as any other considerations that we're making. He makes that recommendation to the secretary.

The secretary has retained it, because normally in a tactical scenario to launch, say, an SM-3 in an operational scenario, that would be delegated down to the ship's captain. Here, because this is so unique, because we've done modifications, because it has got substantial attention and because there are issues here with making sure that, okay, are there any parameters that we're close on/not close on, we're going to bring that decision back. And because we have -- even though the shot window is small, the number of days are reasonably large, there's enough time to make a judgment at that level and so we're going to do it for this particular issue. So it is unusual to take a tactical system and bring it all the way back to the secretary of Defense for a cleared/not cleared type of scenario.

Q: So he's basically going to decide whether whatever amount of risk -- because you said you're going to take very little today but maybe a little more later on. So the secretary will look at the amount of risk that General Chilton brings to him and decide whether he's comfortable with it?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL: That's correct. That's correct.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/each-day-there.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 9:19am

Wildlife Refuge Braces for Spy Sat Rain
By Noah Shachtman February 21, 2008 | 4:27:00 AM



The military may be warning sailors and pilots to keep away from that part of the Pacific where a dying satellite is due to get taken down.

But, as the New York Post notes, "no one in the government has said anything to the 70 people who live on Midway, who are mostly government workers and contractors associated with the Fish and Wildlife Service refuge on the island."

"They haven't called us. Maybe they should," refuge manager Barry Christenson told The Post.

Told that the satellite is about the size of a bus, Christensen said he saw the potential for calamity.

"That would just crush our island - we're just a bunch of sand sitting on top of coral," he said. "Even if it landed out in the lagoon, it could send up a heck of a wave."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/wildelife-refug.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 9:24am

US 'confident' over satellite hit


The USS Lake Erie launches a missile at a US National Reconnaissance Office satellite in orbit 130 miles (210km) over the Pacific (Image provided by the US Navy)

The US is confident that its shooting down of a disabled spy satellite with a missile managed to destroy its potentially toxic fuel tank.

Marine Gen James Cartwright said there was a 80-90% chance that the satellite's tank had been destroyed.

A fire ball, vapour cloud and spectral analysis indicating the presence of hydrazine all indicated that the tank had been hit, he told reporters.

The operation has been criticised by China and Russia.

"We're very confident that we hit the satellite," Gen Cartwright said at a Pentagon briefing hours after the missile was fired.

"We also have a high degree of confidence that we got the tank."

It would take another 24-48 hours for officials to confirm whether the operations had been completely successful, he said.

BROKEN SATELLITE
Owner: National Reconnaissance Office
Mission: Classified
Launched: 14 Dec 2006
Weight: 2,300 kg (5,000lbs)
1,134kg (2,500lbs) could survive re-entry
Carrying hydrazine thruster fuel

Gen Cartwright said he could not rule out that hazardous material might fall to earth, but said there was no evidence of this happening so far.

He added that officials would continue to track debris falling over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans over the next two days.

"Thus far we've seen nothing larger than a football," he said.

The satellite, USA 193, was struck 153 nautical miles (283 km) above earth by an SM-3 missile fired from a warship in waters west of Hawaii.

Arms race?

Operatives had only a 10-second window to hit the satellite, which went out of control shortly after it was launched in December 2006.

The missile needed to pierce the bus-sized satellite's fuel tank, containing more than 450kg (1,000lbs) of toxic hydrazine, which was otherwise expected to survive re-entry.

China called on the US on Thursday to provide more information about the mission.

Russia suspects the operation was a cover to test anti-satellite technology under the US missile defence programme.

The US denies the operation was a response to an anti-satellite test carried out by China last year, which prompted fears of a space arms race.

US officials had said that without an attempt to destroy the fuel tank, and with the satellite's thermal control system gone, the fuel would have been frozen solid, allowing the tank to resist the heat of re-entry.

If the tank were to have landed intact, it could have leaked toxic gas over a wide area - harming or killing humans if inhaled, officials had warned.

"The intent here was to preserve human life... it was the hydrazine we were after," Gen Cartwright said on Thursday.

The US has also denied that it shot down the satellite to prevent parts of it from falling into the hands of foreign powers.

Gen Cartwright said most of the satellite's intelligence value was likely to have been destroyed.

SATELLITE DESTRUCTION

1 SM-3 missile launched from a US Navy cruiser in Pacific Ocean
2 The three-stage missile headed for collision location, where the relative "closing" speed was expected to be 10km/s (22,000mph)
3 Satellite came in range at altitude of 247km (133 nautical miles), close to edge of Earth's atmosphere
4 Missile made contact with satellite with objective of breaking fuel tank, freeing hydrazine into space
5 Much of the debris will burn up but an as yet unknown amount is expected to be scattered over hundreds of kilometres

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7256741.stm

Published: 2008/02/21 14:16:16 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 21, 2008, 9:54am

Spy Satellite Blast, Caught on Tape
By Noah Shachtman February 21, 2008 | 8:56:55 AM

From a Pentagon press briefing, detailing the Navy's hit on a dying spy satellite. The shoot-down footage starts about about 1:07 in...

http://pentagontv.feedroom.com/?&fr_stor....n=oneclip&rf=ev

Gen. James Cartwright says it looks like the military's stated goal, of busting up the satellite's tank full of toxic hydrazine, was reached. "We've got a fireball. Given that there's no fuel, that would indicate that there's a hydrazine fire. We have a vapor cloud that formed. That again would be likely to be the hydrazine. We also have some spectral analysis from airborne platforms that indicate the presence of hydrazine after the intercept." But the military won't know for sure, for another 24-48 hours...

The debris is already starting to reenter the atmosphere. But "nothing larger than a football," according to Gen. Cartwright. And nothing that's hit the Earth. Again, it'll take a day or two to get a complete picture of the results.

The previously-announced weather problems (and accompanying high seas) proved to be no big deal, obviously. When the time got close for the shot, it turned out that the "seas were about 2-3 feet, which were well within the limits."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/video-pentagon.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 22, 2008, 11:16am

Military satellites 'may get stealthy'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

The destruction of a rogue spy satellite by the US military has stoked concerns about a new arms race in space.


The shootdown was described as a 'cover' by Russia's defence ministry

The US has denied Thursday's destruction of the disabled spy satellite US 193 was a response to an anti-satellite test carried out by China last year.

The prospect of hostile operations against satellites already influences how military spacecraft are built and operated.

Satellites such as Skynet 5, operated by the UK Ministry of Defence, carry technologies designed to resist any interference - attempts to disable or take control of the spacecraft - and any efforts to eavesdrop on sensitive communications.

An advanced receive antenna allows the spacecraft to selectively listen to signals and filter out attempts to "jam" it.

But the latest actions are certain to influence how countries plan for protecting their intelligence capability in space.

Applying armour to spacecraft in order to protect them against a missile is a non-starter. No amount of shielding would be any use against a missile hitting the satellite at a closing velocity of 10km/s (22,000mph).

Radar concealment

Military space expert Dr Stuart Eves thinks that future spacecraft are likely to incorporate stealth technology in order to better avoid detection.

"The threat side of this could be implemented by techniques a bit like those used on aircraft, such as using radar absorbent materials, radar reflective materials, or painting the satellite black," Dr Eves, from Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL), told BBC News.

But the solar panels for powering the satellite would be more difficult to hide from radar. The infra-red signature of a satellite is also hard to conceal.

Dr Eves adds: "One of the other issues is that the ability to track objects in space from the ground extends down to objects about 10cm in size - that's effectively what you can do with existing radars.

"One of the ways of being stealthy is to be quite small and hard to see."

PalmSat, being built by SSTL and the University of Surrey, is about the size of a small soft drink can and weighs only 1kg. But it is designed to have all the sub-systems associated with a normal satellite.

"Once you get to doing something tolerably useful with something that small - which is what they are planning to do - people aren't necessarily going to know what is up there and what it is doing," said Dr Eves.

Redundancy

There is a secondary advantage to being stealthy. If a state knows when a foreign reconnaisance satellite is due to fly overhead, it can carry out any sensitive operations it might want to hide from the other side when the spacecraft is on the other side of the Earth.

Making satellites stealthier increases the chances of catching the other side in the act.

But the need for high quality data places limits on satellite miniaturisation.

Other experts say that "redundancy" - which essentially means having a duplicate satellite ready to launch - is the best strategy for protecting intelligence capability in a situation where satellites might be threatened by enemy operations.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force (USAF) is working on an intriguing programme: a small experimental satellite concept that would orbit close to a friendly spacecraft, keeping tabs on their surrounding space environment.

The Autonomous Nanosatellite Guardian for Evaluating Local Space, or Angels, would be the size of a small suitcase, and during launch would piggyback on the satellite that it is intended to shadow.

Demons and angels

In orbit, the Angels would detach from the main satellite and fly in formation with them. If anything went wrong with the host - such as the solar panels failing to deploy properly - the Angels could move around to inspect them and diagnose the problem.

Stuart Eves has coined the term Deployable Monitoring Nano-Satellites (Demons) to describe small satellites which could, for example, sneak up on an enemy reconnaissance satellite to photograph them.

But he concedes that formation flying with an enemy satellite would be much harder, as the Demon would have to second-guess its adversary's next move.

Nevertheless, the USAF's XSS-11 satellite, launched in 2005, has demonstrated the ability to navigate autonomously around other spacecraft in low-Earth orbit.

The 2007 Chinese anti-satellite test and with the American shootdown of USA 193 both provoked criticism from other powers.

But there is, ultimately, a strong deterrent for any state planning to obliterate enemy satellites: it could generate enough orbital debris to threaten its own space assets.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7257666.stm

Published: 2008/02/21 19:28:10 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 23, 2008, 12:25am



Guam crash for B-2 stealth bomber

A US B-2 stealth bomber has crashed on the Pacific island of Guam, a US territory 6,000 km (3,700 miles) south-west of Hawaii.

The jet crashed shortly after taking off from the island's Andersen Air Force Base, but both pilots ejected and survived, the US Air Force said.

Black smoke could be seen billowing from the site, witnesses said.

Each B-2 stealth bomber costs about $1.2bn and the US Air Force is thought to have 21 of the aircraft.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7260231.stm

Published: 2008/02/23 04:48:35 GMT

UPDATE:

Guam crash for B-2 stealth bomber



A US B-2 stealth bomber - one of the world's most expensive planes - has crashed for the first time on the Pacific island of Guam.

The jet crashed shortly after taking off from the island's Andersen Air Force Base, but both pilots ejected and survived, the US Air Force (USAF) said.

Black smoke could be seen billowing from the site, witnesses said.

The B-2 bomber costs $1.2 bn and is capable of deploying both conventional and nuclear weapons.

Crowds gathered as emergency vehicles attended the scene after the crash, which happened around 1045 local time (0045 GMT).

No mission details

Both pilots had been medically evaluated and were "in good condition", the USAF said.


B-2 bombers have seen service in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan

A board of officers will investigate the causes of the incident.

A brief USAF statement did not provide details of the bomber's mission in Guam, a US territory 6,000 km (3,700 miles) south-west of Hawaii.

The USAF has 21 B-2 bombers based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, but several have been rotated through Guam since 2004.

The craft have been used for missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo.

Able to fly 6,000 nautical miles (11,100 kilometres) without refuelling, the B-2 can evade most radar signals making it difficult for defensive systems to detect, track and attack.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7260231.stm

Published: 2008/02/23 05:46:57 GMT

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 25, 2008, 8:04pm

Dolphin dies during Navy SoCal sonar exercises
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 02/22/2008 02:17:20 AM PST

LOS ANGELES—A dolphin died on a beach during Navy sonar training exercises but it was not immediately clear what caused its death, authorities said.

The female northern right whale dolphin died at the end of January on San Nicolas Island, a Navy-owned island off the Southern California coast.

At the time, the Navy's Third Fleet was conducting training that included sonar use. Environmental groups have sued to limit naval sonar use that they fear can harm marine mammals.

However, "there is no evidence that any type of naval activities caused or contributed to this dolphin's death," said Lt. Mark Walton, a spokesman for the Third Fleet.

A necropsy performed on the dolphin at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History found increased fluid in the dolphin's ears but did not pin down the cause of its death.

"At this point, we cannot rule in or rule out sonar or any other kind of intense noise," said Teri Rowles, a veterinarian with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and head of the nation's Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program.

Microscopic examination of the dolphin's tissues will determine if there are gas or fat bubbles that could indicate signs of sonar-related damage. Such bubbles were found in the ears, brain and other parts of 10 beaked whales that washed ashore on the Canary Islands in 2002 and the Bahamas in 2000 during international naval exercises using sonar.

The Navy is appealing a ruling made by a federal judge earlier this month that said despite a presidential waiver, the service must comply with a no-sonar zone off the Southern California coast.

An appellate court ruling is expected by March 3, and the next round of Navy training off the coast is scheduled to resume in mid-March.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8333465?nclick_check=1

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 25, 2008, 8:09pm

Metal Storm Sets Weapons Commercialisation Path With ST Kinetics
February 21, 2008: 11:46 PM EST

Defence technology company Metal Storm Limited (ASX: MST) (NASDAQ: MTSX) has entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Singapore Technologies Kinetics (ST Kinetics) to take its 3GL three-shot grenade launcher and 40mm ammunition to manufacture.

Metal Storm CEO Dr. Lee Finniear said the Agreement is a critical next step in the company's progress and provides a clear path to the commercial production of Metal Storm weapons, with the goal of producing military-standard trial products within ten months.

"This Agreement delivers appropriately-qualified munitions and 3GL weapons for soldiers to trial and goes on to take Metal Storm weapons to full-scale production," Dr. Finniear said.

"This is a clear indication that we have developed our technology to the stage where we can partner with a major defence company to collaboratively deliver final production weapons."

Under the terms of the Agreement, Metal Storm and ST Kinetics have agreed to "collaborate in the design, development, testing, qualification, manufacture of prototypes and demonstration weapons and munitions as well as the commercial production and marketing of munitions and selected Metal Storm ballistic weapons that only use those munitions."

ST Kinetics will contribute funds toward completing the demonstration and trial 3GL weapons and munitions.

Dr. Finniear said the deal would deliver munitions that are compatible with all of Metal Storms' 40mm weapons, not just the 3GL, and would allow it to expand its operationally-ready munitions to additional types.

The Agreement provides for design enhancement, integration testing and qualification stages totaling ten months, a demonstration and user trial stage, and a production stage. It also provides for a joint marketing plan broken down by regions and further collaboration options, including potentially with other products.

Singapore-based ST Kinetics is the land systems and specialty vehicles arm of Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering). It is one of Asia's leading defence and specialty vehicles companies, with a strong portfolio of products and services for the defence, homeland security and commercial markets.

ST Kinetics is the world's leading provider of 40mm solutions, empowering the user with a wide range of end-effects, including high and low velocity rounds, less-than-lethal rounds, insensitive and self-destruct munitions. ST Kinetics has a global focus on 40mm solutions and is also recognised as one of the first in the world to demonstrate a ready and working 40mm air bursting munitions system.

Dr. Finniear said that STK had strong production and manufacturing facilities as well as international marketing, sales and distribution capabilities. "This Agreement builds on the established and very good working relationship that already exists between our companies," Dr. Finniear said.

ST Kinetics President Sew Chee Jhuen said the Agreement expanded on the very good work already undertaken between the two companies.

"This Agreement complements ST Kinetics' objective of maintaining our position as the international market leader in 40mm munitions," Mr. Sew said. "Metal Storm's systems fit with ST Kinetics' approach of being at the forefront of new and innovative technologies that can provide a capability advantage, enhancing the soldier's effectiveness."

Mr. Sew said that in addition to development and manufacture, ST Kinetics plans to also market, distribute and support the Metal Storm weapons and munitions.

Notes:

Metal Storm's Australian Stock Exchange trading code: MST

Metal Storm's NASDAQ Small Cap ticker symbol: MTSX

About ST Kinetics

ST Kinetics is the land systems arm of Singapore Technologies Engineering. It provides integrated systems, specialty vehicles and their related services for defence, government and commercial applications. This includes design and development, systems integration, production, operations & support and life cycle management. Through its subsidiary, Advanced Material Engineering Pte Ltd, ST Kinetics also designs and manufactures a comprehensive suite of 40 mm munition solutions, conventional and smart munitions, advanced protective materials as well as guided system components. It also provides consultancy, design and engineering services for homeland security solutions.

About Metal Storm

Metal Storm Limited is a multi-national defence technology company engaged in the development of electronically initiated ballistics systems using its unique "stacked projectile" technology. The company is headquartered in Brisbane, Australia and incorporated in Australia. Metal Storm Limited technology and products are represented in the USA by Metal Storm Inc., which has offices in Arlington Virginia.

Metal Storm is working with government agencies and departments, as well as industry, to develop a variety of systems utilising the Metal Storm non-mechanical, electronically fired stacked ammunition system.

Metal Storm's weapon technology uses computer-controlled electronic ignition and a system of stacked projectiles, to achieve a completely non-mechanical gun that is very lightweight and compact, providing a very high firepower to weight ratio. The Metal Storm weapons system utilizes multiple barrels mounted together on one platform which allows varying munitions types to be deployed in a single, low cost, lightweight weapon system. Firing the weapons by electronic ignition requires no moving parts, allowing reliable long term unattended weapon operation.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0365456.htm

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 25, 2008, 8:11pm

Sat Shot Faces Political Fallout
By Sharon Weinberger February 22, 2008 | 3:00:00 PM

Even as defense watchers debate the real reason for this week's satellite shoot-down, the question now is: What does it all mean for the future. In one of the strongest worded rebukes, Democratic Representative Edward J. Markey said the shot could lead to an "open season" for anti-satellite warfare:

Launch The geopolitical fallout of this intercept could be far greater than any chemical fallout that would have resulted from the wayward satellite. The Bush administration’s decision to use a missile to destroy the satellite based on a questionable ‘safety’ justification poses a great danger of signaling an ‘open season’ for other nations to test weapons for use against our satellites. Russia and China are sure to view this intercept as proof that the United States is already pursuing an arms race in space, and that they need to catch up.

Markey's views are not necessarily representative of other Democrats. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, on the other hand, released a cautiously worded note of congratulations:

Our forces and technical experts are to be commended for destroying this malfunctioning satellite before it posed any threat to people on the ground. This was an exceptional case, and I reiterate that this action should not be construed as standard U.S. policy for dealing with problem satellites. We abandoned the pursuit of anti-satellite technology two decades ago due to concerns about the consequences of its use, and our country has no plans to renew those efforts. Congress will closely monitor U.S. policies concerning our space assets in the coming days.

On the foreign front, China, which conducted a controversial anti-satellite test last year that spewed a large amount of debris into orbit, demanded data on the U.S. test.

On the side of the supporters, missile defense cheerleader Riki Ellison called the hit "an achievement for mankind."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/washington-dc-.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 25, 2008, 8:24pm

B-2 Crashes on Guam (Updated)
By David Axe February 23, 2008 | 3:27:19 AM



$1.2 billion down the drain. (Or as much as $2.5 billion, depending on who you ask.) Thank God the pilots are okay.

Some perspective: there were 21 B-2s. Now there are 20 -- a roughly 5-percent reduction in an instant. In terms of airframes, that's the equivalent of 30 F-15s crashing at the same time, or 60 F-16s, or 6 F-22s. In terms of money, that's equivalent to 20 F-15s, 24 F-16s or 10 F-22s.

Now, a little prediction. In light of the way the Air Force milked recent F-15 crashes for extra F-22 money, how much you want to bet that service leaders will use the B-2 crash to go begging for bomber funds?

Update #1, 2/23/08:

"I guess you could say the B-2 was due," said Owen Cote, a military specialist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "There's not a plane in our inventory that hasn't crashed. The odds were bound to catch up even with a small force like the B-2." ...

"Losing one aircraft is not going to hurt their ability to do what they think they need to do," said William Hartung, a military analyst at the New American Foundation.

Military planners find the B-2 most valuable in the first nights of an air barrage, before the battering of air defenses. More recently, it's been identified as the plane most likely to blast Iran's nuclear program. Last fall the Bush administration asked Congress for millions to pair the bomber with the 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator - a bunker-busting bomb designed for underground targets - in what was interpreted widely as a warning to Tehran.

"Iran would be its next big mission," MIT's Cote said of the B-2. "Realistically speaking, they wouldn't need very many B-2s for that."

Update #2, 2/24/08:

Surviving B-2s grounded after "most expensive air crash in history."

Plus this:

The U.S. suffers from excessive concentration with respect to several of its most important power projection platforms. For long range strikes against heavily defended targets, the U.S. leans on its now 20 B-2 bombers. And although many of its ships have land attack cruise missile capability, the U.S. Navy relies on its eleven aircraft carriers for flexible and persistent strike operations.

There is a danger in having such important capabilities concentrated in so few platforms. As I discussed a few days ago in a post about the limitations of the F-22, such concentration creates an attractive target for the enemy and sometimes a single point of failure for the U.S.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/b-2-crashes-on.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 25, 2008, 8:31pm

Scene of B-2 Crash = Pacific Linchpin
By David Axe February 24, 2008 | 6:18:21 AM

Robert Kaplan's B-2-lovin' story from September anticipated the hoopla surrounding Saturday's first crash of the $2.5-billion bomber in Guam:

Andersen Air Force Base has long had a squadron of heavy bombers, deployed there to be close to Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula. On one of my previous visits to the base, in the autumn of 2004, I’d spent time with B-52 pilots from Barksdale Air Force Base, near Shreveport, Louisiana. They were young, happy-go-lucky, uncomplicated. I was profoundly curious about the B-2 pilots. For a host of reasons, they had to be different.

A B-2 Spirit costs roughly as much as a fast-attack nuclear submarine or a guided-missile destroyer. But whereas a Los Angeles–class submarine requires a crew of 130 and an Arleigh Burke–class destroyer a crew of 320, the B-2 has a crew of just two: a pilot and a mission commander. There are only 21 B-2s in the Air Force. Nobody else in the U.S. military is entrusted with as much responsibility, in terms of sheer dollars, as these bomber pilots are. If a single B-2 were to go down, even in training, it would be a banner-headline story.



What follows is a lot of embarrassing gushing over the B-2's stealth characteristics and the central role it might play in taking out buried nuclear facilities in the event, God help us, that we went to war with Iran.

But Kaplan's interest in Guam isn't misplaced. The island base, seized from Spain in 1898, is one of two key toeholds that give America powerful leverage over events in the Pacific. From Guam, bombers can range all over the region, threatening armies, cities and shipping. The other toehold is Okinawa, a Japanese prefecture that the U.S. seized in World War II and where we still maintain one of the world's largest air bases. Where remote Guam is an ideal bomber base, Kadena on Okinawa is close enough to Taiwan and the Koreas to bring fighter aircraft to bear. It's not for no reason that the F-22's first deployment was there.

Check out Andersen in Google Earth. Here's a snapshot of B-1s and B-52s taking their turns as America's big sticks in the Pacific. Elsewhere on the base are hundreds of parking spaces accommodating F/A-18 Hornets, tankers, cargo planes and helicopters.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/scene-of-b-2-cr.html

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 25, 2008, 8:39pm

For Junior:


Nerf Vulcan EBF-25: Fully Automatic Toy Dart Gun Rambo Junior's Weapon of Choice



The best new Nerf toy out of the entire Toy Fair 2008 lineup is this fully automatic dart gun. The toy is $40, and comes with 25 belt-fed darts, powered by six D-cell batteries (!). Paired with the Mission Kit Tactical Light, this is the kind of base unit a Nerf gun modder could really learn to love.

N-STRIKE VULCAN EBF-25

(Ages 6 years & up/Approximate Retail Price: $39.99/Available: Fall 2008)

The top-of-the-line blaster for mission supremacy, the NERF N-STRIKE VULCAN EBF-25 blaster is a 25-dart belt-fed fully automatic blaster that will intimidate any opponent. This impressive blaster comes complete with a fold-up tripod to steady your aim, 25 sonic micro darts that whistle through the air when launched and a 25-dart belt. The NERF N-STRIKE VULCAN EBF-25 blaster features the Tactical Rail System allowing players to customize their blaster for each mission - for example, players can use the green 'night vision' Tactical Light accessory (sold separately) for nighttime missions. Six "D" batteries are required but not included.

http://gizmodo.com/357952/nerf-vulcan-eb....eapon-of-choice

---

Re: DARPArama
Post by bigbunny on Feb 26, 2008, 9:07am

How To: Stop a 500-Foot Monster (Think Missiles, Not Bombs)
By David Hambling February 25, 2008 | 2:33:00 PM



How you deal with a rampaging five-hundred-foot monster in a crowded urban area? Now that Cloverfield has opened in the UK, it's time for DANGER ROOM to go to the movies and consider this utterly vital question.

Back in the old days, things were fairly simple. When King Kong climbed the Empire State Building, he could be taken out by a squadron of Curtiss SB2C Helldivers . But since then there has been some inflation and apes 20 – 45 meters tall (Wikipedia's estimate) are small stuff.

The giant ants in Them! still weren't that gigantic, and the army could deal with them using poison gas and flamethrowers. But by 1955, when a mutated Tarantula the size of a skyscraper turned up, the only solution was to call the Air Force. Bombing with high explosive had no effect – presumably the creature's exoskeleton was too tough. In the end napalm did the trick, setting the creature ablaze (is chitin really flammable?). It may have helped that the pilot carrying out the strike was one Clint Eastwood, then an unknown bit-part player.

Meanwhile, The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms was menacing New York. This was a Rhedosaurus, a type of dinosaur known only to Hollywood. The creature is driven back by the Army, who injured it using the latest in anti-tank technology, an M20 Bazooka. This turned out to be a mistake, as the Beast's blood contains a vicious prehistoric germ which causes further deaths. The only solution (apparently) is to fire a rifle grenade containing a radioactive material into the wound, to kill it without shedding any more blood. The sharpshooter chosed for the mission is Corporal Stone ("Ever use a rifle grenade?" "Pick my teeth with it") played by another unknown, a certain Lee Van Cleef.

Cloverfield has been described as a 'reimagining' of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms – both use Coney Island – but the monster is tougher to deal with, shrugging off all sorts of modern weaponry. The reason, as I see it, is fairly simple: the kit simply isn't designed for this sort of target.

It's difficult to make accurate assumptions about 500 foot-tall fictional monsters whose very existence violates the laws of physics. But it's liable to have skin, scales or other outer with protective blubber or equivalent covering several feet thick. This will absorb anything except apart from an armor-piercing round. Flesh, like water, can stop virtually any projectile within a few feet – that's why you need something very exotic like a supercavitating round if you want to go through a lot of it. Those supercavitating Russian APS underwater assault rifles might be handy here... but you'd need a lot of rounds to have any effect.

Anti-tank weapons probably would not do much either. Shaped-charge HEAT warheads, like the one on the movie's Javelin missile, produce a narrow armor-piercing jet with relatively minor behind-armour effect. It might be enough to set off fuel or ammunition within an armored vehicle. But against this monster, all you're just giving it a shallow stab with a hot needle: not dangerous, just very annoying.

You could try a massive explosive blast. David Axe earlier suggested that the 21,000 lb Massive Ordnance Air Burst/Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB) is the weapon used at the end of the film. He describes it as a "vacuum bomb" which is not quite correct: MOAB is not a fuel air weapon ("Contrary to some published claims, it most certainly is not an Ethylene-Oxide Fuel-Air Explosive" say GlobalSecurity) but has a fill of conventional H6 explosive, a mixture of RDX (Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine), TNT, and aluminum. While you might argue that it's a thermobaric weapon, the Air Force claim it is not. This is one reason why it is less powerful than the emphatically thermobaric Russian "Father Of All Bombs" tested last year.

However, any weapon relying on blast may not do the job either. Explosives cause three major types of injury to humans:

Primary : Results from the impact of the over-pressurization wave with body surfaces.

Body Part Affected: Gas filled structures are most susceptible - lungs, GI tract, and middle ear.

Types of Injuries: Blast lung (pulmonary barotrauma) TM rupture and middle ear damage Abdominal hemorrhage and perforation Concussion

Secondary: Results from flying debris and bomb fragments.

Any body part may be affected.

Penetrating ballistic (fragmentation) or blunt injuries

Tertiary: Results from individuals being thrown by the blast wind.

Any body part may be affected.

A deep sea monster will not have any of the air-filled organs possessed by humans. So the primary blast damage is likely to be minimal (maybe a swim bladder... maybe not). No blown ear-drums or collapsed lungs. Secondary damage from debris will also be negligible, unless you deliberately set up the geometry of the attack so that a nearby building is converted into shrapnel which strikes the beast. As for tertiary damage… well, a 100,000 ton monster is not going to be thrown too far.

In fact, the best you're likely to do is cause some Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, which is increasingly recognized as an effect of explosions. This might not be a good idea.

I suspect that the best bet would be a weapon capable of producing a large explosion inside the beast – a bunker-busting bomb like the BLU-122 used in the Divine Thunderbolt test or the even bigger Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which is still in the pipeline. This has the added advantage that it keep collateral damage in the neighborhood to a minimum as most of the destruction should be internal. Whether they could hit a moving target is, however, another matter.

One other category of weapons deserves mention. These are some are specifically designed to kill very large, heavily-armored targets which may be moving at speed. Unlike the Army and Air Force, the Navy has been in the business of dealing with this type of threat for a century, and the type of missile designed to home in on and destroy a warship is quite well suited to monster mashing.

In this regard, the otherwise ghastly 1998 US remake of Godzilla deserves an honorary mention: when New York is faced with a giant monster, the call for F/A-18s armed with AGM-84 Harpoon missiles. While the 488 lb warhead might seem a bit small, it should get through the skin of most city-wrecking beasts, and if you use enough of them you should get somewhere.

Then again, maybe we need something else to meet this kind of threat. Perhaps we need to bring back battleships with 16" guns – these would certainly give most monsters something to think about and should be able to save New York (apologies to the inhabitants of Denver, you're not well located for naval gunfire support -- but you're not at such high risk from mosnters anyway). Perhaps Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon -- or our readers -- could make some suggestions?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/monster-mash-ko.html

---