astropolitics.org Blog http://astropolitics.org/blog1 Dr Dolman's place in cyberspace Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:30:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 en Food Fight! Navy Man Bites Air Force Satellite Dog http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:30:47 +0000 dolman Military Policy Space Policy Space Warfare http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/ Navy Hits USAF On Satellite Acquisition (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL 17 MAR 08)WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy has told lawmakers it fears being short-changed when cuts are made to over-budget spy satellite programs run by the Air Force.

In unusually blunt testimony, Rear Adm. Kenneth Deutsch, director of warfare integration in the Navy’s communications networks office, raised a series of concerns about the U.S. Air Force’s management of some Defense satellite programs.

The March 4 testimony was first reported by GovernmentExecutive.Com’s Bob Brewin, who said it broke (an) unspoken code of conduct” that “top officials of the four services … usually take pains to not take shots at each other.”

Deutsch said satellite programs managed by the Air Force, which is the Defense Department’s executive agent for space, “tend to shortchange” — in Brewin’s phrase — Navy requirements and missions.

“Without active Navy involvement today in ongoing deliberations over future satellite programs, the Navy risks operating in future scenarios with multibillion-dollar National Security Space systems sub-optimized for the maritime environment, which is increasingly important as maritime domain awareness requirements are developed.”

He told the hearing it was important Navy official were involved from the start in planning the satellite acquisition programs, which take years to reach fruition and are notorious for running over budget.

“Due to the long lead times involved, it is therefore critical that naval requirements and maritime missions be factored into the pre-launch design and planned in-orbit operation of all future satellite systems being considered for acquisition through the (Defense Department) executive agent for space,” he said.

In his testimony, he fretted that many such programs already “face technological and budgetary hurdles, which could force future capability trade-offs affecting the maritime environment and could ultimately impact their utility to the Navy.

**********************

COMMITTEE: Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

Navy Man Bites Air Force Satellite Dog

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/March/Deutsch%2003-04-08.pdf

When top officials of the four services appear before congressional committees, they usually take pains to not take shots at each other.

That’s a wise move, or a hearing could end up a partisan food fight.

Rear Admiral Kenneth Deutsch, director of warfare integration in the Navy’s communications networks office, broke this unspoken code of conduct on March 4 when he took some rather direct shots at Defense satellite programs managed by the Air Force.

Deutsch told the committee that satellite programs managed by the Air Force, which is the Defense executive agent for space, tend to shortchange Navy requirements and missions. “Without active Navy involvement today in ongoing deliberations over future satellite programs, the Navy risks operating in future scenarios with multibillion-dollar National Security Space systems suboptimized for the maritime environment, which is increasingly important as maritime domain awareness requirements are developed.”He told the hearing that “due to the long lead times involved, it is therefore critical that naval requirements and maritime missions be factored into the pre-launch design and planned in-orbit operation of all future satellite systems being considered for acquisition through the DoD executive agent for space..”

Deutsche said many satellite programs currently under development “face technological and budgetary hurdles, which could force future capability trade-offs affecting the maritime environment and could ultimately impact their utility to the Navy.” He added the service intends to press its case with Defense leadership to ensure its “needs in space are identified, understood, resourced and protected.”

How Deutsch will make this happen, I don’t know. Maybe send a carrier battle group after the Air Force?

 

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/feed/
Go Figure … Army NOT Broken After All http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/24/go-figure-army-not-broken-after-all/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/24/go-figure-army-not-broken-after-all/#comments Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:44:08 +0000 dolman Strategy http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/24/go-figure-army-not-broken-after-all/ Well, I’ll be … After reporting ont he Army’s perpetual problem with breakage (see Scales’ Lament, below), it seems that Fox News is reporting we were wrong. The Army is just fine.

U.S. Army Isn’t Broken After All, Military Experts Say

I may refrain from jumping on the band wagon just yet. By the way, I had suggested in this blog and several other venues that the so-called surge, which was supposed to help the army reduce casualties, among other fabulous things, had some serious logical flaws. The parallel lament, the Army is broken and its because there aren’t enough troops to do the job, was the primary justification for the increase in theater called for in the recent surge. At the time, I suggested more troops meant more targets, and more–not fewer–casualties.

Since the surge began, we have had 900 US personnel killed (a toss away statistic overshadowed by the news this morning that the magic number of 4,000 KIA in the Iraq war occurred over the weekend, a figure Dick Cheney said “might” be a significant psychological threshold for Americans). 4,000 dead in just over six years of operations in Iraq, but 22.5% of that number in the last 9 months (12.5% of the duration). The KIA rate appears to me to be four times the average for the whole war–a number that astonishes me. Where am I messing up my numbers? When do we count the start of the surge?

 

 

 

 

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/24/go-figure-army-not-broken-after-all/feed/
Fallon Falls http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/18/fallon-falls/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/18/fallon-falls/#comments Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:36:25 +0000 dolman Blah Blah http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/18/fallon-falls/ A lot of passion shows through in the ink spilt over the demise of Fox Fallon at CENTCOM.

A piece by Astropolitics.org reader Dr Gary Schaub appeared as an op-ed in The Montgomery Advertizer, and deserves much wider distribution: The Fall of Fox Fallon (Fall of Fallon.pdf and Fall of Fallon.doc).

Mark Perry’s Comment in the Asia Times Online, “American Icarus Flirts with Fire,” is insightful. Michael Barone’s column in on Indystar.com and today in The Washington Times, “Importance of Fallon’s Fall,” seems wierdly misdirected.

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/18/fallon-falls/feed/
Nanobrains for nanowarriors? http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/nanobrains-for-nanowarriors/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/nanobrains-for-nanowarriors/#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:48:46 +0000 Esotericon Blah Blah Cyberspace Sci Fi http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/nanobrains-for-nanowarriors/ Having been accused of being a nanobrain myself, I initially took offense… Seriously, this article suggests some very interesting developmentsone could use this concept to control a MEMS device that could interact with molecules chemically, but could be controlled both in terms of movement and chemical interactivity, sort of like Fantastic Voyage without Raquel Welch… vf.jpg34.jpg

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/nanobrains-for-nanowarriors/feed/
War of Words: Northrup Grumman Responds http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-northrup-grumman-responds/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-northrup-grumman-responds/#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:32:18 +0000 dolman Airpower http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-northrup-grumman-responds/ Northrop Grumman Responds to Inaccurate Comments Concerning the U.S. Air Force KC-45A Award Decision

(NOTE: Our source in DC says these tanker commentaries come straight from their respective company PR Deptsthe analysis [Word.doc] in the last one was Boeing’s…)

LOS ANGELES - March 5, 2008 - When the process to replace America’s aging fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers began in 2005, the U.S. Air Force made clear that it wanted a full and fair competition. Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) entered the competition with the understanding that if its proposal provided the best value to the warfighter and the American taxpayer, it could win the contract.Since the Air Force’s decision to award Northrop Grumman the KC-45A contract was announced, numerous erroneous comments have been repeated in the media and in Congress. In response, the company wants to make the following points clear:

LOS ANGELES - March 5, 2008 - When the process to replace America’s aging fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers began in 2005, the U.S. Air Force made clear that it wanted a full and fair competition. Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) entered the competition with the understanding that if its proposal provided the best value to the warfighter and the American taxpayer, it could win the contract.Since the Air Force’s decision to award Northrop Grumman the KC-45A contract was announced, numerous erroneous comments have been repeated in the media and in Congress. In response, the company wants to make the following points clear:Industrial Base

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program will create a new aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States.

* The KC-45A program helps return competitiveness to the U.S. aerospace industry.

Jobs

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program does not transfer any jobs from the United States to France or any other foreign country.

* The KC-45A tanker will support more than 25,000 jobs in the United States.

* The KC-45A U.S. supplier base will include 230 companies in 49 states.

* Assembly and militarization of the KC-45A tanker will take place in Mobile, Ala., resulting in the creation of approximately 2,000 direct jobs in the United States.

Acquisition Process

* The KC-45A competition underwent the most rigorous, transparent acquisition process in U.S. Department of Defense history.

* Throughout the process, both competitors in the KC-45A acquisition hailed the Air Force for conducting a fair and open competition.

Foreign Content

* All modern jetliners are built from a global supplier base and the two entrants in the KC-45A competition are no exception. The Boeing tanker includes parts manufactured in Japan, United Kingdom, Canada and Italy. The Northrop Grumman tanker includes parts built in the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and France.

* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A will include approximately 60 percent U.S. content. It is America’s tanker.

Foreign Suppliers to U.S. Military Programs

* There are numerous examples of transatlantic cooperation on vital U.S. military programs. Foreign suppliers currently play essential roles in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the VH-71 Presidential Helicopter. In fact, on the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft program, Boeing is responsible for producing the Alenia Aeronautica (Italy) aircraft in Jacksonville, Fla.

* No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe. For the KC-45A program, a commercial A330 jetliner will be assembled by American workers in EADS’s facility in Mobile. The aircraft will then undergo military conversion in an adjacent Northrop Grumman facility. All of the KC-45A’s critical military technology will be added by an American company, Northrop Grumman, in America, in Mobile Ala.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $32 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-northrup-grumman-responds/feed/
War of Words: Boeing Files Protest http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-boeing-files-protest/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-boeing-files-protest/#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:23:36 +0000 dolman Airpower http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-boeing-files-protest/ CHICAGO, March 10, 2008 The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] will file a formal protest on Tuesday asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the U.S. Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial refueling tankers (Boeing Rebuttal).

“Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal,” said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer. “This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously.”

Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7, Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its tanker award. A rigorous analysis of the Air Force evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led Boeing to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.

“Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force’s Request for Proposal,” McNerney said. “We look forward to the GAO’s review of the decision.”

Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday.Boeing Rebuttal

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/11/war-of-words-boeing-files-protest/feed/
A New Art of War? http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/#comments Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:54:27 +0000 dolman Space Policy Space Warfare Strategy http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/ Thought this one was worth posting. Looks like General Chilton might be coming around to a warfighter’s view of space. Not a bad thing to have happen to a former Shuttle astronaut now in charge of the nation’s Strategic Command. And Mike Vickers always knows what he is talking about.

The New Art of War By Walter Pincus

Washington Post, Monday, March 3, 2008; A15 If there were any doubts that the United States is preparing for war in space and cyberspace, testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee last week would have wiped them away.

According to Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, “our adversaries understand our dependence upon space-based capabilities, and we must be ready to detect, track, characterize, attribute, predict and respond to any threat to our space infrastructure.”

Although space threats have received much attention in the past, it was the possibility of cyberspace warfare that was given new emphasis at the hearing.

Chilton described cyberspace as an “emerging war-fighting domain.” He said that “potential adversaries recognize the U.S. reliance on … [its] use and constantly probe our networks seeking competitive advantage,” providing the reasons for developing defensive and offensive systems in this area.

U.S. cyberspace, in Pentagon terms called the Global Information Grid, serves as “a conduit that links human activity and facilitates the exchange of information,” Chilton said.

Michael G. Vickers, assistant secretary of defense for special operations, low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities, who also testified, told the panel: “Threats to our computer networks are real and growing,” and attacks and attempted intrusions come “on a daily basis.”

Strategies and institutions have been created for the war to protect cyberspace. There is, for example, the classified 2006 National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, which concludes that “offensive capabilities in cyberspace offer both the U.S. and our adversaries an opportunity to gain and maintain the initiative.”

Strategic Command, working with Joint Chiefs of Staff personnel, is developing contingency plans and carrying out operations that protect the government’s computer networks through detection and coordinated counterattacks against intruders. This often involves other Pentagon and interagency elements, according to Chilton.

Capabilities are being developed “to operate, defend, exploit and attack in cyberspace,” he said.

Here are a few of the units that Chilton said have been enlisted to prepare for cyberspace battles:

The Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations in Arlington directs operations and defense of the worldwide Defense cybernetwork in real time at strategic, operational and tactical levels. It is involved in fighting, intelligence gathering and conducting normal business.

The Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare is led by the director of the National Security Agency at Fort Meade. This group manages the cooperative arrangements for defending national computer operations and for carrying out network warfare against adversaries. In an article on the command three years ago, Wired magazine reported: “It could best be described as the world’s most formidable hacker posse.

Ever.”

The Joint Information Operations Warfare Command, located at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, integrates elements of electronic warfare, military deception, operations security and strategic communications to ensure that cyberspace is controlled and available to friendly forces for offensive and defensive uses.

When it came to space vulnerabilities, Chilton and Vickers both pushed for “prompt global strike” capability. That refers to an intercontinental ballistic missile with a conventional warhead or another type of delivery system that could reach anywhere in the world within an hour, programs that are being researched today.

The threat was described to the panel by Vickers, who said, “Our space capabilities face a wide range of threats such as radio frequency jamming, laser blinding and anti-satellite systems,” including the “anti-satellite capability demonstrated by China last year.”

Asked by Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.) what could be done if the Chinese continued to “dazzle” U.S. satellites with lasers, Vickers referred to that same type of prompt global strike concept.

“We believe we need that capability now,” Vickers said.

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/feed/
Words Matter http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/#comments Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:42:11 +0000 dolman Space Policy Space Warfare Space Technology http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/ Jim Oberg has another great take on “Sense, nonsense, and pretense about the destruction of USA 193” in The Space Review.

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/feed/
Dolman Speaks (too) http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/#comments Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:02:00 +0000 dolman Military Policy Space Policy Space Warfare Space Technology Strategy http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/ Jeremy Hsu of Imaginova penned an article for Space News: “Space Arms Race Heats up Overnight.” A few choice bits (my emphases):

“It was an unfortunate choice by the United States that seems to have been unnecessary. The fact is that satellites fall from space all the time and the risk of it was fairly minimal,” said Stephen Young, the senior analyst in Washington, D.C., for the Union of Concerned Scientist’s Global Security Program. “But the implications of the satellite shootdown could be very severe. We’re talking about a potential arms race in space.”

“It’s a step backward in terms of weaponization of space because whatever the U.S. government’s official stance is, the world perception is that this was an ASAT test,” said Phil Smith, assistant director for Research and Planning for the Secure World Foundation.

This is obviously being hailed as a victory both politically, because the [U.S.] administration can claim there was no loss of life, and technically because it worked,” said Theresa Hitchens, Center for Defense Information director. “It helped the [U.S.] Navy demonstrate the capabilities of its missile defense system.”

“Since China did their ASAT [anti-satellite] test and got into political hot water, there’s been debate in China about whether to go forward,” Hitchens said. “This would seem to give PLA [People’s Liberation Army] hardliners more ammunition for their argument, and also gives other nations the signal that it’s okay if you test this technology if it’s done safely.”

Another expert saw China’s internal debate differently, even as China asked for more information about the U.S. satellite shootdown.

“Their concern is not whether they should continue with their military space program,” said Everett Dolman, a professor of comparative military studies at Maxwell Air Force Base.

Dolman added that much of the international outcry over China’s test was over the large debris field left in orbit by the Chinese satellite’s destruction, and so the Chinese were likely discussing how to prevent such international condemnation in future tests. He sees the continuing weaponization of space as almost a certainty, particularly as the U.S. and China continue jockeying to maintain and increase their global power.

“If there is going to be a big conflict between the U.S. and China, it’s likely the first salvoes will be in space because the security needs of the U.S. and China are incompatible there,” Dolman said.

At least one expert saw the demonstration as a crucial step by the U.S. to ensure its military and political dominance if a space arms race becomes inevitable.

“This was in my view a very positive move by the U.S. for stability,” said Dolman. “The fact that you’re using a Navy ship and a fairly standard weapon to do this is really ratcheting up the technology curve.”

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/feed/
Morning has broken … http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/21/morning-has-broken/ http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/21/morning-has-broken/#comments Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:47:00 +0000 dolman Blah Blah http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/21/morning-has-broken/ At least the eclipse was nice.

Morning has broken and we are not at war! The Navy successfuly shot down a malfunctioning spy satellite that could have posed a threat to terrestrial (read: living) interests and, astonishingly to the blame-America-first, kill-all-the-humans-but-leave-the-stars-alone crowd, the End of Days is not obviously at hand.

See Jeffrey Lewis’s, Leader of the Doomsday Pack, impassioned plea from yesterday (DON’T FREAKING DO IT!) as an appetizer, then peruse the hand-wringers’ laments: see, for example, “Shooting down satellite raises concerns about military space raceDetroit Free Press. Of course, the Chinese don’t like it, and we wouldn’t want anyone to be mad at us. The Times Online reported this juicy tidbit:

Confirmation that the Pentagon destroyed the spacecraft this morning triggered a fresh diplomatic row with Russia and China.

A Chinese state newspaper, the People’s Daily, criticised Washington for hypocrisy for rejecting a treaty to ban weapons in space proposed by Russia and China and then firing a missile at the spy satellite. Washington claims it had rejected the proposed treaty as unworkable, and said it instead favoured confidence-building efforts.

Let me see if I have this right. America demonstrates hypocrisy after rejecting a proposed ban on space weapons and then using a space weapon, but China is not hypocritical because it proposed and affirmed a ban on space weapons … and then used a space weapon. 

Kudos to The Baltimore Sun, “Take that, rogue satellite. China, you watching?

 

 

]]>
http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/21/morning-has-broken/feed/