David's profileTashji And AssociatesPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
June 20 Taliban TV Guide
Taliban TV Guide
May 01 Iraq Acquiring Replacement Air Defense SystemTashji Transitions to USAF 350th Electronic Systems Wing, International Programs Division, Multinational Security Transition Command - Iraq
The Republic of Iraq has established goals for the acquisition of three-dimensional long range radar (LRR) in an effort to reconstitute an air surveillance and control system and re-establish the nations air sovereignty. This effort is fully supported by the US Department of Defense. The system shall consist of a primary air surveillance radar (PSR) and air traffic control radar beacon system (ATCRBS), monopulse secondary surveillance radar (MSSR) and external interfaces. The systems mission is to provide detection of cooperative and non-cooperative air carrier, military and general aviation aircraft in ground, weather and anomalous propogation clutter and output accurate, reliable surveillance and beacon (range and azimuth) data to multiple remote operations facilities. PHOTO CAPTION ABOVE:
The 350th Wing and Unit Profile Mission: Units: 1. 350th Electronic Systems Group 350 ELSG
950 ELSG Sun and Blowing Sand In addition to TDY to Ali AB via. Baghdad, frequent trips to inspect similar deployed systems performance will be required to ensure industry RFP respondents are capable of demonstrating threshold and objective performance measures as the acquisition is for a precedented system (systems that are base-lined, do not incorporate developmental components and are presently supporting real-world air defense operations) as part of the source selection down-select process. VIDEO: Joint DoD and Department of State IED Training Exercise - Ali (Tallil) Air Base, Iraq. The professional Airmen of the 407th AEG, 447th AEG, 506th AEG and 332nd AEW deployed to Ali Air Base are performing the following tasks and missions; sustain the Combat Force, support the Coalition and provide Airspace Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance's, and Precision Strike Capability over the skies of southern Iraq. The slogan of the Red Tail Warriors of the 407th is to Sustain - Support - Strike! They operate the fixed wing MQ-1 Predator UAV, P3 Orion, C130 Hercules and rotary UH-60 Blackhawk air vehicles.
1. Radar plot data sources, number of simultaneously tracked objects, number of simultaneous intercept missions, number of total stored flight plans. 2. Support for manual or automatic generation of air tracks and development of the real-time sector air picture based on local radar plot and strobe data received from multiple overlapping radars; and correlate all local tracks against remote tracks received through ground/air digital links. 3. The system will accurately monitor and portray the status of air defense forces for battle management actions 4. The system will provide fighter aircraft weapons control functions to support scramble, control and recovery of fighter aircraft and automatically update status and guidance. Of course these performance attributes represent a small subset of the total KPP's required from industry for the SOC acquisition contract award. Excuse Us, We Have A Previous Engagement EDITORS NOTE: Searching for Identity in Post-War Iraq
Technorati Tags: USAF, Republic, Iraq, Tallil, Ali, Air, Base, Nasiriyah, precedented, system, baselined, developmental, components, air, defense, operations, source, selection, process, 407th, 447th, 506th, AEG, 332nd, AEW, Combat, Force, Coalition, Airspace, Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Precision, Strike, Red, Tail, Warriors, fixed, wing, MQ-1, Predator, UAV, P3, Orion, C130, Hercules, rotary, UH-60, Blackhawk, vehicles, CENTCOM, Gates, Obamma, David, Tashji, And, Associates, 350th, 551st, ESC, AFMC April 13 Journeyman Jihadism - Part One
Terrorism's Tempting Targets At 1300 EST today, four members of a splinter terrorist organization activated a US-based cell to carry out an attack on the nation’s capitol using an RDD or a "dirty bomb". They choose cesium-137 because of its availability, high radioactivity, high dispersability, and the difficult nature of clean up and remediation. Their goal was a highly visible attack creating death to the maximum extent possible, as well as inciting fear, social, and economic disruption. Using a rented panel truck, the terrorists detonated a 3,000 pound bomb containing 2300 curies of cesium in the downtown government district near the Ronald Reagan Center. The explosion collapsed the front of the building and caused severe damage to three others. Windows were blown out of five other buildings. Amid the destruction, cesium contamination now covers the scene and the contaminated detonation aerosol was lifted over 100 feet into the air. Foot and vehicular traffic after detonation have re-suspended and transferred contamination for more than five hours - now contributing to contamination spread beyond the 36 square block primary zone. People who were initially in the primary zone escaped in the first few minutes using the metro and are now taking contamination home with them in their hair and clothing. Small fires from ruptured gas utility lines are burning in the vicinity of the blast. Unstable building facades, rubble, and broken glass now create physical hazards for rescue workers. Small amounts of lead and asbestos are present in the air and on surfaces. Human remains are presenting a significant radioactive biohazard.
Media vehicles have converged onto the scene and are attempting to initiate standoff broadcast coverage of the attack from a still undefined and growing perimeter around the contamination zone . . . Can That Really Happen?
A post-attack assessment revealed that the assailants were able to easily enter the crowded port undetected through the use of small boats that blended in with local fishing activities. Hotels and other key infrastructure were totally unprotected with neither security features nor forces. The lack of integrated communications with central command and control interoperability amongst responding agencies also delayed response time, created confusion, and prevented the adequate coordination of resources. Security analysts in the US have since deconstructed the attack and determined that the group or other militants using similar tactics could succeed with strikes that target public spaces adjacent to major waterways in this country as well.
With an astounding success record, low cost, ease of operation and ability to hide amid the clutter of commercial and recreational vessel traffic - small boats are expected to remain the vehicle of choice for militant infiltration and attack schemas. For example, today most watercraft operate with surprising impunity near high-priority commercial vessels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil tankers and containerized cargo vessels - and could be employed in a suicide attack as was the case in Yemen in 2000. The USS Cole, a US military DDG class vessel was rammed by an explosive carrying small dinghy killing 17 sailors - al Qaida operatives took responsibility for the brazen attack. Figure One - Water Vehicle Threats
In a related observation, the U.S. coast guard has reported a dramatic new development in the war on drugs - the appearance of indigenously created semi-submersible water craft (so called drug subs). Financed and built by drug traffickers, these semi-submersible watercraft have been used to traverse large blue-water routes, approach the U.S. coast via. stealth and deliver illegal cargos. The vessels are even designed for one-time use. It is rather remarkable to compare the development and employment of these drug trafficking semi-submersibles to the ambitions of similar non-state actors intent on infiltration activities. The Breeze is Terrific
To better understand this threat, I recently made a trip to my own cities port operations and the inner harbor facilities of Boston Massachusetts. There I made detailed observations of major public spaces and key infrastructure immediately adjacent to the waterfront. This includes the 18 story federal reserve bank, the south station rail and bus transportation hub, government center and the Beacon Hill State House facilities, as well as significant residential, hotel and tourism operations (including large whale-watch vessels and ferries). The regions major international airport (Logan) is not only situated within the inner harbor, it is connected to the primary land mass through an elaborate sea-floor and under-sea bed tunnel system (the infamous Big-Dig).
While I was able to observe a U.S. Coast Guard dingy patrolling the buffer zone near the vessel, it appeared that a determined small boat or swarming boats could still reach the tanker and blow it up in a suicide attack. Such an outcome would incinerate the better part of East Boston including Charlestown and Chelsea. Tashji is an accomplished defense and aerospace industry executive having served as the senior acquisition manager with the 551 Electronic Systems Wing; a US Air Force Material Command unit based at the ESC, Hanscom AFB, MA. His work involves advanced radar, electronic warfare and battle space control systems developed for the international fleet of Boeing AWACS Advance Early Warning and Control System aircraft through a multi-billion dollar Foreign Military Sales program. Prior to this appointment, Tashji was a Director with the Raytheon Company responsible for identifying, developing & marketing advanced solutions for DoD and international MoD customers worldwide. His program work includes solutions to support the joint war fighter environment including NAVSEA surface combatants, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SL-AMRAAM, and other space, air, surface and sub-surface war fighter mission solutions. He managed the overall marketing strategy and efforts including market analysis, identification of business opportunities and risks, strategic alliances and partnering, product and solution requirements, sales coverage, business development programs, and marketing, advertising and communications initiatives & plans. He can be reached at 23 April Lane, Westford MA 01886, by phone at 978-392-9004, by email at sdtashji@comcast.net, or on the web at http://profitfromknowledge.spaces.live.com/ Technorati Tags: Terrorism, Tempting, Targets, splinter, terrorist, organization, cell, RDD, dirty, bomb, cesium137, radioactivity, 3, 000, pound, curies, cesium, Ronald, Reagan, Center, explosion, contamination, lead, asbestos, radioactive, biohazard, FEMA, Botnets, electrical, power, grid, media, vehicles, attack, scenario, man, made, disasters, 9/11, maritime, domain, infiltration, targets, plausible, non, state, actors, extremists, U.S., military, Pakistan, Indian, militants, Mumbai, harbor, watercraft, assault, weapons, grenades, bombs, port, undetected, security, analysts, prosecute, strike, mission, Jihad, vessel, traffic, liquefied, natural, gas, LNG, oil, tankers, containerized, cargo, suicide, Yemen, USS, Cole, DDG, dinghy, al, Qaida, operatives, coast, guard, war, on, indigenously, semi-submersible, drug, subs, traffickers, blue, water, routes, stealth, deliver, illegal, cargos, one, time, use, waterline, economic, Boston, Massachusetts, public, spaces, federal, reserve, bank, south, station, rail, bus, transportation, government, Beacon, Hill, State, House, international, airport, Logan, sea, floor, under, bed, tunnel, system, Big, Dig, French, Distigas, mystic, river, Everett, swarming, boats, East, Charlestown, Chelsea, Seattle, Long, Beach, New, Orleans, Miami, Newark, Chicago, common, traits, flammable, population, buildup, adjacent, refineries, chemical, processing, plants, dangerous, proximity, dense, David, Tashji, And, Associates April 09 Job Seekers Reach Hiring Managers Through Innovative TV Show
The New England Job Show puts Candidates in the Spotlight New England is well known as one of the world's leading markets for top talent and innovation. Home to some of the most advanced educational institutions in the world (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Tufts University, Wesleyan University, Williams College, Concord Academy and many others) as well as market leading organizations in life science, material science, defense, electronics, computer software, networking and storage.
Originally conceived as Layoff TV, The New England Job Show is a television program created "by job seekers for job seekers". Produced by an all volunteer production crew at the Parkerville School television studio in Chelmsford MA, the format features a key job seeker innovation - a 30 second opportunity known as "the elevator pitch" for candidates to sell themselves to prospective employers on camera. The exposure created by the New England Job Show allows candidates to broadcast their skills and experience in a medium with far more impact than would be possible by posting and pushing resumes across the crowded Internet job search quandary. The New England Job Show program stems out of a not for profit vocational project for the Merrimack Valley Rotary Club in Central Massachusetts and has ties to a virtual LinkedIn networking group that also meets every Friday in the "brick and mortar world" at a local church in Acton MA to exchange leads and share ideas. As job seekers obtain employment through the efforts of the program, they are offered an on-camera opportunity to tell others how they achieved success and provide practical advice and inspiration via. the programs Happy Landings segment. To find out how highly skilled unemployed New England residents are beating the odds in their job search efforts, please visit the The New England Job Show. The New England Job Show - In the News
Tashji is an accomplished defense and aerospace industry executive having served as the senior acquisition manager with the 551 Electronic Systems Wing; a US Air Force Material Command unit based at the ESC, Hanscom AFB, MA. His work involves advanced radar, electronic warfare and battle space control systems developed for the international fleet of Boeing AWACS Advance Early Warning and Control System aircraft through a multi-billion dollar Foreign Military Sales program. Prior to this appointment, Tashji was a Director with the Raytheon Company responsible for identifying, developing & marketing advanced solutions for DoD and international MoD customers worldwide. His program work includes solutions to support the joint war fighter environment including NAVSEA surface combatants, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SL-AMRAAM, and other space, air, surface and sub-surface war fighter mission solutions. He managed the overall marketing strategy and efforts including market analysis, identification of business opportunities and risks, strategic alliances and partnering, product and solution requirements, sales coverage, business development programs, and marketing, advertising and communications initiatives & plans. He can be reached at 23 April Lane, Westford MA 01886, by phone at 978-392-9004, by email at sdtashji@comcast.net, or on the web at http://profitfromknowledge.spaces.live.com/
March 12 The Right Stuff for The White Stuff
Chilling Implications of Arctic Cold War Last week (5 March) Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with Canadian Minister of Defense Peter Mackay at the Pentagon for talks on US and Canadian Security issues. Among pressing matters concerning joint combat operations in Southwest Asia, the two leaders also reviewed the increasing prospect of conflict concerning maritime navigation and resource exploitation rights in the Arctic Ocean region. As carbon emissions continue to increase the rate of ice field retreat, adjacent states with significant geopolitical and financial interests have increased the tempo of their respective activity to establish sea-transit routes to Asia via. the fabled Northwest Passage (NWP) while dreaming of new resource exploration opportunities. Since the 1909 Perry Henson expedition to the North Pole and the subsequent establishment of the Law of the Sea within the international community, the sovereignty of the Arctic has been no stranger to challenge. However, present circumstances have escalated this challenge to an unprecedented level. For the first time in recorded history, the absence of summer sea ice has opened the shortest sea route from Europe to the Pacific. The presence of and new access to Natural Gas and Oil resources has also created an energy race in the region, with correspondingly vast territorial claims amongst the stakeholders. Experts suggest that the region is thought to contain 25% of the planet's untapped petroleum reserves in addition to an abundance of precious minerals. In our brief analysis, we will explore the geopolitical and security conditions that have resulted as the depletion of the ice has created easier and economically feasible access driving dramatically intensified competition for the regions resources.
According to officials from the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the North Pole is situated in the Arctic Ocean beyond the territorial waters of the adjacent nation states of Russia, Norway, Denmark (Greenland), Canada and the United States (Alaska), all having territory within the Arctic Circle and a 200-mile economic zone around the north of their coastlines. The closest land mass are the northern coast of Ellesmere Island [owned by Canada] and northern coast of Greenland [owned by Denmark]. Both are roughly 500 nautical miles south of the pole. This has not stopped the flurry of territorial claims in what has escalated into nothing short of a modern land grab. For example, Russia has claimed that due to similar features found on her continental shelf, the underwater Lomonosov Ridge that stretches from the New Siberian Islands to Ellesmere Island is sovereign Russian territory. In the face of unresolved claims from other nations and the absence of a definitive ruling by the UN commission, a Russian submarine was used to plant a titanium flag on the sea floor at the North Pole. Commenting on the achievement, Russian explorer Artur Chilingarov declared, "The Arctic is Russian, and the North Pole is an extension of the Russian coastal shelf." While the head of Russia's Institute of Oceanic Studies called the event "heroic" he also conceded the claim would be settled "strictly within the framework of international law"
Reaction from the international community was swift. Canadian Foreign Minister Peter Mac-Kay said after the flag was planted that the Russians are "fooling" themselves if they believe they can simply lay claim to the Arctic. "You can't go around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere," he said. "This isn't the 14th or 15th century." In the United States, comparisons were drawn in the media to the Apollo Moon missions where the US Flag was planted on the lunar surface, yet no territorial claims were announced. Countering the claim made by the Russian Republic, Canada asserted that the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to the Canadian and Greenland mass. At the same time, Denmark dispatched an expedition team to collect data to map the seabed under the ice and study the same underwater Lomonosov Ridge to determine if it is “connected” to Greenland. Following the expedition Helge Sander, Denmark's Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation announced that "preliminary investigations are very promising" and the Lomonosov Ridge ”is a geological extension of the northern coast of Greenland”. The Danish Foreign Ministry said the Russian Federation flag-laying had no legal significance and that Denmark reserves the right to make its own continental shelf claim to the United Nations on behalf of Greenland. Meanwhile Norway has neither contested nor supported Russia's claim, and is seeking an extension to its sub-sea territory in the Arctic, but not as far as the North Pole. Canadian Club – On The Rocks With Maritime activity in the region making a dramatic upswing and the potential for disputes leading to conflict, security and military preparations have gone into high-gear. Perhaps the greatest risk of conflict arises from a Canada declaration that the waters of the Arctic archipelago are within their territorial sovereignty and that transiting ships are subject to Canadian laws, a position rejected by the US and other nations who have declared the NWP is an international strait. For Canada to uphold her position, she will have to demonstrate she holds control of the vital sea route. In fact, Canada has initiated a large-scale mobilization of resources to monitor and protect the sovereignty of her North. This includes space, air, sea and land assets drawn from the Department of National Defense and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) as well as coordinated activities with government transportation agencies. Increased surveillance and control missions have also initiated new acquisition programs including Polar Class offshore patrol ships and unmanned air vehicle surveillance systems. New force structure initiatives have also been implemented including the establishment at Resolute Bay of the Canadian Forces Arctic Training Center, an increase in Canadian Ranger forces, and a new ship fueling operation at Nanisivik. At the same time, Canada Command has beefed up operations among six regional commands including Joint Task Force North (JTFN) whose mission is to enforce control across all three northern territories. Canadian Coast Guard vessels include two 14,500 ton Gulf class heavy ice breakers and four medium ice breakers. These 1980’s era vessels comprise an incredibly miniature fleet with respect to the sea area they are expected to maintain.
Situational awareness is also being delivered through employment of air and space assets including limited sorties by the ten CP-140 maritime surveillance aircraft and the RADARSAT 2 space-based wide area surveillance constellation. At the same time, new joint military exercises centered around the Nanook operations are helping to define and sharpen Arctic mission force capability.
E3 Returning from a mission during the air defense exercise Amalgam Warrior, an E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS) lands at Cold Lake, Canada. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Diane S. Robinson). Polar Bear
As the overall tempo of military activity continues to escalate in the region, so to does the likelihood of a “non-diplomatic” confrontation between the stakeholders. Reconciling the competing territorial claims, maritime right of way, environmental group concerns, and sovereignty preservation actions of the state actors involved will be an extremely complex challenge. Just as nature applies its laws to the harsh beauty of this wild frontier, the need for an internationally acceptable solution grows at an inverse proportion to the remarkable speed with which the ice field shrinks. Tashji is an accomplished defense and aerospace industry executive having served as the senior acquisition manager with the 551 Electronic Systems Wing; a US Air Force Material Command unit based at the ESC, Hanscom AFB, MA. His work involves advanced radar, electronic warfare and battle space control systems developed for the international fleet of Boeing AWACS Advance Warning and Control System aircraft through a multi-billion dollar Foreign Military Sales program. Prior to this appointment, Tashji was a Director with the Raytheon Company responsible for identifying, developing & marketing advanced solutions for DoD and international MoD customers worldwide. His program work includes solutions to support the joint war fighter environment including NAVSEA surface combatants, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SL-AMRAAM, and other space, air, surface and sub-surface war fighter mission solutions. He managed the overall marketing strategy and efforts including market analysis, identification of business opportunities and risks, strategic alliances and partnering, product and solution requirements, sales coverage, business development programs, and marketing, advertising and communications initiatives & plans. He can be reached at 23 April Lane, Westford MA 01886, by phone at 978-392-9004, by email at sdtashji@comcast.net, or on the web at http://profitfromknowledge.spaces.live.com/ February 23 Does the Air Force Need a New Bomber?
The 2018 Bomber: Increased Range, Loiter & Lethality. The Pentagon’s most recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) included provisions for the USAF to undertake development of a new long-range, large-payload, subsonic, low radar cross-section bomber program in response to a marked increase in operational requirements primarily surfaced from combat operations in Southwest Asia. Air Force planners identified the desired ability to fly long-range sorties from increasingly scarce remote bases, safely penetrate adversarial air-space defended by advanced air defense systems, provide persistent air support (linger longer), and deliver a larger payload of emerging standoff precision guided munitions to a multitude of ground targets as being the key tenets of the baseline operational requirements. The US Air Force 2018 Bomber program is expected to acquire between 100 and 120 units with an initial operating capability (IOC) target of 2018.
The technology required to deliver the 2018 Bomber program requirements will represent an increase in performance over the capabilities of the F-22 Raptor and the B-2 Spirit, manned systems that remain classified. This reality would undoubtedly prevent Congress from authorizing export to allied nations, thereby risking potentially prohibitive unit costs from RDT&E through to LRIP and sustainment. In our analysis, we will explore the boundary between the military usefulness of the 2018 Bomber program against the current force reset needs and shifting transformation acquisition programs as the DoD struggles to strike a balance between the successful prosecution of current combat operations and planning for the right war(s) of the future. Strategic Air Power & Conventional WarfareThe belief that air power alone might supplant armies and navies as war-winning instruments of power arose as a viable operational construct following successful experiments in the aerial bombing of captured German Battleships following the First World War. Although Britain had used air power to defend it’s vast colonial empire and home base through the employment of “strategic bombing” in the latter half of the First World War through the creation of an autonomous Air Force in 1918, it was not until the Italian Giulio Douhet’s 1921 book “Command of the Air” that a comprehensive theory of air strategy beyond the established broad deterrence concepts emerged. His position espoused the futility of bombarding the periphery of enemy territory where only deployed combat formations could be destroyed. His logic required that air power be deployed against the war-making capacity of adversaries by targeting war production factories and deployment infrastructure. His vision prophesies how bombing offensives would achieve desired objectives so quickly that the outcome of all future wars would be decided before an adversary could fully deploy their combatant army and navy. In this respect, he had foreseen the logic of the nuclear “first strike” concept of operations more than two decades before the emergence of nuclear WMD. Meanwhile in the United States, General William Mitchell emerged as the foremost proponent of the independent air power concept. He campaigned for the establishment of the Air Force Service with such insubordinate enthusiasm that in 1925 he was forced to defend his ideology at court martial. When the United States Army Air Force Flying Fortress Bombers finally emerged in 1942, they were deployed against Germany in deep penetration raids under the misguided ideals of Douhet’s vision. Though not without significant contribution, the unlearning of this ideology was to be one of the most painful and costly of the Second World War, with losses (as a percentage of forces deployed) only exceeded by the German U-Boat service. While there are numerous examples of employing long-range bombing assets in determining the outcome of epic struggles between adversaries, few seem more prescient than Goerings exploits with the Luftwaffe in response to Fuehrer Directive Number 16 (Preparations for a landing operation against England) on 16 July, 1940. The ensuing Battle of Britain pitted the RAF Fighter Command in a revolutionary struggle against the German Luftwaffe in a five phased campaign that for the first time, singularly employed aircraft in a strategy intended to break the British Nation of it’s will and capacity to resist without the use of ground or maritime forces. Goering deployed his aircraft fleets in the face of considerable disadvantages (such as operational range to target, fuel capacity constraints, and the necessity for pilots to bail out of damaged aircraft over enemy territory or drown in the channel). He employed no considered strategy and engaged in a series of improvised attack schemas without lucid consideration. Meanwhile, Fighter Command enjoyed the advantage of operating close to its own bases and would employ an integrated warning and control system drawing on intelligence presented by the Ground Observer Corps and the new Chain Home line of fifty radar warning stations (a British invention credited to Robert Watson-Watt of the National Physical Laboratory) that lined the coast under the development and control of the Air Ministry.
A flight of Heinkel HE 111 medium bombers approach the coast of England flying low over the channel. Such formations became a familiar site to Londoners, the HE 111 being the major type in these raids. Originally conceived as a civil airliner for Lufthansa, it was employed by the Luftwaffe in a large number of variants as one of the most flexible German designs of the war. The HE 111 was also exported for operation by the air forces of China, Hungary, Romania, Spain and Turkey.
Only 2500 young RAF pilots had been responsible for preserving Britain from invasion – the narrow victory inspiring Churchill’s famous accolades. Through the use of unprecedented situational awareness delivered by the innovation of radar combined with pragmatic command and control operations, the RAF delivered unacceptable battle losses (see figure 1) in handing Nazi Germany their first defeat.
There has obviously been much experience in the use of air power assets since the close of World War II. Israeli attacks on Egyptian Air bases in 1967 showed the dramatic potential of surprise air attack, while in 1973 the Israelis suffered an equal surprise in the initial stages of the Yom Kippur war at the hands of a Soviet supplied Egyptian Air Defense system comprising surface-to-air missiles and radar enhanced guns. Over North Vietnam the US Air Force executed temporarily effective supply interdiction bombing missions while experiencing the hazards of a modern air defense based on guided missiles, AAA guns and interceptors. In the 1979 Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, ground attack by fixed-wing and rotary aircraft operated with relative impunity against highly motivated but poorly equipped irregulars until the arrival of US supplied shoulder-launched heat-seeking stinger missiles. While these experiences draw mixed conclusions, the common operational trait is one of deception. Modern air vehicles utilize chaff, flairs, smoke, decoys and electronic countermeasures as well as their speed, capacity to reduce radar cross-section (stealth) or fly beyond the operational envelope of radar detection. Increasingly, emerging stand-off weapons enable costly aircraft to evade sophisticated air-defense systems while deploying precision guided glide munitions (PGM) utilizing multi-mode target acquisition technology against moving targets, day or night, in all weather conditions. At the same time, conventional ground forces typically use concealment, camouflage, mobility, hardening and active air defenses to repel air attacks. Figure 2: Primary Air Strike Targets
Editors Note: For our readers with a deeper interest, we have developed on this site a considerable body of material related to the exploits of the Israeli Air Force (IAF), the successful use of airborne command and control assets during the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) campaign, and the new requirements for employing close air support (CAS) in counter-insurgency military operations:
IAF Victory in Operation Moked Russian Bear Arms Arab States: The Yom Kippur War 35 Years On Ka-Boom: COIN Mission Support Requires New ISR & Weapons Effects Doctrine Warheads on Foreheads A U.S. Air Force F-15C Eagle aircraft intercepts a Russian Tu-95 Bear bomber aircraft which neared the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) south of Japan Feb. 9, 2008. The bomber neared the vicinity of the carrier resulting in the fighter intercept. Nimitz was transiting through the Western Pacific on a regularly scheduled deployment when the incident occurred. DoD photo courtesy of U.S. Navy. (Released). Nowhere to Hide
Since the close of the cold war, the nature of military conflict has dramatically shifted away from conventional warfare. Unstable or failed nation states and the emergence of troublesome non-state actors employing asymmetrical, insurgency, destabilization tactics and the prolific use of improvised explosive devices (IED) have dramatically re-shaped the mission requirements of the contemporary war fighter. As military planners at the Pentagon advance rapid deployment acquisition efforts, industry has responded by developing a new array of technological innovations. Perhaps nowhere has their innovation effort made a greater impact on combat operations than the fielding of unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) air vehicles and highly accurate and lethal PGM’s. Developed for specific CAS applications, the new ordinance includes multi-mode target acquisition (EO/IR & GPS), standoff deployment, autonomous operation, high angle of attack, all-weather and moving target capability, and new effects outcomes including low collateral damage, thermobaric oxygen depletion and electromagnetic pulse waves to name just a few (see figure 3). Figure 3: Advanced Precision Guided Glide Weapons
Notations:
Big Ugly Fat Fellow No discussion of contemporary heavy bomber employment can exclude the remarkable history of the venerable B-52 Statofortress. The B-52 can carry a large variety of weapons including eight Harpoon anti-ship missiles and 20 cruise missiles. The B-52 has seen a lot of action in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf Wars, in the Balkans and over Afghanistan. With a maximum takeoff weight of 240-250 tons, the B-52 is basically a large aircraft designed to carry bombs cheaply and efficiently. Currently, the B-52 force is limited by law to 76 aircraft. The current four squadrons each have 14 bombers and 17 crews. The remaining aircraft are assigned to a training squadron. Twenty B-52s will receive electronic and mechanical upgrades that will make all 76 of equal capability. To obtain the aircraft for the fifth squadron, each unit will be reduced to 13 aircraft and 15 crews. The active duty training squadron will become the fifth operational squadron, and the reserve training squadron will take over all the training duties it used to share with the active duty squadron.
The B-52 is the operationally least expensive heavy bomber in the air force. Many are based on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia when they are supporting operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. During the Afghanistan war in late 2001, ten B-52s dropped a third of the total bomb tonnage. That's a remarkable record for a fifty-year-old aircraft design. The B-52 delivered the predominance of munitions because, simply stated, it is still the most cost-effective heavy bomber within the USAF arsenal. The B-52 has a lower accident rate than the B-1 and B-2. Compared to the supersonic B-1 and high-tech B-2, the B-52 is more like a flying truck. Thus the B-52, despite its age, remains the cheapest, safest and most reliable way to deliver PGM over Afghanistan. Lacking the supersonic speed of the B-1 or the stealth and automation of the B-2, the B-52 can carry up to 150 tons of fuel, and normally carries 12-20 tons of munitions. What has made the B-52 so useful in the Afghanistan war is its ability to stay aloft for prolonged sorties. The B-52s flying out of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia into Afghanistan typically stay in the air for some 16 hours. Since it can refuel in the air, the B-52 can fly anywhere in the world with a load of bombs or missiles. Over Afghanistan, carrying a dozen 2000-pound PGM or a larger number of smaller bombs, a B-52 could remain on station on the perimeter of a combat area for hours, waiting for the Special Forces or Air Force joint terminal attack controllers (JTAC’s) on the ground to send them the coordinates of a target. Over 90 percent of the time the PGM landed well within 50 feet of the target location. More importantly, most of the air-support arrived within ten minutes of the JTAC request.
B-1B aircrews bring unique capabilities to the fight. Captain Chad Hillen and Captain Aaron Wargo work their way through preflight checklists from the cockpit of a B-1B Lancer Dec. 9 at an air base in Southwest Asia. Captain Hillen is a B-1B pilot and native of Sewell, N.J. Captain Wargo hails from Garden Grove, Calif. They are both pilots assigned to the 379th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron deployed from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. (U.S. Air Force photo released). Do They Really Need That? Today, success in air war depends in large part on an electronic contest, with electronic measures, counter-measures, and counter counter-measures. The technology employed in this contest is evolving rapidly with many new devices used within joint and coalition operational doctrine. However, the cost to develop, test, integrate and (most costly) maintain these innovations within air vehicle fleets makes them some of the most expensive acquisition programs in the military. As the looming future years defense budget appropriations debate rages in Washington between COCOMS, the DoD and the Senate Armed Services Committee, Industry continues to jockey for position relative to the efficacy of their respective programs and interests. There is no shortage of armchair prognosticators with a penchant to theoretically disprove their detractors’ positions. However, there is an emerging consensus regarding which programs will attract the greatest scrutiny as the need to create a balance between current needs and those required to fight the long war are formally debated (see figure 4). Figure 4: Acquisition Programs Under Review
Cleared for Takeoff? There is little doubt that the baseline requirements identified by the USAF and COCOMS for improved heavy bomber CAS will save lives while delivering incrementally useful militarily capability in the new fight. With an operational radius of action between 2,000 and 3,000 nautical miles (without aerial refueling), a maximum payload of 14,000 –28,000 lbs, and enough stealth to evade ever-more prolific and capable air-defense systems, the 2018 Bomber would address the present standoff weapons deployment deficiency gap inherent in the B-52 and B-1 fleets. Weighty decisions have fallen on the DoD with the acute need to reset the force following a decade of combat operations in Iraq, fresh deployments to Afghanistan without a discernable victory strategy, consolidation of incredibly expensive multi-mission fighter programs into only two systems (The F-35 and the F-22), to say nothing of the global financial meltdown and the potential for new conflicts brought on by economically failed states requiring re-stabilization. Difficult times demand tough choices – and it remains to be seen if the 2018 bomber will ever get off the ground. Tashji is an accomplished defense and aerospace industry executive having served as the senior acquisition manager with the 551 Electronic Systems Wing; a US Air Force Material Command unit based at the ESC, Hanscom AFB, MA. His work involves advanced radar, electronic warfare and battle space control systems developed for the international fleet of Boeing AWACS Advance Warning and Control System aircraft through a multi-billion dollar Foreign Military Sales program. Prior to this appointment, Tashji was a Director with the Raytheon Company responsible for identifying, developing & marketing advanced solutions for DoD and international MoD customers worldwide. His program work includes solutions to support the joint war fighter environment including NAVSEA surface combatants, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SL-AMRAAM, and other space, air, surface and sub-surface war fighter mission solutions. He managed the overall marketing strategy and efforts including market analysis, identification of business opportunities and risks, strategic alliances and partnering, product and solution requirements, sales coverage, business development programs, and marketing, advertising and communications initiatives & plans. He can be reached at 23 April Lane, Westford MA 01886, by phone at 978-392-9004, by email at sdtashji@comcast.net, or on the web at http://profitfromknowledge.spaces.live.com/ Technorati Tags: Air, Force, Acquisitions, heavy, bomber, 2018, Northrop, Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed, Martin, Battle, of, Britain, Radar, JSOW, PGM, JTAC, Quadrennial, Defense, Review, QDR, long-range, large, payload, subsonic, low, radar, cross-section, B-52, B-1, F-35, STOVL, F-22, C-17, K-CX, CSAR-X, MRAP, JLTV, Stryker, ARH, DDG, 1000, LCS, EFV, F/A 18, Super, Hornet, Raytheon, V-22, osprey, CH-53K, FCS, Future, Combat, Systems, defense, spending, budget, cuts, Robert, Gates, Secretary, Dornier 17, Luftwaffe, Goering, winston, Churchill, RAF, Fighter, Command, Hugh, Dowding, Chain, Radars, London, Heinkel 111, Junkers 88, Junkers 87, GBU, DMLGB, AGM, EGBU, GPS, Laser, homing, INS, IIR, telemetry, Paveway, JDAM, TU-95, Bear, Russian, David, Tashji, And, Associates February 19 Rationalizing the Missile Defense Agency MissionA Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is launched from the U.S. Navy cruiser, USS Lake Erie (CG-70) in a Missile Defense Agency test aimed at developing a sea-based defense against short to medium range ballistic missile threats. Are we prepared for the increased probability of conflict scenarios brought about by the proliferation of ballistic missiles?
In the coming months – I will be posting on this site considerable material related to our ongoing series: Battlefield South West Asia – Crossroads of Faith, Commerce & Conflict. The intent is to provide information that invites interactive discussion of the past & present situational analysis in the region. I expect that our examination & discussion of topics including radical and militant Islam, the impact of western imperialism on the region, individual country and regional security, military doctrine and strategies will stimulate a wide variety of sharply divided opinions by our readers. We hope our readers will consider that differing views and opinions give expression to the richness of our collective thought formations as a species. It is in this spirit that we welcome and encourage your civilized participation in the dialogue in our role as “conversation engineers”.
While the destruction of the satellite was a success, the questions surrounding the real purpose of the mission continue to be debated by the media, industry and analysts. Given the availability of SM-3 ground based interceptors at Fort Greeley Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, why did Gates assign this mission to the Navy? Was the mission in fact a military response to Chinas successful destruction of a communications satellite late last year? Was the real purpose of the mission to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Missile Defense Agencies mid-course defense system so as to render obsolete the endeavors of nation states engaged in the development of their own medium, intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missile development programs? As those of us who grew up in the 1950’s and 60’s can attest, there were far too many instances when the world approached the brink of mutually assured destruction through international incidents that could have easily escalated into massive retaliatory strikes. Today, as each state endeavors to or acquires new ballistic strike capability, the odds of potential conflict scenarios rise exponentially. This dramatic rise in probability of conflict demands an examination of the state of missile defense capabilities. Our part one analysis is intended to examine the mission, doctrine and capability of the United States Missile Defense Agency and the operational readiness of the layered ballistic missile defense system. How Quickly Is The Threat Level Rising?Right now, more than 30 nations have ballistic missiles in their arsenals. More than 25 nations have, or are developing, nuclear, chemical and biological WMD. In the immediate future, we may face terrorists or adversarial regimes armed with ballistic missiles tipped with WMD. These regimes have not bought into the deterrence theory that assured strategic stability during the Cold War Era. The proliferation of ballistic missiles and WMD is not slowing down. The actions of nuclear-capable North Korea, Pakistan and nuclear-emergent Iran have revealed serious efforts in developing and deploying longer-range missiles. These countries emphasize the severity of the proliferation problem. Are U.S. & Coalition Forces At Risk?This is not a future problem. Ballistic missiles are a present threat to our forces overseas and our allies. In the Western Pacific Theater, for example, more than 75,000 U.S. active duty personnel are at risk of attack by ballistic missiles. The supply depots, repair facilities, support organizations and military families in the area are also at risk. While the majority of North Korea's ballistic missile arsenal is short-range Scud missile variants, several longer-range missiles are in various stages of deployment. Due to the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, approximately 170,000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are stationed in the Persian Gulf. They all fall within range of Iran's medium range ballistic missiles. The threat is real. U.S. forces are at risk today. Is The U.S. Homeland Also At Risk?The strategic ballistic missile forces of first world nations constitute a major threat to the U.S. homeland. Each possesses operational ballistic missiles capable of striking the U.S. from launch locations within their national boundaries. Deterrence remains the operative concept for confronting the ballistic missile threat from these countries. However, the firing of the Taepo Dong I in August 1998 changed the perspective of U.S. homeland security. The space launched, third stage vehicle of this missile proved that North Korea was close to deploying a fully functional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). In December 1998, North Korea warned the U.S. that it was prepared to launch a Taepo Dong II. Diplomatic pressure was strong enough to stave off the launch. In February 2003, then Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director, George Tenet testified before Senate Armed Services Committee that North Korea had an untested ballistic missile capable of hitting the U.S. West Coast. While testifying before the 2005 Senate Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, Marine General James Cartwright, then Commander U.S. Strategic Command, stated that if North Korea launched a missile at Alaska or Hawaii, the U.S. would have only about seven minutes to decide whether to fire an interceptor. Changed Security EnvironmentDeterring the use of ballistic missiles and WMD will be very difficult. There are no reliable lines of communications with these regimes. Our adversaries seek to keep us out of their region, leaving them free to support terrorism. Leaders of these regimes consider WMD as weapons of choice, not of last resort. They pursue their objectives through force, coercion and intimidation and could potentially hold some of our major population and industrial centers hostage with the threat of a ballistic missile attack. To deter such threats, we must devalue ballistic missiles as a means of extortion and aggression. Effective missile defense will discourage the proliferation of ballistic missile technology and WMD. Missile defense would reduce the incentives to develop, acquire or use these weapons by undermining their military utility. Furthermore, the ability to extend reliable protection to allies and friends can have a significant mitigating effect on our adversaries' desires to produce or acquire their own offensive system. At the same time, missile defense can encourage the willingness of allies to act in concert with the U.S.A. during a conflict. In this way, missile defense is an added and critical dimension of contemporary deterrence. Considering the dire consequences if even one missile tipped with WMD reaches our shores, the newly elected President should make ballistic missile defense a top national priority. The Challenges of Ballistic Missile DefenseThe ballistic missile brings new technical challenges due to its extremely high altitude ballistic trajectory. This trajectory is made up of three distinct phases. In the boost phase, the ballistic missile's rocket engine ignites and thrusts the missile into space. Following boost, the missile coasts in the midcourse phase and may deploy a Reentry Vehicle (RV) and countermeasures. In the terminal phase, the missile or the separating RV reenters the atmosphere and proceeds to the intended target(s). To defeat the missile in the boost phase, a missile defense system must be located close to the launch point, as in a few hundred miles. Because its engines are still accelerating the missile, a defense system would only need to detect the very hot plume of the engine. A ballistic missile is a large target in the boost phase. A hit by a kinetic warhead almost anywhere on the ballistic missile would cause certain destruction. So the probability of a successful engagement is high; however, the engagement time lines are extremely short, requiring a very fast, short-range guided missile. Engagement in the midcourse phase requires the missile to be detected at longer range and higher altitudes, normally in the exo-atmosphere, well above 60 miles. Separating missiles further complicate the tracking problem due to separation debris, countermeasures and the relatively small size or radar cross-section of the RV. Due to the high closing velocities in terminal intercepts, ballistic missiles need to be detected and tracked before entering the atmosphere. As a non-separating ballistic missile enters the atmosphere, atmospheric drag causes the target to maneuver. At the same time, the missile may break up due to instabilities and airframe structural loads. This results in the necessity to track multiple targets and select only the lethal one(s) for engagement. All this has to take place within a short timeframe. Our forces may not have time to re-engage if they miss on the first attempt.
These technical challenges must now be applied to the different range classes of ballistic missiles, from short range to ICBM. Even though the ballistic trajectory is the same, the various range classes will dictate system reaction time requirements and defended areas. A short-range missile is in the 0 to 400 miles class. An example would be defense of Tel Aviv from Scud missiles. Regardless of the phase of trajectory, each phase of this range class has a short system reaction time. The medium range class at 400-800 miles, would be defense of Japan from North Korea's missiles. System reaction time increases in all phases; however, the largest increase is in the midcourse phase. This holds true for the remainder of the range classes. The intermediate range is around 2,300 miles, which is about the defense of Northern Europe from the Middle East. Lastly, the overarching ICBM class threatens the continental U.S.A.
These mission realties necessitate the joint armed forces to conduct ballistic missile defense warfare through an integrated, layered system capable of engaging threats in all phases of flight – boost, midcourse and terminal. Next month we will examine in greater detail the mission capabilities of the Aegis sea-based fleet under joint development by the Missile Defense Agency, Naval Sea Systems Command and other Department of the Navy organizations. Tashji is an accomplished defense and aerospace industry executive having served as the senior acquisition manager with the 551 Electronic Systems Wing; a US Air Force Material Command unit based at the ESC, Hanscom AFB, MA. His work involves advanced radar, electronic warfare and battle space control systems developed for the international fleet of Boeing AWACS Advance Warning and Control System aircraft through a multi-billion dollar Foreign Military Sales program. Prior to this appointment, Tashji was a Director with the Raytheon Company responsible for identifying, developing & marketing advanced solutions for DoD and international MoD customers worldwide. His program work includes solutions to support the joint war fighter environment including NAVSEA surface combatants, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SL-AMRAAM, and other space, air, surface and sub-surface war fighter mission solutions. He managed the overall marketing strategy and efforts including market analysis, identification of business opportunities and risks, strategic alliances and partnering, product and solution requirements, sales coverage, business development programs, and marketing, advertising and communications initiatives & plans. He can be reached at 23 April Lane, Westford MA 01886, by phone at 978-392-9004, by email at sdtashji@comcast.net, or on the web at http://profitfromknowledge.spaces.live.com/ February 01 Let's Go! Afghanistan - Brigade Deployment Edition
The 40 Things You Should Do Before You Ship Out
Following President Obama's meeting at the Pentagon with the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week, top military leadership has tried to control expectations of a quick victory in Afghanistan, even as plans to accelerate the flow of new troops and kit were announced. At the same time, Obama is pressuring Europe as he prepares to put a large number of new U.S. troops - up to 30,000 more - into the breach. He plans to draw down troop levels from Iraq and shift them to Afghanistan where militants linked to the former ruling Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida have made a remarkable comeback in recent years. Newly deployed U.S. troops will be joining 32,000 others who serve alongside 32,000 NATO-led and coalition troops of the ISAF - the largest force structure since the U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban from power in 2001.
Many of my peers and colleagues have informed me their units will be deploying to Afghanistan, and have confided in me their trepidation in the face of the challenges they expect to face. To gain an appreciation of the ferocity by which the Afghan peoples have resisted “Western Subjugation” throughout history, please see our recent editorial feature on this site entitled: For our readers with an appetite for an in-depth historical perspective of the troublesome Pakistan - Afghanistan Northwest Frontier Border, please see our recent editorial feature on this site entitled: Borderline Border: The Pakistan - Afghanistan Northwest Frontier Just Returned From Iraq One of my good friends who recently returned from his deployment in Iraq sent me a compilation of Since we are not sure who the source of this wisdom is, we are compelled to extend to the original author all proper and due credit for their writing, and thank them on behalf of those who will follow in their footsteps in service to our nation. Some Practical Advice From Those Who Have Gone Before 1. Sleep on a cot in the garage. 2. Replace the garage door with a curtain. 3. Six hours after you go to sleep, have your wife or girlfriend whip open the curtain, shine a flashlight in your eyes and mumble, "Sorry, wrong cot." 4. Renovate your bathroom. Hang a green plastic sheet down from the middle of your bathtub and move the showerhead down to chest level. Keep four inches of soapy cold water on the floor. Stop cleaning the toilet and pee everywhere but in the toilet itself. Leave two to three sheets of toilet paper. Or for best effect, remove it altogether. For a more realistic deployed bathroom experience, stop using your bathroom and use a neighbor's. Choose a neighbor who lives at least a quarter mile away. 5. When you take showers, wear flip-flops and keep the lights off. 6. Every time there is a thunderstorm, go sit in a wobbly rocking chair and dump dirt on your head. 7. Put lube oil in your humidifier instead of water and set it on "HIGH" for that tactical generator smell. 8. Don't watch TV except for movies in the middle of the night. Have your family vote on which movie to watch and then show a different one. 9. Leave a lawnmower running in your living room 24 hours a day for proper noise level. 10. Have the paperboy give you a haircut. 11. Once a week, blow compressed air up through your chimney making sure the wind carries the soot across and on to your neighbor's house. Laugh at him when he curses you. 12. Buy a trash compactor and only use it once a week. Store up garbage in the other side of your bathtub. 13. Wake up every night at midnight and have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on a saltine cracker. 14. Make up your family menu a week ahead of time without looking in your food cabinets or refrigerator. Then serve some kind of meat in an unidentifiable sauce poured over noodles. Do this for every meal. 15. Set your alarm clock to go off at random times during the night. When it goes off, jump out of bed and get to the shower as fast as you can. Simulate there is no hot water by running out into your yard and breaking out the garden hose. 16. Once a month, take every major appliance completely apart and put it back together again. 17. Use 18 scoops of coffee per pot and allow it to sit for five or six hours before drinking. 18. Invite at least 185 people you don't really like because of their strange hygiene habits to come and visit for a couple of months. Exchange clothes with them. 19. Have a fluorescent lamp installed on the bottom of your coffee table and lie under it to read books.
21. Keep a roll of toilet paper on your night stand and bring it to the bathroom with you. And bring your gun and a flashlight. 22. Go to the bathroom when you just have to pass gas, "just in case." Every time. 23. Announce to your family that they have mail, have them report to you as you stand outside your open garage door after supper and then say, "Sorry, it's for the other Smith." 24. Wash only 15 items of laundry per week. Roll up the semi-wet clean clothes in a ball. Place them in a cloth sack in the corner of the garage where the cat pees. After a week, unroll them and without ironing or removing the mildew, proudly wear them to professional meetings and family gatherings. Pretend you don't know what you look or smell like. Enthusiastically repeat the process for another week. 25. Go to the worst crime-infested place you can find, go heavily armed, wearing a flak jacket and a Kevlar helmet. Set up shop in a tent in a vacant lot. Announce to the residents that you are there to help them. 26. Eat a single M&M every Sunday and convince yourself it's for Malaria. 27. Demand each family member be limited to 10 minutes per week for a morale phone call. Enforce this with your teenage daughter. 28. Shoot a few bullet holes in the walls of your home for proper ambiance. 29. Sandbag the floor of your car to protect from mine blasts and fragmentation.
31. Fire off 50 cherry bombs simultaneously in your driveway at 3:00 a.m. When startled neighbors appear, tell them all is well, you are just registering mortars. Tell them plastic will make an acceptable substitute for their shattered windows. 32. Drink your milk and sodas warm. 33. Spread gravel throughout your house and yard. 34. Make your children clear their Super Soakers in a clearing barrel you placed outside the front door before they come in. 35. Make your family dig a survivability position with overhead cover in the backyard. Complain that the 4x4s are not 8 inches on center and make them rebuild it. 36. Continuously ask your spouse to allow you to go buy an M-Gator. 37. When your 5-year-old asks for a stick of gum, have him find the exact stick and flavor he wants on the Internet and print out the web page. Type up a Form 9 and staple the web page to the back. Submit the paperwork to your spouse for processing. After two weeks, give your son the gum. 38. Announce to your family that the dog is a vector for disease and shoot it. Throw the dog in a burn pit you dug in your neighbor's back yard. 39. Wait for the coldest/ hottest day of the year and announce to your family that there will be no heat/air conditioning that day so you can perform much needed maintenance on the heater/ air conditioner. Tell them you are doing this so they won't get cold/ hot. 40. Just when you think you're ready to resume a normal life, order yourself to repeat this process for another six months to simulate the next deployment you've been ordered to support. No More Whining Nuf-said.
January 02 I’ll Be Seeing You - Part 1
A Brief History of Nocturnal Combat Operations The December 1989 American invasion of Panama ushered in a new set of war fighting guidelines brought about by the prolific use of night operations systems and doctrine. About 26,000 U.S. soldiers, Marines, and airmen simultaneously seized some twenty objectives while overhead, more than 100 U.S. aircraft sortied in and out of a tight, twenty-mile-radius area of operations. The whole complex undertaking was staged in the dead of night without lights. Operation Just Cause flagged a historic tactical turning point. From that time on, Western military forces were just as likely to attack by night as by day. Deemed Too RiskyThroughout history, night attacks of any kind have been rare. The Bible records Gideon successfully leading a force of Israelites against the Midianite army in the twelfth century B.C. There are other Middle Eastern examples, and references to the utility of night attacks in ancient Asia, but few similar Western accounts. Homer pointed out that action in the dark commonly ended in chaos and disorder. Of the Peloponnesian wars, Thucydides said that "in a night engagement . . . who could be certain of anything?" Besides being risky, he wrote, night attacks were considered dishonorable.
Frederick the Great stated: "I am determined never to attack by night, on account of the confusion that darkness necessarily occasions." The duke of Wellington wrote, "I have come to the determination, when in my power, never to suffer an attack to be made at night upon an enemy who is prepared and strongly posted, and whose posts have not been reconnoitered by day light." And that most celebrated interpreter of war, Carl von Clausewitz, noted, "Many schemes for night attacks [have been] put forward by those who have neither to lead them nor accept responsibility for them. In practice, they are rare." The Best Time to Storm The RedoubtsFor the most part, night operations in the West were specialized tasks connected with sieges, happenstance, or occasional acts of desperation by relatively weak forces. Roman legions were famous for their ability to set up a barricaded camp by sunset, indicating that their barbarian enemies used nighttime assaults to offset inferiority in armament, discipline, or both. A force besieging a fortress would commonly establish a "night cordon," a tighter perimeter around its target to prevent messengers, spies, or would-be attackers from eluding surveillance. In daylight, such closer positions would risk projectile attacks from fortress walls. That is why the culmination of many sieges featured a night assault on the walls. Then, too, as the October 1781 American and French seizure of Yorktown's outlying redoubts proves, forces besieging an entrenchment could avoid a defender's superior, close-in firepower by moving siege lines forward at night. A successful advance would allow attackers to bring up their own guns. Elsewhere, a nighttime approach might precede the usual dawn attack, but that march or the odd daytime attack that continued into darkness could not be called a proper night attack. What little Western respect night attacks might have earned was surely dashed in the era known as the "dawn of modem warfare"-a singularly apt term in these circumstances. Perhaps the best nineteenth-century exception to the general rule about night attacks occurred during the American Civil War, thanks to two of the North's most innovative generals, Major General James H. Wilson and Brigadier General Emory Upton. Wilson's Cavalry Corps, including Upton's 4th Cavalry Division, moved on Georgia from Alabama in April 1865, heading for the arsenal at Columbus. (The war had just ended in Virginia, but here the Confederates were not ready to surrender.) About 3,000 Confederate troops and twenty-seven guns defended a bridge leading into the town. Wilson and Upton decided to try a night attack on April 16. Well after dark, at 1630, 400 dismounted Union troopers crept toward the forward defenses. The Confederates heard them and fired; the troopers ran forward and captured these first positions. Two companies of Upton's cavalrymen then rode through and, mistaken in the dark for retreating friendlies, were allowed to pass the main defensive line. They overpowered the bridge guards and took fifty prisoners. The Rebels quickly mounted an assault on the bridge, forcing the bluecoats into a hasty retreat.
Undeterred, Wilson and Upton pressed a new regiment forward. Despite vicious fire, it broke open another path, and then a third regiment, this one dismounted, attacked the bridge. So determined were the onrushing Federals that the thoroughly shaken defenders were forced to give way once again and were soon engulfed. Unable to tell friend from foe, Rebels near the bridge could not assist the fleeing defenders. The tide of Union attack carried not only the bridge, but the town of Columbus itself. At dawn, Upton rounded up 1,200 prisoners, sixty three artillery pieces, the six-gun Confederate ship Jackson, fifteen locomotives, tons of ammunition, and 250 pieces of rail stock. There were 300 confederates killed and wounded; Upton's losses were only 5 killed and 28 wounded. His night attack was virtually the last big land action of the American civil war. Turn On The LightsDuring World War I, Western armed forces increasingly used darkness. In 1915, the Kaiser's Zeppelins staged nighttime bombing sorties over England; ground forces used the cover of darkness to conduct trench raids, taking prisoners and discovering enemy defenses. And round-the-clock German U-boat attacks took a growing toll of Allied shipping. Actions sparked reactions: the use of powerful searchlights to target Zeppelins and spot submarines; the development of star shells and parachute flares to provide illumination without revealing the firer's position; and the creation of underwater hydrophones, facilitating day and night attacks on submarines. But large-scale infantry night attacks had an indifferent record. For example, at Festubert, France, in May 1915, German searchlights and star shells illuminated British troops as they crossed no-man's land, and machine guns stopped them. While Western sailors and airmen planned to expand their use of darkness after the war, their ground compatriots were cautious. When the U.S. Army Infantry School conducted a study of World War I tactical combat operations in the 1930s, it devoted only 6 percent of its coverage to night attacks. The authors said the tactic offered a means to cross an area otherwise denied by enemy fire in daylight. But they warned about the extraordinary difficulties of control and the need for special training and discipline. They concluded that night attacks had to be of short range, carefully planned, conducted by fresh, well-trained troops, and aimed at easily defined objectives. Sun Tzu Says . . .In the East, the approach to night ground attacks was more enthusiastic, even before World War I. By the late 1920s, Japanese army leaders decided to emphasize them. They figured their relative inferiority in mechanized forces and artillery and their presumed superiority in close-in fighting would make night offensives a winning tactic. Most of their initial World War II offensives were carried out at night and most succeeded, but when the Japanese ran into determined American resistance on Guadalcanal and New Guinea, their nighttime elan proved no match for U.S. firepower. But even at the end of the war the Japanese were still resorting to the tactic. While Allied air and naval services increased their nighttime offensive prowess during World War II, ground commanders held back. The Battle of EI AIamein, which featured repeated night attacks, was a notable exception. Only a few selected U.S. ground units, such as the 1st and 104th U.S. infantry divisions in Europe and some of General Douglas A. MacArthur's units in the latter phases of the Philippines campaign were noted for this capability. Perhaps the best American night attackers were the airborne, Ranger, and Office of Strategic Services (OSS) combat units. These specialized units, often thrust into enemy territory, were accustomed to being initially out manned and outgunned. They balanced such temporary disadvantages by attacking at night and defending during daylight. There are few more celebrated examples than the D-Day night drop of the Allied XVIII Airborne Corps parachutists I Think I Can See YouA radically improved night-attack proficiency for U.S. ground forces was gradually developed after the Korean War. In Korea, Chinese and North Korean infiltration, logistical movement, and tactical attacks were habitually conducted in the dark. Frustrated by the apparent loss of initiative at night, the U.S. Army began remedial programs under two former World War II airborne commanders, Generals Matthew B. Ridgeway and Maxwell D. Taylor. Both of these army chiefs of staff had commanded troops in Korea. Regular combat-arms officers were encouraged to volunteer for Ranger training, a sixty-day course featuring almost forty-five consecutive nights of patrolling in varied terrain. The graduates stressed night-attack training in the units they commanded afterward. At the same time, the army spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing night-vision devices: infrared sights, thermal imaging equipment, and passive night-vision goggles. These programs were of minor import during the Vietnam War. Searching for an elusive enemy in dense jungle was hard enough in daylight and nearly impossible at night. So daylight attacks remained the staple for U.S. ground forces. But the Vietcong and North Vietnamese insisted on night attacks and the Americans were quite willing to accommodate them. The usual result was a stack of attackers' bodies on the defender's barbed wire at sunrise. Meanwhile, the U.S. improved night-vision equipment and intensified night training. By the late 1970s, all these programs bore fruit. A large percentage of regular infantry, artillery, and armor officers were graduates of the Ranger course; units were spending increasing training time at night; and thoroughly tested, reliable, and relatively lightweight night vision equipment began entering the inventory. When the XVIII Airborne Corps was called on to oust General Manuel Noriega from power in Panama, the U.S. Army had as much skill in night attacks as the U.S. Air Force. This skill gives a Western military force an automatic advantage over a less sophisticated adversary-as would again be proven during the present conflicts in southwest Asia. Detection Technology RevolutionSince the mid-1970’s, the ability to see in the dark without radiating a signal to adversaries has dramatically increased the DoD’s investment in electro-optic (EO) systems. In the last decade, the increased affordability of these rapidly evolving technologies has re-shaped numerous acquisition programs and spawned entirely new ones as well (see figure one). Covering a wide swath of the electromagnetic spectrum, infrared (IR), thermal imaging (TI), solid-state lasers, and sophisticated optics with charge coupled devices (CCD’s) have brought dramatic new capabilities to the war fighter from sub-surface to near-earth orbit. The resolution clarity of surveillance imagery has increased to a level not previously thought possible, and has begun to influence tactical war fighting doctrine. At the same time, a remarkable decrease in the size, weight, cooling engine and power consumption requirements of these systems has made them more ubiquitous than ever as they permeate across the joint and coalition battle space in an array of networked sensor suites. As the performance and interoperability of these sensors increases, the military is increasing their integration with autonomous weapon systems and command and control (C2) infrastructure.
Next Generation Night VisionAs night operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have become commonplace, the military is responding to the need to equip as many soldiers as possible with the means to “see” The heart of any night vision apparatus is the combination of optics and the image intensification tube (II). These devices are being fielded as stand-alone NVG’s, hand-held devices or accessories to weapons sights. To give a sense of the initial scale of deployment, the US military purchased more than 150,000 AN/PVS-7 series (third generation II) NVG. The leading producers of NVG include ITT Night Vision of Roanoke, VA and Northrop Grumman (following an acquisition of Rolling Meadows IL based Litton Industries Optical Systems). As the pace of night vision technology accelerates, the war fighters’ fundamental ability to achieve the prime element of tactical surprise will help save lives while enabling the military to further “own the night”. Tashji is an accomplished defense and aerospace industry executive having served as the senior acquisition manager with the 551 Electronic Systems Wing; a US Air Force Material Command unit based at the ESC, Hanscom AFB, MA. His work involves advanced radar, electronic warfare and battle space control systems developed for the international fleet of Boeing AWACS Advance Warning and Control System aircraft through a multi-billion dollar Foreign Military Sales program. Prior to this appointment, Tashji was a Director with the Raytheon Company responsible for identifying, developing & marketing advanced solutions for DoD and international MoD customers worldwide. His program work includes solutions to support the joint war fighter environment including NAVSEA surface combatants, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SL-AMRAAM, and other space, air, surface and sub-surface war fighter mission solutions. He managed the overall marketing strategy and efforts including market analysis, identification of business opportunities and risks, strategic alliances and partnering, product and solution requirements, sales coverage, business development programs, and marketing, advertising and communications initiatives & plans. He can be reached at 23 April Lane, Westford MA 01886, by phone at 978-392-9004, by email at sdtashji@comcast.net, or on the web at http://profitfromknowledge.spaces.live.com/ Technorati Tags: Nocturnal, combat, operations, Panama, night, Operation Just Cause, Gideon, Israelites, Midianite, Peloponnesian wars, Thucydides, Frederick the Great, The duke of Wellington, Carl von Clausewitz, Roman, legions, cordon, surveillance, Yorktown, American, Civil, War, Major General, James H. Wilson, Brigadier General, Emory Upton, Confederates, Confederate, ship, Jackson, Kaiser, Zeppelins, German, U-boat, Allied, shipping, searchlights, submarines, star, shells, parachute, flares, underwater, hydrophones, U.S. Army Infantry School, Sun Tzu, Japanese, army, close-in, fighting, Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Battle of EI AIamein, 104th, U.S., infantry, division, General, Douglas A. MacArthur, Philippines, Airborne, Ranger, Office of Strategic Services, OSS, D-Day, drop, XVIII, Airborne Corps, Korean, Chinese, North, infiltration, Matthew B. Ridgeway, Maxwell D. Taylor, night-vision, devices, infrared, sights, thermal, imaging, equipment, passive, goggles, Vietnam, Manuel Noriega, Air Force, Detection, Technology, Revolution, acquisition, programs, electromagnetic, spectrum, solid-state, lasers, optics, charge, coupled, CCD, sub-surface, near-earth, orbit, resolution, clarity, imagery, interoperability, sensors, military, integration, autonomous, weapon, systems, command, and, control, C2, infrastructure, Fibre-optic, Panoramic, cameras, Bi-spectral, active, phased, multi-mode, radars, Multiple, track, scanning, Large, lens, apertures, Time, delay, TDI, Non-rotating, electronically, stabilized, 360-degree, azimuth, sensor, suites, Hemispherical, dome, Eye-safe, Erbium, glass, rangefinder, target, illuminators, Multi-mode, precision, guided, munitions, EO/IR, GPS, High, scan, rate, laser, designators, Iraq, Afghanistan, Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, NVESD, vision, goggle, NVG, monocular, binocular, apparatus, intensification, tube, hand-held, AN/PVS-7, ITT Night Vision, Roanoke, VA, Northrop Grumman, Rolling Meadows, IL, Litton Industries Optical Systems, reduction, signal-to-noise, ratio, Lawrence, Livermore, Laboratories, digital, fusion, combined, projected, transmitted, tactical, surprise, help, save, lives, own, the,Tashji And Associates, David, Tashji December 01 Warheads on Foreheads
Close Air Support Engagement: An OIF Retrospective The devastating weapons effects delivered by close air support (CAS) assets have consistently proven to be essential war winning tools. Considered critical to contemporary joint combat operations, CAS doctrine and technology has continued to evolve at a rapid pace consistent with the multi-mission value delivered to the war fighter. In our narrative retrospective, we will re-visit the employment and impact that CAS delivered to joint and coalition forces during critical phases of the Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign. We will limit our focus to only those stages of the conflict where CAS played a critical role - we will not attempt to portray the considerable aspects of the campaign outside of the defined scope of this writing.
FIGURE A:
FIGURE C:
FIGURE D: Throughout the campaign CGS increasingly revealed itself as a major success story through high reliability performance. With very few FSR in theater or organic 33W’s, the CGS still managed to have a 99% Operational Availability rate.
In addition to supporting primary maneuver units, ISR assets were employed with CGS’s to deliver a wide rage of support to Special Forces operators, though this activity is still SOCOM classified. New Eyes for the JTAC's Tashji is the senior acquisition manager with the 551 Electronic Systems Wing; a US Air Force Material Command unit based at Hanscom AFB, MA. His work involves advanced radar, electronic warfare and battle space control systems developed for the international fleet of Boeing AWACS Advance Warning and Control System aircraft through a multi-billion dollar Foreign Military Sales program. Prior to this appointment, Tashji was a Director with the Raytheon Company responsible for identifying, developing & marketing advanced solutions for DoD and international MoD customers worldwide. His program work includes solutions to support the joint war fighter environment including NAVSEA surface combatants, ISR Systems, Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SL-AMRAAM, and other space, air, surface and sub-surface war fighter mission solutions. He managed the overall marketing strategy and efforts including market analysis, identification of business opportunities and risks, strategic alliances and partnering, product and solution requirements, sales coverage, business development programs, and marketing, advertising and communications initiatives & plans. He can be reached at 23 April Lane, Westford MA 01886, by phone at 978-392-9004, by email at sdtashji@comcast.net, or on the web at http://profitfromknowledge.spaces.live.com/ Technorati Tags: Warheads on Foreheads, OIF, close air support, CAS, war winning tools, contemporary joint combat operations, CAS doctrine, multi-mission, joint and coalition forces, Operation Iraqi Freedom, JTAC, PGM, contemporary military operations, Sensor to Shooter Performance, Common Ground Station, CGS, advanced tactical ground station, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, real-time communications and intelligence, Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, Predator, Hunter, unmanned aerial vehicles, Joint STARS, SCUD launchers, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Line-Of-Sight, LOS, JSWS, SATCOM, First Marine Division, SCDL-E, CENTCOM, TROJAN SPIRIT, TROJAN Lites, SIPRNET, 173rd Airborne Brigade, XVIII Airborne Corps, 10th Mountain Division, 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 3rd Infantry Division, First Marine Expeditionary Force, Euphrates River, sandstorm, B-52’s, digitized military network, Vincent Brooks, Deputy Director of Operations, Dep J-3, An Najaf, U.S. Fifth Corps, vehicle-mounted irregulars, E-3 AWACS, E-2 Hawkeye, Joint STARS E-8 aircraft, Sitting Ducks, Air Force F-15’s, GPS guided bombs, coalition ground forces, Special Forces, SOCOM classified, Tashji, David Tashji, Tashji and Associates November 01 Hack Attack
New Cyber Warriors Pursue Electromagnetic According to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and a growing number of government officials, “Cyber warfare is already here.” Pentagon officials and military commands have expressed significant concerns regarding cyberspace vulnerabilities declaring “It’s one of our major challenges.” The Pentagons’ top intelligence official recently told a Senate committee that cyber threats are contributing to the “unusually complex” security environment that must be monitored and protected. The highly advanced information infrastructure including telecommunications and computer networks and systems (and most importantly the data that reside on these systems) is critical to virtually every aspect of military and civil affairs in modern countries. The exceedingly developed nature of these systems is precisely what makes them attractive targets to adversaries. In our brief analysis, we will explore the arrival of cyber warfare within the arsenal of modern conflict and the interdependency of the physical and virtual worlds that define the modern battle space.
Following the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, I had the opportunity to attend a briefing given by Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré, Commanding General U.S. First Army and Commander Joint Task Force Katrina. He made quite an impression on me. His outstanding presentation included a significant emphasis on the ideology of First Army – specifically regarding the ability to see, understand and act first – with a high degree of situational awareness (SA) and the corresponding ability to confidently seize and maintain the initiative. Today the conventional, low intensity conflict, and counter insurgency (COIN) war fighter is provided with a growing number of data collection and information fusion assets. These are employed within the broad concept of ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance). ISTAR is a practice that links several battlefield functions together to assist a combat force in employing its sensors and managing the information they gather. Within this framework is the United States Air Force airborne battle management and command and control (C2) platform primarily enabled by the E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft (Joint STARS). Joint STARS provides dedicated support to ground and air theater commanders by conducting ground surveillance to develop situational awareness and to support targeting & attack operations. Data collected by JSTARS is transmitted to the Common Ground Station (CGS) where it undergoes further analysis, validation, fusion and conversion into an intelligence product. That intelligence or targeting product is then disseminated to joint command units using Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) standard Tactical Data Link (TDL) transmission formats such as Link 16, the new TDL NATO standard in ground, airborne, and sea-based air defense platforms and select fighter and multi-role aircraft.
The modern conventional, low intensity and COIN battle space now includes a wide array of rapidly emerging unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or UAV or UCAV) designed primarily for unit (squad, platoon, company), area of operations (battalion, brigade, division), and theatre level (corps, army, army group) reconnaissance that provides invaluable battlefield intelligence. Recently, these unmanned systems have also been employed for high-risk combat missions requiring attack capability. These systems (air vehicle, ground controller and data processing and transmission equipment) are organized into capability tiers by service requirements as in the example in figure one.
These unmanned intelligence collection and dissemination systems are increasingly moving towards a net-centric information sharing capability with their larger, legacy platform cousins such as E-8C Joint STARS, E-3 AWACS, E-2 Hawkeye, and the U2 Dragon Lady (examples) as part of the broader Joint Stars airborne battle management and command and control (C2) platform. This capability is being developed through modifications in the Link 16 TDL standard, providing support for Internet protocol Vulnerabilities within the Construct As the U.S military pursues their ambitions to securely network the modern battlefield, they are simultaneously reaching out to government, academia and industry for help in developing capabilities for protecting the nation’s cyber infrastructure. “A global military trend of concern is … the sophisticated ability of select nations and non-state groups to exploit and perhaps target for attack our computer networks,” Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. China, Russia and possibly other nation-states have been assessed as being capable of collecting or exploiting data held on U.S. information systems. “The threat that also concerns us a great deal, and maybe even more so, is if someone has the ability to enter information in systems, they can destroy data,” he added. “And the destroyed data could be something like money supply, electric power distribution, transportation sequencing and that sort of thing.” As modern societies become ever more dependent on cyberspace as an interoperable component of their physical infrastructure, both nation states and non-state actors continue to seek methods to counter the advantages created from the use of information and to turn those same advantages against their adversaries in both conventional and unconventional ways. A New Era in Warfare
In another example, the tiny nation of Estonia (a NATO member) was simultaneously victimized by a series of data-flooding attacks from 26 April to 18 May 2007 that brought down the web sites of several media organizations and forced Estonia’s largest bank to shut down its online banking network. An analysis of the episode revealed widespread use of botnets – a network of thousands of infected computers that flood Internet traffic to a cyberspace target in order to incapacitate, take it off-line, or mask a more sophisticated covert virus attack. Military planners at the Pentagon have also examined the impact of a massive and coordinated Chinese Cyber attack on Civil and Military Cyber Infrastructure. The effects have been described as “having an effect equal to the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction” according to a statement by General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. These remarks came on the heels of an annual DoD report to Congress that asserted China’s military had engaged in numerous intrusions of cyber assets around the world, inclusive of the US Government. The report elaborated how the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was heavily investing in computer network operations (CNO) including network attack and exploitation as the foundation of new war fighting doctrine aimed at obtaining “electromagnetic dominance” in the early stages of armed conflict. According to the DoD report “The PLA has established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks. As early as 2005 the PLA began to incorporate offensive CNO into military exercises, primarily in first strikes against enemy networks”.
In addition to the military threat, China has emerged as the largest global security menace to commercial cyberspace with a young and highly skilled labor force. According to a former US military intelligence analyst, there are about 280,000 to 300,000 individual hackers in China belonging to about 250 cyber crime organizations. Tantamount to a worldwide wake-up call, these examples are indicative of a broader trend requiring the reshaping of force structure and doctrine to enable an effective defense.
At the strategic level, the military’s main responsibilities are maintaining its internal capabilities and networks, to be able to rapidly deploy around the world and defending the United States’ borders, air space, sea lanes and land mass. However, Cyberspace has no distinct, physical borders. There is no nation-state border where we're communicating now (within an Internet dialogue). There are nation-state sponsors, and we have to look at it in terms of nation-state sponsors, as well as those who are not nation-state sponsors -- you might call them cyber-state sponsors -- who are really developing on their own out there.
While AFCYBER (currently a provisional unit embedded with the 8th Air Force at Barksdale AFB Louisiana) has emerged as the predominant cyber defense service, Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has expressed a desire to see a greater level of jointness across the service command structure, in spite of the 2006 National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations initiatives undertaken by the Air Force.
These agencies are engaged in a two-fold effort; devising protections for cyberspace assets that enable mission assurance and war fighting capabilities while simultaneously developing cyber attack attribution capabilities to support a deterrence posture against any cyber aggressor.
At the recent Air Force Cyberspace Symposium, Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright asserted that “the services need to experiment in cyber warfare to figure out how to use technology effectively on the battlefield. One of the other challenges is building a force of cyber warriors. The military has to figure out the appropriate skills, schools and rank structure to build a force capable of both the “defend and operate skills” and the “exploit and attack skills.” The general said that cyber organizations must be integrated into an air operations center, just like a bomber or fighter unit, even though it’s inherently different because, unlike an air or ground war, “we invented this battle space.” As the Internet increases its presence as a component of an integrated construct for how the military addresses the proliferation of challenges it faces, cyberspace has become the latest technological frontier for state sponsored acts of war.
Technorati Tags: Cyberspace, Cyber warfare, cyber threats, Cyber Warriors, Hack Attack, Battle Space, Gordon England, Pentagon, modern conflict, virtual worlds, battle space, Hurricane Katrina, Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré, U.S. First Army, Joint Task Force Katrina, situational awareness, low intensity conflict, COIN, ISTAR, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Reconnaissance, airborne battle management, command and control, C2, information fusion, sensors, E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, Joint STARS, ground surveillance, air theater commanders, targeting & attack operations, intelligence product, Multifunctional Information Distribution System, MIDS, Tactical Data Link, TDL, Common Ground Station, CGS, joint command units, Link 16, NATO standard, ground, airborne, sea-based air defense, fighter, multi-role aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, area of operations, battlefield intelligence, high-risk combat missions, attack capability, capability tiers, Micro UAV, MALE UAV, HALE UAV, high altitude long endurance, low-observable, net-centric, E-8C Joint STARS, E-3 AWACS, E-2 Hawkeye, U2 Dragon Lady, internet protocol, IP, non-line-of-site transmission, secure battle space network, cyber infrastructure, Combined Arms Center, cyber electronics, nation-state, cyber-state, joint services collaboration, Defense Intelligence Agency, China, Russia, money supply, electric power distribution, South Ossetia, virtual infrastructure, denial of service, < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
