U.S. Army's chief of staff; Warning to Enemies "'Russia', will defeat any foe in ground combat"

US Army Grapples With Short-Range Air Defense Gap in Europe

The US Army has wrapped up a review of possible short-range air defense weapons from around the world and is working to fill a critical gap in Europe.

“We have just done what I would call an international scrub that we are putting together on every technology that we can find in the world that addresses this particular concern we have,” Katrina McFarland, the Army’s acquisition chief, said during the ComDef conference at Eurosatory, a large land warfare exhibition, Tuesday.

The Army is also working to address a capability gap in the short-range air defense mission, dubbed SHORAD, within military labs. The activities include demonstrating a launcher that can shoot a wide variety of missiles.

“Where are we? We are better off than we thought we were and so we have at least the possibility of moving very quickly. And where we have gaps, we have already started providing technological solutions both internationally as well as organically to the US,” she said.

When asked to elaborate on the possible technological solutions the Army has begun to provide, McFarland said she couldn’t elaborate and indicated there is more to come soon.

US Army leadership in Europe, as well as many countries in the region, have warned there is a growing gap in short-range air defense.

Even the National Commission on the Future of the Army singled out the mission area as having an “unacceptable modernization shortfall” in its report released in February.

Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the US Army Europe commander, told Defense News during an interview in Poland last week he has similar concerns. For him, the biggest worry is countering unmanned aerial vehicles. “That is my SHORAD concern, especially if there’s like a swarm,” he noted, adding there is a lot of work being done to develop the capability.

Recently, the Army conducted a river crossing exercise in Romania where the Romanians provided a SHORAD capability to counter such threats as aerial drones, Hodges said, and at Poland's Anakonda exercise this month, the Army brought Avengers from the US National Guard for a live-fire, air-defense drill.

Hodges’ chief of staff, German Army Brig. Gen. Markus Laubenthal, said Germany and the US both have a capability gap when it comes to the SHORAD portfolio.

Laubenthal told Defense News last week directly following a bridge crossing exercise in Chelmno, Poland, part of Anakonda, that Avenger systems were used that morning to secure the bridge, but “this is a very scarce capability, so between the assault rifle and Patriot there is not enough between to tackle short-range air defense challenges.”

He added, “I think this is a common ground where we need to work together to find a solution. I think that is a good opportunity and a great chance to come up with something with both nations and we are not alone.”

US military to send tanks to E. Europe for drills

US Army troops equipped with tanks will head to Eastern Europe soon to reassure NATO allies anxious over Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

 

About 600 troops from the 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division are due to deploy in October to Poland and the Baltic states for training exercises with alliance members, replacing paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, said spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Vanessa Hillman.

"It's a three month rotation," Hillman said. The drills are "focused on small unit and leader training."

Unlike the outgoing unit, the troops from the "Iron Horse brigade," based in Fort Hood, Texas, will deploy with M-1 Abrams tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, she said.

US commanders have organized an array of exercises and training efforts on NATO's eastern border to reassure allies dismayed over Russia's support of separatists in Ukraine. Washington also has sent F-16 fighter jets to Poland and joined air policing missions over the Baltic states.

Kiev and Western countries on Thursday accused Russia of directly entering the fighting in eastern Ukraine, saying Moscow had sent combat units into the former Soviet state.

As the UN Security Council prepared to hold an emergency meeting on the crisis, NATO said at least 1,000 Russian troops were on the ground backing pro-Moscow separatists who are fighting Kiev government forces.

NATO leaders have said the alliance must reevaluate its strategy and its troop deployments in light of the conflict in Ukraine.

Russian defence ministry denies sending troops into Ukraine

Moscow (AFP) Aug 28, 2014 - Russia's defence ministry on Thursday denied US and Kiev claims of its troops' direct involvement in the escalating fighting between Ukrainian forces and pro-Kremlin insurgents in the separatist east.

Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told Russian news agencies that the "information has no relation to reality" and that army units believed by Washington to have crossed into Ukraine were conducting "tactical training exercises on their own and outlying ranges."

The comments were the first by issued by a senior Russian official in Moscow since the US ambassador to Kiev accused Moscow of providing air defence systems to the rebels and becoming "directly involved in the fighting".

The defence ministry spokesman said Russian army and paratrooper forces "were indeed capable of successfully performing assignments associated with the armed protection of the country's territorial inviolability."

He added that Russia's ongoing series of training missions in regions that include those near Ukraine "were the normal work of any army".

China Declares Australia a Military Threat Over U.S. Pact

China’s state-run media have declared Australia a threat to its national security, after Australia finalized a 25-year military pact with the United States.

 

The United States currently has 1,200 troops from the Marine Corps and Air Force training with Australian troops for humanitarian and disaster relief. The defense agreement will increase the number of U.S. troops at Darwin in northern Australia to 2,500.

 

The Chinese regime is none too pleased about the agreement, however.

 

Li Jie, rear admiral of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy, told Want China Times that Australia could pressure China’s supply lines in the Strait of Malacca in a conflict over the South China Sea.

“Australia is therefore likely to become a threat to China’s national security,” it states.

Global Times reported that if a war broke out between China and Vietnam or the Philippines, the United States could deploy submarines and aircraft from Australia.

 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced the U.S.-Australia Force Posture Agreement on Tuesday alongside Australian minister of defense David Johnston and minister of foreign affairs Julie Bishop.

 

Hagel said during a press conference, “This is a part of the world that represents five of America’s seven treaty obligation countries that we are committed to, which we’ve made very clear we’re committed to.”

 

Johnston said the U.S. troops are helping train the Australian military. “The Marines, of course, are the world’s experts in amphibious combat and amphibious operations,” he said during the press conference. “And so, we’re watching as to how those operations are carried out.”

 

The recent troop increase is part of a 2011 agreement between the United States and Australia. It was in turn part of the Asia Pivot, which has focused the U.S. military on the Asia Pacific region.

 

The number of U.S. troops in Australia is comparatively small. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said during an Aug. 12 troop event in San Diego that the United States has 360,000 men and women currently deployed in the Asia Pacific.

 

China has previously threatened Australia for aligning with the United States.

 

A source who formerly worked in U.S. intelligence told Epoch Times that, around 2010 and early 2011, China was trying to strong-arm Australia with indirect threats.

 

The threat went along the lines of “If Australia was attacked, the United States wouldn’t get here in time to save you. You should align with China instead.”

 

Not long after, however, the United States signed the agreement with Australia and began stationing U.S. marines and airmen in the country.

 

In response, China’s Global Times published an article in November 2011 that brought its threats to the surface. “The U.S. military presence in Australia will not change matters in the short-term,” it stated. “It remains to be seen how Australia will behave in the future and how China is going to respond.”

 

“But one thing is certain,” it added,” if Australia uses its military bases to help the U.S. harm Chinese interests, then Australia itself will be caught in the crossfire.”

Hagel Proposes Retiring A-10, Cutting LCS to 32 Ships

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made official Monday many of the expected cuts to legacy and modernization weapons programs across the military to include historic favorites like the A-10 and controversial platforms like the Littoral Combat Ship.

 

 

Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey outlined the Pentagon’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2015 as the Defense Department set the tone ahead of a series of expected battles with Congress who have fought cuts to these programs in the past.
 

The Pentagon announced its plan to cut the entire A-10 and U-2 fleets as the Air Force transitions to the F-35 and Global Hawk respectively. Air Force leaders had said in the months leading up to the announcement that the service can no longer afford aircraft that fly niche missions

 

 

The Army saw the service’s number one vehicle modernization priority get whacked when the Pentagon announced the end of the Ground Combat Vehicle program. Slated to replace the Bradley, Army leaders struggled to settle on requirements and costs continued to spiral for the vehicle that didn’t seem to match the Army’s push to become lighter and more agile.

 

 

Hagel seemed to poke the Army for another failed modernization program with his request that the Army deliver “realistic visions” for vehicle modernization  in the coming year.
 

Meanwhile, the defense secretary took a shot at the Navy’s plan to build 52 Littoral Combat Ships. He said the Navy is “relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long term goals for ship numbers.” The defense secretary said there will be no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships even though Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has supported the ship in the face of critical evaluations that questioned the ship’s combat worthiness.
 

Hagel also outlined how the Pentagon plans to follow through on President Obama’s promise to keep an 11-ship aircraft carrier fleet. The Navy needs to pay about $6 billion to complete the mid-life refueling and overhaul of the USS George Washington to keep the carrier in service.
 

It was unclear until Monday where the Navy was going to find the extra funding. Hagel announced that half of the Navy’s cruiser fleet – or 11 ships – will be laid up and placed in reduced operational status in order to find savings as the fleet is modernized.
 

However, Hagel said the Navy can only keep 11 carriers in the fleet if Congress can repeal the sequestration cuts the military is facing.
 

“We would have no other choice than to retire [the USS George Washington] should sequestration-level cuts be re-imposed,” Hagel said.
 

The Navy’s variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, is similarly under pressure from sequestration cuts. Hagel said the Pentagon would have to halt procurement of the carrier variant for two years if sequestration remains.
 

Of course, the Pentagon and Congress have already waged many of the battles where lines were drawn by Hagel and the military brass Monday afternoon. Few expect these proposals to work their way through Congress in a mid-term election year as many lawmakers have a lot to lose if these legacy fleets get retired.
 

The A-10 is a good example. Air Force leaders and lawmakers in both houses have battled for the past two years to retire large chunks of the A-10 fleet. Congress has stymied the Air Force’s past attempts and few analysts expect the service to succeed this year either.

US military blocks access to The Guardian for troops around the world

Uncle Sam is mighty upset, and that’s not a good thing for American troops itching to read the news. The Pentagon has blocked access to The Guardian* newspaper’s website for all soldiers stationed in the Middle East.

The Guardian confirmed on Monday that its website has been blacklisted by a filtering system installed by the United States Department of Defense on the computer system utilized by thousands of service members deployed to the area covered by the US Central Command, or CENTCOM. That “theater-wide” effort has reportedly blocked access to the award-winning newspaper’s Web edition for all soldiers in Afghanistan, the Middle East, South Asia and even the command’s headquarters in Florida. 

The decision to keep overseas troops from accessing the newspaper comes three days after The Guardian learned that certain pages of its website were inaccessible to soldiers stationed within the US. The Defense Department initially restricted access to Guardian articles containing classified material — such as the leaked National Security Agency documents recently disclosed to the paper by former contractor Edward Snowden — but the Pentagon has since widened that ban, making the entire website off limits for soldiers not just within America’s border, but those stationed in locales like Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Banning The Guardian in Afghanistan alone means the 62,000 troops stationed in America’s longest running-war are unable to access the website. 

“US Central Command is among other DOD organizations that routinely take preventative measures to safeguard the chance of spillage of classified information on to unclassified computer networks, even if the source of the information is itself unclassified,” Army Lt Col Steve Wollman, a spokesman for CENTCOM, told The Guardian. “One of the purposes for preventing this spillage is to protect CENTCOM personnel from inadvertently amplifying disclosed but classified information.” 

“Additionally, classified information is not automatically declassified simply because of unauthorized disclosure,” Wollman added. “Classified information is prohibited from specific unclassified networks, even if the information has already been published in unclassified media that are available to the general public, such as online news organizations.” 

Military computers have previously been blocked from accessing the website for WikiLeaks, an anti-secrecy organization that has published hundreds of thousands of classified documents. 

Blacklisting the entirety of The Guardian appears unprecedented though, and is a direct response to the NSA documents that have been sporadically released by the paper since early June. 

The Guardian first published on June 6 a top-secret court order revealing that the NSA routinely collects metadata pertaining to the phone records of millions of Americans. After the paper revealed evidence of the US tapping into Internet services several days later, former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor Edward Snowden identified himself as the source of the leaks. Snowden, 30, has since been charged with espionage and is reportedly in Moscow awaiting potential asylum. Snowden has requested assistance from upwards of 20 separate countries, but could face decades in prison if those requests are ignored and he is extradited to the US to stand trial. 

* Its a crap left wing newspaper - SW Editor

No Benghazi II: Pentagon now prepared to repel assaults on diplomatic outposts in Africa

The Pentagon says it’s now equipped to launch the type of rescue mission that could have helped American personnel who came under deadly attack at the temporary diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, last year.

U.S. Africa Command has positioned a 500-strong Marine task force in Moron, Spain and equipped with Osprey aircraft capable of vertical landing along with KC-130 mid-air refueling tankers, said Defense Department spokesman Maj. Robert A. Firman.

“Their whole reason for being is crisis response in Africa,” Maj. Firman said, adding that Africom also now had its own Commander's In-extremis Force — a small commando of special forces personnel prepared to deploy at short notice.

Their exact response time is classified, he said, but “They are ready to go.”

A House hearing Wednesday will hear testimony about why the U.S. military was not prepared to protect the American diplomats and workers attacked by terrorists last year in Benghazi.

Gregory N. Hicks, a career diplomat who became chief of mission in Libya when the attack killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel, has told investigators from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the U.S. military had no assets ready to respond immediately to the attack.

According to transcript excerpts of his interviewers released by congressional staff, Mr. Hicks said that four U.S. special operations troops in Tripoli were told not to get on a plane to Benghazi the morning after the attack.

That incident is apparently the source of the notorious “stand down” allegation, charging that Obama administration officials ordered military forces not to go to the rescue.

But Mr. Hicks acknowledged that even the second phase of the attack was over before the plane, provided by the Libyan military, took off after 6 AM on Sept. 12.

“No U.S. government element refused or denied requests for emergency assistance during the crisis,” says an interim report from House investigative staff.

Mr. Hicks‘ account confirms the findings of the State Department-chartered investigations called an Accountability Review Board, that no U.S. military assets were close enough to respond to the attacks in Benghazi. He told investigators there was no air-to-air refueling available to get F15s at Aviano U.S. Air Force Base in Italy to Benghazi and back.

But that conclusion also raises harder questions about why the Department of Defense was not prepared to launch a no-notice rescue mission in Africa, despite the presence of U.S. diplomatic facilities in countries like Libya, Mali and the Central African republic which were known last year to be highly unstable and to have military forces that might not be able to defend U.S. diplomats.

China Seeks A Nimitz Moment

In China, government controlled media recently carried comments by a senior admiral in which the construction of a second carrier (as rumored, in a yard near Shanghai) was denied, but it was confirmed that a second, larger carrier was in the planning stage. It would make sense that as much experience as possible be gained from the first carrier (the Liaoning) first before finalizing the design of the second one.

 

The Liaoning is a 65,000 ton, 305 meter (999 feet) long ship that spent over a year on sea trials. During that time Liaoning was at sea for about four months. This was all in preparation for flight operations that began six months ago and were a success, although the Chinese built J15 (an Su-27 variant) jet fighter is still being tweaked as it participates in these carrier operations. Last year China confirmed that the Liaoning will primarily be a training carrier. The Chinese apparently plan to station up to 24 jet fighters and 26 helicopters on the Liaoning and use the ship to train pilots and other specialists for four or more additional carriers that are to be built. Meanwhile the Liaoning will also be staffed and equipped as a combat ship as well.

 

A new Chinese “larger carrier” means something like the recently decommissioned American USS Enterprise (CVN 65). This was the first nuclear powered carrier and it served as the prototype for the subsequent Nimitz class. The Enterprise was an expensive design, and only one was built (instead of a class of six). While a bit longer than the later Nimitz class, it was lighter (92,000 tons displacement, versus 100,000 tons). The Enterprise was commissioned in 1961, almost 40 years after the Langley entered service (1923). In the two decades after the Langley, the first U.S. carrier, went to sea, there were tremendous changes in carrier aviation. While the innovation slowed after World War II, major changes continued into the 1950s (jet aircraft, nuclear propelled carriers, SAMs). But in the ensuing half century there has been no major innovation in basic carrier design. This has not been a problem because the carriers have proven useful, at least for the U.S. Navy (the only fleet to use such large carriers) and no one else has maintained a force of these large carriers. Only the U.S. has a constant need to get air power to any corner of the planet in a hurry. More importantly, no navy has been able to give battle to the U.S. carrier force since 1945. The Soviets built new anti-carrier weapons and made plans to use them but that war never occurred. China is building carriers but is not committed to having a lot of them against the U.S. but to intimidate its neighbors. 

 

In any event, many naval planners worry that the next war will find carriers coming off second best to nuclear submarines and missiles. As in the past, we'll never know unless there's a war to test any new theories about how you fight aircraft carriers. Thus it makes sense for the Chinese to follow the American example and build clones of American carriers. In the last half century there has been a lot written about the Enterprise and the Nimitz class ships, along with lots of photos and videos as well. It would make sense to the Chinese to do an updated Nimitz for their first class of carriers because so much is known about them. 

 

Meanwhile, China has built a carrier pilot training program, along with schools for the many other specialists required to make a carrier work. It was rather surprising to Westerners that China managed to get jet aircraft operating from their new aircraft carrier (the Liaoning) just two months after the ship was commissioned (on September 25th). In large part that was because the Chinese put a lot of effort into preparation. Training of carrier pilots began nearly a decade earlier, but perhaps the smartest move the Chinese made was to arrange for Brazil to have its carrier sailors show the Chinese how it’s done. This was particularly important in the case of how the deck sailors on a carrier operate to get aircraft ready for takeoffs and how the air control specialists in the carrier “island” handle landings. While Russian carrier expertise was for sale, the Chinese wanted to learn how Western navies did this, since carrier operations were invented in the West a century ago. If the next class of Chinese carrier will be based on Western designs this would be the way to go. 

 

Four years ago Brazil agreed to this deal so that Chinese sailors could learn carrier operating skills on the Brazilian Navy's carrier, the "Sao Paulo." It was 13 years ago that Brazil bought the 32,000 ton French aircraft carrier Foch (which was still in service) for $12 million, updated it, and renamed it "Sao Paolo." The navy has not been able to get much cash out of the government to further refurbish the 51 year old Sao Polo, and apparently the Chinese deal will change that.

 

The 33,000 ton "Sao Paolo" was headed for decommissioning and has been used mainly to train carrier pilots when Bazil bought it. The "Sao Paolo" entered service in 2000, and the Brazilians retired the 20,000 ton "Minas Gerais", a World War II era (British) Colossus Class carrier, a year later (after 40 years of service). So the Brazilians have a long tradition of carrier operations and sufficient experienced carrier sailors to teach the Chinese some useful things. Brazil has long been the only South American nation to operate a carrier. The Sao Polo has a crew of 1,900 and was designed to carry 35 warplanes (smaller, older models like the A-4) and four helicopters. This load can vary depending on aircraft type.

 

Six years ago the Chinese Navy Air Force began training carrier fighter pilots (or "aviators" as they are known in the navy). In the past Chinese navy fighter pilots went to Chinese Air Force fighter training schools, and then transferred to navy flight training schools to learn how to perform their specialized (over open water) missions. Now, operating from carriers and performing landings and take-offs at sea has been added to the navy fighter pilot curriculum. The first class of carrier aviators has finished a four year training course at the Dalian Naval Academy. This included learning how to operate off a carrier, using a carrier deck mock-up on land. Landing on a moving ship at sea is another matter. The Russians warned China that it may take them a decade or more to develop the knowledge and skills needed to efficiently run an aircraft carrier. The Chinese are game and are slogging forward. The first landing and takeoff was apparently carried out in calm seas. It is a lot more difficult in rough weather (when the carrier is moving up and down and sideways a lot) and at night. The latter, called “night traps”, is considered the most difficult task any aviator can carry out, especially in rough weather

Tank Transports Dying Of Old Age

The U.S. Army is running out of heavy trucks and rail cars that can carry tanks and other armored vehicles long distances. Armored vehicles that run on tracks wear out quickly if they travel long distances. The tracks and the “running gear” (wheels and related mechanical components) are not durable, because of the heavy weight of these vehicles and the vulnerability of these “track laying systems” that are used because they are the only effective way to enable heavy vehicles to move cross country. After moving about a thousand kilometers under its own power the heavier (over 20 tons) tracked vehicles have to stop and replace worn out components. Because of this, armies use special flatbed railroad cars and tractor trailer trucks to move armored vehicles long distances. Both the rail cars and special trucks owned by the U.S. are wearing out and budget cuts are making it difficult to buy replacements.

 

A decade ago the army had about 2,000 Heavy Equipment Transporters. Each consisted of a heavy duty tractor that could haul 80 ton tanks on a flatbed trailer. These M1000 HETs (Heavy Equipment Trailers) cost about $400,000 each. The trailers weigh 25 tons and are 16.1 meters (52 feet) long and also carry lots of cargo, which they often do when not hauling M-1 tanks or other armored vehicles. The 20 ton M1070 tractor that usually pulls this trailer has a six man cab, so the tank crew can be carried as well. A decade of heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan has reduced the number of working trainers to about 1,500 and some of these are in need of refurbishment.

 

The situation is worse with the special rail cars. The army bought 6,000 of these in the late 1960s but they only have a useful life of fifty years. The 1,300 owned by the Department of Defense have seen little use, but are dying of old age. New ones cost about $150,000 each. Another 4,500 are actually owned by railroads but the Department of Defense paid to equip them with the special features that enable them to carry tanks. These were more heavily used (to carry other cargo) and are all going to be gone because of old age. 

 

The army can improvise, if need be, using stock flatbed rail cars to carry tanks. It takes time to install additional features needed for this. Meanwhile the army still has some tank transport capability with the special tractor trailers, at least the ones that are not in the shop because of heavy use in the last decade. 

 

The rail car deal in the 1960s was in preparation for a major conventional war with the Soviet Union. That threat is gone, but there is still the possibility of tanks being needed in a hurry for some future war. Being ready for such a movement (of tanks from army bases to ports) is costly and may be too expensive in the face of budget cuts and the need for so many other items of equipment. Then again, the United States has deactivated most of the armored units it maintained during the Cold War. Thus there are not nearly as many armored battalions to move to ports.  The thousands of rail cars built to move tanks were built for a mobilization that is no longer possible.

Military Grooms New Officers for War in Cyberspace

The U.S. service academies are ramping up efforts to groom a new breed of cyberspace warriors to confront increasing threats to the nation’s military and civilian computer networks that control everything from electrical power grids to the banking system.

Students at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies are taking more courses and participating in elaborate cyberwarfare exercises as the military educates a generation of future commanders in the theory and practice of computer warfare.

The academies have been training cadets in cyber for more than a decade. But the effort has taken on new urgency amid warnings that hostile nations or organizations might be capable of crippling attacks on critical networks.

James Clapper, director of national intelligence, called cyberattack the top threat to national security when he presented the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment to Congress this month. “Threats are more diverse, interconnected, and viral than at any time in history,” his report stated. “Destruction can be invisible, latent, and progressive.”

China-based hackers have long been accused of cyber intrusions, and earlier this year the cybersecurity firm Mandiant released a report with new details allegedly linking a secret Chinese military unit to years of cyberattacks against U.S. companies. This year, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post all reported breaches in their computer systems and said they suspected Chinese hackers. China denies carrying out cyberattacks.

On Tuesday, hackers compromised Associated Press Twitter accounts and sent out a false tweet. AP quickly put out word that the report was false and that its accounts had been hacked. AP’s accounts were shut down until the problem was corrected.

Once viewed as an obscure and even nerdy pursuit, cyber is now seen as one of the hottest fields in warfare – “a great career field in the future,” said Ryan Zacher, a junior at the Air Force Academy outside Colorado Springs, Colo., who switched from aeronautical engineering to computer science.

Last year the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., began requiring freshmen to take a semester on cybersecurity, and it is adding a second required cyber course for juniors next year.

The school offered a major in cyber operations for the first time this year to the freshman class, and 33 midshipmen, or about 3 percent of the freshmen, signed up for it. Another 79 are majoring in computer engineering, information technology or computer science, bringing majors with a computer emphasis to about 10 percent of the class.

“There’s a great deal of interest, much more than we could possibly, initially, entertain,” said the academy’s superintendent, Vice Adm. Michael Miller.

Since 2004, the Air Force Academy has offered a degree in computer science-cyberwarfare – initially called computer science-information assurance – that requires cadets to take courses in cryptology, information warfare and network security in addition to standard computer science. The academy is retooling a freshman computing course so that more than half its content is about cyberspace, and is looking into adding another cyber course.

“All of these cadets know that they are going to be on the front lines defending the nation in cyber,” said Martin Carlisle, a computer science professor at the Air Force Academy and director of the school’s Center for Cyberspace Research.

About 25 Air Force cadets will graduate this year with the computer science-cyberwarfare degree, and many will go on to advanced studies and work in their service’s cyber headquarters or for U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, Md., the Defense Department command responsible for defensive and offensive cyberwarfare.

Almost every Army cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., takes two technology courses related to such topics as computer security and privacy. West Point also offers other cyber courses, and a computer security group meets weekly. One of the biggest cybersecurity challenges is keeping up with the head-spinning pace of change in the field.

“You know American history is pretty much the same” every year, said Lt. Col. David Raymond, who teaches a cybersecurity course. “In this domain, it’s really tough to keep up with how this thing evolves.”

In his congressional report, Clapper noted that the chance of a major attack by Russia, China or another nation with advanced cyber skills is remote outside a military conflict – but that other nations or groups could launch less sophisticated cyberattacks in hopes of provoking the United States or in retaliation for U.S. actions or policies overseas. South Korea accused North Korea of mounting a cyberattack in March that shut down thousands of computers at banks and television broadcasters.

Gen. Keith Alexander, head of U.S. Cyber Command, told Congress in March the command is creating teams to carry out both offensive and defensive operations. A spokesman said the command is drawing cyber officers from the service academies, officer schools and Reserve Officer Training Corps programs.

Teams from the three academies compete in events such as last week’s National Security Agency Cyber Defense Exercise, in which they try to keep simulated computer networks running as an NSA “aggressor team” attacks. Teams from the U.S. Coast Guard and Merchant Marine academies also took part, along with graduate students from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and Canada’s Royal Military College.

Air Force won among undergraduate schools. The Royal Military College won among graduate schools.

That hands-on experience is invaluable, said 2nd Lt. Jordan Keefer, a 2012 Air Force Academy graduate now pursuing a master’s degree in cyberoperations at the Air Force Institute of Technology.

“You can’t just go out there and start hacking. That’s against the law,” he said. The competitions, he said, “gave me actual experience defending a network, attacking a network.”

Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke, noting that really high-level computer skills are rare, suggested the military might have to re-examine some of its recruiting standards to attract the most adept cyberwarriors.

“Hackers are the 1 percent, the elite and the creators,” said Clarke, who served as White House cybersecurity adviser during the Clinton administration. “I wouldn’t worry a whole heck of a lot (about whether they) can they run fast or lift weights.”

Cyber’s appeal was enough to get Keefer to put aside his dream of becoming a fighter pilot, a job with undeniable swagger. “It’s a challenge, and for people who like a challenge, it’s the only place to be,” Keefer said.

North Korea's nationwide military drills loom next week amid threat

 Sang (file pic)

North Korea has started submarine drills and stepped up preparations for nationwide military exercises, which may be timed to coincide with annual joint drills by South Korea and the United States set to start next week, military sources said Wednesday.

   The latest move comes as Pyongyang has ratcheted up its hostile rhetoric against Seoul and Washington as the two allies last week launched a two-month field training exercise called Foal Eagle. Separately, joint forces will conduct computer-simulated drills named Key Resolve from March 11 to 21.

   On Tuesday, Pyongyang threatened to scrap the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, citing tensions over South Korean-U.S. joint military exercises and the United Nations' move to impose sanctions for its Feb. 12 nuclear test.

   A statement by the North's military said the armistice will be "completely" nullified from March 11, when Key Resolve gets into full swing in the South, warning a "precise" strike at any time.

   "North Korea's submarines have entered military maneuvers in the Yellow Sea and East Sea," a military source said, on the condition of anonymity. "This year's winter drill was more intense than in the past years and artillery exercises tripled."

   When President Park Geun-hye was sworn into office on Feb. 25, North Korea's artillery unit carried out firearm training targeting the South Korean capital Seoul, he said.

   The North will start large-scale drills across the nation from next week when South Korean and the U.S. troops start the two-week war game, another military source said, asking for anonymity.

   A large-scale firearm drill will be held near the east coastal city of Wonsan, while nationwide military maneuvers will be carried out, the source said.

   According to multiple military sources, the North has recently declared a "no-fly zone" in the west and the east of the Korean Peninsula during the May 11-20 Key Resolve training period, fueling speculation that it may fire off missiles. Seoul's defense ministry declined to comment.

   In the past, Pyongyang had declared no-fly zones before it fired short-range missiles or conducted maritime firing drills.

   "As (North Korea's) army, navy and air force are preparing a large-scale firearm training near Wonsan, the no-fly zone may be aimed at maritime or air firing drills," a third source said. "But we don't exclude a possibility of a missile launch."

   In response to the North's latest military movement, South Korea has stepped up its military readiness and surveillance to counter any North Korean provocations during the training period, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said.

   In a statement, the South Korean military on Wednesday said that if the North provokes the South again, it will "strongly and sternly" punish the North Korean leadership, not to mention the origin of the provocation and its supporting forces.

   "If North Korea goes ahead with provocations and threatens the lives and safety of South Koreans, our military will strongly and sternly retaliate against the command and its supporting forces," said the statement read by Army. Maj. Gen. Kim Yong-hyun, a senior official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a press conference. "We want to make it clear that (our military) has made all preparations to do that."

   Seoul and Washington said the annual drills are defensive in nature, but the communist nation has always denounced them as a rehearsal for a northward U.S. invasion aimed at toppling its communist regime.

   About 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea.

US drastically expanding military presence in the Philippines

The US will significantly increase its military presence in the Philippines – an announcement that has angered China, whose Communist Party chief urged his military to prepare for a struggle and whose state-run media have criticized the agreement.

The US announced in 2011 that it would increase joint training exercises and ship visits to the Philippines in order to counter China’s growing influence in the region. These visits have been welcomed by Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III.

This month, the US announced that it would increase the number of troops, aircraft and ships that rotate through the Philippines. The announcement was made during the 3rd Phillipines-United States Bilateral Strategic Dialogue in Manila, which was held Dec. 11-12. The two countries are expected to sign a five-year joint US-Philippine military exercise plan in their upcoming meetings, The Diplomat reported.

“There has been no discussion yet on specifics [of in-country military equipment] … (these are) policy consultations and the specifics would be determined by the technical working groups,” Lorenzo Batino, the Philippines deputy defense minister said at the annual dialogue.

The US presence would likely guard against Chinese influence and try to contain the Communist country’s rising military and economic power. China has territorial claims across the South China Sea and dominates relations with members of the Associations of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), including the Philippines, with which it has overlapping claims of the Spratly islands. For years, the US has helped build the Philippine’s military and security forces and offered financial assistance in exchange for greater American presence in the country.

The US came under scrutiny in July after Human Rights Watch found that President Aquino’s regime was using torture methods, conducting extra-judicial killings and making “leftist activists, journalists and clergy” disappear. The US has given almost $700 million to this regime since President Barack Obama took office.

But the US presence in the Philippines is so important to the Obama administration that the Philippines will likely receive even more financial assistance, alongside the increase in military assistance, according to AntiWar reporter John Glaser. The US will not, however, admit that its main intention is to maintain its hegemony in the region.

The US announced that its military support would be of assistance to the Philippines after natural disasters, which occur often in the western Pacific country. Trying to address Chinese concerns, the US emphasized the humanitarian nature of its military presence, citing the recent Typhoon Bopha, which killed more than 900 Philippines last week.

But the Chinese response has not been positive. After the announcement was made, Chinese media described the Philippines as troublemakers seeking conflict. Using offensive language, the state-run media sources denounced the US-Philippines agreement and referred to the Phillipines Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario as ‘pathetic’.

Chinese Communist Party Chief Xi Jinping urged his military to prepare for a struggle, without mentioning the potential aggressor.

“Push forward preparations for a military struggle,” he told the People’s Liberation Army, which consists of 2.3 million servicemen.

Tensions between China and the Philippines have been on the rise for a while. In October, 2,600 American Marines and 1,200 marines from the Philippines jointly began 10 days of exercises focused on disaster relief, humanitarian assistance and maritime security. The exercises irritated China and the Communist Party of the Philippines, who claimed that the purpose of the US presence was to prepare for foreign intervention.

"In collaboration with the Aquino government, the US has been using the Philippines as one of its military outposts in launching interventionist operations," the Communist Party of the Philippines announced.

With a greater number of ships, aircraft, and troops, the US will now have an greater establishment in southeast Asia.

Seven airmen sue military over sexual assaults

Nineteen former and active-duty service members, including seven airmen, accuse Air Force and Army leadership of subjecting them to sexual assaults by fostering an environment that tolerated such crimes, according to a lawsuit filed Sept. 28 in U.S. District Court.

The claim is the fifth of its kind filed by Washington, D.C., attorney Susan Burke and the first that targets the Air Force. All but one of the cases is pending; a federal judge dismissed a similar lawsuit against former Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates in December.

The most recent case, filed in the court in the Northern District of California, names as defendants Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, among others. A “pattern and practice of ignoring and failing to prosecute rape and sexual assault” has led to a series of scandals, the lawsuit states, including more than a dozen military training instructors coming under investigation at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland.

The MTIs have been accused of crimes ranging from rape and aggravated sexual assault to improper relationships via social media.

The airmen who have filed suit include five women and two men who said they were denied due process, equal protection, free speech and the right to a jury trial after they were sexually assaulted by a fellow service member.

Most of the airmen immediately reported the attacks; some sought medical treatment, according to the suit. The airmen were then ostracized and retaliated against, the claim states, while their alleged assailants escaped criminal prosecution — and in some instances were promoted. All seven airmen in the suit say they continue to experience anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. Four have left the service.

The suit includes the following allegations:

• A former staff sergeant said she was harassed and accused of being a liar after reporting she was sexually assaulted by a classmate at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., in 2005. Two other women had accused her alleged attacker of rape. She learned in 2010 that the commander chose not to pursue any of the allegations.

• A master sergeant who reported to the military that he was struck on the head and sexually assaulted by an officer in September 2010 was in turn charged with a series of crimes for his “participation” in the attack. The master sergeant, who said he was ostracized and retaliated against by his superiors, was cleared of all the charges. He suffers from a traumatic brain injury and PTSD. The officer was never charged with sexual assault.

• A female senior airman suffered escalating sexual harassment and assault while at Hurlburt Air Force Base, Fla., in 2004. Though she reported it to her supervisor, the case was never investigated. She ultimately submitted a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Office, which backed up her allegations. Her assailant received a letter of reprimand and remained in the service.

• A captain said he was drugged and sexually assaulted by a fellow serviceman at a party while at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. He reported the assault and sought medical attention. The captain was ordered to attend an alcohol abuse evaluation.

Burke, whose father was career Army, said she began filing the lawsuits in 2010 after she was approached by a military wife who said she was raped by a friend of her husband.

“When I looked into it, I was appalled and shocked by the state of affairs. I simply held myself out as willing to” take on these cases, she said in an interview. “I was inundated with calls. It’s a national disgrace.”

Burke assumed the military “had fixed everything” after the 1991 Navy Tailhook scandal, she said, referring to the dozens of officers accused of “improper and indecent” conduct at a Las Vegas hotel. “I was really upset and disappointed” to learn otherwise, she said.

Burke has appealed the lawsuit that was dismissed. “We think we can win,” she said.

A spokesman for Donley, Lt. Col. Samuel Highley, said the Air Force cannot comment on ongoing lawsuits.

“However, I can tell you that Air Force leadership is personally committed to maintaining a safe and professional working environment for all our airmen,” Highley said in an email statement. “The crime of sexual assault is incompatible with our Air Force core values, harmful to our people, and ultimately makes us a less effective fighting force. We continue to take aggressive steps to eliminate sexual assault from our workplace by creating a culture of prevention.”

Defense Department spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith said in an email that Panetta has taken multiple steps to try to prevent sexual assault in the military, support victims and hold perpetrators accountable, including establishing a “special victims unit” within each service so that “specially trained investigators and prosecutors assist when necessary.”

Lawmakers want explanation for China-made boots

Two members of Congress plan to urge the Defense Department to ensure U.S. troops wear only American-made uniforms and gear after Air Force Times revealed this summer that an airman deployed to Afghanistan was given Chinese-made boots by his unit.

Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Michael H. Michaud, D-Maine, are asking fellow lawmakers to sign a letter that asks the Defense Department to comply with the “letter and the spirit of the Berry Amendment,” which requires the food, clothing, fabrics and other textiles the Pentagon buys to be grown or made in the U.S.

“A recent news report highlighted an Air Force Master Sergeant who was twice issued boots made in China. When he asked how he could exchange them for American-made boots, he was told ‘good luck.’”

In June, Air Force Times reported that Master Sgt. Steve Adachi had difficulties trying to get a pair of boots that were not made in China. At the time, an Air Force spokeswoman said the Berry Amendment did not apply because the law can be waived for purchases under $150,000.

Hunter said lawmakers became aware of the issue from Air Force Times’ story on Adachi. The letter to the Defense Department is the beginning of a broader effort by Congress to the department to buy more American goods.

“We think, probably, this is the tip of the iceberg — there’s probably a lot of materiel and a lot of transactions taking place that are simply waived by DoD because it’s easy to waive them, not because it’s the right thing to do and not because there aren’t American manufacturers of those goods that DoD needs to buy,” Hunter told Air Force Times.

With the country at war and the economy still weak, it is “more important than ever” that the department comply with the Berry Amendment, the lawmakers wrote.

“We should not rely on other countries, particularly those who may have competing global interests, to supply our forces with basic items,” the letter says. “This is especially true when there are millions of Americans looking for work. More importantly, our soldiers deserve to fight in uniforms, including footwear, that are made in the U.S.A.”

So far, 17 members of Congress have signed the letter, said Ed Gilman, a spokesman for Michaud. The two lawmakers have not yet decided when to send the letter.

The Defense Department declined to comment on the matter.

“We’ll wait until we get any communication from members of Congress and then respond appropriately to them,” Defense Department spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in an email.

After the Air Force Times story was published, Adachi received a pair of American-made boots from the company from which his unit bought the other boots.

The incident made him so incensed that he wrote his congresswoman, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, D-Hawaii, who later received a letter from the Air Force that reiterated that the Berry Amendment did not apply to the purchase of the two-pair of boots.

However, the Air Force acknowledged that Adachi’s unit violated another law, the Buy American Act, which applies to purchases greater than $3,000.

“After significant research and a comprehensive legal review, it appears the sage green boots Sergeant Adachi received prior to his deployment were purchased with the intent to be used in the United States, and thus violated the ‘Buy American Act,’” wrote Lt. Col. Douglas F. McCobb, of the office of legislative liaison, in a letter to Hanabusa.

The issue of what troops wear is an important one to Michaud, whose district includes factories that make footwear. He has introduced a bill that would stop the Defense Department from issuing troops cash allowances to buy their own athletic shoes.

“We all remember the outrage this summer when it was discovered that our Olympic athletes were wearing uniforms made in China,” Michaud said in a news release. “Well I think we should be as equally outraged about the fact that our troops are not wearing 100 percent American-made uniforms. Our soldiers put their lives on the line for us, and they should fight in uniforms they can trust — uniforms made in the U.S.A.”