The Navy Follows The Army

The U.S. Navy is seeking replacements for its 32 LCUs (Landing Craft Utility), which are all over 40 years old and fading fast. LCUs have a flat bottom and a ramp built into the front of the ship, which can be dropped into shallow water to allow armored vehicles or tucks to leave the ship and move right onto the beach. Current LCUs (LCU 1600s) are 380 ton ships that can carry 125 tons of cargo (two tanks, 400 troops or just cargo) These LCUs have a crew of 13, a top speed of 20 kilometers an hour and can stay at sea for up to ten days. LCUs were developed during World War II, and are still in wide use by nations that have lots of coastline, or nearby islands as well as in large amphibious ships (for carrying troops from ship to shore).

 

The LCU replacement is called SC(X)(R) (for Surface Connector Replacement) and the design is still under consideration. Given the growing cash shortages in the navy, it’s likely that the LCU replacement will just be an updating of the existing design. LCUs were developed during World War II, and are still in wide use by nations that have lots of coastline, or nearby islands. 

 

In the 1990s the U.S. Army replaced its own fleet of LCU 1600s with 34 LCU 2000s. These are 1,087 ton ships that can carry 350 tons (or up to five tanks or 24 cargo containers). The LCU 2000 has the same size crew but can stay at sea up to 27 days. The army stations some of them overseas (Kuwait, Japan) to help move cargo from anchored ships to shore (and up rivers or numerous bases).

 The navy may end up following the army lead in choosing an affordable design for its LCU replacement. The navy would like something more exotic, but the cash just isn’t there. The army LCU 2000s have been in service nearly two decades now and the army is planning to refurbish them so the ships can serve another decade beyond their designed life of 25 years. If the navy wants a low-risk replacement for its older LCUs, something based on the army LCU is the best candidate.

You Know The War Is Over When. . .

With combat operations winding down in Afghanistan, the U.S. Army is cutting back on purchases of its popular RQ-11B Raven micro-UAV. In the last decade the U.S. has bought most of the 19,000 Ravens produced. But now those purchases are fading to zero. Last year the army bought 1,134, this year it was 234 and next year it is zero. The reason why the army has bought so many Ravens is because this tiny (two kg/3.3 pound) rapidly wears out in combat. The Raven is made of Kevlar, the same material used in helmets and protective vests, but there are many ways for one to be lost in combat. On paper a Raven can survive about 200 landings before it can no longer be used. That’s in peacetime operations. In a combat zone few Ravens make it past fifty or so landings. While some Ravens have been shot down, the most common cause of loss is a problem with the communications link (as the aircraft flies out of range or behind something that interrupts the signal) or a software/hardware failure on the aircraft. Combat losses have been high, as nearly 20,000 have been built and most of those have been lost on the battlefield.

 

With much less combat expected in the next few years, the army is cutting orders for new Ravens and, in effect, living off existing stocks (over 5,000 Ravens) and resuming purchases only if a lot of troops are sent into combat. Raven, in effect, is being treated like ammunition, with much needed in peacetime than in wartime. 

 

Despite the high loss rate the Raven is popular with combat and non-combat troops alike. In part this is because the army has developed better training methods, which enables operators to get more out of Raven more quickly. Combat troops use it for finding and tracking the enemy, while non-combat troops use it for security (guarding bases or convoys). In both cases troops have come to use the Raven for more than just getting a look over the hill or around the corner. The distinctive noise of a Raven overhead is very unpopular with the enemy below and is often used to scare the enemy away or make him move to where he can be more easily spotted.

 

The current model, the Raven B (RQ-11B), was introduced six years ago, a year after the original Raven entered service in large numbers. This UAV is inexpensive ($35,000 each). The Raven is battery powered (and largely silent unless flown close to the ground). It carries a color day vidcam or a two color infrared night camera. It can also carry a laser designator and a new gimbaled camera is being bought. The cameras broadcast real time video back to the operator, who controls the Raven via a handheld controller, which uses a hood to shield the display from direct sunlight (thus allowing the operator to clearly see what is on the ground). The Raven can go as fast as 95 kilometers an hour but usually cruises at between 40 and 50 kilometers an hour. It can go as far as 15 kilometers from its controller and usually flies a pre-programmed route, using GPS for navigation.

 

From the very beginning the Raven changed the way troops fight. With the bird's eye view of the battlefield, commanders can move their troops more quickly, confident that they won't be ambushed and often with certain knowledge of where the unseen enemy is. The big advantage with Raven is that it’s simple, reliable, and it just works. The UAV can be quickly taken apart and put into a backpack. It takes off by having the operator start the motor and then throwing it. This can be done from a moving vehicle and the Raven is a popular recon tool for convoys. It lands by coming in low and then turning the motor off. Special Forces troops like to use it at night because the enemy can’t see it and often can’t hear it either.

 

Last year the U.S. Army began using the larger (5.9 kg) Puma AE UAVs. Adopting Puma is part of an army effort to find micro-UAVs that are more effective than current models and just as easy to use. The Puma, a 5.9 kg (13 pound) UAV with a 2.6 meter (8.5 feet) wingspan and a range of 15 kilometers from the operator, has proved to be the next big (or micro) thing the army was looking for. Combat commanders quickly realized how useful Puma is and wanted more, as quickly as possible. This is not surprising as SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has been using Puma since 2008.

 

The army wants to equip each infantry company with a Puma system. That would mean 18 Puma AE UAVs per brigade and nearly 400 for the entire army. These larger UAVs have been most useful in route clearance (scouting ahead to spot ambushes, roadside bombs, landslides, washouts, or whatever). The larger Puma is particularly useful in Afghanistan, which is windier than Iraq and thus more difficult for the tiny Raven to operate.

Top speed for Puma is 87 kilometers an hour and cruising speed is 37-50 kilometers an hour. Max altitude is 3,800 meters (12,500 feet). Puma has a better vidcam (providing tilt, pan, and zoom) than the smaller Raven and that provides steadier and more detailed pictures. Because it is larger than Raven, and three times as heavy, Puma is much steadier in bad weather. Both Puma and Raven are battery powered.

 

Puma has been around for a decade but never got purchased in large quantities by anyone. The latest model uses a lot of proven tech from the Raven (both UAVs are made by the same company). Like the Raven, Puma is hand launched and can be quickly snapped together or apart. Another version, using a fuel cell, has been tested and was able to stay in the air for nine hours at a time. There is also a naval version that floats and is built to withstand exposure to salt water.

 

Each combat brigade is now supposed to have 35 mini-UAV systems (each with three UAVs, most of them Raven but at least ten of these systems are to be Pumas). That means that each combat brigade now has its own air force of over a hundred reconnaissance aircraft.

 

The army currently has nearly 7,000 UAVs. Over 6,000 are micro-UAVs like the Raven and Puma. These tiny (under six kg/13.2 pound) reconnaissance aircraft have become very popular with the troops, anyone of which can become an operator after a few hours of training. These tiny UAVs are a radical new military aircraft technology that took air recon to a new level. That level is low, a few hundred meters off the ground. The army has nearly 1,798 Raven and 325 Puma UAV systems in use by ground troops. A complete system (controller, spare parts, and three UAVs) costs $250,000 for the Raven and over $400,000 for Puma. These tiny aircraft have changed how the troops fight and greatly reduced army dependence on the air force for air reconnaissance. The lightweight, hand launched Raven UAV can only stay airborne about an hour per sortie, but troops have found that this is enough time to do all sorts of useful work, even when there's no fighting going on. This is most of the time. The heavier Puma can stay up for 120 minutes.

Female soldier pleads guilty to desertion during Iraq war

A female soldier pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of desertion after fleeing to Canada to avoid a second tour of duty in the Iraq war.

Army Pfc. Kimberly Rivera was sentenced to 10 months in prison and a bad-conduct discharge after entering her plea at a court-martial.

Rivera, 30, was a wheeled-vehicle driver in Fort Carson’s 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team and served in Iraq in 2006. She has said that, while there, she became disillusioned with the U.S. mission in Iraq.

During a two-week leave in the U.S. in 2007, Rivera crossed the Canadian border after she was ordered to serve another tour in Iraq.

The Colorado Springs Gazette reported that when judge Col. Timothy Grammel asked Rivera on Monday how long she remained absent, Rivera replied: “As long as I possibly could, sir. … I intended to quit my job permanently.”

After fleeing to Canada, Rivera applied for refugee status but was denied.

Rivera then applied for permanent residency, but Canadian immigration officials rejected that application, too. Authorities also rejected her requests to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Rivera was first ordered to leave Canada or face deportation in 2009, but she appealed that decision.

 The mother of four faced another deportation order issued in 2012.

She was arrested at the U.S. border and taken into military custody.

About 19,000 people signed an online petition in Canada protesting Rivera’s deportation order, and rallies were held in a number of Canadian cities calling on the government to let her stay in the country.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the U.S. veterans organization Veterans for Peace also protested the deportation order.

During her sentencing hearing, government lawyers argued that Rivera, who was granted leave shortly into her tour to work out marital issues, failed to return because her husband threatened to leave her and take their children, The Gazette reported.

Rivera’s civilian defense attorney, James Matthew Branum, argued that Rivera never filed for status as a conscientious objector because she didn’t know the option was available to her. He said Rivera should have been informed about it when she met with a chaplain in Iraq over concerns that she couldn’t take a life, The Gazette reported.

 In 2012, the War Resisters Support Campaign, a Canadian activist group, estimated that there were about 200 Iraq war resisters in Canada. It said two other Iraq war resisters who were deported, Robin Long and Clifford Cornell, faced lengthy jail sentences upon their return.

Long was given a dishonorable discharge in 2008 and sentenced to 15 months in a military prison after pleading guilty to charges of desertion.

The lower house of Canada’s Parliament most recently passed a motion in 2009 in favor of allowing U.S. military deserters to stay, but the Conservative Party government was not persuaded.

During the Vietnam War, as many as 90,000 Americans won refuge in Canada, most of them to avoid the military draft. Many were given permanent residence status that led to Canadian citizenship, but the majority went home after President Carter granted amnesty in the late 1970s.

Some Canadian politicians say the situation is different now because Iraq war deserters like Rivera enlisted in the U.S. military voluntarily.

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.

US Army spends hundreds of thousands advancing fog-like obscurants

The US Army has given firms three grants to upgrade flare systems used to mask the heat signature of prized fighting machines. The heat-seeking chemical, used for the past 60 years, has been deemed dangerous to health and the environment.

Three private companies – Lynntech, Inc., Nanotrons and Physical Sciences – will be in charge of developing new countermeasures, to replace weapons that have been accused of releasing harmful copper into the air when a smoke bomb is detonated.The US government will give the firms around $100,000 to complete the task.

The “dust clouds”, which aim to impede the ability of heat seeking weapons to detect heat signatures, can have adverse health effects on whoever inhales the smoke particles. Most obscurants used today are made from metal particles – often bronze – and have “significant environmental persistence that may pose health hazards,” Wired reports.

Ingesting too much copper, which is found in bronze, can cause gastrointestinal health problems and in serious cases lead to liver and kidney damage. Inhaling copper particles can also cause respiratory irritation, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

A study by the National Academies Press found that exposure to the toxic smoke from obscurants causes pulmonary congestion, alveolitis, chronic pneumonia, and lung inflammation.

But smoke screens have been used since the 1950’s to allow the US military to hide from missiles. The heat-seeking chemicals form metallic dust clouds around equipment that emits infrared radiation, masking prized assets such as tanks, planes and other military hardware.Military planes also deploy flares to divert missiles heading their way.

“To block infrared, you fill a grenade with bronze flakes and detonate it,” near the object you want to hide, said scientist John Lennhoff, who works for a company hired to develop the obscurant.

The US Army is now spending about $300,000 to develop better obscurants, which the government hopes will consist of a less dangerous chemical compound.

Weapons - Accessorize Or Die

The U.S. Army is introducing a shorter and lighter version of its M110 SASS (Semi-Automatic Sniper System). While smaller, it won't be any cheaper (about $2,200 each). The most important accessory is a scope, and these cost nearly as much as the rifle. For example, the Bushnell Elite LRS 3x21 scope goes for $1,800 each. These scopes are built to handle weather, rough treatment and still deliver accuracy. Minimum magnification of this scope is 3X, and max is 21X. Snipers can also use less expensive accessories like flash suppressors, bipods, slings, stocks and items like camouflage suits. There are also wind sensors, computer software and so on. The accessories can easily cost more than the rifle itself. 

SASS has been around since 2008. The new CSASS (Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System) will use a collapsible stock and a removable flash suppressor to get the length down to 91 cm (36 inches) long and the weight under 4.1 kg (9 pounds) unloaded. The CSASS is addressing demands from the troops for a more compact sniper rifle for the many snipers who are part of infantry units, not special sniper detachments. But even a more compact sniper rifle will, on occasion, require some special accessories.

The M110 has largely replaced the bolt-action M24 and provided commanders with much more effective snipers. That increase in numbers (of snipers) over the last decade and their increased effectiveness has changed the look (less random fire from U.S. troops) and feel (the U.S. troops appear more in control) of the battlefield. It's also easier to spot the enemy. He's usually the guy firing on automatic. The fellows firing one shot at a time are the Americans and they are usually the last ones standing.

The M110 achieved its high accuracy partly by using a 20 inch heavy floating barrel. The "floating" means that the barrel is attached only to the main body of the rifle to reduce resonance (which throws off accuracy). The standard M110 weighs 7.9 kg (17.3 pounds) in combat and about 32 kg (70 pounds) with all components of the system. The M110 can use a ten or twenty round magazine. The 1.03 meter (40.5 inch) long rifle can have a 15 cm (six inch) tube attached to the barrel, which reduces the noise and flash made when the rifle fires and largely eliminates nearby dust rising into the air, which often gives away the sniper's position.

Previously, many snipers have had success using tuned up M-14s (from the 1960s) as sniper rifles. While semi-automatic and rugged, the M14 wasn't designed to be a sniper rifle. The AR-10 was a better model for a semi-automatic sniper rifle, since it is inherently more reliable and accurate.

As far back as World War II it was known that there were many situations where a semi-automatic sniper rifle would come in handy. But it's taken over half a century to solve the reliability and accuracy problems. The CSASS is also meant to satisfy users of the M-14s, whose size (118cm/46.5 inches, same as SASS) was always a drawback. The SASS, however, weighed a third more than the M-14. With the lighter and shorter CSASS, plus a reputation for accuracy and reliability, M-14 users should finally be lured away from their 1950s era sniper rifle.

US Army - OSINT Gets Some Respect

Last July the U.S. Army issued a manual, Army Techniques Publication 2-22.9, on using open source (mainly searching the Internet) intelligence. Also called OSINT, the troops have been using the Internet for intelligence work for over a decade. The publication of ATP 22.9 is a way for the senior army leadership to say, "message received and understood." ATP 22.9, despite all the useful tips it contains, won't go far in helping the many soldiers already using the Internet but it will be useful in convincing their bosses that much useful stuff can be obtained from the Internet.

While the U.S. intelligence community officially recognized the importance of OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) back in 2004, it was years before there was a lot of enthusiasm from the top brass for using this growing source of information.

The Internet has made OSINT a really, really huge source of useful intelligence. It's not just the millions of gigabytes of information that is placed on the net but the even more voluminous masses of message board postings, blogs, emails, and IMs (instant messaging) that reveal what the culture is currently thinking. It was corporate intelligence practitioners who alerted the government intel people to the growing usefulness of Internet based data. Corporations have developed, over the last few decades, a keen interest in gathering intel on competitors, new markets, and all manner of things that might affect them. This "competitive intelligence" (or corporate spying) became big business. The Internet has made this a much more useful exercise.

However, corporate intel specialists were concerned that government agencies, especially the CIA, were not taking sufficient advantage of OSINT. Part of the problem was cultural. The intelligence agencies have always been proud of their special intel tools, like spy satellites, electronic listening stations, and spy networks. Most of these things are unique to government intelligence operations. People who use this stuff tend to look down on a bunch of geeks who simply troll the web. Even when the geeks keep coming up with valuable stuff, they don't get any respect. The fear was that some foreign countries were exploiting OSINT more effectively than the United States. No foreign intel agency will admit to this but there are indications that some nations are mining the Internet quite intensively and effectively.

This fear grew as China, Russia, and other nations were caught using the Internet for direct espionage (hacking into other nations' networks). While examining that threat it was discovered that the heavy use of OSINT was part of the hacking operations. Thus over the last five years the CIA and other major intel agencies got more enthusiastic about OSINT, and this made it easier for Internet-savvy army leaders to get ATP 22.9 into print.

US Army missile test sparks UFO reports in Southwest

Three unarmed rockets fired from New Mexico to test Patriot defense system

People across the Southwest got an early-morning show in the sky Thursday, courtesy of a trio of unarmed missiles fired from New Mexico, one of which left a brilliant contrail that changed colors as it was illuminated by the rising sun.

The twisting cloudlike formation was visible in southern Colorado, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas just before sunrise, and led to hundreds of calls and emails to area TV stations.

Law enforcement agencies in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado received some reports of a crash, but those were quickly discounted. A sheriff's deputy in northern New Mexico who saw one of the missiles leaving behind a contrail as it lifted into the pre-dawn sky said he spotted what appeared to be an explosion and a part falling off the craft.

"When I saw it, it surprised the heck out of me, and I thought, 'Wow, that's not something you see every day,'" said San Juan County deputy J.J. Roberts. "So I pulled over, pulled out my iPhone and started taking some pictures and video."

The "explosion" was a normal separation of the first and second stages of the unarmed Juno ballistic missile that was fired at 6:30 a.m. MT from Fort Wingate near Gallup, N.M., said Drew Hamilton, a spokesman for the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range. The expended first stage landed in a designated area of U.S. Forest Service land.

The Juno missile was then targeted by advanced versions of the Patriot missile fired from White Sands, about 350 miles (560 kilometers) away, as part of a test. Two of the missiles were fired and hit the incoming Juno missile, said Dan O'Boyle, a spokesman for the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, which was in charge of the Patriots used in the test.

The Patriot missiles kill incoming targets by direct strike and don't explode.

The rising sun backlit the Juno missile's contrail and provided a spectacular morning sight for early risers across the region.

"It's one of those things it does not happen every time — the weather and light conditions have to be just right, and this was one of those times," Hamilton said. "We even had people calling from (Los Angeles) asking about it. They want to know about it. Apparently this thing really lit up the sky really well."

Roberts said he was driving between Aztec, N.M., and Farmington, N.M, before sunrise when he saw the missile heading into the sky.

"It was pretty obvious. The first thing that came to mind, it was some sort of a missile or a jet or something like that," Roberts said.

Calls began coming in to dispatchers, and two deputies on the other side of San Juan County were dispatched to look for a crash. But Roberts said he quickly waved them off.

"We had gotten reports that there was an explosion or a UFO or missile or whatever, and people thought it was real close so they were concerned there would be debris falling from the sky," Roberts said. "To me, it was obvious when I saw it, it was real high altitude. It wasn't something real close."