Mil-Tech

Harris antennas helping soldiers

Satellite antennas made by Harris Corp. in Palm Bay are a crucial part of a data transfer system that allows soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and other locations to transmit and gather video information.

In December, United Launch Alliance orbited the last of three satellites from Cape Canaveral, completing the Wideband Global SATCOM constellation, helping soldiers transmit video to and from the battlefield and allowing video to be transmitted from unmanned drones. Three additional satellites are scheduled for launch beginning no earlier than December 2011.

www.floridatoday.com
Each $300 million, 7,600-pound, Boeing-built satellite carries 10 Harris phased array antennas that can be pointed at specific parts of the battlefield.

“The system is performing extremely well. The data rates achieved by the satellite during on-orbit test were two times the requirement,” said Bill Gattle, vice president of Space Communications Systems, Harris Government Communications Systems. “The performance of the Harris antennas plays a large role in those results.”

Boeing compared going from the previous Defense Satellite Communications spacecraft to the WGS satellites to going from a dial-up to a broadband Internet connection.

“Wherever our troops go, they can now depend on this vital capability,” Air Force Col. Don Robbins, Wideband SATCOM Group commander, said in an interview with Boeing. “When you’re out in the middle of nowhere, that’s a pretty critical lifeline to have.”

As the fighting in Afghanistan depends more on surveillance and attacks from unmanned drones, fast satellite communications will remain crucial. Communications links in the field have gone from truck-mounted systems to terminals in suitcases.

The high-speed Internet connection provided by WGS allows troops to share full-motion video and sensor data gathered by the military’s growing arsenal of unmanned surveillance aircraft. Harris also has developed tactical radios that allow connection to satellite signals and lets those video signals be shared within a radio network.

Boeing awarded the WGS antenna contract to Harris in 2001 and the Melbourne-based defense company has already shipped the steerable, solid graphite offset antennas for Block II.

Internet and e-commerce industry in Iraq

We are to consider today Internet and e-commerce industry of one of the Arabic countries, located in Western Asia, Iraq. This Muslim country is spanning most of the northwestern end of the Zagros mountain range, the eastern part of the Syrian Desert and the northern part of the Arabian Desert. Iraq is bordered by Jordan to the west, Syria to the northwest, Turkey to the north, Iran to the east, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to the south. The economy of the country is dominated by the oil sector, which has traditionally provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings.

As for the country’s telecom market, it has undergone much repair and development since the end of hostilities. Until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Internet access was tightly controlled and very few people were allowed to go online.

Thus far, the most developed and mature appeared to be mobile sector, with four operators sharing the market. But Zain of Kuwait’s subsidiary Zain Iraq has much the largest market share, with well over 50% share. Actually, boom in mobile sector can be partially explained by the lack of any significant fixed-line market, with infrastructure almost non-existent outside of the capital, Baghdad. There is also a great lack of fibre-optic backbone infrastructure, both nationally and for international connections. With better backbone infrastructure mobile Internet services could probably be successful but as yet 3G/HSPA services are not available.

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Internet access has become commonplace. At present, the stress is making on developing the network, with the national regulator launching a tender for wireless local loop licenses. The major development has been the establishment and rapid growth of mobile services from a zero start following the award of three temporary mobile licenses.

Several Wireless Local Loop licenses have been awarded and operators have launched services using CDMA networks but they have not as yet made much impact.

The incumbent Internet services provider, Uruklink, used to be the sole Iraqi ISP. However, currently the leading operator faces competition from other ISPs, including broadband satellite Internet access services from both Middle East and European VSAT hubs.

The premier military telecom service provider competing the national incumbent appeared to be TS2, an Internet Provider for US Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite most of all active TS2 users are Polish and US Army soldiers, the operator’s solutions have been implemented also for private companies and organizations. Before end of 2007 year, the TS2 solutions have been available for numerous NATO military entities. Since 2009 TS2 started advertising satellite Internet services for the US Marine Corps in Afghanistan. At present, TS2′s network in Iraq and Afghanistan has over 15 thousand military users of local broadband satellite connections. TS2 also delivers telecommunication services for Iraq-based Police Transition Teams.

Since 2006 several other companies were launched their services, offering cheaper services and smaller bandwidth affordable for single users such Advanced Technology Systems-Iraq. As of 2010, the top 4 ISPs in the capital of the country operate:

• Rose Telecom, delivering speed up to 4/0.7 Mbps in off-peak times and 512/128 in peak times
• Halasat, offering speed up to 3/0.5 Mbps in off-peak times
• Earthlink, targeting home/single users
• ATS-Iraq, also targeting individual users

Among other ISPs operating on the Iraqi market successfully, according to ostamyy there are:

• Afaq Link Technology – offers communication and Internet services by providing satellite system and wireless services in Iraq.
• Baghdad Telecom – provides infrastructure solutions in the areas of wireless, security and other IT solutions to small, medium and large entreprises in Iraq.
• Nashita – represents a leading ICT US-based ICT Company providing Satellite Internet in Iraq since 1999 and now provides both dedicated and shared VSAT satellite internet service in Iraq.
• Iraq Satellite Internet Services – delivers high-speed Internet connectivity in Iraq with our high-performance Galileo satellite network.

Interestingly, because of the disappearance of phone lines since 2004, all the Iraq’s ISPs uses the Wi-fi Technology to deliver Internet connection. The Iraqis are waiting for the current government to start repairing the phoneline to provide them with the cable/DSL Internet.

Internet access, limited prior to the war, has grown quickly since then due to the availability of satellite broadband access and the opening of Internet cafes. Nevertheless, Iraq has the lowest in the Middle East penetration level, with 1.1% Iraqis connected, as says www.internetworldstats.com. In order to compare, we are to note, that only 0.1% of people in Iraq, or 12,500, were subscribed to the Web. At present, mainly Iraqis get Internet access at Internet cafes with satellite connections.

Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Iraq is .iq, administered by Network Information Center of Iraq. Registrations are mainly available at third-level domains beneath following second-level categories:

• gov.iq – Governmental entities
• edu.iq – Educational Institutions
• com.iq – Commercial entitites
• mil.iq – Military Institutions
• org.iq – Non-profit organizations
• net.iq – Network Service Providers

Importantly, .iq domain name had previously been in limbo for years, as the delegated manager was imprisoned in Texas on charges of alleged connection to Hamas for which he was later convicted in 2005. Some talk of redelegation and relaunching began taking place at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in 2005 a redelegation to the National Communications and Media Commission of Iraq was approved by ICANN.

As for e-commerce sector in Iraq, it’s eventually on the initial stage of its development due to the imperfection of Internet infrastructure in the country.

However, more and more businesses are launching their websites; and business cards are now displaying e-mail addresses.

Besides, there was launched a new Iraqi Business Center that represents a partnership between the CPA and the Iraq Ministry of Trade and provides on-site business counseling for the local Iraqi business community.

The Center is located at the Convention Center in Baghdad and has an informative website at www.iraqibusinesscenter.org, which however, is temporary under construction. The Iraqi Business Center website provides a database of Iraqi companies seeking subcontracts and international partners for work in Iraq.

The sites like this, or some others like, for instance, the US Department of Commerce Iraq Reconstruction Task Force website, target to promote the present and future use of the internet by businesses wishing to do business in Iraq.

Importantly, the US Commerce has one of the best websites for obtaining Internet information regarding business opportunities in Iraq.

An international business center was recently opened in Kirkuk. It is operated between the local government, Coalition forces, the Kirkuk Chamber of Commerce, and the Kirkuk Contractors Union. One of the prevalent goals is to facilitate coordination between local and international businesses and to facilitate unsolicited bids for reconstruction work.

Since 2003 the Central Bank of Iraq has authorized Iraq’s private banks to process international payments, remittances and foreign currency letters of credit. However, national banks are still not offering on-line banking services and transactions. Thus far, Iraqi banks need to do e-business in order to provide security. This would include authentication, data integrity, confidentiality, payment gateway.

As for the e-government page, since 2003 Iraq has been in transition and led by the US Coalition Provisional Authority. Future goals for the Iraqi and other e-governments include a national ID, health care database, and e-voting.

However, some barriers still exist in Iraq for successful e-government deployment. Among them, like in other countries in the region, there are: societal rigidity, weakness in ICT education, unfair income distribution resulting in lack of access to ICT education and technology. Iraq faced brain drain when thousands of Iraqis fled the country or were forced to leave during Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Well, despite this Muslim country cannot boast about the high level of ICT progress and as the result of e-commerce sector development, some good signs of future success in this sphere are obvious.

ViaSat gives war effort a boost

Airplanes passing silently over enemy territory in Iraq and Afghanistan record and transmit videos in real time back to intelligence experts in the United States with the help of Carlsbad satellite communications company ViaSat.

Because those videos help inform military decisions, picture quality is extremely important, said Larry Taylor, the head of Government Satellite Communications Systems at the company.

“When you’re looking for intelligence on the ground, you would like to be able to look at a person and see if he is carrying a gun or a broom,” he said.

To boost the resolution and speed of these videos, ViaSat recently doubled the data rate its equipment can transmit, from 512 to 1024 kilobytes. This upgrade was made at the request of the Department of Defense, one of the company’s biggest customers, Taylor said.

“Everyone wants a higher speed, because the more we use video, the more demanding speeds we require,” he said. “The same thing is true in the Department of Defense.”

The company also recently improved military planes’ ability to send data back to the ground.

“Traditionally when we think of Internet access, we think about a simple mouse-click to load a complex Web page, which is a lot of data going out to a remote facility, but very little coming back,” Taylor said. “But with the Department of Defense, they are actually creating the data as videos or other intelligence information collected on an airplane, and that information has to be relayed to analysis centers on the ground.”

Giving an airplane a wireless connection is like hitting a moving target, because the plane’s antennas are never in the same place. ViaSat accomplishes this task with a network of 13 hubs on the ground connected to 13 satellites, which create a “worldwide footprint” of wireless connection, Taylor said.

“You can fly an airplane under any footprint virtually anywhere in the world and have a connection,” he said.

Boosting the planes’ data speed will allow them to send videos with higher resolution and more frames per second, both of which are important for military intelligence activities, Taylor said. Greater resolution means the video’s screen can be enlarged without creating a pixilated, or blurry, image, and increasing a video’s frames makes it smoother.

“Slower frame speeds mean the video has a jerky, flickerlike motion,” Taylor said. “If you were watching a movie, you wouldn’t stand for jerky motion, and for the military, a smooth video is even more important.”

Although ViaSat originally only supplied its satellite connection technology to commercial vehicles, including business jets and trains, the Department of Defense asked the company to adapt its technology to military airplanes.

ViaSat’s satellite antenna and software are installed in more than 100 military aircraft and more than 100 business aircraft, Taylor said. The company is also expanding its reach into boats, and plans to have software in more than 750 maritime craft soon.

The average cost to equip military planes with the antenna and software to transmit videos is about $350,000, and ViaSat also has government contracts to work on upgrading the planes, he said. The company brings in about $50 million a year between its commercial and military customers, but Taylor said that number is expected to grow.

The company’s data rate from the air to the ground is also expected to grow to 2 megabytes “and beyond,” he said. It plans to transition to higher frequency bands and launch a new satellite next year.

“We have a very aggressive road map to get higher and higher data rates, and to reduce the cost and increase the speed of our services,” Taylor said.

Where 3-D Can Save Your Life

Britain has become the latest NATO ally to adopt the American 3-D mission planning software for its aircraft crews in Afghanistan. Mission Planning software is nothing new, it’s been around for decades. But the 3-D stuff American pilots use is in a class by itself, and other NATO pilots noticed that when they got to Afghanistan.

Mission planning software enables pilots to plan, and even simulate, missions. These missions can involve anything from one aircraft (for, say, a photo reconnaissance mission), to large raids (employing dozens of aircraft, including electronic warfare planes, bombers, fighters and aerial tankers). These mission planning systems are highly classified, but some details are known.

For several decades now, the Air Force and Navy have been using computerized systems that look a lot like the flight simulation games you play on your PC. But the military versions involve a lot more technical detail, like fuel consumption and frequencies for electronic equipment. By the 1990s, they began to include very realistic graphics, so that pilots could, for example, do a test run flying low, through mountainous terrain (to hide from enemy radar). There are many versions, including some that can be run on a laptop. In the works is a version that is built into the aircraft. With this, the pilot can quickly revise mission plans while in the air, using the computer displays that are now standard in cockpits.

One of the more popular features are the realistic 3-D graphics. Computer game technology played a role in this. Meanwhile, through the 1990s, the U.S. developed 3-D computer modeling capability for terrain the world over. Using satellite photos and powerful computers, these systems could produce pictures (still and video) of what any terrain in the world looked like from the air or from the ground, or from an aircraft flying on the deck. The computers needed to make this work were large and expensive.

So popular were these 3-D capabilities that, by 1992 the Navy had two aircraft carriers equipped with a program called “Topscene” that allowed pilots to fly dangerous missions in a 3-D computer program. Britain is buying the latest version of Topscene. This product has come a long way since the 1990s. Back then, the computers needed to produce this degree of 3-D realism were the size of a small car and more expensive. But as computer games drove software and hardware developers to create more powerful and cheaper video capabilities for PC games, the capabilities needed for something like Topscene got cheaper and cheaper. By the end of the 1990s, you could run the photorealistic mission planning software on a desktop computer.

Since then, the mission planning software like Topscene has been enhanced to include better visuals and more data (like the latest intel on enemy anti-aircraft capabilities). The software designers borrowed more idea from video game developers, and tweaked the mission planning software to present lots of data clearly. Unfortunately, there has been little opportunity to use these new capabilities, except in training. Most of the combat missions have been pretty simple (just fly out with some smart bombs, and hang around until asked to drop one of them). These missions are generally flown at high altitude, out of ground fire range. Helicopter missions are a different story, with all of them close to the ground and often flying over territory full of hostile gunmen. When your life is at stake, too much planning ain’t enough. So many NATO air forces operating in Afghanistan are going to the top shelf stuff like Topscene. Still, most of the 3,500 Topscene systems in operation are used by American pilots.

Defense jobs face shift from wartime footing

Central Florida’s two biggest military contractors – Lockheed Martin Corp. and Harris Corp. – have received billions of dollars in contracts during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet their employment levels have remained nearly at a standstill.

Although both companies have made many new hires — engineers, technicians and financial analysts, to name a few — they say the added employees have generally been offset by retiring baby boomers and other forms of attrition.

As a result, after more than eight years of war-time work on multibillion-dollar military systems, their work-force totals in Central Florida are almost unchanged — or, in Harris’ case, down about 7 percent.

If the number of people working for the two companies hasn’t grown during almost a decade of war-time spending, what might happen in leaner times, as the Pentagon ratchets back its $700 billion-a-year budget?

Get the day’s top stories in your inbox. Click here to sign up for the Midday Update newsletter

The answer to that question matters a lot in tourism-dependent Central Florida, which continues to look to high-wage, high-technology companies to provide badly needed economic diversification.

Lockheed and Harris say they have managed their work forces efficiently and conservatively as the U.S. has fought wars in two far-away countries, resisting the urge to over-hire or over-react to the ebb and flow of military orders.

Even before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned last year that the war-time spending “spigot” would soon be closing, Lockheed was working on cost savings, said Ken Ross, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Global Training & Logistics in Orlando.

“We feel that really we got the jump on this,” he said. “We’ve been looking for ways to do things much more affordably for our customers.”

Lockheed has closely matched its staff to its current workload and the program bids it expects to win, Ross said. (Lockheed’s Central Florida operations have received contracts worth about $1 billion so far this year.)

“We have not been in a situation yet where we’ve been able to really staff up,” he said. “But we have been able to fill the openings we have.”

Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed has about 4,500 workers in its Orlando missiles and fire-control unit and nearly 2,000 in its simulation-training operation. Melbourne-based Harris employs more than 6,500 in Melbourne and Palm Bay.

They each make high-tech systems considered key to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, such as missiles and weapons-firing equipment for Apache helicopters (Lockheed Missiles & Fire Control), high-tech armored-vehicle training for tank and convoy personnel (Lockheed Global Training), and fighter-jet avionics and battlefield-command satellite communications (Harris).

Their wide-ranging operations for the military have sustained their work forces despite the nation’s economic woes — no small feat, say experts, given the loss of more than one million jobs nationwide in the Great Recession.

“If their employment base has been stable through all of this, then they are certainly better off than many industries that have been in decline,” said Paul Taibl, vice president of the Business Executives for National Security, a Washington-based defense-and-intelligence think tank. “This would have to be a case of the cup half full.”

There are some signs of cracks forming in the local employment picture, however.

Lockheed laid off 90 engineers last month in its Orlando missiles and fire-control operation — the first layoffs there in a decade. The company cited competitive pressures and shifting military requirements, among other factors. During the past year or so, Lockheed has also trimmed nearly 100 jobs from its local high-tech training and information-technology operations.

Harris streamlined its work force last year, laying off more than 100 people and eliminating another 300 jobs vacated by retirement or other attrition.

Both companies say no further job cuts are planned. And even with the layoffs, they have each continued to fill certain openings, often with newly minted engineering graduates.

“We take a long-term view of work-force development,” said Craig Vanbebber, spokesman for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control. “That applies to recruiting and mentoring college students. All of those initiatives have continued on track.”

Lockheed Missiles & Fire Control units in Orlando and Texas are working on new technologies that could eventually lead to job growth, he said. For example, the Orlando unit recently won a $1.1 million contract to develop “wearable robotics” — computerized hydraulic “suits” that enable soldiers to carry extraordinary amounts of gear on the battlefield.

Harris said it expects its employment to remain stable for the foreseeable future. In many cases, it moves workers from programs that are winding down to others in which activity is picking up, spokesman Jim Burke said.

He cited as an example a non-military program, Harris’ Census Bureau communications systems, in which the workload has subsided as the government’s nationwide census wraps up its collection phase.

“Some of those employees are shifting onto new programs that are ramping up, which we’ve won during the past year,” he said. “That has always been one of our strengths employment-wise.”

So far this year, Harris has won more than two-dozen military and non-military government contracts worth more than $1 billion combined. More than one-third of the programs are tied to its Melbourne and Palm Bay operations, including satellite commmunications, missile-defense radios and fighter-jet avionics.

But both Harris and Lockheed will be challenged in the months and years ahead as more Pentagon budget cuts take effect, said Taibl, the Washington think-tank official.

“Overall, the outlook for defense spending will be either flat or on a slow decline,” he said. “What we’re seeing right now is probably the tip of the iceberg in terms of cuts the Pentagon is going to have to make.”

www.orlandosentinel.com

Israeli military confronts new foe: the Internet

The security obsessed Israeli military is confronting a new adversary — trying to control what its own soldiers post to the Internet.

Facebook, along with YouTube and other popular sites, is turning into a formidable nuisance for the army, as young recruits in this tech-crazy country post embarrassing and potentially sensitive information online, circumventing tight military controls.

The issue exploded onto the national agenda this week when a young ex-soldier posted pictures of herself in uniform, posing in front of handcuffed, blindfolded Palestinian prisoners on her Facebook page under the heading “Army — The Best Time of My Life.”

The controversial posting, along with a series of other recent gaffes, highlights the challenges facing Israel’s high-tech military — known, among other things, for its shadowy electronic-warfare units — as it struggles to keep up with the ever-shifting sands of the Internet.

Last month, a video of Israeli soldiers dancing to the drunken party anthem “TiK ToK” during a patrol in the West Bank emerged on YouTube, earning them a reprimand.

Around the same time, a secret intelligence unit launched a Facebook group for its members that divulged details of the secret base where they served. The site was removed several days later after the army found out.

And, in perhaps the most serious breach, a military raid in the West Bank had to be called off earlier this year after a soldier posted details about the upcoming operation on Facebook.

Such incidents illustrate “how difficult it is for the military to operate, stick to policy, and keep people in line in light of the new communication realities,” said Sheizaf Rafaeli, director of the Sagy Center for Internet Research and the Study of the Information Society at the University of Haifa.

That’s in stark contrast to the traditional media, over which Israel’s military censor has long maintained tight control.

Both Israeli and international news outlets are required to submit reports with potentially sensitive material for review, and the censor’s office often returns them with words or even entire sections blacked out. Access is severely limited to military personnel, from field soldiers to the army’s top echelons, and it can take weeks to line up an interview with key commanders. Once approved, there are tight restrictions — quotes often must be run through the army spokesman’s office and soldiers frequently can’t be named or photographed.

The emergence of the latest pictures dominated Israeli news shows Tuesday, drawing tough criticism from the army and receiving heavy coverage in the Arab media.

Palestinians, along with Israeli human rights groups, denounced the photos as a cruel symbol of Israel’s four-decade occupation, and the Arab satellite channel al-Jazeera interspersed its coverage with pictures of Abu Ghraib, the notorious U.S. prison in Iraq where American soldiers tortured inmates.

The former Israeli officer, Eden Aberjil, struck a defensive tone in interviews with Israeli media, insisting she did nothing wrong and saying she was surprised she had offended anyone.

“I have nothing to say sorry about. I treated them really well, I didn’t abuse them, I didn’t curse them, I didn’t humiliate them. I merely took a picture near them,” Aberjil told Channel 2 TV.

She said the men were civilians from the Gaza Strip who had been caught trying to enter Israel, apparently in search of work, and she posed for the pictures because she had never met anyone from Gaza.

Aberjil, who the army said is in her mid-20s, denounced any comparisons to Abu Ghraib as “delusional,” saying she was astonished by the attention she had received and accusing the army of abandoning her. She claimed similar things take place in the army “every day.”

She did, however, say she was sorry if the pictures, taken in 2008, had hurt anyone’s feelings. She said she removed them after learning that others felt they were inappropriate.

Asked whether the posting violated Facebook’s code of conduct, the company said “it appears that the girl in question removed the photos from her account on her own — and we were not involved in the removal of these photos in any way.” It declined further comment.

The army said it permits soldiers to utilize social-networking sites, but only to upload unclassified material. It said all soldiers are taught about the guidelines.

One officer, speaking on condition of anonymity under military guidelines, said the censorship office has ways to monitor the Internet and make sure sensitive information does not appear online.

However, in cases deemed embarrassing but not a threat to security, such as the Aberjil pictures, “there is nothing anyone can do,” he said.

Capt. Barak Raz, an army spokesman, said the issue was about morals, not security.

“I’m not concerned with the fact that photos were uploaded. As the military, we’re concerned that such photos were taken to begin with, which are a gross violation of our ethical code,” he said. “This isn’t who we are as a military.”

Because Aberjil is no longer in the army, it’s unclear whether she can be punished.

Rafaeli said that while the military would like to curb the use of social media for the purposes of secrecy, PR and internal control, it is “probably up against an insurmountable challenge.”

Before, soldiers would have words censored out of letters that were sent home, but because of the Internet and social media, this is “no longer feasible,” he said.

Social networks are a part of everyday life for today’s generation of American military service members as well.

Many keep in touch with friends and family using Facebook, and they are savvy users of YouTube, Twitter and Flickr. A YouTube video featuring Afghanistan-stationed soldiers re-enacting Lady Gaga’s “Telephone” music video, for example, gained viral popularity earlier this year.

Recognizing the reach of these services, the Pentagon announced earlier this year that everyone from troops in the field to the highest brass and civilian leaders will be allowed to use social networking sites on the military’s non-classified computer network.

The policy followed a seven-month review in which the Defense Department weighed the threats and benefits of allowing the wide use of Internet capabilities. It permits commanders to cut off access — on a temporary basis — to safeguard a mission or reserve bandwidth for official use.

With the decision, the army unblocked YouTube, MySpace and more than a dozen sites that had been closed in May 2007.

Rugged radio designers for military applications focus on improving the networking, building tiny radios

Designers of rugged radios for military communications are focusing their efforts on improving the warfighter network, while at the same time creating radio communications technologies that are more efficient in terms of size, weight, and power.

“Today it is all about the network,” says Joe Miller, director of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Ground Domain for General Dynamics C4 Systems in Scottsdale, Ariz. “Current operations demand better communications and warfighters need more bandwidth across secure seamless pipes. Networks must self form and auto route communications all without the benefit of fixed infrastructure — no cell towers. Real-time communications and situational awareness are critical, and current operations in rugged remote regions of the world require new networking technologies.

“However, the network is just an enabler,” Miller continues. “The value lies in applications that run on the network. Applications provide information and intelligence that improves safety, increases effectiveness, and multiplies lethality.”

The funding trends out of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) also are pushing toward a more efficient network, says Steve Marschilok, president of Department of Defense Business at Harris RF Communications in Rochester, N.Y. “The market and funding trends for military radios in the DOD are transitioning to wideband requirements as there is a pent-up demand for more and more data at the lowest echelons on the battlefield. Much like the commercial world, data intensive applications like biometrics, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), video, logistics are driving an increasing need for bandwidth.”

Falcon III AN/PRC-117G
Harris is meeting this demand with their Falcon III AN/PRC-117G, which is “the first wideband tactical radio that is both compliant with the JTRS Software Communications Architecture and NSA Type-1 certified,” Marschilok says. This radio has been deployed by the U.S. Army and other services to mission areas.

“The current challenge is to develop effective human interfaces at the soldier level to disseminate this intelligence without adding significant size and weight,” Miller says.

“From a product perspective, our military customers have placed emphasis on size, weight, power, and cost (SWAP-C) for new products,” says Earl Johnson, vice president of business development at ITT Communications Systems in Fort Wayne, Ind. “Radios of the future will be required to have an open systems architecture and run various waveforms as dictated by the operational environment. Tactical ground forces are seeking satellite communications on the move (SOTM) and beyond line of sight (BLOS) capabilities for company and below units.”

ITT’s Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) meets this demand and brings “the network to battalion and below units,” Johnson continues. “We are developing smaller handheld radio capabilities that will exceed requirements for the JTRS Rifleman Radio. Our NexGen Iridium products such as the RO Tactical Radio are providing BLOS capabilities to deployed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“In addition, we have tested and demonstrated a SOTM with our GNOMAD system that brings on the move capability using a low profile SATCOM antenna, Johnson adds.

Smartphone on the battlefield
“The Army has also expressed strong interest in bringing smartphone capabilities to the battlefield based on the commercial model of smart phones using various applications,” Johnson says. “This is a low cost, open system solution leveraging commercial technology.”

However, as “new radios become cheaper and the military move to commercial type smart phones, the ruggedization required maybe relaxed in the future,” Johnson says.

“Military standards for ruggedization really have not changed, nor have techniques to achieve ruggedization,” Miller says. “That said, what is new is miniaturization. The Joint Tactical Radio Systems (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack, Small Form Fit (HMS) leverages technologies from the commercial cellular industry to achieve increased capabilities in packages significantly smaller than current radios.

“The smallest HMS radio, used on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and sensors, weighs approximately 8 ounces, he continues.

“Ruggedization does become a challenge as density of electronics increases and size decreases,” Miller says. “Special techniques are required to manage thermal dissipation and unique power savings modes are necessary as well. Within the HMS radio, individual circuits can be shut down for fractions of a second all to conserve battery life and reduce thermal loading.”

Private contractors pose problems of cost, control

In June, a stone carver from Manassas, Va., chiseled another perfect star into a marble wall at CIA headquarters, one of 22 for agency workers killed in the global war initiated by the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The intent of the memorial is to publicly honor the courage of those who died in the line of duty, but it also conceals a deeper story about government in the post-9/11 era: Eight of the 22 were not CIA officers at all. They were private contractors.

To ensure that the country’s most sensitive duties are carried out only by people loyal above all to the nation’s interest, federal rules say contractors may not perform what are called “inherently government functions.” But they do, all the time and in every intelligence and counterterrorism agency, according to a two-year investigation by The Washington Post.

What started as a temporary fix in response to the terrorist attacks has turned into a dependency that calls into question whether the federal workforce includes too many people obligated to shareholders rather than the public interest and whether the government is still in control of its most sensitive activities. In interviews last week, both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta said they agreed with such concerns.

The Post investigation uncovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America created since 9/11 that is hidden from public view, lacking in thorough oversight and so unwieldy that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

It is also a system in which contractors are playing an ever more important role. The Post estimates that out of 854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are contractors. There is no better example of the government’s dependency on them than at the CIA, the one place in government that exists to do things overseas that no other U.S. agency is allowed to do.

Private contractors working for the CIA have recruited spies in Iraq, paid bribes for information in Afghanistan and protected CIA directors visiting world capitals. Contractors have helped snatch a suspected extremist off the streets of Italy, interrogated detainees once held at secret prisons abroad and watched over defectors holed up in the Washington suburbs. At Langley, Va., headquarters, they analyze terrorist networks. At the agency’s training facility in Virginia, they are helping mold a new generation of American spies.

Through the federal budget process, the George W. Bush administration and Congress made it much easier for the CIA and other agencies involved in counterterrorism to hire more contractors than civil servants. They did this to limit the size of the permanent workforce, to hire employees more quickly than the sluggish federal process allows and because they thought — wrongly, it turned out — that contractors would be less expensive.

Nine years later, well into the Obama administration, the idea that contractors cost less has been repudiated, and the administration has made some progress toward its goal of reducing the number of hired hands by 7 percent over two years. Still, close to 30 percent of the workforce in the intelligence agencies is contractors.

“For too long, we’ve depended on contractors to do the operational work that ought to be done” by CIA employees, Panetta said. But replacing them “doesn’t happen overnight. When you’ve been dependent on contractors for so long, you have to build that expertise over time.”

A second concern of Panetta’s: contracting with corporations, whose responsibility “is to their shareholders, and that does present an inherent conflict.”

Or as Gates, who has been in and out of government his entire life, puts it: “You want somebody who’s really in it for a career because they’re passionate about it and because they care about the country and not just because of the money.”

Contractors can offer more money — often twice as much — to experienced federal employees than the government is allowed to pay them. And because competition among firms for people with security clearances is so great, corporations offer such perks as BMWs and $15,000 signing bonuses, as Raytheon did in June for software developers with top-level clearances.

The idea that the government would save money on a contract workforce “is a false economy,” said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior CIA official and now president of his own intelligence training academy.

As companies raid federal agencies of talent, the government has been left with the youngest intelligence staffs ever while more experienced employees move into the private sector. This is true at the CIA, where employees from 114 firms account for roughly a third of the workforce, or about 10,000 positions. Many of them are temporary hires, often former military or intelligence agency employees who left government service usually to work less and earn more while drawing a federal pension.

Across the government, such workers are used in every conceivable way.

Contractors kill enemy fighters. They spy on foreign governments and eavesdrop on terrorist networks. They help craft war plans. They gather information on local factions in war zones. They are the historians, the architects, the recruiters in the nation’s most secretive agencies. They staff watch centers across the Washington area. They are among the most trusted advisers to the four-star generals leading the nation’s wars.

So great is the government’s appetite for private contractors with top-secret clearances that there are now more than 300 companies, often nicknamed “body shops,” that specialize in finding candidates, often for a fee that approaches $50,000 a person, according to those in the business.

Making it more difficult to replace contractors with federal employees: The government doesn’t know how many are on the federal payroll. Gates said he wants to reduce the number of defense contractors by about 13 percent, to pre-9/11 levels, but he’s having a hard time even getting a basic head count.

“This is a terrible confession,” he said. “I can’t get a number on how many contractors work for the Office of the Secretary of Defense,” referring to the department’s civilian leadership.

The Post estimate of 265,000 contractors doing top-secret work was vetted by several high-ranking intelligence officials who approved of The Post’s methodology. The newspaper’s Top Secret America database includes 1,931 companies that perform work at the top-secret level. More than a quarter of them — 533 — came into being after 2001, and others that already existed have expanded greatly. Most are thriving even as the rest of the United States struggles with bankruptcies, unemployment and foreclosures.

The privatization of national security work has been made possible by a nine-year “gusher” of money, as Gates recently described national security spending since the 9/11 attacks.

With so much money to spend, managers do not always worry about whether they are spending it effectively.

“Someone says, `Let’s do another study,’ and because no one shares information, everyone does their own study,” said Elena Mastors, who headed a team studying the al-Qaida leadership for the Defense Department. “It’s about how many studies you can orchestrate, how many people you can fly all over the place. Everybody’s just on a spending spree. We don’t need all these people doing all this stuff.”

Most of these contractors do work that is fundamental to an agency’s core mission. As a result, the government has become dependent on them in a way few could have foreseen: wartime temps who have become a permanent cadre.

Just last week, typing “top secret” into the search engine of a major jobs website showed 19,759 unfilled positions nationwide.

“We could not perform our mission without them. They serve as our `reserves,’ providing flexibility and expertise we can’t acquire,” said Ronald Sanders, who was chief of human capital for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence before retiring in February. “Once they are on board, we treat them as if they’re a part of the total force.”

The Post’s investigation is based on government documents and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate and social networking websites, additional records, and hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and corporate officials and former officials. Most requested anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking publicly or because, they said, they feared retaliation at work for describing their concerns.

The investigation focused on top-secret work because the amount classified at the secret level is too large to accurately track. A searchable database of government organizations and private companies, which can be found at topsecretamerica.com, was built entirely on public records.

The national security industry sells the military and intelligence agencies more than just airplanes, ships and tanks. It sells contractors’ brain power. They advise, brief and work everywhere, including 25 feet under the Pentagon in a bunker where they can be found alongside military personnel in battle fatigues monitoring potential crises worldwide.
Late at night, when the wide corridors of the Pentagon are all but empty, the National Military Command Center hums with purpose. There’s real-time access to the location of U.S. forces anywhere in the world, to granular satellite images or to the White House Situation Room.

The purpose of all this is to be able to answer any question the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff might have. To be ready 24 hours a day, every day, takes five brigadier generals, a staff of colonels and senior noncommissioned officers — and a man wearing a pink contractor badge and a bright purple shirt and tie.

“Knowledge engineer” Erik Saar is the only person in the room who knows how to bring data from far afield, fast. Saar and four teammates from a private company, SRA International, teach these top-ranked staff officers to think in Web 2.0. They are trying to push a tradition-bound culture to act differently, digitally.

That sometimes means exchanging ideas on shared Web pages outside the military computer networks dubbed .mil — things much resisted within the Pentagon’s self-sufficient culture. “Our job is to change the perception of leaders who might drive change,” Saar said.

Since 9/11, contractors have made extraordinary contributions — and extraordinary blunders — that have changed history and clouded the public’s view of the distinction between the actions of officers sworn on behalf of the United States and corporate employees with little more than a security badge and a gun.

Contractor misdeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt U.S. credibility in those countries as well as in the Middle East. Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, some of it done by contractors, helped ignite a call for vengeance against the United States that continues today. Security guards working for Blackwater added fuel to the five-year violent chaos in Iraq and became the symbol of an America run amok.

Contractors in war zones, especially those who can fire weapons, blur “the line between the legitimate and illegitimate use of force, which is just what our enemies want,” Allison Stanger, a professor of international politics and economics at Middlebury College and the author of “One Nation Under Contract,” told the independent Commission on Wartime Contracting at a hearing in June.

Full story > www.courier-journal.com

Europe And Beyond: U.S. Consolidates Global Missile Shield

On September 17, 2009 U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Barack Obama separately announced plans to shift the emphasis of the global American interceptor missile – so-called missile shield or anti-ballistic missile defense – project from the previous George W. Bush administration’s plans to a more mobile, flexible and geographically broader system.

The proposed deployments of ten ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and a forward-based X-band radar installation in the Czech Republic were abandoned in favor of what Obama deemed “stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies.” Both Poland and the Czech Republic, however, remain part of Pentagon plans and will be incorporated into a broader grid with all 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which in its final stage will cover all of Europe. Or at least the entire continent west of Russia and Belarus.

Plans for ground-based interceptors in Poland alarmed Russia, which necessarily saw them as aimed at itself, but would also have been housed in fixed silos that made them easy targets.

In the month before the announced change in American plans to begin the incremental buildup of a missile shield in Eastern Europe – phased adaptive approach in government terms – a report surfaced at the annual U.S. Space and Missile Defense Conference of the Boeing Company planning a 47,500-pound mobile interceptor missile launcher to be deployed within 24 hours to NATO bases in Europe. During the same month the Missile Defense Agency and Boeing also announced the successful test of their joint Airborne Laser (ABL) anti-missile system.

At the end of last August the first disclosure appeared of plans to expand U.S. interceptor missile deployments to the Balkans and the Black Sea region, Israel and Turkey. [4] The head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, said at the time that he supported the installation of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors in the Balkans and Turkey. (In 2007 his predecessor, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, mentioned placing U.S. interceptor missile radar sites in the Caucasus and even Ukraine.)

The SM-3 is a ship-based anti-ballistic missile and anti-satellite interceptor – used to destroy an American satellite in orbit over the Pacific Ocean in February of 2008 – and part of the U.S. and allied Aegis ballistic missile defense system. It has the main advantage of being deployable around the world on destroyers and cruisers. What O’Reilly was referring to, though, was a combination of sea-based SM-3s and their adaptation for use on land.

In describing current U.S. missile shield plans last September, Pentagon chief Gates spoke of a four-phase program that began with the deployment of Aegis class warships equipped with SM-3s in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea last year, to be followed by enhanced versions of the missile both on sea and land, with successive generations of more advanced models in the third and fourth stage.

This February plans to station land-based SM-3s in Bulgaria and Romania were announced [5], and when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski in the latter’s nation early last month to sign an amended agreement on interceptor missile cooperation, it was revealed that SM-3s will be stationed in Poland in the second phase of the Pentagon’s plan for a continent-wide interceptor system. [6] Slightly more than a month before, the U.S. moved Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors and approximately 100 troops into eastern Poland, only a few kilometers from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. [7] U.S. deployments in the country are also part of a broader NATO strategy.

Connecting the ship- and land-based components of the global U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe with other locations to the east and the south, the Pentagon has also been qualitatively expanding Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Standard Missile-3 deployments in the Persian Gulf. Washington is now preparing to provide Gulf Arab states with the longer-range Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile intercept system.

Last October and November the U.S. and Israel conducted the fourteen-day Juniper Cobra 10 exercise with five missile interception systems, the largest such live-fire maneuvers ever held. An American military officer present at the war games said the unparalleled drills would “help the development of a planned NATO missile shield for Europe.” A year before, the U.S. deployed an X-band missile shield radar (Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance) to Israel with 120 troops, the first and to date only long-term foreign troop deployment in Israel’s history.

Washington and NATO are well advanced in solidifying an impenetrable interceptor missile system from the Baltic Sea to the Arabian Sea and the Black Sea to the Red Sea.

In the past few days further details have emerged concerning the expansion of those plans in both breadth and sophistication.

On August 30 Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas announced that “his government has been negotiating a plan with the United States to place a warning center in the Czech Republic as part of a reworked U.S. missile defense plan.” He also stated that personnel manning the facility could be provided by the U.S. and other NATO states and that the site could even be based in his nation’s capital, Prague. Necas added, “The U.S. plans to initially invest $2 million in 2011 and 2012 for the center, which is expected to become part of a joint NATO missile defense shield in the future,” and that no new treaty with Washington would be required for the project. Czech popular opposition to the earlier plan for an X-band missile defense installation was credited for the U.S. discarding the Bush-era plan.

Two days afterward Czech Defense Minister Alexandr Vondra confirmed that the U.S. had allotted $2 million for the construction of the facility, that American experts would be deployed there and that it would be in operation by the middle of next year. Vondra added, “I believe it will be one of many parts of the NATO system….”

In August of last year the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza revealed that the U.S. would expand its interceptor missile plans to the Balkans, Israel and Turkey. This August the Washington Post belatedly confirmed that design.

An article by staff writer Craig Whitlock appeared in the August 1 Sunday edition of the newspaper which quoted several U.S. military officials to the effect that:

“The U.S. military is on the verge of activating a partial missile shield over southern Europe….

“Pentagon officials said they are nearing a deal to establish a key radar ground station, probably in Turkey or Bulgaria. Installation of the high-powered X-band radar would enable the first phase of the shield to become operational next year.

“At the same time, the U.S. military is working with Israel and allies in the Persian Gulf to build and upgrade their missile defense capabilities. The United States installed a radar ground station in Israel in 2008 and is looking to place another in an Arab country in the gulf region.”

Not substituting for deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic, as has been seen above, but adapting and extending the network of which they are a part southward and eastward.

The Washington Post feature added that although the interceptor missile projects in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf are technically distinct, “they are all designed to plug into command-and-control systems operated by, or with, the U.S. military. The Israeli radar, for example, is operated by U.S. personnel and is already functional, feeding information to U.S. Navy ships operating in the Mediterranean.”

Providing historical perspective and dispelling the prevalent notion that the current administration’s plans are in any manner a retreat from those of its predecessor, the piece stated:

“The concept of a missile shield began with former president Ronald Reagan, who first described his vision of a defense against a Soviet nuclear attack in his ‘Star Wars’ speech in 1983….It has expanded further under President Obama, despite the skepticism he expressed during the 2008 campaign about the feasibility and affordability of Bush’s plan for a shield in Europe.

“In September, Obama announced that he was changing Bush’s approach. Instead of abandoning the idea, he directed the Pentagon to construct a far more extensive and flexible missile defense system in Europe that will be built in phases between now and 2020.”

The author provided these additional details:

Starting late last year the U.S. has steadily deployed Aegis class warships in the Mediterranean Sea equipped with Spy-1 360 degree missile radar and “arsenals of Standard Missile-3 interceptors [which] will form the backbone of Obama’s shield in Europe.”

The initial detachments, one or two destroyers and cruisers at a time, will be tripled in number. Furthermore, “the Obama administration has plans to nearly double its number of Aegis ships with ballistic missile defenses, to 38 by 2015.”

Citing the commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, Vice Admiral Henry B. Harris Jr., the Washington Post article stated that one “option would be to assign some Aegis ships to home ports in Europe instead of making them sail constantly back and forth to the United States.

“Other Navy officials have floated the idea of flying in fresh crews so a ship could more or less deploy continuously, obviating the need for long breaks.”

It then supplied further specifics, disclosing that “Aegis ships, armed with dozens of SM-3 missile interceptors, will patrol the Mediterranean and Black seas and link up with…high-power radar planned for southern Europe.”

Romania will host land-based Standard Missile-3 deployments and Poland will follow as the site of SM-3s and additional sensors.

Although as recently as last year the Pentagon envisioned a total of 147 SM-3s, the Obama administration intends to nearly triple that number to 436. The new strategy “will require an unspecified number of new SM-3 missiles, which cost between $10 million and $15 million apiece.”

The system will expand in earnest after the NATO summit in Portugal in November, when the U.S.’s 27 members in the military bloc are expected to endorse a comprehensive, layered, mobile interceptor missile system for the entire European continent, albeit still firmly under U.S. control.

The Missile Defense Agency’s O’Reilly “said combined defenses would feature the best of both worlds: an ‘upper layer’ framework of SM-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors, operated by the United States, that could shoot down enemy missiles in space or the upper atmosphere; and a ‘lower layer’ of Patriot batteries, operated by European allies, providing a second layer of defense closer to the ground.”

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missiles have a longer range than both the PAC-3 and SM-3 and had not been discussed before as part of the new system.

Regarding the placement of U.S. and NATO interceptor missiles in Romania, on the Black Sea across from southwestern Russia, a recent analysis examined the geopolitical consequences:

“This means that the U.S. front line of defense is shifting from the eastern border of Germany to the Black Sea, which is adjacent to the Middle East, the Caucasus and Russia.

“Romania is ready to accept deployment of 20 SM-3 anti-ballistic missile units, currently installed on American naval vessels with the Aegis Combat System. These missiles could later be replaced with the more advanced terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) missiles. They will also be deployed in Bulgaria. Meanwhile, it has become more likely that the X-band radar system, which the U.S. originally planned to install in the Czech Republic, will be set up in Israel.”

Bulgarian Defense Minister Anyu Angelov was summoned to Washington for six days starting in late June for “the launch of technical negotiations about NATO’s missile defence in Europe in general” and meetings with Defense Secretary Gates, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher, the last-named the key point person in securing U.S. missile shield deployments in Eastern Europe.

Angelov was given his marching orders and returned home to confirm that his nation will join the U.S. interceptor missile program in Europe (and beyond) and that “Bulgaria is participating actively in the discussions and the practical realization of all steps concerning the establishment of a NATO-wide missile defense system.” [17]

For domestic consumption he presented the decision as his country’s own – “We are the most interested state in Europe in the establishment of a missile shield because we are in the most threatened region – we fall within the range of ballistic missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles [such] as the ones employed by the states in the wider Middle East” – but since Bulgaria was incorporated into NATO in 2004 it now receives orders from the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon.

In a recent report that 700 Bulgarian combat troops have been ordered to Afghanistan (as Dutch troops have left), a leading local news agency demonstrated how such decisions are made: “Bulgaria’s center-right government, elected last July, initially said it would not be able to provide more forces in Afghanistan due to the economic crisis, but later changed its strategy under pressure from the United States and NATO.”

The same relationship of supremacy and subordination obtains between the U.S. and all other NATO members, particularly the twelve new acquisitions in Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea.

The Pentagon has secured seven new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania since the latter two states joined NATO in 2004. Those sites include the Bezmer Air Base in Bulgaria, fifty kilometers from the Black Sea, and the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in Romania near the city of Constanta on the Black Sea. Both are being upgraded to strategic air bases which, already employed for the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, are available for strikes against Iran and in the South Caucasus in the event of an equivalent of the Georgian-Russian war of two years ago. The Romanian base is the main headquarters for the Pentagon’s Joint Task Force-East.

At any given time there are several thousand U.S. troops in Bulgaria and Romania, the first foreign forces in Bulgaria since shortly after the end of World War Two and in Romania since 1962.

A comparable situation exists in Poland. An American military newspaper recently ran a feature on the deployment of Patriot missile batteries in the country called “U.S. Army’s presence in Poland most significant since World War II” in which an American Army spokesman stated, “We have between 80 and 150 troops going there on a regular basis. We’ve never had that number and for that long of a period.” No foreign troops had been stationed in Poland since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991.

The article also stated that “For the first time since the end of World War II, U.S. Army soldiers are making regular rotations into Poland, this time to train its forces to use Patriot missiles.

“Forty miles from the Russian border, a small group of U.S. Army Europe soldiers is instructing the Polish military about the missiles, which are designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.”

A Fox News report characterized the operation as “the first long-term U.S. troop presence…in Poland,” and quoted U.S. ambassador to the nation Lee Feinstein as maintaining “It’s U.S. boots on the ground, a very tangible symbol of the U.S.-Polish alliance.”

Regarding Israel, where the U.S. has also deployed the first foreign troops on that country’s soil, in late July the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense added $95.7 million to a White House funding request for Tel Aviv’s long-range Arrow and medium-range David’s Sling anti-ballistic missile programs subsumed under the Iron Dome layered air and missile defense system. Abiding by the subcommittee’s recommendations, Congress will allot $422.7 million for the above purpose for next year (with $109 million for the Arrow 3 system), bringing total U.S. underwriting of Israeli interceptor missile programs to $1 billion over the past four years.

According to member of the subcommittee Congressman Steve Rothman, “Given the concern and attention that we are focusing now on every dollar we are expending on behalf of the US taxpayer for all purposes, including the defense of the United States and its allies, it is a mark of the importance of these projects that they were all funded so robustly and fully by our subcommittee.”

By absorbing most all of Eastern Europe into NATO, the U.S. has also provided its Israeli ally access to air bases and training sites of strategic significance for future attacks on neighboring Middle East nations. On July 29 Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna’i stated, “We fly in Romania so we can act deep inside neighboring Arab states.”

The more extended and flexible, the “stronger, smarter and swifter” U.S. missile strategy, then, pursues a trajectory from the Baltic Sea, with Standard Missile-3-equipped Aegis warships also available for service in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, to Southeastern Europe into the South Caucasus, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea and Persian Gulf, covering Russia’s western and southern flanks and encroaching upon Iran.

When President Obama visits India in November he intends to secure billions of dollars in arms deals with the world’s second most populous nation.

On July 12 Russia’s Vzglyad newspaper reported that “The deal, if signed during Obama’s visit, would [have] the US replace Russia as India’s biggest arms supplier…adding that the deal would also help India curb China’s rise.

“India’s shortlist includes Patriot defense systems, Boeing mid-air refueling tankers and certain types of howitzers, and the total cost of the deal may exceed $10 billion….”

By selling anti-ballistic missile systems to India – starting with Patriots and advancing to longer-range models – Washington will connect its missile interception network from Europe through the Middle East to its eastern wing, that which includes 26 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska, a 280-foot-tall, 50,000-pound sea-based X-band radar in the Aleutian Islands, and PAC-3, SM-3 and THAAD missiles in Japan, South Korea and Australia.

Current U.S.-China tensions, the worst in several decades, were triggered early this year when Washington confirmed it was providing Taiwan with 200 advanced Patriot missiles and warships capable of being upgraded for the Aegis Combat System.

For all the talk of protecting the U.S. Mainland from alleged Iranian and North Korean missile threats – accusations that are in the first case absurd and in the second highly improbable – at the end of the day Washington and its military allies around the world are well on the way to encircling Russia, China and Iran with an insurmountable barrier of interceptor missile deployments in conjunction with the militarization of space and the Prompt Global Strike program. Neither those three nations nor any other outside the rapidly expanding U.S. global military nexus will be permitted to retain effective deterrence or retaliation capabilities.

Army Under Pressure to Bring Broadband to the Battlefield

The Army has more radios, computers and advanced networking technology than ever before. Soldiers at war, alas, are information-deprived.

Despite an information-technology buying spree over the past decade, the Army has yet to figure out how to sate troops’ gargantuan appetite for information and ever-growing needs for battlefield intelligence. Current battlefield networks are accessible by divisions, brigades and battalions. But smaller units remain digital orphans, even though they lead the day-to-day fighting in current wars. The squads, platoons and companies require high-bandwidth connectivity so they can share information and gain instant awareness of what is happening on the ground, Army officials said.

Help appears to be on the way. In the Army’s 2010 modernization roadmap, the “network” is billed as a top priority. After more than a decade of failed efforts and billions of dollars spent, the pressure is on for the Army to deliver a battlefield network that supports small, mobile units. Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli characterized the network as essential to the future Army. “It will require an open architecture that will allow further plug-and-play development in the future as our network grows and matures,” Chiarelli said at an industry conference last year.

The Army since the early 1990s has made several attempts at building a battlefield Internet, but the technology has leapt way ahead of the military procurement bureaucracy. The closest the Army has come to having an IP network at the squad level is in the “land warrior” system — an ensemble that includes a communications and navigation computer-radio suite. In the land warrior network, each member can pinpoint other soldiers’ locations by simply looking at a display. But this is only a niche solution and does not solve the larger problem of connecting every element of a deployed brigade.

Visions of broadband connectivity in the field and smart phones that can be constantly updated with new applications, from a technical standpoint, are realistic, experts said. But they will never be realized as long as the Army continues to buy IT the same way it acquires tanks and helicopters. It simply takes too long to move technology to the field, and by the time it gets there, the market already has moved on.

The Army’s chief information officer, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, said at an industry conference that the service since 9/11 has tripled its inventory of radios to more than 900,000 and increased its ability to transmit data within U.S. Central Command networks from 46 megabytes per second to about 10 gigabytes per second.

Similar capabilities have not trickled down into the small units that don’t have access to the high-tech command centers and need mobile equipment they can operate from their trucks. Platoons and squads have line-of-sight radios — whose signals are blocked by buildings or mountains — with low-bandwidth and they are unable to chat online or transmit images. Soldiers at a typical forward base in Afghanistan using line-of-sight radios travel only a few miles down the road before they lose their connection to the base.

Under a program called Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team Increment 1, or E-IBCT, the Army is piecing together its most advanced information technologies into a deployable network that would allow soldiers to not only stay connected to each other but also to capture intelligence from unmanned sensors and disseminate it throughout the brigade. The Army’s 3rd Infantry Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, which is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in 2012, will be the launch customer for the new technologies. Soldiers from the brigade are testing the systems at Fort Bliss, Texas. If the Pentagon approves additional funding, more brigades could be equipped with the advanced network later this decade.

With this technology, the “company commander becomes the network quarterback for the Army,” said Lt. Col. Darby McNulty, deputy program manager for network systems integration. The future company “command post” is being designed to link all soldiers in a company and below, and also to connect the company with higher echelons and with national intelligence databases via satellite. The command post could be set up in a fixed site or could be installed in the cab of a large armored truck.

The nearly 1 million radios that the Army currently owns, however, are not part of this setup. The E-IBCT program is building the network with new software-programmable radios that were developed by the Defense Department’s “joint tactical radio system” or JTRS program. The radios can be programmed to operate a variety of software communication applications that are called “waveforms.”

JTRS program officials said that current radios cannot deliver the high bandwidth that deployed forces need and cannot run the required software applications.

For the company command post, three waveforms are required: The soldier radio waveform (for narrowband communications within a company), the wideband networking waveform (for broadband data transfer) and the network centric waveform (for satellite-based communications). The soldier radio waveform capacity to pass data is about 500 to 600 kilobits per second. The wideband networking waveform transfers five megabytes per second.

JTRS hardware includes a family of radios — a half-pound device for small robots, a two-pound handheld “rifleman” radio, a 14-pound “manpack” and a four-channel command-post system. The entire JTRS program includes nine waveforms not just for the Army but for the other branches of the military as well.

For the first time, the latest advances in radio communications are being brought together in a live exercise, McNulty said during a conference call with reporters. The recent tests at Fort Bliss proved that JTRS is an essential piece of the Army’s future network, he said. “It’s something you absolutely want to stick with.”

For the exercise, mobile company command posts installed aboard armored trucks were outfitted with “network integration kits,” which are the network hubs connecting the terrestrial and satellite layers of the network to one another. Each NIK consists of a command-and-control terminal, called the “integrated computer system,” a four-channel JTRS ground mobile radio and a blue-force tracker display screen. Dismounted soldiers carried either a JTRS rifleman radio or a manpack radio.

The radios in each vehicle create a “mobile ad-hoc network,” or manet. Each tactical radio functions as a cell phone tower. At the tests in Fort Bliss, engineers extended the range of the network by adding an “aerial layer” made up of unmanned aircraft and helicopters that were outfitted with small JTRS radios. “We were able to extend sensor and position data beyond 20 km, in some cases up to 40 km,” McNulty said.

The four-channel JTRS, made by The Boeing Co., runs the soldier radio waveform, the wideband networking waveform and the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System, or Sincgars, waveform, which allows the commander to talk to all the vehicles in the unit. Sincgars is the most commonly used radio net in the Army.

Details about how the network will be organized and what specific equipment will be acquired are still being hashed out, said McNulty. “We need to better understand who needs what information at what level so we can better optimize the network,” he said. “If you can eliminate extraneous information you can improve the quality of the network, if you send everything to everyone all at once the quality of your service decreases exponentially.”

Tests will continue over the next several months.

It is not an exaggeration to say that this program is under intense scrutiny. The Pentagon’s senior acquisition officials will be reviewing test results this fall, and will determine whether the program will continue to receive funding. A separate evaluation is under way within the Army. This “network capabilities portfolio review” will examine the entire litany of Army IT programs and nominate winners and losers. It will look at whether the Army can afford to acquire new equipment, whether it should stick with “legacy” systems or, a most likely outcome, whether it should have a mix. Overseeing this review is Chiarelli, who has expressed concern about the “affordability” of current programs and famously brandished his iPhone as an example of the low-cost apps-friendly IT that soldiers need but the Army’s plodding acquisition system is unable to provide.

Another contentious issue in the ongoing reviews is whether JTRS can make up for lost time and deliver hardware at prices that are competitive with other radios. JTRS has been in development since 1999 and originally was scheduled to be fielded by 2006. Delays dogged the program as the slippages coincided with the war buildup, when billions of dollars were being appropriated in emergency war budgets to purchase new radios. When it became clear that JTRS was not ready, the Army poured billions into other radios. The result is today’s inventory that has tripled in size.

JTRS program officials now are forecasting that the models that the Army needs — the JTRS HMS (handheld/manpack/small form-fit) radios will be ready for deployment by 2011.
“These radios provide digital connectivity, networking down to the soldier level. That has not been done before,” said Army Col. John V. Zavarelli, program manager for JTRS HMS. Orders of up to 215,000 HMS radios are expected, he said in an interview. “We believe they could increase to 250,000 based on service needs.”

Zavarelli said he was not familiar with the Army’s network review and could not comment on the affordability of JTRS. He said all the services have been funding their share of JTRS research and development expenses. “I’m not sure the costs are an issue,” he said. “I certainly haven’t been told it in that way.”

About 750 pre-production radios have been purchased so far from prime contractor General Dynamics. Once the radios are cleared for full-rate production, the JTRS program office will solicit competitive bids from vendors for each variant. The assumption is that competitors will challenge General Dynamics and help to drive down prices, Zavarelli said. Several industry sources told National Defense that current JTRS HMS handheld radios cost upwards of $75,000 each, but Zavarelli said he could not confirm or discuss prices.

“We are on the edge of operational testing and limited rate production decisions in the next year,” he said. “We’ve offered some alternatives for accelerating [the development] and are waiting for a decision.”

Radio suppliers are watching these events closely as they seek to position their products for future JTRS business. Several executives interviewed for this story said they fear that the JTRS program is too rigid in that only radios that strictly meet the technical specifications of JTRS will be allowed to compete. That means none of the radios that exist in the military’s inventory today are acceptable. Under that scenario, the Army would be in a position of having to replace hundreds of thousands of radios that already are paid for and installed. A radio installation kit for an average Army vehicle costs more than the radio itself. When JTRS was conceived in the late 1990s, it was assumed that the radios would be installed in new Future Combat Systems vehicles. But when the FCS vehicle program was terminated last year, some Army officials sounded alarms about what this meant for JTRS. “By losing FCS a lot of the Army’s network and communications programs seriously unraveled,” said a retired Army officer who was closely involved in FCS.

Ripping out existing radios and installing new JTRS systems across the Army’s fleets of vehicles would be an exorbitant expense, several industry sources said. They don’t see how the Army will go along with such a plan when the services are under pressure to cut costs and find $100 billion in savings across all defense programs over the next five years.

Officials from one of the Army’s major radio suppliers, ITT Corp., have for years been trying to sell the idea that its Sincgars combat radios could be modified to run the soldier radio waveform (SRW) so the Army would not have to replace them with more expensive JTRS systems. ITT is the prime contractor for the SRW software and also the manufacturer of the Sincgars radios that the U.S. military has been using since the early 1980s.

ITT has delivered more than 500,000 radios, nearly half of them during the past two years. War funds paid for a huge expansion of ITT’s manufacturing plant so it could ramp up production from 1,000 to 6,000 radios per month. The Army Science Board, an advisory panel, recommended in a 2007 report that the Army “stop buying Sincgars immediately” so it could invest the money in “future, not legacy hardware.” But Congress continued to fund Sincgars purchases, and production continues to this day, although Army orders are scheduled to end in a couple of years.

With such a large inventory in the force, it is hard to see how the Army can toss it and buy all new hardware, said David Prater, ITT vice president for network communications.

“We’ve proposed adding a single channel SRW [to current Sincgars] to keep the cost down,” he said. “For $10,000 to $15,000 you’d get a two-channel radio that does Sincgars or SRW,” compared to a $75,000 two-channel manpack that does those two waveforms plus perhaps one or two others,” Prater said.

“The Army is wrestling with this,” he said. The timing has worked against JTRS. “In the meantime you’ve got all these Sincgars radios,” Prater said. “JTRS kind of missed the war. A lot of [non-JTRS] equipment was bought” during the past eight years.

Zavarelli insists that none of these options meets the requirements of JTRS.

“Some radios by design are incapable of hosting narrowband and wideband waveforms,” he said. ITT has suggested adding a “sidehat” data radio to Sincgars that could run the SRW waveform, but Zavarelli is not convinced that it would work. “That’s a separate entire radio that’s added to the Sincgars. I have a requirement for SRW radios and that’s what we are doing.”

Other vendors also have questioned the radio-procurement strategy as well as the Army’s larger game plan for acquiring information technology.

The Defense Department spent the better part of a decade developing JTRS and during that time the industry has moved on to other products and the technology landscape has changed, said Steve Marschilok, president of defense business at Harris RF Communications.

Any company that competes for JTRS production contracts will have to build a custom radio that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the marketplace, Marschilok said.

“You can’t procure IT the way we always have,” said Dennis Moran, vice president of Harris Corp.’s government communications systems division. The Army is stuck with an “antiquated requirements process that goes from Fort Gordon, to Fort Monroe, to the Pentagon,” Moran said. “You can’t force technology to adapt to requirements that are out of touch before ink is even dried on paper at TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command] headquarters.”

In the case of JTRS, the government could have saved billions it spent on development by purchasing off-the-shelf products, Moran said. That is how U.S. Special Operations Command does business these days, he noted.

Harris has supplied more than 120,000 radios to the Defense Department. The company is a JTRS contractor for single-channel radios and expects to compete for future production contracts for the JTRS rifleman and manpack systems. It plans to offer variants of its existing radios even though the program office says none of today’s commercial radios meet the JTRS requirements. Harris also is expected to bid its PRC/117G radio against competing systems from BAE Systems and Rockwell Collins for the four-channel JTRS ground mobile radio.

A commercial approach to building the Army’s networks would save billions of dollars, said Moran. If JTRS were to be canceled, “ITT and Harris radios could give you an extremely powerful architecture at a much better value than potentially the Defense Department has budgeted for JTRS,” he said. Still, JTRS is an important program for the Defense Department because it can help guide industry investments, he said. “We need the program to develop the standards, to ensure interoperability,” Moran said. “You want waveforms to be seamless to the soldier. We don’t want the program killed. But is there a better way to invest the dollars? Maybe there is.”

Paul D. Mueller, vice president of Motorola’s federal government market, said the military has failed to tap the commercial sector for new technology and remains bogged down in “programs of record” that take too long to deliver products. Defense Department IT users demand unique levels of security for information networks but there are ways to bridge their needs with commercially available technology, Mueller said.

“We’re excited about the adoption of the smart phone technology” for the U.S. military, he said. “That looks like a good bet for us.” There is growing interest in Motorola’s Android smart phone because of its open system and its potential for the military to be able to run its own software applications. Smart phones are regarded as the ticket to information sharing on the battlefield.

The Marine Corps has been ahead of the Army in modifying commercial radios and wireless networking technology for tactical communications, he said.

Motorola has designed a “gateway” box that would bridge cellular, Iridium satellite and land mobile radio networks so users of different cell phones and radios can talk to each other.

The JTRS waveforms could be installed in current radios such as the Marine Corps’ P-25 handheld devices as a low-cost alternative to the HMS radios, said Mueller.

Marines in small units communicate on the battlefield and back to their ships with a mix of commercial and military systems. The “distributed tactical communications system” employs military radios and Iridium commercial satellite services. They also have a terrestrial mobile network built by Trellisware, a commercial supplier of wireless systems.