Archive for 2012

    The haunting bugle call Taps is 150 years old this summer

    May 24, 2012 9:49 AM by John Keller
    THE MIL & AERO BLOG, 24 May 2012. This summer marks the 150th anniversary of one of the best-known bugle calls ever -- the haunting tune played at thousands of military funerals every year known as Taps.

    The tune first was played during the American Civil War in July 1862 at Harrison's Landing, Va., in the aftermath of a series of disastrous Union defeats at the hands of Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

    Buglers from all walks of life are marking the 150th anniversary of Taps, including an event earlier this month at Arlington National Cemetery in which many buglers formed to play the melancholy melody together.
    Creating the tune were Union Army Brig. Gen. Daniel Butterfield and his bugler, Private Oliver W. Norton, of Erie, Pa.

     It was part of normal Army routine to play bugle tune or solo drum tap at the end of the day to signal lights out. Butterfield didn't like the Army's lights-out bugle call at the time, and composed a new tune more to his liking.


    Soon after Butterfield first had Norton play the tune in the demoralized Union Army camp in July 1862, buglers from other units picked it up, and before long buglers all over the Army were playing what would become known as Taps at the end of the day.

    Until then one common way to signal the end of the Army's day was for a solitary drummer to play three taps on the drum for lights out. Soldiers knew that drum call as taps, and extended the name to Butterfield's new bugle call, which ever since has been known as Taps.

    July 1862 at Harrison's landing was a bad place at a bad time for the Union Army. The Union's Peninsula Campaign, which had sought to take the Confederate capital of Richmond, Va., had ended in defeat after the Army of the Potomac had been forced to retreat to the safety of Harrison's Landing after a major series of engagements known as the Seven Days Battles.

    Defeated, the Union Army was preparing to board ships on its way back to Washington. No one knew the war would last another three years. At Harrison's Landing it was hot and muggy, disease was rampant in the Army ranks, and morale could not have been lower. It was from this that the Taps bugle call emerged.

    There is a popular myth, now debunked, that Union Army Capt. Robert Ellicombe at Harrison's Landing heard the moan of a Confederate soldier who lay mortally wounded. Ellicombe, the story goes, crawled through gunfire to pull the wounded soldier to safety. When he reached his own lines, however, the soldier was dead. he discovered a Confederate soldier, but the soldier was dead.

    To his horror, he realized that the dead solder was his own son. In his dead son's pocket he found a series of musical notes written on a piece of paper. A bugler played those notes, the story goes, and that tune was Taps.

    Sorry, but not true. That story evidently was concocted in the 20th century by creators of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Butterfield and Norton are the actual creators of Taps.

     In one of history's ironic twists, Taps is perhaps best known for being played at Arlington National Cemetery at notable funerals like that of slain President John F. Kennedy. Taps was written in the wake of big military victory by Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. Before the Civil War, the land that is now Arlington National Cemetery was owned by ... guess who? You got it; it was the estate of Robert E. Lee.

    Day is done, gone the sun
    From the lakes, from the hills, from the sky
    All is well, safely rest
    God is nigh.
    Fading light dims the sight
    And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright
    From afar, drawing near
    Falls the night.
    Thanks and praise for our days
    Neath the sun, neath the stars, neath the sky
    As we go, this we know
    God is nigh.

    Follow Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence news updates on Twitter

    The Navy's solid-state laser weapon

    May 22, 2012 12:18 PM by Skyler Frink
    It looks like the Navy is building another weapon right out of the sci-fi genre yet again, this time with a solid-state laser that can disable boats and shoot down aircraft. That's right, lasers that can shoot down aircraft and damage boats.

    High-energy lasers have been used directly for many purposes, they can disable missiles, rockets and mortars, but this time they're going for a more direct route. The reason given for this weapon is the Navy wants to stop small boats and aircraft without having to use bullets, an admirable goal.

    The Navy has a long history of doing work in the field of directed energy, where they have managed to produce kilowatt-scale lasers that can be fielded offensively rather than the traditional defensive roles lasers have served in the past. This is not just wishful thinking either, two previous demonstrations have shown the laser disabling a boat and shooting down four different test unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

    Whether or not the laser will be safe if targeting a person (or at least safer than the alternative, bullets) is unclear, but whatever happens with the Navy's current program it will make a mark on military weaponry. Will future naval battles be the colorful stream of lasers we've come to expect from Star Wars? Probably not (most lasers we use aren't even visible), but it looks like we're marching towards a future where solid projectiles may not be the only method for a soldier to deal with threats.

    High-performance embedded computing (HPEC) gaining market traction, but its definition remains elusive

    May 14, 2012 2:52 PM by John Keller
    Posted by John Keller

    People warned me that when I reached a certain age I'd look out at a once-familiar world and see nothing that I recognized. Well, it's happened. Acceptable social behavior today is a shock and a mystery. Popular music sounds like noise, and the most recent covers of Time and Newsweek, well don't even get me started.

    One of the biggest jolts of all, so far, involves the embedded computing industry that so many of us have come to know and love for what seems like forever.
    Embedded computing for military embedded systems used to mean single-board computers. It wasn't that complicated. We knew we were talking about the same thing -- even when mezzanine boards, VPX, high-speed switch fabrics, and even what DARPA calls 'cyber-physical systems' entered the conversation.

    Now? Well, I'm not so sure.

    I started to feel somewhat off-balance when companies like GE and Intel stopped talking about embedded computing altogether, and substituted the new term 'intelligent systems.' People tell me the names mean pretty much the same thing, but you never know when new definitions might sneak in when we're not looking.

    Now there's a new term on the block, and I think it's got plenty of people just as confused as I am. Here it is: high-performance embedded computing, or HPEC for short. Okay, it doesn't sound all that frightening. Look at those words; doesn't the name sound straightforward enough?

    Well, you'd think, but I guess not. In fact, I have a feeling that little acronym, HPEC, is going to define the marketing wars for a good while in that ... business, you know, where at one shining moment in the not-too-distant past we knew it as the embedded computing industry.

    Sshhhh. Better not say that too loud, or we'll get the same kind of eye rolls as when someone refers to the 'information super highway,' or the 'TV set.'

    So what's high-performance embedded computing mean, anyway? Well, I think it depends a lot on who's selling it. Remember COTS, short for commercial off-the-shelf? Everyone remembers the debate over what COTS meant. Heck, we used to have whole TRADE SHOWS to debate the term.

    COTS in its day meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but the best definition of COTS I ever heard is "whatever my customer says it is." I have a feeling HPEC is headed the same way.

    Here's where I think we are now in the HPEC-terminology wars. The early pioneers -- Curtiss-Wright Controls Defense Solutions, GE Intelligent Platforms, and probably Mercury Computer Systems -- are looking at a fairly narrow definition -- one that closely resembles their cutting-edge technology, and that, not surprisingly, their marketing departments have a shot at controlling.

    For these companies, high-performance embedded computing closely follows what the IT industry has come to call high-performance computing, or HPC. It has to do with parallel processing techniques for running complex application programs with large clusters of processors. Some say it only applies to systems that function at speeds in excess of 1 trillion floating point operations per second (teraflop).

    This is the kind of high-speed cluster computing used in military embedded systems for complex digital signal processing involving complex sensor processing in applications like radar, sonar, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence.

    More to the point, this definition involves software more than it does hardware. Large clusters of parallel processing computers are becoming commodity items in this brave new world of ours. Some of the biggest challenges have to do with programming these large computer clusters to run complex algorithms quickly and reliably.

    The real thing that makes HPEC different from HPC is the packaging. High-performance embedded computing is packaged to be small, rugged, and lightweight. It doesn't take a data center, but might fit aboard a ground vehicle or unmanned aerial vehicle.

    But then what does HPC mean to the rest of the embedded computing world? For companies like General Micro Systems, Extreme Engineering Solutions, and many others, HPC simply means embedded computing that is more high performance than average.

    Let's face it, most of the embedded computing industry isn't going to let GE, Curtiss-Wright, and Mercury get away with controlling the debate over HPEC. Anything those three companies can do, well they can do it too. They believe that, and their challenge is getting their customers to believe it, too.

    But the Big Three HPEC companies won't take that lying down. I suspect their marketing departments, as we speak, are on the verge of an entirely new term to describe what their design engineers do best. I can't wait to see what it's going to be.

    Follow Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence news updates on Twitter

    Did I say $114 million mistake? I meant $351 million.

    May 9, 2012 3:58 PM by Skyler Frink
    Hopefully these sorts of updates don't become a regular thing, it's awfully distressing. Anyways, once again we see more money vanish into the rabbit hole that is the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter Program (JSF) program. It's more of the same, a $237.7 million contract "for changes to the configuration baseline hardware or software resulting from the JSF development effort."

    But wait, there's more. This time the concurrency cap is getting increased, the concurrency cap being the threshold at or under which the contract has to incorporate government authorized changes. Yep, that's more leeway. I don't think Lockheed Martin is to blame by any means, so the cap should be raised, but it's awfully disheartening to see something written into the contract just in case it costs even more than it already has.

    I'm really hoping this doesn't become a recurring theme with the F-35 program.

    One thing worth noting about this particular modification is that $222.6 million of these funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. These mistakes have already cost a whooping $351 million, is taking away money if it takes a long time really worth it? Could rushing not be a problem that's making these changes necessary?

    Interestingly enough, the F-35 JSF program has seen quite a bit of testing done. The F-35 has completed night flights, night refueling, conventional takeoffs and landings, formation flights, the whole 9 yards. There have been hundreds of flights, so what is going wrong that is costing this much extra money?

    Well, I've got my abacus ready for if there are any more contracts, and I'll keep on calling program officials until they let me in on what's going on. Check back often for more updates!

    Continuing the conversation

    May 7, 2012 3:54 PM by Skyler Frink
    The purpose of these blogs is to facilitate discussion and share our opinions with you. As you may have noticed our comment section is currently down, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make your opinion heard!

    I've received emails commenting on my blog, and it's worth saying that comments don't go unappreciated or unanswered. Responses let us know you're interested in what we're writing and help us tailor our articles and blogs to focus on what you want to hear about. Even if you're just popping in to offer a differing opinion it lets us know that we can look further into an issue, we might even publish your comment as a guest blog (with your permission, of course).

    Not sure how to contact us? Under the advertise tab in the top right of the site you'll find the "Editorial Contacts" button, give it a click and you'll find the email addresses of John, Courtney and myself.

    So go ahead and let us know what you want to hear about and how you think we're doing. Of course, the comment section will be up soon and I'm hoping we'll get more comments once that happens. We're here to write for you, not to hear the sounds of our own voices!

    Lockheed Martin experimental stealth surface vessel to be scrapped after yielding valuable technology

    May 3, 2012 4:29 PM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    The Lockheed Martin Sea Shadow, an experimental surface vessel that helped design modern warships with low radar cross sections, is heading for the scrap yard after nearly 30 years of surface. The black dual-hull ship, built in the 1980s under a shroud of secrecy, has served its purpose and will be auctioned for scrap this week.

    Despite its undignified end, however, the Sea Shadow, which tests showed was nearly invisible to radar during sea tests, has led to radar-evading design technologies that have gone into the Navy's newest Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), as well as into new models of the Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

    The notion of radar-evading stealth technology perhaps reach its zenith in the 1980s before the close of the Cold War. Lockheed Martin had designed the super-secret F-117 stealth attack jet, and then company experts turned their attention to developing surface warships that might likewise be nearly invisible to radar signals.

    The result was the Sea Shadow, a spaceship-like test vessel that primarily was taken to sea for testing at night, and was built and stored in a secret submersible barge near San Francisco, which cloaked the vessel from orbiting spy satellites.

    The Sacramento Bee ran a terrific story last weekend by Matt Weiser entitled Scrap heap may be last stop for secret slice of Navy history, which gives a detailed account of the Sea Shadow's development and testing.

    Take a look at the photos that accompany stories about the Sea Shadow and then compare it to versions of the Navy LCS. See all those funny angles in the ship hulls and superstructures? That's key to the design's ability to evade radar signals.

    Radar detects targets by bouncing radio waves off the targets and measuring the reflected return of the radio energy. The best radar returns come from right angles. Notice that the LCS designs don't have too many of these. The angles of the LCS vessels, as well as radar-evading aircraft such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are designed to scatter radar energy, rather than provide clear returns. It's not fool-proof, but it can be quite effective.

    The Sea Shadow test vessel reportedly was able to sneak up on Navy warships at night without being detected until very late in the game. It this had been an armed enemy ship, U.S. aircraft carriers might have been in serious trouble.

    Now the testing is all over. It's a pity the Sea Shadow couldn't become part of some museum's collection, but so far it is not to be. Its legacy will live on, however, in the designs of modern warships.

    Air Force competes in National Collegiate Cyber Defense competition

    April 30, 2012 1:22 PM by Skyler Frink
    As an IT student I follow the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition with some interest. It looks like the military is interested in the competition as well, as the United States Air Force Academy managed to take second place, behind the University of Washington team in their second consecutive win.

    The competition features a red team, consisting of professional "white hat" hackers, that attacks each team's network constantly. The teams must defend against the attacks and attempt to keep several different services up while filling out incident reports on the activity of the red team.

    While it's a game, the competition uses attacks that serious threats would employ, and the attacks are carried out by some of the best hackers in the business. The Academy's team did incredibly given the level of competition, and it shows that the U.S. Military is interested in evolving to face new threats.

    The cyber defense field is dynamic, attacks and defenses change with different hardware and software. Whatever is being taught at the United States Air Force Academy is clearly good material, and the students being skilled enough to place second in such a fierce competition really helps put faith into the military's ability to defend against modern attacks.

    Still, maybe next year they can get first :)

    Will Intel 3rd Generation Intel Core processor make a big splash in embedded computing applications?

    April 27, 2012 6:32 AM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    Intel Corp. in Santa Clara, Calif., unveiled its 3rd Generation Intel Core processor this week, which promises performance increases in processing speed, graphics capability, and data throughput over the 2nd Generation Core processor family, which burst on the scene in January 2011 to much fanfare and excitement in the military embedded systems industry.

    As Intel announced the 3d Generation Core processors on Monday, which the company previously had called Ivy Bridge, embedded computing companies almost immediately started rolling out products, which include single-board computers and mezzanine-board computers from companies like GE Intelligent Platforms in Charlottesville, Va.; Curtiss-Wright Controls Defense Solutions in Ashburn, Va.; Extreme Engineering Solutions (X-ES) in Middleton, Wis.; Mercury Computer Systems in Chelmsford, Mass.; and Concurrent Technologies in Woburn, Mass.

    With this flurry of embedded computing product introductions this week based on the 3rd Generation Core processor, however, the best is yet to come, as Intel officials say they will introduce new versions of the chips in coming months for systems like servers and embedded computing in aerospace and defense, industrial control, medical devices, and similar applications.

    One big question is will the 3rd Generation Core processor make as big a splash in the embedded computing industry as the 2nd Generation Core made little more than 15 months ago?

    The answer is probably not. The 2nd Generation Core processor introduced not only enhanced on-board graphics processing, but especially important for the aerospace and defense embedded computing industry was the chip's support for floating-point processing.

    At the time of the 2nd Generation Core processor's introduction, Intel rival Freescale Semiconductor in Austin, Texas, had discontinued support for floating-point processing on its latest generation of microprocessors, which left defense companies looking for new ways to tackle difficult digital signal processing for applications like radar processing, sonar, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence.

    Intel's introduction of the 2nd Generation Core processors took the aerospace and defense embedded computing business by storm. Even through Freescale later re-introduced floating-point processing, but Intel almost overnight grabbed a huge chunk of the aerospace and defense embedded processor market.

    The 3rd Generation Core processors from Intel, while introducing formidable enhancements, do not represent the revolutionary change in the embedded computing market that the previous generation of chips did. Nevertheless, the new chip introduction is causing much excitement among embedded computing designers.

    The quad-core 3rd Generation Intel Core processor family is touted as delivering visual and performance gains, and are the first chips made using Intel’s 22-nanometer 3-D tri-gate transistor technology, Intel officials say. The new-generation chips are coming in high-end desktop, laptop, and all-in-one (AIO) designs.

    The 3-D tri-gate transistor and architectural enhancements can as much as double the 3-D graphics and HD media processing performance over Intel’s 2nd Generation Core processors.

    The performance gains in the 3rd Generation Core processors are from the 3D structure of the Intel transistors, company officials say. Adding a third dimension enables Intel to increase transistor density and add capabilities. Intel also reworked the 3rd Generation Core's graphics architecture, and shrunk the size of the underlying transistors.

    The 3rd Generation Intel Core processor also adds security such as Intel Secure Key and Intel OS Guard. Intel Secure Key is a digital random number generator that creates random numbers to strengthen encryption algorithms. Intel OS Guard helps defend against privilege escalation attacks where a hacker remotely takes over another person's system.

    Systems with 3rd Generation Intel Core processors also transfer data more quickly than previous versions due to integrated PCI Express 3.0 and USB 3.0, which bring bigger data pipes.

    Follow Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence news updates on Twitter

    The $114 million mistake

    April 25, 2012 3:32 PM by Skyler Frink
    Lockheed Martin was awarded two contract modifications today, each one for changes to the configuration baseline hardware or software resulting from the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) development effort. Sounds pretty innocent, right? A call to Joe DellaVedova, Spokesperson for the F-35 Joint Program Office, revealed the cause for these contract modifications.

    Due to the program involving testing the aircraft while building them, twelve aircraft had already been built before a problem was found. In Mr. DellaVedova's words the modifications are to "provide funding for the contractor to correct deficiencies in LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production) II hardware and software." The deficiencies were not disclosed, but what we do know is that those deficiencies are costing the Department of Defense over $100 million to fix it. The United Kingdom is even footing some of the bill, ponying up $10 million to fix these issues. Specifically, the contracts total approximately $114.2 million.

    That's a lot of money to spend just because planes were built before we even knew they worked.

    The planes that were already produced (and thus are being fixed) are 6 short-take off and vertical-landing (STOVL) and 6 conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variants.

    Of course, this could have been easily prevented if everyone wasn't in a such a rush to get the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter into the air. Rather than building these incredibly expensive machines before they were fully tested they could have simply waited. Now there is a wait that, to quote the contracts, "will span multiple years." Couldn't wait to get them out there, and now we have to wait even longer because of problems that are in the software and hardware.

    The software or the hardware, otherwise known as absolutely everything in the aircraft. Be happy to know your tax dollars are going towards a mistake that was caused by rushing a product instead of thoroughly testing it before production, and that the mistake is involved in the all-encompassing hardware and software.

    Oh well, maybe this mistake will mean the DoD and Lockheed Martin have learned a $114.2 million lesson that everyone who's had to pay for printing at college already learned- "Make sure there are no errors before you print it out." Except this time instead of wasting a dollar to reprint a report, the government is wasting $114.2 million to retrofit 12 aircraft.

    Iran under attack once again

    April 23, 2012 3:45 PM by Skyler Frink
    After several computer viruses and physical attacks on scientists, Iran once again finds itself being attacked. This time the attack is in the form of a computer virus that targets Iran's oil industry.

    While the virus is still being investigated, it has been revealed that it targets the control systems of Kharg Island. This attack, which may just be a technical failure, is preventing the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) from sending the crude-loading program at terminals. The extent of the damage done by this virus is currently unknown, and will likely remain unknown for a great while. Complex programs are capable of laying dormant in a system and cropping up again later.

    This (possible) attack only serves to highlight how vulnerable systems are to cyber attacks. With so many industries relying on computers to get the job done these sorts of attacks are a serious threat.

    Of course, these actions, even if nobody knows who is responsible or whether they are acts of aggression or not, aren't helping ease international tension.

    High-performance computing for rugged mobile military applications is becoming a hot design issue

    April 18, 2012 3:03 PM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., 18 April 2012. High-performance computing for rugged mobile military embedded systems has become a hot topic, with several major players in this market voicing interest, or announcing upcoming products to help satisfy the insatiable appetite for processing power of aerospace and defense systems like vetronics, radar, and electronic warfare.

    High-performance computing -- which seems to be the contemporary term for what used to be called supercomputing -- came up in conversation this week during several meetings I had in Arizona and New Mexico to find out some of the latest trends in rugged embedded computing.

    Engineers in the Intel Corp. Intelligent Systems group in Chandler, Ariz., are combing their company's high-performance microprocessor technology with embedded computing expertise at Kontron in Poway, Calif., on a high-performance-computing proof-of-concent-program to create supercomputer performance in the size of a shoe box, says Ajit Patel, a marketing manager at Intel.

    The plan, which is in its early stages, would place six high-performance computing blades in a high-bandwidth backplane for vetronics, unmanned vehicles, and other aerospace and defense applications that require dense floating point performance in a small package.

    High-performance computing


    -- High-performance computing benefits signal- and data processing in aerospace and defense applications

    -- High-performance computing: It's got to be rugged

    -- DARPA pushes new frontier of high-performance military computing to approach performance of one-quintillion calculations per second.


    For this project, Intel is bringing its latest generations of microprocessor technology to the fore, while Kontron will concentrate on packaging, thermal management, and other embedded computing design issues, Patel says.

    This talk of emphasizing high-performance computing for embedded systems applications struck me as more than coincidence, since just last week I was writing about a big project at General Micro Systems in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., called Zeus to create high-performance server-class computing for military vetronics applications.

    Still, the talk of high-performance computing didn't stop with Intel, Kontron, and General Micro Systems. Jay Swenson, director of marketing and business development for military and aerospace embedded business at GE Intelligent Platforms in Albuquerque, N.M., says GE is increasing its emphasis on high-performance computing.

    Within a months' time, GE Intelligent Platforms will announce a new high performance computing center of excellence to focus research and business development in this area. "There is going to be a need for a lot more high-performance computing," Swenson told me.

    The reason primarily is communications bandwidth -- or the fact there's never enough for demanding aerospace and defense applications like radar processing, signals intelligence, and electronic warfare. "We have to move as much signal-processing capability closer to the sensor," Swenson says.

    That means putting extremely sophisticated floating-point-intensive signal processing capability on small unmanned vehicles, in military combat vehicles that already are overburdened with onboard equipment, and even on individual infantry soldiers, who themselves rapidly are becoming walking sensor platforms and communications nodes.

    Packaging high-performance computing so it can be cooled adequately and withstand the rigors of the battlefield is not without its challenges, but there may be a new design issue that could complicate things further, points out Greg Rose, vice president of marketing and software management at safety-critical software specialist DDC-I in Phoenix.



    High-performance embedded computing these days, with few exceptions, relies heavily in the newest generations of multicore microprocessors from companies like Intel and Freescale Semiconductor in Austin, Texas.

    One military electronics industry trend that is converging on the recent emphasis on high-performance computing involved safety-critical software that must be certified to industry standards like DO-178B and C. These standards primarily are for the commercial aviation business, but it's only a matter of time -- just a few years, perhaps -- before the military will be compelled to join the safety-critical software bandwagon.

    When that happens, embedded systems designers had better find a reliable way for safety-critical software to run on multicore microprocessors. Today, Rose points out, some systems designers have to shut down all microprocessor cores except one to run safety-critical software reliably.

    The problem involves sharing one memory among several microprocessor cores. Software designers have yet to find a bullet-proof way to share memory while guaranteeing that no data corruption can happen under any circumstances. Sure, many claim they can, but few would bet the futures of their companies on those claims, and that's essentially what they'll have to do.

    So here we go, as high-performance computing and safety-critical computing step into the ring. I think engineers will be able to work out the most difficult issues facing them, but we're all in for a boatload of frustration first.

    Is the U.S. getting ready for conflict?

    April 16, 2012 1:25 PM by Skyler Frink
    In a recent article I wrote on the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) there was a DoD contract that was described as an "enhanced threat response redesign" as part of a "quick reaction capability program." My question is, what are they reacting to?

    An enemy who could afford a facility that the MOP can't destroy couldn't be anything less than a country. Could it be that the U.S. is planning on going to war in 2014, when work on the contract is set to be completed? While there hasn't been a real "war" by the U.S. in some time, Congress has been sure not to declare one, could we be gearing up for another conflict like Libya?

    There hasn't been much in the way of politics to make me think the U.S. is on the warpath, but the language is clear in the contract. There is a threat to the U.S. and the MOP is being redesigned as a reaction to it. It's not like a company came out with a new MOP-proof structure and we want to show that we can still destroy it What else but an existing nation could possibly be the enhanced threat the contract is talking about?

    I could be reading too much into this, but the evidence is right there. What threat could possibly be strong enough to warrant improving what is quite literally an earth-shatteringly powerful weapon?

    Historic obsession about the Titanic sinking 100 years ago wipes Bread and Roses strike from popular memory

    April 12, 2012 7:05 AM by John Keller

    The RMS Titanic sank exactly 100 years ago early Sunday morning, taking 1,514 souls to their deaths in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic, but I'm not here today to talk about this maritime disaster that has dominated popular memory for the entirety of a century. Instead, I'd like to point out how the sinking of the Titanic super ocean liner wiped other notable events from the front pages, and from popular memory (I apologize for not writing this week of matters aerospace and defense electronics).

    The year 1912 was an eventful one, even though the historic milestone of that era -- the First World War -- would not start for more than two years after the Titanic disappeared beneath the ocean. When 1912 began, owners of the textile mills in the booming industrial town of Lawrence, Mass., reduced the work hours and pay of the largely immigrant labor force. When workers realized their pay was being cut, they walked away from their looms and left the mills shouting "short pay, short pay!"

    The work stoppage spread through the city's textile mills, and within a week more than 20,000 angry mill workers left their jobs and took to the streets. The result was the so-called Bread and Roses Strike, a popular term for the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike, which involved street violence, antagonism among competing labor unions, and ultimately the attention of then-First Lady Helen Herron Taft, wife of President William Howard Taft.

    The Bread and Roses Strike lasted for three months, and involved mass arrests, callup of the Massachusetts state militia, clubbing in the street of women and children, and other kinds of ugliness that by 12 March 1912 led to the strike's end when the American Woolen Company agreed to most the strikers' demands. Mill workers throughout New England also received many new benefits.

    The Bread and Roses Strike is notable in that it signaled what, for its day, was a new era of labor relations and worker-management harmony in the industrialized Northeast.

    Another notable historic event in the spring of 1912 -- particularly for New Englanders -- was the scheduled opening of a new baseball field in Boston, Fenway Park, home to the Boston Red Sox, and today the oldest and perhaps most beloved Major League Baseball stadium in existence.

    Fenway Park opened on 20 April 1912, and that day the Boston Red Sox defeated the New York Highlanders 7-6 in 11 innings. Think that game was on the front page? Not with the Titanic sinking less than a week before.

    The next year the New York Highlanders would be renamed the New York Yankees, and one of the most storied rivalries in baseball history would be born.

    So April 1912 saw a new era in labor relations, the opening of one of America's best-known baseball parks, and the beginning of a great baseball rivalry.

    So 100 years later what do we hear about most? The Bread and Roses Strike and its influence on American labor history? The beginning of an old and hard-fought baseball rivalry? The opening of America's best-loved baseball park?

    No, we hear about that damned ship made with brittle hull plates, breakable rivets, and not enough life boats.

    Maybe it won't be like this forever, though. I can't wait for Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in "Bread and Roses: The Movie."

    The future of UAV technology aims high

    April 3, 2012 7:05 AM by Skyler Frink
    In spite of the budget cuts that loom over the industry, the future of UAVs is still looking bright.

    Boeing in particular is excited about what the technology that may come to be in the next few years. With the A160 Hummingbird having shown that UAVs can have an extended presence and reach impressive heights, the predictions on the show floor push the envelope even more.

    Future UAVs may be capable of reaching heights that are over double or triple what the A160 can reach and stay in the air for months at a time. These UAVs would resemble gliders with solar panels to maintain power and sensor arrays. Rather than rely on satellite imagery these UAVs would give warfighters persistent situational awareness.

    Of course, UAVs have been trending towards other extremes as well. Tiny UAVs that can be flown through open windows are in the works. These miniscule aircraft will stay airborne in times measured in seconds or minutes while giving valuable information to soldiers on the ground without giving away their position like a thrown ground vehicle might.

    In addition to new technical capabilities, the future of UAVs is trending towards automated systems. Rather than having several personnel monitoring a UAV, in the future it is expected that one person can monitor many different UAVs at once. The Hummingbird is an example of a step toward automation, with the ability to fly to land without any assistance with high accuracy or perform a number of similarly complex feats without human guidance. Automation frees up soldiers to perform other tasks and ultimately is a cost-saving measure, as less personnel are needed for UAV flights.

    These UAVs aren't just the product of wishful thinking, they have either already been made (in the case of tiny UAVs) or are currently in the Research and Development phase. Between the cutting-edge technology and the tangible optimism at the Army Aviation Association of America Exposition, the budget cuts seem like a non-factor for innovators in the industry.

    Conference combo

    March 30, 2012 7:22 AM by Courtney Howard

    I just returned from the floor of Design West 2012 in San Jose. The conference organizers opted to combine multiple shows under one umbrella, a choice that proved, on the whole, to confound exhibitors, cause press to extend their stay and log additional miles on their pedometers, and both entertain and satisfy attendees.

    Attendees with whom I spoke unanimously support the decision to hold seven events in concert. "I don't get out much," revealed an educator, engineer, and attendee working on aerospace research and development out of Portland, Ore. "I say 'throw the kitchen sink at me, I never know when I'll need the info; but one thing is for sure, when I realize I do need it, I need it now!'" He admitted to "pawing through" his notes and materials gathered during industry events very often throughout the months that follow.

    Isn't that the true measure of a conference's value and success? What do you love and hate about avionics and military/aerospace events? What goals do you set out to achieve by taking part in industry events? I'd love to know; you can reach me anytime at Courtney@Pennwell.com or on Twitter (I'm @coho).

    We can thank a self-absorbed Congress for hurting national defense if deep automatic defense cuts happen

    March 28, 2012 3:41 PM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    I'm as surprised as anyone, but at least a portion of those threatened automatic defense cuts in the U.S. budget actually may be coming to pass, experts say, which likely could put a stop to U.S. Air Force plans for a new long-range jet bomber, a new Army tactical vehicle, and could reduce the U.S. Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers lower than the current 11 vessels.

    For the longest time, I dismissed such predictions, but this time it looks like I may be wrong. Still it's hard to believe because -- let's face it -- Congress can do anything it wants, provided a majority of congressmen and senators agree. This agreement, however, or lack of it, would seem to be at the root of the problem we're facing.

    Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times wrote a convincing piece in Sunday's paper entitled "Budget gridlock imperils national defense Arms systems cuts look likely," that outlines ominous prospects for automatic defense cuts -- or "sequestration," in Congress-speak.



    Congress approved the 2011 Budget Control Act not long ago that calls for across-the-board defense cuts to begin on 1 Jan. 2013 if Congress fails to cut spending, increases taxes, or both to reign-in budget deficits. The law calls for Congress to cut defense spending by $500 billion over 10 years if lawmakers cannot reach agreement on budget targets, which looks increasingly likely.

    The first of 2013 begins the first year of automatic budget cuts, and would take $50 billion from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) budget. That's roughly one-tenth of the Pentagon's total annual budget, and almost certainly would mean elimination of several weapons programs.

    I honestly thought it would never come to this, but I've never seen Congress so divided along ideological fault lines before. The big problem, with the way the law is written, is Congress simply has to do nothing for automatic spending cuts to take place.

    Doing nothing? That's easy, especially for this Congress. When and if the cuts take place, each member of Congress simply can shrug his or her shoulders and claim, "not MY fault." Built-in political cover. That's a law made in Heaven for this Congress, and on hindsight, that's gotta be exactly the way they planned it.

    Congress wins, the Pentagon loses. It's all so tawdry because it's so dishonest.

    Dishonest? Congress? Well duh! Rather than voting defense cuts up or down, members of Congress have maneuvered themselves into letting cuts happen automatically by doing nothing and then being able to deny responsibility.

    Is it any wonder that Congress is so unpopular with the American public? Is it any wonder that a "throw the bums out" mentality rears its ugly head among voters with increasing frequency? It's pretty obvious to me. With people like this in office, everyone's in trouble, not just the Pentagon.

    Food for thought when we go to the polls in November.

    Securing the military network

    March 21, 2012 10:25 AM by Skyler Frink
    The U.S. military has a lot on their plate. With so much technology being released, the slow pace that the military has typically adapted to new technology is no longer working well. Even with a huge focus on networks, the branches of the U.S. military do not yet have a standard for securing their networks. There are rugged, secure routers and devices that communicate using wireless out there on the battlefield, but no standard that protects them and allows them to communicate easily.

    Right now the military is looking at the National Security Agency (NSA) to produce a series of standards for encryption on the battlefield. Of course, this process can take over a year, which would mean devices and software that are optimized for the standard likely won't be released for another year after that.

    A delay that lasts a year or longer is a huge deal for technology today. Look at what we have this year when compared to last. Quad-core phones when we hardly had dual-core last year, processors that allow for twice the processing power! Standards need to reflect the technology at the time, but when an organization is so slow to adapt to new technology it becomes difficult to design them. What is 256 bit encryption isn't useful anymore when the new standard comes out because quantum computers became more common?

    It's strange that an organization that relies on the latest technology is incapable of actually getting that technology into the hands of soldiers. With all the resources at its disposal the DoD needs to evolve and cut through whatever red tape is slowing the process of creating a good communication standard and start giving warfighters the functionality civilians already have. It's kind of crazy that I can download an app that locates my friends, but a warfighter doesn't have the ability to do the same thing for his squad.

    FAA's impending rule on small UAVs may usher in a new era of civil aerial warfare

    March 14, 2012 4:35 PM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Washington is getting ready to propose a new rule this year that would open up vast new opportunities for operating small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in non-controlled civil airspace. This is good news for developers, who have labored under sometimes-difficult FAA UAV rules that often require special FAA certifications to operate even the most small and simple UAVs from parking lots and back yards.

    FAA officials say the new UAV regulations, which would make it easier to operate these small aircraft, could be as boon for law enforcement to conduct surveillance, traffic patrols, and other aerial work to replace or augment far-more-expensive manned helicopters.

    Those who also could benefit are remote sensing companies, would could enhance satellite imagery with photo data taken from small UAVs, farmers who could use small UAVs to identify areas in their fields that need extra water or fertilizer, and even hobbyists designing new kinds of inexpensive sensor payloads for small UAVs.

    It's those small sensor payloads, however, that are worrying some folks, because with enhanced access to airborne sensors, privacy advocates say the wrong kinds of eyes in the sky might be checking up on the wrong kinds of people. What about the celebrity Paparazzi who constantly are trying to get the latest photos of famous people. Put small UAVs in the hands of these people, and no one will have any privacy -- ever.



    Think also about celebrities who own large estates with well-guarded perimeters and other defenses against prying eyes. Do you think these people will be able to pay extra for aerial rights over their estates?

    Some, undoubtedly, will take matters into their own hands, as was reported last month at a privately owned plantation in South Carolina where owners sponsored a pigeon shoot for hunters. An animal rights group tried to photograph the event using a small UAV. The presence of the UAV caused the shooting party to disperse pretty quickly, but not without some hard feelings.

    Before all was said and done that day, a shotgun blast from nearby cover knocked the animal rights group UAV out of the sky, causing it to crash on a nearby roadway. This, in turn, caused all kinds of outcry about the alleged recklessness of discharging a firearm near a public roadway, but the point was made.

    Now I'm wondering if the upcoming FAA rules on operating small UAVs will make it open season for blasting these tiny aircraft out of the sky over private property. I realize the FAA is trying to put a lot of issues to rest with its upcoming new rulemaking, but I'm thinking it's going to open up a can of worms, as well.

    Let the lawsuits begin.

    Boeing and Airbus both claim victory in WTO Appeal? That can't be right...

    March 12, 2012 3:06 PM by Skyler Frink
    There's been a lot of buzz about today's World Trade Organization (WTO) report, with both rival aircraft manufacturers claiming to have been the victor. Of course, both sides are spinning it in their own way.

    Airbus, who less than a year ago, was found by the WTO to have received unfair government subsidies of $18 billion. Comparatively, Boeing's unfair subsidies were found to be along the lines of $5.3 billion. Airbus is celebrating the revelation of Boeing's unfair subsidies while Boeing is celebrating that their unfair subsidies were found to be less than a third of the ones Airbus received.

    It's times like these where you have to cut through all the marketing being thrown by both sides and take a look at the facts. Both sides have received unfair subsidies and neither one complies with WTO standards. Airbus and Boeing are living in glass houses, but that isn't stopping either of them from throwing stones.

    Hopefully the WTO can step in and make sure both sides play fair from here on out.

    The defense industry may be adjusting to a new age of financial austerity

    March 7, 2012 10:40 AM by John Keller
    Posted by John Keller

    I've noticed a few things about the financial shape of the aerospace and defense industry over the past month or two. It seems that company mergers and acquisitions are tailing off, while the number of contracts and procurement opportunities are headed up.

    Now by no means is this observation about the health of the aerospace and defense industry based on any scientific analysis. Instead, it's more of a gut feel, and as such has all of my biases and wishful thinking folded into it.

    Still, my gut feel largely is based on the past month's news coverage in Military & Aerospace Electronics. We've had a lot of stories covering contract wins and procurement opportunities, and not many covering mergers and acquisitions. Have we overly concentrated on contracts and opportunities lately, to the exclusion of mergers and acquisitions?

    Perhaps, but let's stipulate for a moment that our industry actually has had fewer mergers and acquisitions lately, and more contracts and opportunities than we've had in a while. How might this bode for the future -- especially for an industry that's taking it on the chin in the Pentagon's 2013 budget request?



    Well, to start with, this feels like a port in the storm for an industry that has been jittery for more than a year about future prospects for defense spending. Maybe ... just maybe, our industry has hit bottom and is on the way back up. Perhaps this is an early indication that the aerospace and defense industry is starting to adjust to a new era of financial austerity.

    Our industry, for good or ill, is digesting the notion that a long streak of healthy Pentagon budgets might be at an end -- perhaps for quite a while. This means competition is ratcheting up, in government and in industry.

    For those in government, it looks like they have to make do with less, in measurable terms. Not only does this mean the Pentagon can no longer fund many of the things its leaders want, but also must face the inevitable challenge of deciding what projects to keep, and which to abandon.

    For those in industry, it means they have to work harder than they have in a long time to prevail over their competitors for military contract wins. Price, as always, will be a driving force, but as dollars dry up, military officials will look harder at capability and quality than they have in a long time.

    For industry and government together, everyone will be in the hunt for breakthrough technologies that bring serious new capabilities to the table at reasonable costs.

    None of that will be easy. Still, on those rare occasions when it happens, we'll know who the real heroes are.

    What's up with all the anti-tamper technology?

    March 5, 2012 12:58 PM by Skyler Frink
    Anti-tamper has been a hot topic for the military as of late. With so much information being sent to countless devices on the battlefield it's important that products offer the ability to render any data stored useless in case a device is lost or stolen. For those who are curious about anti-tamper methods and what the implications of them are, this blog will go over some of the more common ways of preventing data from being accessed.

    Encryption is right up there on the list of easy ways to prevent data from being understood. A device may encrypt all of its data and be capable of deleting the keys required to read it, making the data a useless collection of bits. Of course, encryption is not fool proof since the data remains on the device. Commonly encryption is paired with methods of permanently deleting data.

    Zeroing the drive (or whatever method of storage is used) is essentially the goal of anti-tamper procedures. Zeroing a device means writing all the bits so they read 0. A zeroed device is essentially a blank slate, completely free of information or any traces of information. The problem with attempting to simply wipe a device clean is the process can take hours depending on the size and method of storage used. A common tactic is to encrypt all data on a device and be capable of remotely deleting keys and starting a program that will zero all storage. This makes it so anyone who wants to access data needs to be able to not only decrypt the data, but they need to do so before it can be zeroed or stop the zeroing process.

    Another method is to have all data on a device be sent to it via a secure network and contain no long-term storage. This allows a device to be rendered useless unless it can connect to the network or be captured while powered on. While data on a device such as this is secure, it contains a potentially dangerous link to whatever network it uses to power on. Proper network security mitigates these risks, but the threat remains.

    The problem with these methods is that no form of anti-tamper is perfect. There are many other ways to render data useless (writing new data over old data, physically destroying the device, using a magnet to destroy stored information, etc.), but none are absolutely perfect. Even zeroing the drive is debated as to whether data can be restored or not. Whether the tradeoff is time, completeness or network security, anti-tamper has not yet been perfected.

    As information on the battlefield gets sent to more and more devices, it might be the time to look more closely at anti-tamper and see where improvements can be made.

    Effects of 2013 DOD budget cuts already being felt with program cancellations

    February 29, 2012 9:42 AM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    Effects of the Pentagon's cuts in its proposed 2013 DOD budget are starting to drive home in tangible ways. On Monday the U.S. Navy formally cancelled its program to develop the Medium Range Maritime Unmanned Aerial System (MRMUAS) -- which was to be an vertical-takeoff-and-landing surveillance unmanned aircraft that could operate from ships and cover long distances and stay in the air for long periods.

    Although the Navy announced the MRMUAS unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) cancellation Feb. 13 when the Pentagon submitted its 2013 budget request to Congress, this past Monday saw the Navy formally cancel its MRMUAS solicitation, which service officials had issued last September. The MRMUAS was to be a follow-on to the Navy Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter for maritime reconnaissance and surveillance.

    Cancellation of the Navy's MRMUAS solicitation leaves in limbo the defense prime contractors who had placed bids to develop the new maritime surveillance UAV, which was to be fielded in 2018 or 2019, and would be bigger than the MQ-8B, with a nine-hour endurance.



    A team of BAE Systems and AVX Aircraft Co. had put in a bid to develop MRMUAS. Boeing had been expected to bid the company's A160 Hummingbird UAV, and Northrop Grumman had proposed the company's MQ-8C Fire-X UAV that combines the Fire Scout operating system and the airframe of the Bell Helicopter 407. Other UAV developers such as Aurora Flight Sciences and DragonFly Pictures also had expressed interest.

    The Navy's MRMUAS program cancellation also brings up an interesting and potentially awkward situation with the U.S. Army where medium-range UAV development is concerned.

    Navy officials had combined their MRMUAS program with the Army's program to develop a Medium-Range Multi-Purpose (MRMP) vertical take-off and landing system. Now with the Navy's MRMUAS cancellation, Army officials will be forced to develop their MRMP program on their own, or follow suit and abandon the program.

    The situation is eerily similar to one in the past in which the Army and Navy were to collaborate on what would become the MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV. The Army began that program as part of the now-cancelled Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. After the Navy joined the effort, the Army cancelled it to leave the Navy to develop the Fire Scout unmanned helicopter on its own.

    Top ten technologies the U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force is looking for

    February 25, 2012 9:06 AM by Skyler Frink
    To counter the threats soldiers in theater are facing, the Army Rapid Equipping Force is looking for devices with specific functions. Here are the top ten functions the Army Rapid Equipping Force is looking for.

    1. IED destruction devices

    2. Dismounted operations support

    3. Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance in inhospitable environments

    4. Small combat operation post/village support operations

    5. Dismounted Blue Force Tracker and Mission Command

    6. Counter Ambush (mitigate direct fire and rocket-propelled grenades)

    7. Non-lethal messaging

    8. Advance Escalation of Force Support

    9. Entry control point ops and vehicle search

    10. Routine Clearance Support

    Many of these goals are based around giving information to warfighters on the front lines and protecting the dismounted soldier. These goals were created by requests from soldiers who have been in theater and understand what dangers are being faced.

    For those who have solutions, ideas can be submitted at www.FBO.gov BAA number W91CRB-11-R-0038.

    AUSA Winter 2012

    February 23, 2012 6:57 AM by Skyler Frink
    The focus at the AUSA Winter Symposium is providing increased capacity for the squad and the dismounted warfighter.

    The U.S. Army has asked that the industry produce lighter equipment to reduce soldier loads and are also looking for networking solutions to provide squads with more direct access to the Army's network. These changes are meant to increase squad mobility and allow them to overmatch (that is, to dominate regardless of other factors) opposition forces of equal size.

    For the industry, the buzz on the floor has been about upgrading systems and conducting maintenance for existing systems. Due to the U.S. departure from Iraq there is less demand for new hardware, but a large demand for keeping hardware that has been exposed to harsh environments in working condition.

    Many of the products out on the floor are software that allow for better communications, organization of information or diagnostics. New hardware is primarily keeping in line with the goals of the Army to empower the squad, lighter equipment and equipment that allows soldiers to better share information.

    The DoD budget has everyone a little bit nervous, but there is still growth to be found within the Army's stated goals.

    Iranian Nuclear Program Under Attack (again)

    February 20, 2012 8:36 AM by Skyler Frink

    It's almost routine for Iran's nuclear program to have something setting it back. Sanctions, Stuxnet, and most recently a string of assassinations have been making it difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

    While these assassinations aren't new by any stretch of the word, they show a concentrated effort to prevent them from developing these weapons. While no country is owning up to the attacks, the flawless execution and organization of these attacks make it clear somebody doesn't want them to have nuclear weapons.

    These attacks come after the Stuxnet worm, which damaged Iranian equipment and severely set back their nuclear program. These newer attacks are much more aggressive than attacking a computer network, and they send a clear message to the Iran that whoever is behind them is going all in.

    Iran's own counterattacks have started being launched at Israel, the prime suspect for the attacks on Iran's nuclear program. It's a tense time in an already unstable region, with tempers flaring and attacks going in both directions it looks like it's only a matter of time before a conventional war begins.

    Your best insight into the DOD budget implications for the military and aerospace electronics market

    February 14, 2012 8:55 AM by Ernesto Burden
    You know that look of anticipation Apple fans have when they're standing in line at the Apple store the night before the release of the newest iPhone/iPad/iJetpack iteration? It's a look that combines foreknowledge of both daunting challenges (standing in line all night long and trying to figure out how to get to the bathroom without losing your place, for example), with the anticipation of a marvelous reward (the next greatest iGadget). Well that's the look that our Military & Aerospace Electronics chief editor John Keller had on his face when he came into my office Monday.

    John had a thumb drive in one hand, held aloft like a trophy.

    "DOD budget," he declared. Then, eyes narrowing like a wolf's as it circles a straggling deer in a snowy forest, "I'm on my way to get this printed right now." Then he was gone, on a contrail of journalistic vigor. He will now spend the next untold number of hours buried in reams of paper with a snorkel, a highlighter and a laptop, filing dispatches for you, our readers, on what this budget is likely to mean for the aerospace and defense electronics industry. And relishing it.

    He stopped in to make this announcement not because of some sort of weird micromanaging in our editor-publisher relationship here at M&AE. Rather, it's pure excitement. When you're a journalist like John, and one of the biggest stories of the year comes around again, the blood hums, and you've got to share. Having spent a good part of my career on the editorial side of the fence, I know how he feels. It's the way I used to feel once upon a time on election night in the newsroom.

    Knowing this also gives me some insight into what you, M&AE's readers, can expect in the next few weeks: the most aggressive, insightful, detailed coverage - anywhere - of what the DOD budget will mean to the aerospace and defense electronics industry. Keller has been at this from early days and he reads this budget and its market implications with the same finesse a lifelong trout fisherman reads the dimple of a rise, invisible to an ordinary eye, in a riffling stream.

    You need to know what he's seeing.

    Here are some of John's first offerings on the budget:



    I urge you to keep your eyes on M&AE for much more to come.

    Ernesto Burden is the publisher of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @aero_ernesto.

    Railgun technology getting closer to reality

    February 13, 2012 1:30 PM by Skyler Frink
    I've always been a bit of a technology junky, and there's a powerful piece of technology that looks like it will become operational if things go well for the Department of Defense. The new technology that's looking good? Railguns.

    Back when I was younger, railguns were talked about as if they were pure science fiction inventions. They were featured in video games, books and movies as a sort of futuristic weaponry. Now it looks like railguns will be up for deployment sooner rather than later.

    Raytheon was recently awarded a contract for developing a pulsed power system for use in railgun technology. In conjunction with that, the Department of Defense is hoping to start test firing a new railgun, which will launch projectiles at speeds between 4,500 and 5,600 miles per hour up to distances of 100 nautical miles, later this month.

    Railguns are currently limited primarily by the amount of heat the weapon produces and the power required to fire it. This leads to railguns having a short barrel life and a slow firing rate. With new materials being created and a power system already in development, we might be seeing railguns in the near future.

    Railgun technology allow for lower-cost projectiles to be fired, and could provide significant savings for the military. Railgun projectiles are not filled with explosives, they simply use their high velocities to produce energy that compares or surpasses explosives of a similar mass. With the ever-present threat of budget cuts, railguns could prove to be an effective addition to arsenals around the world.

    Iranian Nuclear Program Under Attack (again)

    February 13, 2012 1:30 PM by Skyler Frink
    It's almost routine for Iran's nuclear program to have something setting it back. Sanctions, Stuxnet, and most recently a string of assassinations have been making it difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

    While these assassinations aren't new by any stretch of the word, they show a concentrated effort to prevent them from developing these weapons. While no country is owning up to the attacks, the flawless execution and organization of these attacks make it clear somebody doesn't want them to have nuclear weapons.

    These attacks come after the Stuxnet worm, which damaged Iranian equipment and severely set back their nuclear program. These newer attacks are much more aggressive than attacking a computer network, and they send a clear message to the Iran that whoever is behind them is going all in.

    Iran's own counterattacks have started being launched at Israel, the prime suspect for the attacks on Iran's nuclear program. It's a tense time in an already unstable region, with tempers flaring and attacks going in both directions it looks like it's only a matter of time before a conventional war begins.

    Vying for air refueling tanker work

    February 9, 2012 8:36 AM by Courtney Howard

    U.S. Armed Forces bases face realignment and potential closure due to the need for considerable reductions in the defense budget. Air Force officials are facing the elimination of more than 280 aircraft and 9,900 personnel. Washington state and Spokane officials, including those in the Inland Northwest Aerospace Consortium (INWAC) in Spokane, are vying to bring work on the KC-46A air refueling tanker to Fairchild Air Force Base, minutes from downtown Spokane (and my office, incidentally).


    Boeing’s contract to deliver 179 tankers to replace aging KC-135 aerial refueling tankers, is valued at more than $30 billion. The company is scheduled to deliver 18 planes to the Air Force in 2017. The Air Force bases to receive the KC-46As are yet to be named, but Washington and Fairchild officials are hopeful.


    The KC-135 is flown by units at Fairchild Air Force Base, which, at one time, was scheduled to be the first base to receive replacement tankers.


    Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) has said that building a new tanker is a victory for Fairchild. "Right now the men and women at Fairchild are flying air refueling tankers that are more than 50 years old."


    The KC-46 tanker team, which Boeing officials announced in June 2011, is expected to include more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states and support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs. Doubtless, Spokane and Fairchild Air Force Base could benefit from work on the tankers.


    Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, expecting the contract to bring roughly 11,000 aerospace jobs to the state, is a proponent of making training available at community colleges to ensure local residents are qualified for the work. “If they don’t find the skilled work force in the state, they’ll bring them in from out of state,” she said.


    Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who has championed Boeing tanker replacement plans for more than a decade, called the contract a “major victory” for American workers, the aerospace industry, and the military. "It is consistent with the president’s own call to out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world," she said.


    Officials at the Inland Northwest Aerospace Consortium, which employs 8,100 people, note that more than 20 local companies could supply parts for the new plane.

    Two years later, Navy is on track for big upgrades to shipboard networking and C4ISR

    February 8, 2012 4:01 PM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    It was more than three years in coming, but the U.S. Navy finally is on track to develop and deploy the next generation of shipboard, submarine, and shore-based command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) network systems, with the selection earlier this month of the Northrop Grumman Corp. Information Systems segment in McLean, Va., as prime contractor for the Navy's Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) program.

    Northrop Grumman had been in a tooth-and-nail competition to build CANES shipboard networking since March 2010 with the Lockheed Martin Corp. Maritime Systems & Sensors (MS2) Tactical Systems segment in San Diego, when Navy selected those two companies to develop the CANES common computing environment (CCE), with the understanding that only one of the companies would go on as the CANES prime contractor.

    The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) in San Diego is in charge of the CANES program, and SPAWAR awarded a $47 million contract to Northrop Grumman to take charge of CANES early this month. Navy officials plan to work with Northrop Grumman and the company's subcontractors to install the first Navy CANES systems aboard surface ships as early as this year.


    In addition to boosting the capability and throughput of shipboard networking, CANES seeks to increase the amount of affordable commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) networking equipment in use throughout the fleet.

    Last year Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin engineers completed the formal contractor system integration testing of its CANES system for the U.S. Navy to verify whether the companies' CANES proposals met program requirements and were ready for production and limited deployment.

    Northrop Grumman's CANES solution is designed to offer cost and performance improvements over existing shipboard networks, including a modernized command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) architecture with increased security and reduced development, deployment, and lifecycle costs.

    Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Va., is Northrop Grumman's major platform integration and installation partner on CANES. Other Northrop Grumman CANES subcontractors include Atlas Technologies Inc. in Fenton, Mich.; Beatty and Company Computing Inc. in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.; Juno Technologies Inc. in San Diego; Mikros Systems Corp. in Princeton, N.J.; Syzygy Technologies Inc. in San Diego; and CenterBeam Inc. in San Diego.

    CANES is the consolidation of existing C4I network programs, and will provide a common computing environment infrastructure for C4I applications.

    For more information contact Northrop Grumman Information Systems online at www.is.northropgrumman.com; Huntington Ingalls Industries at www.huntingtoningalls.com; Atlas Technologies at www.atlastechnologies.com; Beatty and Company Computing at www.beatty.com; Juno Technologies at www.juno-tech.com; Micros Systems at www.mikrossystems.com; Syzygy Technologies at www.syzygy-tech.com; CenterBeam at www.centerbeam.com; or SPAWAR at www.public.navy.mil/spawar.

    Prosthetic Limbs

    February 6, 2012 2:29 PM by Skyler Frink
    Always on the cutting edge of technology, our friends at DARPA have been working on creating new and improved prosthetic limbs. Advances in prosthetic limbs have allowed engineers to create limbs that rival, or even surpass, actual human body parts.

    A recent technology, neural integration, has been at the forefront of these advances. Neural integration involves surgically implanting wireless devices into the user, allowing them to control their prosthetic limbs using their thoughts. This allows the user to adapt seamlessly to their new limb and have full control right off the bat.

    Of course, new control technology would be worthless without improved limbs, which is why new designs are popping up that allow for human-like dexterity and freedom. An arm with 26 degrees of freedom is even making its way through the FDA this year. This new arm allows prosthetic limbs to do tasks that used to be impossible for old technology. The arm allows complicated procedures such as cooking or playing an instrument to be performed with ease.

    Wounded service members are now capable of returning to work, and their normal lives with thanks to prosthetic limbs. Over a thousand amputees have returned to active duty since January 1st of this year, a truly impressive amount of people have been helped by this technology.

    It's amazing to see what's being done with prosthetics, and here's hoping the advances keep on coming.

    Security for Android hand-held devices is top priority for real-time software companies

    January 25, 2012 8:18 AM by John Keller
    Posted by John Keller

    Real-time embedded software companies this year will be turning their attention this year to creating robust security for Android-based smartphones and tablet computers in a big way. Android security is taking top priority to enable deployed military forces to use Android devices on the battlefield for ad-hoc networking to exchange text messaging, voice communications, and even intelligence imagery and video.

    It's a fact that military forces are taking their smartphones and tablet computers onto the battlefield with them. It's up to leaders in the Pentagon to create software security so they use these devices securely and safely, and military officials are turning to the high-reliability software companies like Wind River in Alameda, Calif.; Objective Interface Systems, Inc. (OIS) in Herndon, Va.; and Green Hills Software in Santa Barbara, Calif., to provide Android security sufficient for battlefield operations.



    Wind River, in fact, is standing up an Android team to focus on military Android security issues, says Wind River's director of vertical marketing Joe Wlad when I visited the Wind River offices this week. Wind River is starting some substantial secure Android military projects, which are still too new to talk about, Wlad says.

    Android-based smartphones and tablet computers are becoming a fact on the battlefield, and Android-based tablet computers acting as electronic flight bags (EFBs) in commercial airliner cockpits are not far behind.

    Just a few months ago software-defined radio (SDR) experts at the Communications Research Centre Canada (CRC) in Ottawa announced they have ported the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)-compatible P25 emergency public safety radio waveform to an Android hand-held communications device, which may lead the way to running SDR applications on commercial smartphones and rugged tablet computers.

    Last summer L-3 Interstate Electronics Corp. (IEC) in Anaheim, Calif., introduced the VideoScout full-motion video collection and intelligence management software as an application for Android-based commercial handheld smartphones and tablets, which enables users to view video from local area network connections and shared intelligence resources such as remote sensors, military computer servers, and intelligence collection nodes.

    Panasonic is introducing a rugged Android-based Toughbook tablet computer, General Dynamics C4 Systems is offering an Android-based wearable computer for the battlefield, and the list goes on.

    Android for the military is here. Now software security for Android devices has to follow, and that's well in progress.

    Can machines truly understand language?

    January 23, 2012 2:27 PM by Skyler Frink
    There are a lot of subtleties in language. Regions of every country have their own dialects, sentence structure is different for different languages and each dialect can have multiple types of slang.

    Raytheon BBN has been given the almost-impossible task of developing a device that can perform two-way speech-to-speech translations, among other things. Now, I don't doubt a comprehensive translator can come from this, I doubt that any device can effectively translate human communication.

    The reason actual, human translators are so useful is because they master languages in order to make sure subtleties are not lost. Words develop entirely new meanings depending on regions and social status. Speaking from personal experience, a person from New England using the word "wicked" in a sentence is not using a dictionary definition of wicked (unless, in fact, they are using the dictionary definition of wicked). A translator can recognize dialects and slang, guaranteeing that there are no misunderstandings. Any device that wants to be nearly as effective as a human translator needs to be able to understand the context of each word depending on the region and its position in the sentence.

    A device that would translate speech would also need to be able to deal with incredibly thick accents. Even native speakers will have their own way of using their language. There are clear differences in how someone from Boston speaks when compared to someone from the South, or even between different cities in the same state. In countries that don't have such widespread communication, the ones were translators are needed most, accents can sound like another language even if they aren't using a different dialect.

    Slang is an entirely different beast for a device that performs translation to deal with. They can be entire phrases that aren't supposed to be taken literally (a lounge lizard was not a reptile) or words that are used to mean something other than the definition (the wicked example). Each dialect can have its own slang, and being able to distinguish between dialects and whether or not a word is being used as slang are skills a human translator would have that a machine would have difficultly replicating.

    In a place where any slight error in communication can lead to a loss of life, it's important that we don't forget just how complicated language is. There's a reason human translators are still an important part of diplomatic relations and businesses.

    Revamped M&AE and Avionics Websites offer topic centers to get readers exactly what they want

    January 18, 2012 10:42 AM by John Keller
    Posted by John Keller

    In case you haven't noticed, Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence have launched all-new Websites, which our experts designed from the ground up to help readers get the latest news and analysis of the aerospace and defense electronics and avionics industries not only quickly and easily, but also according to individual interests.

    We do this with navigation that concentrates not only on our well-known news, business, and product sections, but more importantly on topic centers to help our readers hone-in quickly on the content that is most important to them on a daily basis.

    Our sister publication, Avionics Intelligence, is taking a similar approach to help readers identify market and technology segments of highest importance, and go directly to digests of the latest information pertinent to the markets they follow.

    Surf on over to the Military & Aerospace Electronics Website at www.militaryaerospace.com, and I'll show you what I mean. Just below our name about a third of the way down the page you'll see a gray strip headed by the word Home. Right next to that is our Topics button. Mouse over it, and you'll see the topic centers we have today: Electro-Optics, Embedded Computing, High-Reliability Electronics, Interconnect Technology, Power Electronics, RF & Microwave, and The Last Word -- interviews with some of our industry's most important newsmakers.

    Now give one a try. If you're most interested in embedded computing, click on the Embedded Computing link and you'll see a page containing all of our recent content pertaining to single-board computers, real-time embedded software, microprocessors and FPGAs, business transactions involving embedded computing companies -- everything embedded computing.

    It's the same for our other topics, and we're not stopping there. In the future look for additional topic centers on land, sea, air, and space technology, unmanned vehicles, C4ISR, and more.

    Next to the Topics button is the Channels button, which helps readers navigate quickly to our different content sections: the Aerospace & Defense Blog where staffers John Keller, Courtney Howard, and Skyler Frink give their takes on the most important topics of importance to our industry; the community where readers participate and have their say; Defense Executive, where we put all the business news; Exclusive Content where we put the news and analysis that no one else has; Farnborough Report, where we place all coverage of the Farnborough Air Show; Industry News Flash where readers can catch up on the latest new products; News & Analysis where readers can get up to date on the latest industry happenings; Paris Air show Report, which has all our coverage of the Paris Air Show; Print Issue, where you can browse archives of Military & Aerospace Electronics magazine; Product Applications where you can see the latest design-ins; Video, where you can see video blogs from Keller, Howard, and Frink; and Wire News, where readers can see the latest news feeds from outside sources.

    There also is an Avionics Intelligence button to help readers navigate quickly to our sister Website for the latest in the commercial, military, and general-aviation avionics industries. Go ahead and click there to see the Avionics Intelligence site at www.avionics-intelligence.com.

    Here you will find more topic-centric content on the avionics business. Avionics Intelligence editor Courtney Howard has crafted this site to help readers get what they want, when they want it. Take a look at the Avionics Intelligence topics, which also is on the strip below the name about a third of the way down the page.

    You can find avionics business news at Avionics Executive; news and analysis at Avionics Insights; air traffic control news at Airspace & Air Traffic Management; and several additional topics of importance to the commercial and military avionics business.

    Elsewhere on the Military 7 Aerospace Electronics home pages you can navigate quickly to our latest feature stories, video and written blogs, wire news feeds, and reader recommendations.

    It's all part of our continuing evolution to get our readers the information they need most, when they most need it -- quickly and easily -- so you can get back to work. Give us a look. Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence are the authoritative voices of their industries, where readers come to get news and insights of quality and depth.

    The Terminology of Military Technology

    January 16, 2012 3:44 PM by Skyler Frink
    It's interesting to see the terminology being thrown around by those who develop weapons for the military. Weapons don't kill people, they "destroy targets" or "eliminate threats."

    I understand it's a little extreme to say a machine kills people, it actually seems a bit over-dramatic, but the stone-cold "threat elimination" really does seem to take away from the sheer power of these machines. The words eliminate and destroy are calculated ways of removing things, it simply seems strange that these words are being used in relation to human beings.

    What really brought this to light was a recent article on the Department of Defense website where a reporter talked about the Carl-Gustaf. The Carl-Gustaf, a shoulder-fired recoilless weapon, is described as being "able to destroy enemy targets hidden behind rocks, trees and buildings." You see, one part of that sentence really got to me, the idea that enemy targets are hiding. It just painted a mental picture where the enemy isn't being crafty and concealing themselves for an ambush, it struck me as a terrified person hiding from an 84mm shell that will unerringly strike its target.

    Now, I'm not saying the enemy is innocent or that there is no such thing as a just war. I'd simply prefer if the words being used to represent taking a human life didn't seem so cold and calculated. Even a hunter wouldn't say he eliminated his target. There is an enormous amount of responsibility implied by giving any group a means to take lives, don't you think our language should reflect that rather than make it sound harmless?

    In a time where you can kill a person using an unmanned vehicle from over a mile away, it may be time to get rid of the softness of the language used.

    The Terminology of Military Technology

    January 16, 2012 3:44 PM by Skyler Frink
    It's interesting to see the terminology being thrown around by those who develop weapons for the military. Weapons don't kill people, they "destroy targets" or "eliminate threats."

    I understand it's a little extreme to say a machine kills people, it actually seems a bit over-dramatic, but the stone-cold "threat elimination" really does seem to take away from the sheer power of these machines. The words eliminate and destroy are calculated ways of removing things, it simply seems strange that these words are being used in relation to human beings.

    What really brought this to light was a recent article on the Department of Defense website where a reporter talked about the Carl-Gustaf. The Carl-Gustaf, a shoulder-fired recoilless weapon, is described as being "able to destroy enemy targets hidden behind rocks, trees and buildings." You see, one part of that sentence really got to me, the idea that enemy targets are hiding. It just painted a mental picture where the enemy isn't being crafty and concealing themselves for an ambush, it struck me as a terrified person hiding from an 84mm shell that will unerringly strike its target.

    Now, I'm not saying the enemy is innocent or that there is no such thing as a just war. I'd simply prefer if the words being used to represent taking a human life didn't seem so cold and calculated. Even a hunter wouldn't say he eliminated his target. There is an enormous amount of responsibility implied by giving any group a means to take lives, don't you think our language should reflect that rather than make it sound harmless?

    In a time where you can kill a person using an unmanned vehicle from over a mile away, it may be time to get rid of the softness of the language used.

    Latest Pentagon guidance may bode well for military technology development and research

    January 11, 2012 1:52 PM by John Keller

    Posted by John Keller

    I've been reading a lot lately about President Obama's new guidelines for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to help the nation's military control its costs. These guidelines, outlined in a DOD report released this month entitled Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, emphasize Special Operations forces, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and cyber security, while signaling potential reductions in U.S. military nation-building efforts, nuclear forces, and in the number of U.S. soldiers and Marines.

    Critics contend new guidelines threaten to gut U.S. defense forces, but I don't see it. In fact, the new policy might bode well for military technology developers working on applications such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; sensors; signal processing; and unmanned vehicles.

    It's true the Pentagon's budget may be heading down in the next several years, but perhaps not dramatically. A worst-case scenario would force the Pentagon to trim $500 billion over the next 10 years if Congress can't find new ways of reducing defense spending. That would be a cut of about $50 billion a year out of a total annual Pentagon budget of about $670 billion. Still, I doubt such deep cuts will happen.



    It's an election year, and no one in the Administration or Congress wants to appear soft on defense. Doing so would spell electoral defeat for many members of Congress, and perhaps even for Obama himself. I think those concerned will come up with an eleventh-hour deal to avoid deep cuts.

    Something else to think about: Obama says he expects the Pentagon budget actually to increase at about the rate of inflation every year for the next decade. This doesn't sound like the Administration wants to make big cuts in overall military defense spending to me.

    A cornerstone of the new Pentagon guidelines seems to be a gradual reduction in the number of solders and Marines in the U.S. defense force. Personnel costs are some of the biggest expenses the U.S. military faces. These costs include not only salaries, but also the costs of feeding, housing, and equipping soldiers and Marines.

    The Army today has about 570,000 troops, which is up from about 482,000 before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon leaders now would like to shrink the Army to about 520,000 troops, perhaps even more.

    Reducing the number of soldiers and Marines would free-up a substantial amount of money. Now if Obama is sincere in his wish to maintain the current level of defense spending, then where might the savings from reducing troop levels go?

    My guess is technology development and research. It seems Obama wants to maintain or enhance the nation's capability in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well as in cyber security and unmanned vehicles. Doing so requires constant technology development and research, and I think this is what will happen.

    We won't know for sure until next month when the Pentagon releases its detailed budget request for federal fiscal year 2013. Military research and development spending has suffered for the past several years to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that those efforts are winding down, that money can go elsewhere in the Pentagon's budget.

    I'll be watching project research and development spending when the defense budget request comes out next month. I'll also be watching other technology spending to see if this is where money will be diverted.

    If technology development and research spending increases next year, it will be high time. Nearly a decade of steady military operations in the Middle East have taken their toll on military forces, and it's past time to rebuild the force with the latest technologies.

    This is the best opportunity we have seen in years to put more money into military technology develop and research. Let's hope those concerned don't blow the chance.

    The battle for Internet security

    January 9, 2012 3:05 PM by Skyler Frink
    Let's talk about hackers.

    We'll start with Anonymous, a group that is probably the most famous of the bunch. Having attacked Mastercard and many other high-profile companies as a response to government action against Wikileaks and Julian Assange, Anonymous and cyber security became a hot topic in the recent years. Since then, several groups have emerged to cause chaos.

    LulzSecurity (commonly known as LulzSec), a group which is separate from Anonymous, began attacking security companies with the goal of releasing documents to the public. This group met with great success, the prime example being their attack on Stratfor, a global intelligence company. They succeeded in accessing Stratfor's client list and getting credit card information of many subscribers. Since the attack Stratfor has not relaunched their full website, and currently has a message apologizing for the lack of security provided on their home page.

    Many other companies have been attacked by LulzSec as well, but one particular instance is much more telling of the goals of LulzSec: The hacking of the Arizona Department of Public Safety. In what LulzSec called a retaliation for ADPS immigration laws, massive amounts of information were released to the public. Manuals, emails, passwords, usernames, if it was stored in a ADPS computer it could (and still can) be seen online.

    Now, the ADPS is not just some company, it is a part of the United States government. It doesn't help that LulzSec has attacked the CIA (they only managed to take the site down for a short time due to a distributed denial-of-service [DDOS] attack) and is openly contemptuous of the government. Other countries have joined in, with England having made several arrests already.

    The government, of course, has been stepping up their own cyber security and making it more dangerous for hackers to operate. Stealing the information that LulzSec has accessed and made public is a felony in the US, and those who are caught are facing serious charges. As of now there have been many arrests of suspected hackers.

    Things have gotten serious for the hackers and government at this point. With attacks on the government and arrests being made, it's difficult to predict how this will end. These groups do not show any sign of stopping. They actually seem to be enjoying it by operating twitter accounts, hanging out in chat rooms and publicly announcing their targets. It is incredible that a group which so boldly commits crimes is still running against the combined effort of multiple governments and law enforcement agencies.

    What an interesting time to be around; a time when a group of loosely associated hackers can carry on a fight with the government and openly taunt their opponents. I can only imagine it will end soon, though, as these hackers lack the funding and manpower that the government can put forth.

    Serious hacking attempts from other countries have already been acknowledged to be an act of war, worthy of physical retribution. A different type of war is being fought online against these hackers, and it seems that NATO has just finished getting warmed up.

    Saber rattling in the Persian Gulf drives home importance of shipboard missile defense

    January 4, 2012 12:15 PM by John Keller
    Posted by John Keller

    A simmering naval conflict between the United States and Iran in the oil-rich Persian Gulf may be reaching a boil this week, as Iranian naval forces not only test-fired what officials claim are two new long-range surface-to-surface missiles that might pose a threat to U.S. warships in the region, but also warned of military action against U.S. forces if a Navy aircraft carrier that exited the Gulf region last week should return to the Persian Gulf through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

    This kind of saber rattling on the part of Iran -- bellicose rhetoric aside -- points to two core issues coming to a head now. First, U.S. military forces rarely, if ever, give ground to an ultimatum like this, and second, the U.S. Navy needs to step up its development and deployment of reliable anti-ship missile defenses.

    Among Iran's latest developments is a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. steps up its sanctions against Iranian oil imports, which the U.S. government has in place to pressure Iran into abandoning its program to develop nuclear weapons.



    Particularly concerning is the latest Iranian missile test, which involved missiles that Iran claims not only have ranges longer than 100 miles, but that also have stealth capability to defeat even sophisticated missile detection and defense systems.

    While Iranian military officials say closing the Strait would be "easier than drinking a glass of water," other experts say closing the Gulf would be much harder than that. Also consider that U.S. military forces rarely back down from a threat.

    The Persian Gulf is among the most strategically important spots on the Earth, as far as oil resources are concerned. As much as 40 percent of the world's oil flows through the region. Much of Saudi Arabia's oil moves through the Persian Gulf on oil tankers. A good deal of Iran's oil experts flow to world markets in the same way.

    If Iran could close the Gulf to oil shipping even for a short amount of time, world oil prices most likely would skyrocket and place even more downward pressure on tough economies in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. Keeping the Gulf open is a top priority of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is based in the Gulf in Bahrain.

    while Iran most likely does not have the naval resources necessary to blockade the Persian Gulf entrance at the Strait of Hormuz, experts agree that Iranian naval forces could slow or stop ship traffic in and out of the Gulf, at least temporarily, by laying sea mines or threatening military and commercial shipping with missiles.

    It's a tricky thing to keep the mouth of the Persian Gulf open. The Strait of Hormuz is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest spot. That's narrower than the channel between Los Angeles and Catalina Island. If Iran wants to make good on its threats, the Strait of Hormuz is where that country's navy would choose to do it.

    Sink a couple of large oil tankers in the Strait would create major hazards to navigation, create a sizable environmental disaster, and most importantly, would make commercial shippers reluctant to send their vessels through the waterway.

    So what does all this mean for the U.S. Navy, which is charged with keeping the Strait of Hormuz open no matter the obstacle?

    It means perfecting and improving mine detection and disposal technologies. It means perfecting and improving shipboard defenses from sophisticated sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. It also means moving to military alert levels when operating in the Persian Gulf that are at wartime levels.

    I shudder to think of the political and economic fallout of a successful missile attack on a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier or other sophisticated warship or military weapon system.

    It seems that Navy commanders have their work cut out for them.

Previous Blog Posts

The haunting bugle call Taps is 150 years old this summer

The Navy's solid-state laser weapon

High-performance embedded computing (HPEC) gaining market traction, but its definition remains elusive

Did I say $114 million mistake? I meant $351 million.

Continuing the conversation

Lockheed Martin experimental stealth surface vessel to be scrapped after yielding valuable technology

Air Force competes in National Collegiate Cyber Defense competition

Will Intel 3rd Generation Intel Core processor make a big splash in embedded computing applications?

The $114 million mistake

Iran under attack once again

High-performance computing for rugged mobile military applications is becoming a hot design issue

Is the U.S. getting ready for conflict?

Historic obsession about the Titanic sinking 100 years ago wipes Bread and Roses strike from popular memory

The future of UAV technology aims high

Conference combo

We can thank a self-absorbed Congress for hurting national defense if deep automatic defense cuts happen

Securing the military network

FAA's impending rule on small UAVs may usher in a new era of civil aerial warfare

Boeing and Airbus both claim victory in WTO Appeal? That can't be right...

The defense industry may be adjusting to a new age of financial austerity

What's up with all the anti-tamper technology?

Effects of 2013 DOD budget cuts already being felt with program cancellations

Top ten technologies the U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force is looking for

The Aerospace & Defense Bloggers

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of PennWell’s Aerospace & Defense Media Group, including Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence and Avionics Europe.  He’s a father of four, a runner, and an avid digital media enthusiast with a deep background in the intersection of media publishing, digital technology, and social media. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @aero_ernesto.

John Keller is editor-in-chief of Military & Aerospace Electronics magazine, which provides extensive coverage and analysis of enabling electronic and optoelectronic technologies in military, space, and commercial aviation applications. A member of the Military & Aerospace Electronics staff since the magazine's founding in 1989, Mr. Keller took over as chief editor in 1995.

Skyler Frink is an Assistant Editor of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. Skyler graduated Cum Laude from the University of New Hampshire with a BA in Journalism and a Minor in Information Technology in 2011. He has contributed to many different publications both online and in print throughout his career as a Journalist. Skyler can be reached skylerf@pennwell.com.

Courtney E. Howard, as executive editor, enjoys writing about all things electronics and avionics in PennWell’s burgeoning Aerospace and Defense Group, which encompasses Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence, the Avionics Europe conference, and much more. She’s also a self-proclaimed social-media maven, mil-aero nerd, and avid avionics geek. Connect with Courtney at Courtney@Pennwell.com, @coho on Twitter, and on LinkedIn.

Mil & Aero Magazine

May 2012
Volume 23, Issue 5