<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Military Learning Center &#187; Middle East</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/tag/middle-east/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com</link>
	<description>Power for the Military on the go</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 19:20:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Iranian plane buzzes carrier in Middle East</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/iranian-plane-buzzes-carrier-in-middle-east.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/iranian-plane-buzzes-carrier-in-middle-east.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dwight D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maritime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maritime patrol aircraft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2010/04/28/iranian-plane-buzzes-carrier-in-middle-east/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Iranian maritime patrol aircraft buzzed the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower at sea in the Middle East last week, passing within 1,000 yards of the ship, but American defense officials sought to downplay the encounter as relatively common.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An Iranian maritime patrol aircraft buzzed the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower at sea in the Middle East last week, passing within 1,000 yards of the ship, but American defense officials sought to downplay the encounter as relatively common.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/iranian-plane-buzzes-carrier-in-middle-east.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. confirms video of Baghdad firefight</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/u-s-confirms-video-of-baghdad-firefight.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/u-s-confirms-video-of-baghdad-firefight.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Baghdad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Baghdad District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capt. Jake Hanzlik]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Central Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Schlesinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eastern Baghdad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fla.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Namir Noor-Eldeen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reuters photographer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saeed Chmagh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tampa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2010/04/05/u-s-confirms-video-of-baghdad-firefight/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON &#8212; A gritty war video circulating on the Internet that shows U.S. troops firing repeatedly on a group of men &#8212; some of whom were unarmed &#8212; walking down a Baghdad street is authentic, a senior U.S. military official &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/u-s-confirms-video-of-baghdad-firefight.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON &#8212; A gritty war video circulating on the Internet that shows U.S. troops firing repeatedly on a group of men &#8212; some of whom were unarmed &#8212; walking down a Baghdad street is authentic, a senior U.S. military official confirmed Monday.</p>
<p>The official said the video posted at <a href="http://wikileaks.org/">Wikileaks.org</a> was of a July 12, 2007, firefight involving Army helicopters in the New Baghdad District of eastern Baghdad.</p>
<p>Among those believed to have been killed in that attack was Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children also were wounded.</p>
<p>The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the video, said the military could not confirm the identities of the Reuters employees in the film.</p>
<p>The Pentagon would not confirm the video&#8217;s authenticity on the record, despite repeated requests from The Associated Press.</p>
<p>&#8220;At this time, we are working to verify the source of the video, its veracity, and when or where it was recorded,&#8221; a statement from U.S. military headquarters in Iraq said late Monday.</p>
<p>The military also provided redacted copies of portions of its inquiry into the July 2007 incident, again without confirming that the incident described in those documents is the same one posted by Wikileaks.</p>
<p>According to a July 19 summary of the investigation, U.S. troops acted appropriately. Reuters employees were likely &#8220;intermixed among the insurgents&#8221; and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.</p>
<p>&#8220;It is worth noting the fact that insurgent groups often video and photograph friendly activity and insurgent attacks against friendly forces for use in training videos and for use as propaganda to exploit or highlight their capabilities,&#8221; the document concludes.</p>
<p>The incident has been reported before, but the video had not been released.</p>
<p>The video provides a rare, disturbing close-up of modern urban warfare at a time when violence was near its peak in Baghdad and the U.S. death toll was mounting.</p>
<p>In this incident, soldiers flying attack helicopters were called in to assist ground troops who had been pinned down by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.</p>
<p>According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be AK47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.</p>
<p>A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens&#59; likewise, the camera looked like an AK47.</p>
<p>Wikileaks.org posts video and documents passed along by anonymous sources. They posted the video of the July 2007 firefight at &#8220;collateralmurder.com.&#8221;</p>
<p>The shooters can be heard asking for permission to engage, and one says &#8220;Light &#8216;em up!&#8221;</p>
<p>Some men drop immediately, while at least one can be seen scrambling to get away.</p>
<p>&#8220;Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice,&#8221; one shooter says.</p>
<p>The helicopters later destroy a vehicle that arrived on the scene to help a wounded man. When ground forces arrive, the video shows what looks to be a child being carried from the vehicle and U.S. troops saying the child should be sent to a local Iraqi hospital.</p>
<p>&#8220;Well, it&#8217;s their fault bringing their kids into the battle,&#8221; a cockpit voice can be heard saying.</p>
<p>Navy Capt. Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said U.S. forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no reason to believe it is a fake. However, he said, they were still comparing the video and audio to see if it matched their own.</p>
<p>Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., Central Command is responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.</p>
<p>Reuters said it couldn&#8217;t verify that the video was of its employees dying, even though it looks like one of the men killed had a camera slung over his shoulder.</p>
<p>The video is &#8220;graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result,&#8221; said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/u-s-confirms-video-of-baghdad-firefight.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AFCent sets airdrop, ISR records</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[130j hercules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Air]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. Stanley McChyrstal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kandahar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keith McBride]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Operating Base]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2010/01/30/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A surge in troops sent to Afghanistan accounts for the increase in airdrops and combat and reconnaissance sorties reported by Air Forces Central Command for 2009, according to one of the command&#8217;s top leaders.The number of bombs dropped, however, decreased &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A surge in troops sent to Afghanistan accounts for the increase in airdrops and combat and reconnaissance sorties reported by Air Forces Central Command for 2009, according to one of the command&#8217;s top leaders.The number of bombs dropped, however, decreased &#8212; in part because of the war in Iraq winding down and a more measured approach to bombings in Afghanistan, said Keith McBride, deputy commander of the command&#8217;s combined air operations center, the control hub for airlift and combat missions.Cargo planes dropped 32 million pounds of supplies over Afghanistan, nearly double the 2008 number and a new record, Air Forces Central Command&#8217;s year-end totals show. Combat sorties flown over Afghanistan by all U.S. warplanes &#8212; Air Force and Navy &#8212; as well as coalition aircraft stand at 26,474, a 39 percent increase year over year. Navy fighters performed about 35 percent of the sorties. Reconnaissance sorties over both Afghanistan and Iraq totaled 18,898, a 37 percent increase&#59; slightly more than half the missions &#8212; 53 percent &#8212; were flown over Afghanistan.&#8220;The Air Force flies in support of the troops on the ground,&#8221; McBride told Air Force Times in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location in the Middle East.In 2009, the U.S. added about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, raising the total to about 68,000. Another 30,000 will arrive in 2010.Many of the troops sent in the buildup last year were assigned to bases too remote or too dangerous to supply by ground convoy, McBride said. To help reach those bases, the Air Force stood up a C-130J Hercules squadron at Kandahar Airfield.McBride said the pounds of cargo airdropped into Afghanistan have approximately doubled each year since 2005. He expects the airdrop mission to continue to grow this year but would not predict by how much. He would not comment on whether the Air Force will base more cargo planes inside Afghanistan.&#8220;There are a lot of different solutions there,&#8221; McBride said.The higher number of reconnaissance missions reflects the widening presence of remote-controlled MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers, now flying a record 37 round-the-clock patrols over Iraq and Afghanistan, and the addition of manned aircraft such as the MC-12 Liberty, McBride said. The service&#8217;s goal is 50 continuous patrols by 2011.Close-air support numbers, which include Air Force and Navy jets, reflect both the Iraq drawdown and the Afghanistan surge.Over Iraq, fighters and bombers flew 35 missions, releasing 119 bombs or flying strafing runs. The total represents an 87 percent decrease from 2008&#8217;s 915 bombs dropped.The breakdown for Afghanistan: 1,462 strike missions flown and 4,184 bombs or strafes. The bombs/strafes figure is 17 percent less than 2008&#8217;s 5,051.McBride said the decline was only in part the result of a midyear directive from Army Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, for a &#8220;judicious&#8221; use of airstrikes.Army and Marine Corps aircraft also flew missions, which are not figured in Air Forces Central Command&#8217;s numbers. For example, the command does not control attack helicopter missions and some sorties flown by Marine AV-8 Harrier jets. If a Marine patrol requests close-air support and a Marine Harrier responds, the combined air operations center does not count that mission.As for McChrystal&#8217;s order, McBride stressed U.S. aircraft are not hesitant to attack if troops are in imminent danger. As an example, he cited the defense of the Army&#8217;s Forward Operating Base Keating. In October, the month that the insurgent onslaught occurred, bomb drops and strafing runs reached 660, the highest in more than a year.The decline of U.S. combat operations in Iraq allowed the Air Force to shift a deployed F-16 squadron from Iraq to Afghanistan.Fewer fighter missions over Iraq meant fewer aerial refueling missions, McBride said. Tanker flights decreased to 17,465, 5 percent less than 2008&#8217;s 18,361.Despite the decline, KC-10 and KC-135 tankers continue to be high-demand and McBride does not anticipate a reduction in the deployed tanker force. &#203;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AFCent sets airdrop, ISR records</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records-2.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records-2.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[130j hercules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Air]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. Stanley McChyrstal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kandahar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keith McBride]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Operating Base]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2010/01/30/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A surge in troops sent to Afghanistan accounts for the increase in airdrops and combat and reconnaissance sorties reported by Air Forces Central Command for 2009, according to one of the command&#8217;s top leaders.The number of bombs dropped, however, decreased &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records-2.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A surge in troops sent to Afghanistan accounts for the increase in airdrops and combat and reconnaissance sorties reported by Air Forces Central Command for 2009, according to one of the command&#8217;s top leaders.The number of bombs dropped, however, decreased &#8212; in part because of the war in Iraq winding down and a more measured approach to bombings in Afghanistan, said Keith McBride, deputy commander of the command&#8217;s combined air operations center, the control hub for airlift and combat missions.Cargo planes dropped 32 million pounds of supplies over Afghanistan, nearly double the 2008 number and a new record, Air Forces Central Command&#8217;s year-end totals show. Combat sorties flown over Afghanistan by all U.S. warplanes &#8212; Air Force and Navy &#8212; as well as coalition aircraft stand at 26,474, a 39 percent increase year over year. Navy fighters performed about 35 percent of the sorties. Reconnaissance sorties over both Afghanistan and Iraq totaled 18,898, a 37 percent increase&#59; slightly more than half the missions &#8212; 53 percent &#8212; were flown over Afghanistan.&#8220;The Air Force flies in support of the troops on the ground,&#8221; McBride told Air Force Times in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location in the Middle East.In 2009, the U.S. added about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, raising the total to about 68,000. Another 30,000 will arrive in 2010.Many of the troops sent in the buildup last year were assigned to bases too remote or too dangerous to supply by ground convoy, McBride said. To help reach those bases, the Air Force stood up a C-130J Hercules squadron at Kandahar Airfield.McBride said the pounds of cargo airdropped into Afghanistan have approximately doubled each year since 2005. He expects the airdrop mission to continue to grow this year but would not predict by how much. He would not comment on whether the Air Force will base more cargo planes inside Afghanistan.&#8220;There are a lot of different solutions there,&#8221; McBride said.The higher number of reconnaissance missions reflects the widening presence of remote-controlled MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers, now flying a record 37 round-the-clock patrols over Iraq and Afghanistan, and the addition of manned aircraft such as the MC-12 Liberty, McBride said. The service&#8217;s goal is 50 continuous patrols by 2011.Close-air support numbers, which include Air Force and Navy jets, reflect both the Iraq drawdown and the Afghanistan surge.Over Iraq, fighters and bombers flew 35 missions, releasing 119 bombs or flying strafing runs. The total represents an 87 percent decrease from 2008&#8217;s 915 bombs dropped.The breakdown for Afghanistan: 1,462 strike missions flown and 4,184 bombs or strafes. The bombs/strafes figure is 17 percent less than 2008&#8217;s 5,051.McBride said the decline was only in part the result of a midyear directive from Army Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, for a &#8220;judicious&#8221; use of airstrikes.Army and Marine Corps aircraft also flew missions, which are not figured in Air Forces Central Command&#8217;s numbers. For example, the command does not control attack helicopter missions and some sorties flown by Marine AV-8 Harrier jets. If a Marine patrol requests close-air support and a Marine Harrier responds, the combined air operations center does not count that mission.As for McChrystal&#8217;s order, McBride stressed U.S. aircraft are not hesitant to attack if troops are in imminent danger. As an example, he cited the defense of the Army&#8217;s Forward Operating Base Keating. In October, the month that the insurgent onslaught occurred, bomb drops and strafing runs reached 660, the highest in more than a year.The decline of U.S. combat operations in Iraq allowed the Air Force to shift a deployed F-16 squadron from Iraq to Afghanistan.Fewer fighter missions over Iraq meant fewer aerial refueling missions, McBride said. Tanker flights decreased to 17,465, 5 percent less than 2008&#8217;s 18,361.Despite the decline, KC-10 and KC-135 tankers continue to be high-demand and McBride does not anticipate a reduction in the deployed tanker force. &#203;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-sets-airdrop-isr-records-2.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Monitors: Jihadist threats to Navy increasing</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/monitors-jihadist-threats-to-navy-increasing.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/monitors-jihadist-threats-to-navy-increasing.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al qaida in the arabian peninsula]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Falluja]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Qaida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Samit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bahrain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cmdr. Chris Sims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Detroit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limburg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Wachtel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2010/01/06/monitors-jihadist-threats-to-navy-increasing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jihadist threats online against U.S. warships in the Middle East have spiked since just before the New Year, according to a monitoring group in Washington, including some of the most ambitious calls yet for terror attacks specifically on the Navy &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/monitors-jihadist-threats-to-navy-increasing.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jihadist threats online against U.S. warships in the Middle East have spiked since just before the New Year, according to a monitoring group in Washington, including some of the most ambitious calls yet for terror attacks specifically on the Navy and sailors.One Dec. 30 post, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, calls for readers to assemble and submit information about American ships and their crews in chilling detail:&#8220;Information on every U.S. naval unit &#8212; and only U.S. [units]! &#8212; should be quietly gathered [as follows:] [The vessel&#8217;s] name, the missions it is assigned&#59; its current location &#8230;&#59; the advantages of this naval unit&#59; the number of U.S. troops on board, including if possible their ranks, and what state they are from, their family situation, and where their family members (wife and children) live&#59; what kind of weapons they carry&#59; the [vessel&#8217;s] destination &#8230;&#59; the missions it has carried out&#59; the way to monitor it around the clock&#59; if its location is changed, define its movements and its route&#59; monitor every Web site used by the personnel on these ships, and attempt to discover what is in these contacts.&#8221;The writer, whose handle is &#8220;Ubada bin Al-Samit&#8221; and who posted on a Web forum called Al-Falluja, assured readers every item would be useful:&#8220;My Muslim brothers, do not underestimate the importance of any piece of information, as simple as it may seem&#59; the mujahideen, the lions of monotheism, may be able to use it in ways that have not occurred to you.&#8221;The posts were provided to Navy Times by MEMRI spokesman Richard Wachtel, who said his group does not usually see comments that call so specifically to target American warships. Also significant, he said, was that the post was a response to an official call from the Yemeni terror group, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, to Muslims: &#8220;Kill the crusaders in the Arabian Peninsula on land, in the air, and at sea.&#8221;The Yemeni branch of al-Qaida has been in an international spotlight after a man linked to it allegedly tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.A Jan. 4 post on another jihadist site alluded both to the failed attack and to the pending &#8220;threat&#8221; to American warships, Wachtel said.&#8220;We have attacked you on land and in the air &#8230; and soon [we will attack] in the sea &#8230; . Al-Qaida&#8217;s troops, especially those in the Arab Peninsula, have expertise in this area. Their first naval operations &#8230; were the destruction of the [destroyer] Cole [in 2000] and of the French oil tanker [Limburg in 2002].&#8221;As in posts on any topic across the Internet, the terror sites apparently include their share of bluster and bravado: Neither the Cole nor the Limburg were &#8220;destroyed&#8221; after their respective attacks.Cmdr. Chris Sims, a spokesman for 5th Fleet in Bahrain, told Navy Times that officials there &#8220;[take] all threats, real or perceived, very seriously and therefore maintain a constant high level of vigilance to ensure the safety of our personnel both ashore and afloat.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/monitors-jihadist-threats-to-navy-increasing.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AFCent commander: Short tours best</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-commander-short-tours-best.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-commander-short-tours-best.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Air Base]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Command]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Force Base]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lt. Gen. Mike Hostage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prince Sultan Air]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S.C.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shaw Air]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shaw air force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Southern Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Gulf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Persian Gulf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Air]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2009/12/27/afcent-commander-short-tours-best/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The commander overseeing the Air Force&#8217;s role in Iraq and Afghanistan favors short tours in the war zones, despite a call by the Pentagon for yearlong deployments for instructors, and envisions airmen someday being stationed in the Persian Gulf with &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-commander-short-tours-best.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The commander overseeing the Air Force&#8217;s role in Iraq and Afghanistan favors short tours in the war zones, despite a call by the Pentagon for yearlong deployments for instructors, and envisions airmen someday being stationed in the Persian Gulf with their families if host nations agree.Lt. Gen. Mike Hostage touched on the length of deployments and the Air Force&#8217;s long-term role in the Middle East during an exclusive telephone interview with Air Force Times from his office in the Persian Gulf.Hostage took over Air Forces Central Command, the air component of U.S. Central Command, in August. At the same time, the Air Force temporarily separated AFCent and the Ninth Air Force, both with headquarters at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C., to allow the AFCent commander to focus on war fighting.On Afghanistan, Hostage is waiting for word from Central Command on how many airmen will be part of the 30,000-troop buildup ordered by President Barack Obama and what roles they will play.The Air Force could assign airmen to missions in Afghanistan but base them outside the country, he said. For example, C-17 Globemasters and KC-135 Stratotankers assigned to Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan already fly Afghan assignments. Long-range B-1B Lancer bombers, KC-10 Extender tankers and C-17s reach Afghanistan from Persian Gulf airfields.Much of the focus is on close air support operations, a mission for which the Air Force and other services have taken criticism when the attacks kill civilians.Hostage, who flew F-16s for much of his career, backed his aircrews.&#8220;My aviators are disciplined professionals,&#8221; he said.Close-air support strikes always come at the request of ground commanders, who make hard choices, Hostage pointed out.&#8220;If he chooses an air strike,&#8221; he said, &#8220;we&#8217;re going to hit it.&#8221;During the summer, some Defense Department officials raised concerns about B-1B Lancer bombers flying close-air support. After a review, the Pentagon decided to keep the bombers on the mission because they can remain over a target for a long time and drop guided bombs with the same accuracy as fighters.&#8220;There is no finer platform,&#8221; Hostage said.For Iraq, Hostage expects airmen to stay put right up until the withdrawal deadlines &#8212; August 2010 for 80,000 troops and the end of 2011 for the remaining 50,000 service members.&#8220;The Air Force will maintain a constant level until late in the game,&#8221; he said.Even as soldiers head out, airmen will fly combat and reconnaissance air patrols, manage airfields and installations, fly troops and cargo and train the Iraqi air force. Still, Hostage&#8217;s orders are to have all airmen &#8212; even instructors &#8212; out of the country by the 2011 deadline mandated by an agreement between the Iraqi and U.S. governments.Defense Secretary Robert Gates believes Air Force trainers could stay in Iraq beyond 2011.&#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t be a bit surprised to see agreements between ourselves and the Iraqis that continue a train, equip and advise role beyond the end of 2011,&#8221; Gates told troops at Kirkuk Air Base in Iraq in early December.Air Force instructors have taught Iraqis to fly and repair C-130 Hercules, helicopters and a host of small propeller-driven aircraft. Now, the Iraqi government is moving to buy fighter jets such as F-16 Fighting Falcons.Whatever aircraft the Iraqi government chooses to fly, Air Force instructors can prepare Iraqi service members.&#8220;They will get to decide [the aircraft],&#8221; Hostage said. &#8220;Our job will be to train them up.&#8221;Hostage would not discuss specifics on how the Air Force could continue to train Iraqi airmen past 2011 if the Iraqi air force moves to jet fighters but expects the relationship to continue. It takes the U.S. Air Force about two years to train its own new fighter pilots.&#8220;We&#8217;ll be in the Gulf with our friends and allies for a long time,&#8221; Hostage said.Before taking command of AFCent, Hostage spent 18 months as vice commander of Pacific Air Forces.An earlier assignment to AFCent came in July 2001 when he arrived to lead for one year the 363rd Air Expeditionary Wing at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, the primary base for Southern Watch patrols over Iraq.Two months into Hostage&#8217;s command, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed everything as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan began.&#8220;We went from 3,800 airmen to 11,000. Life got very busy,&#8221; Hostage said.AFCent&#8217;s pace has not slowed, with about 28,000 airmen, most on four- to six-month deployments, assigned to the command.For the near future, Hostage favors continuing to deploy airmen for short tours because they are manageable for the deploying airmen and the base that has to make do without the airmen.In the long term, Hostage can see airmen on accompanied tours in the Middle East &#8212; much as they are in Germany and Japan &#8212; when the combat tempo slows and the risk decreases, and if host nations do not object.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/afcent-commander-short-tours-best.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixes on the way for nonsecure UAV links</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Baghdad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bosnia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Col. Gregory Gonzalez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Col. Robert Sova]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general atomics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joel Harding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kata]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nev.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Singer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sadr City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2009/12/18/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document puts a completion date to secure the feeds at 2014.Defense officials confirmed Thursday that Iraqi insurgents have been capturing the nonsecure, line-of-sight signals used by troops on the ground to view video feeds from MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers since mid-2008.The drones, built by General Atomics, also have two secure datalinks&#59; one for the pilot controls and one to feed video to commanders.The service has identified how to protect the feeds, according to an Air Force officer who asked not to be identified. The officer said the service is starting to encrypt the feeds with a software modification but refused to discuss when the fix will be completed. The Air Force&#8217;s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan puts the completion date at 2014.&#8220;In today&#8217;s information age, we realize these are not encrypted datalinks, but we have taken steps to rapidly upgrade our current and future [remotely piloted aircraft] fleet to protect those datalinks,&#8221; the official said.The Air Force isn&#8217;t relying solely on encryption to protect the video.An immediate solution is to narrow the area from which the video feeds can be received, making it more likely that an insurgent would be spotted trying to intercept them, a defense official said. Typically, militants would need to be within 100 yards of the airman or soldier receiving the signal.A report published in Thursday&#8217;s edition of The Wall Street Journal detailed how defense officials earlier this year discovered laptops in Iraq loaded with a $26 Russian-made software program called SkyGrabber that hacked into video broadcast by Predator cameras, which show the location of insurgents being targeted by the drones.Besides the SkyGrabber software, insurgents have used high-tech methods to capture the video feeds.U.S. troops found advanced electronic warfare equipment in a 2008 raid on Shiite militia, according to an Air Force intelligence officer briefed on the raid.Air Force officials refused to officially comment on the hacking&#59; the Pentagon issued a general statement on the security of its intelligence gathering.&#8220;The Department of Defense constantly evaluates and seeks to improve the performance and security of our various ISR systems and platforms. As we identify shortfalls, we correct them as part of a continuous process of seeking to improve capabilities and security. As a matter of policy, we don&#8217;t comment on specific vulnerabilities or intelligence issues,&#8221; the statement said.An Iranian connectionOne service official contends the insurgents&#8217; ability to watch drone feeds have adversely affected U.S. operations in the Middle East.&#8220;We noticed a trend when going after these guys&#59; that sometimes they seemed to have better early warning&#8221; of U.S. actions, said the officer briefed on the raid. &#8220;We went and did a raid on one of their safe houses and found all of this equipment that was highly technical, highly sophisticated. It was more sophisticated than any other equipment we&#8217;d seen Iraqi insurgents use.&#8221;The militia, known as Kata&#8217;ib Hezbollah and based out of Sadr City, Baghdad, has long been suspected of being a surrogate for Iran&#8217;s Quds Force, the wing of the Iranian army responsible for conducting clandestine warfare outside of Iran via various insurgent groups.The group had a &#8220;very long and well-documented history&#8221; of getting their training and equipment from Iran, the officer said.&#8220;It was the technological know-how to make the antennas, computers and software go together and pick up the appropriate bands that was impressive. It is something that would take some very smart electrical engineers to put together. Iran had to choose the most loyal and capable surrogates that they could trust with equipment like that,&#8221; the officer said.Soon after the raid, top commanders in Iraq convened a task force to identify the extent of the threat and how best to deal with it, according to the officer. Initial findings showed the threat was isolated to Kata&#8217;ib Hezbollah.&#8220;They knew that we were flying Predators over their heads 24/7, so it&#8217;s easy to say &#8216;yeah, I know that I&#8217;m going to do a signals analysis search for [the drone]&#8217; and take advantage of it,&#8221; the officer said.An Army problem, tooLike the Air Force, the Army is aware of the vulnerabilities that its UAV datalinks have and are working to fix them. The laptops loaded with the SkyGrabber software had footage filmed by smaller Army UAVs as well as the Predators.&#8220;We are well aware, and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] is well aware, and we have a well-researched response set in motion,&#8221; said Col. Robert Sova, the Army&#8217;s capability manager for unmanned aerial systems. &#8220;This ability, this is not new information.&#8221;The military has not implemented encryption for drones for &#8220;various reasons,&#8221; according to Sova.&#8220;It&#8217;s not just monetary, but technology readiness,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We&#8217;ve taken certain risks and mitigated those risks with our tactics, techniques and procedures.&#8221;Still, Sova said, the ability to hack a drone&#8217;s video feed is a &#8220;very low risk&#8221; since the insurgents haven&#8217;t figured how to hack into the command and control systems of the drones.&#8220;It&#8217;s not like they&#8217;re going to control the payload or move it off,&#8221; Sova said. &#8220;They&#8217;re able to see a specific interval, like a camera system in the mall.&#8221;Sova considers it unlikely that an insurgent could tap into a specific drone overhead.&#8220;It&#8217;s happenstance, if they were able to tap into that feed,&#8221; Sova said. &#8220;Only in the best scenario, and only for a short period of time.&#8221;Within the last year, the Defense Department&#8217;s Office of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics directed the services to beef up encryption, Sova said.The Army plans to field or retrofit its drones with encryption technology over the next several years, according to Col. Gregory Gonzalez, the Army&#8217;s project manager for unmanned aerial vehicles. By Jan. 1, the Army will field encrypted Ravens, micro-UAVs.Air Force officers and defense analysts caution that video broadcasts from manned aircraft to U.S. ground troops are vulnerable to hacking as well because their technology is similar to that of UAVs.&#8220;Anything that projects a video is going to have the same problem. If the encryption is not strong enough, the signal will be susceptible. The insurgents figured out how we were using line-of-sight signals,&#8221; said Joel Harding, director of the Information Operations Institute for the Association of Old Crows.Ground units get the Predator feeds through a Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver, or ROVER &#8212; a mobile device that looks like a laptop that can either be carried by hand or mounted in a ground vehicle.An encryption package can be added to the ROVER&#59; however, not all troops have the encryption package. The latest ROVER model being tested by the Pentagon comes equipped with two advanced encryption packages.The Bosnia channelAs far back as 1996, the military has known outsiders can see the video feeds. The Air Force first flew the RQ-1 Predator, the MQ-1&#8217;s predecessor, in combat over Bosnia. In published reports, local residents with satellite television told of watching Predator video feeds on their televisions.&#8220;I remember that some of the people there said it was harder to get the Disney channel than watch U.S. military operations,&#8221; said defense analyst Peter Singer, author of &#8220;Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.&#8221;Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley was the 57th Wing commander at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., when the 57th became the first Air Force unit to operate a Predator. Moseley said his worry was about the security of the aircraft&#8217;s datalinks.&#8220;My question from the beginning was &#8230; &#8216;What is our confidence level that links are secure?&#8217; Not just the imaging that comes off, but also the command and flying links. The answer was &#8216;We&#8217;re working that&#8217; from the General Atomics folks,&#8221; Moseley said.Moseley&#8217;s civilian counterpart, former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, said he knew about the insecure datalinks but considered the threat worth taking to deploy the UAVs faster.Moseley and Wynne took part in meetings with the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004 and 2005 about concerns with the links, but the consensus from the meetings was to field the UAVs as quickly as possible.&#8220;I would say people were aware of it [the vulnerability], but it wasn&#8217;t disturbing,&#8221; Wynne said. &#8220;It wasn&#8217;t yet dangerous&#59; it certainly didn&#8217;t disrupt an operation, so why make a huge deal of it?&#8221;Wynne said he thinks the security gap is in part the result of the UAVs being fielded before they were fully developed.&#8220;I would say that the enemy can find a flaw in a 70 percent solution and they are going to exploit it,&#8221; Wynne said. &#8220;On the other hand, before they did exploit it, you did get utility from it &#8230; in the case of the Predator, we&#8217;ve extracted tremendous utility out of them.&#8221;Moseley said he and Wynne pushed hard to ensure the services protected the datalinks and that he proposed the Air Force oversee UAV development but was rebuffed by the Pentagon.&#8220;In failing to come to grips with standardizing all of this, if this is as big a problem as identified, than we have a serious problem,&#8221; he said.Wynne contends the Pentagon needed the jolt of being hacked to act on improving UAV encryption.&#8220;It&#8217;s like we were talking about this class of war, like somehow the bad guys will never get sophisticated,&#8221; the former Air Force secretary said. &#8220;Now, the sophistication of the enemy might lead you to ask, just like we are with IEDs, &#8216;OK, here&#8217;s [the enemy&#8217;s] capability now, where do we have to go?&#8217; &#8221;Related story&#8226; <a href="http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/12/ap_uav_insurgents_hacked_121709/">Pentagon: Insurgents intercepted UAV videos</a>DISCUSS: <a href="http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?p=313786">This story</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixes on the way for nonsecure UAV links</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links-2.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links-2.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Baghdad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bosnia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Col. Gregory Gonzalez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Col. Robert Sova]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general atomics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joel Harding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kata]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nev.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Singer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sadr City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2009/12/18/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links-2.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document puts a completion date to secure the feeds at 2014.Defense officials confirmed Thursday that Iraqi insurgents have been capturing the nonsecure, line-of-sight signals used by troops on the ground to view video feeds from MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers since mid-2008.The drones, built by General Atomics, also have two secure datalinks&#59; one for the pilot controls and one to feed video to commanders.The service has identified how to protect the feeds, according to an Air Force officer who asked not to be identified. The officer said the service is starting to encrypt the feeds with a software modification but refused to discuss when the fix will be completed. The Air Force&#8217;s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan puts the completion date at 2014.&#8220;In today&#8217;s information age, we realize these are not encrypted datalinks, but we have taken steps to rapidly upgrade our current and future [remotely piloted aircraft] fleet to protect those datalinks,&#8221; the official said.The Air Force isn&#8217;t relying solely on encryption to protect the video.An immediate solution is to narrow the area from which the video feeds can be received, making it more likely that an insurgent would be spotted trying to intercept them, a defense official said. Typically, militants would need to be within 100 yards of the airman or soldier receiving the signal.A report published in Thursday&#8217;s edition of The Wall Street Journal detailed how defense officials earlier this year discovered laptops in Iraq loaded with a $26 Russian-made software program called SkyGrabber that hacked into video broadcast by Predator cameras, which show the location of insurgents being targeted by the drones.Besides the SkyGrabber software, insurgents have used high-tech methods to capture the video feeds.U.S. troops found advanced electronic warfare equipment in a 2008 raid on Shiite militia, according to an Air Force intelligence officer briefed on the raid.Air Force officials refused to officially comment on the hacking&#59; the Pentagon issued a general statement on the security of its intelligence gathering.&#8220;The Department of Defense constantly evaluates and seeks to improve the performance and security of our various ISR systems and platforms. As we identify shortfalls, we correct them as part of a continuous process of seeking to improve capabilities and security. As a matter of policy, we don&#8217;t comment on specific vulnerabilities or intelligence issues,&#8221; the statement said.An Iranian connectionOne service official contends the insurgents&#8217; ability to watch drone feeds have adversely affected U.S. operations in the Middle East.&#8220;We noticed a trend when going after these guys&#59; that sometimes they seemed to have better early warning&#8221; of U.S. actions, said the officer briefed on the raid. &#8220;We went and did a raid on one of their safe houses and found all of this equipment that was highly technical, highly sophisticated. It was more sophisticated than any other equipment we&#8217;d seen Iraqi insurgents use.&#8221;The militia, known as Kata&#8217;ib Hezbollah and based out of Sadr City, Baghdad, has long been suspected of being a surrogate for Iran&#8217;s Quds Force, the wing of the Iranian army responsible for conducting clandestine warfare outside of Iran via various insurgent groups.The group had a &#8220;very long and well-documented history&#8221; of getting their training and equipment from Iran, the officer said.&#8220;It was the technological know-how to make the antennas, computers and software go together and pick up the appropriate bands that was impressive. It is something that would take some very smart electrical engineers to put together. Iran had to choose the most loyal and capable surrogates that they could trust with equipment like that,&#8221; the officer said.Soon after the raid, top commanders in Iraq convened a task force to identify the extent of the threat and how best to deal with it, according to the officer. Initial findings showed the threat was isolated to Kata&#8217;ib Hezbollah.&#8220;They knew that we were flying Predators over their heads 24/7, so it&#8217;s easy to say &#8216;yeah, I know that I&#8217;m going to do a signals analysis search for [the drone]&#8217; and take advantage of it,&#8221; the officer said.An Army problem, tooLike the Air Force, the Army is aware of the vulnerabilities that its UAV datalinks have and are working to fix them. The laptops loaded with the SkyGrabber software had footage filmed by smaller Army UAVs as well as the Predators.&#8220;We are well aware, and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] is well aware, and we have a well-researched response set in motion,&#8221; said Col. Robert Sova, the Army&#8217;s capability manager for unmanned aerial systems. &#8220;This ability, this is not new information.&#8221;The military has not implemented encryption for drones for &#8220;various reasons,&#8221; according to Sova.&#8220;It&#8217;s not just monetary, but technology readiness,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We&#8217;ve taken certain risks and mitigated those risks with our tactics, techniques and procedures.&#8221;Still, Sova said, the ability to hack a drone&#8217;s video feed is a &#8220;very low risk&#8221; since the insurgents haven&#8217;t figured how to hack into the command and control systems of the drones.&#8220;It&#8217;s not like they&#8217;re going to control the payload or move it off,&#8221; Sova said. &#8220;They&#8217;re able to see a specific interval, like a camera system in the mall.&#8221;Sova considers it unlikely that an insurgent could tap into a specific drone overhead.&#8220;It&#8217;s happenstance, if they were able to tap into that feed,&#8221; Sova said. &#8220;Only in the best scenario, and only for a short period of time.&#8221;Within the last year, the Defense Department&#8217;s Office of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics directed the services to beef up encryption, Sova said.The Army plans to field or retrofit its drones with encryption technology over the next several years, according to Col. Gregory Gonzalez, the Army&#8217;s project manager for unmanned aerial vehicles. By Jan. 1, the Army will field encrypted Ravens, micro-UAVs.Air Force officers and defense analysts caution that video broadcasts from manned aircraft to U.S. ground troops are vulnerable to hacking as well because their technology is similar to that of UAVs.&#8220;Anything that projects a video is going to have the same problem. If the encryption is not strong enough, the signal will be susceptible. The insurgents figured out how we were using line-of-sight signals,&#8221; said Joel Harding, director of the Information Operations Institute for the Association of Old Crows.Ground units get the Predator feeds through a Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver, or ROVER &#8212; a mobile device that looks like a laptop that can either be carried by hand or mounted in a ground vehicle.An encryption package can be added to the ROVER&#59; however, not all troops have the encryption package. The latest ROVER model being tested by the Pentagon comes equipped with two advanced encryption packages.The Bosnia channelAs far back as 1996, the military has known outsiders can see the video feeds. The Air Force first flew the RQ-1 Predator, the MQ-1&#8217;s predecessor, in combat over Bosnia. In published reports, local residents with satellite television told of watching Predator video feeds on their televisions.&#8220;I remember that some of the people there said it was harder to get the Disney channel than watch U.S. military operations,&#8221; said defense analyst Peter Singer, author of &#8220;Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.&#8221;Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley was the 57th Wing commander at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., when the 57th became the first Air Force unit to operate a Predator. Moseley said his worry was about the security of the aircraft&#8217;s datalinks.&#8220;My question from the beginning was &#8230; &#8216;What is our confidence level that links are secure?&#8217; Not just the imaging that comes off, but also the command and flying links. The answer was &#8216;We&#8217;re working that&#8217; from the General Atomics folks,&#8221; Moseley said.Moseley&#8217;s civilian counterpart, former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, said he knew about the insecure datalinks but considered the threat worth taking to deploy the UAVs faster.Moseley and Wynne took part in meetings with the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004 and 2005 about concerns with the links, but the consensus from the meetings was to field the UAVs as quickly as possible.&#8220;I would say people were aware of it [the vulnerability], but it wasn&#8217;t disturbing,&#8221; Wynne said. &#8220;It wasn&#8217;t yet dangerous&#59; it certainly didn&#8217;t disrupt an operation, so why make a huge deal of it?&#8221;Wynne said he thinks the security gap is in part the result of the UAVs being fielded before they were fully developed.&#8220;I would say that the enemy can find a flaw in a 70 percent solution and they are going to exploit it,&#8221; Wynne said. &#8220;On the other hand, before they did exploit it, you did get utility from it &#8230; in the case of the Predator, we&#8217;ve extracted tremendous utility out of them.&#8221;Moseley said he and Wynne pushed hard to ensure the services protected the datalinks and that he proposed the Air Force oversee UAV development but was rebuffed by the Pentagon.&#8220;In failing to come to grips with standardizing all of this, if this is as big a problem as identified, than we have a serious problem,&#8221; he said.Wynne contends the Pentagon needed the jolt of being hacked to act on improving UAV encryption.&#8220;It&#8217;s like we were talking about this class of war, like somehow the bad guys will never get sophisticated,&#8221; the former Air Force secretary said. &#8220;Now, the sophistication of the enemy might lead you to ask, just like we are with IEDs, &#8216;OK, here&#8217;s [the enemy&#8217;s] capability now, where do we have to go?&#8217; &#8221;Related story* <a href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/12/ap_uav_insurgents_hacked_121709/">Pentagon: Insurgents intercepted UAV videos</a>DISCUSS: <a href="http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?p=313786">This story</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/fixes-on-the-way-for-nonsecure-uav-links-2.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Petraeus treated for prostate cancer</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/petraeus-treated-for-prostate-cancer.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/petraeus-treated-for-prostate-cancer.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Central Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Col. Erik Gunhus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. Stanley McChrystal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nato troops in afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walter Reed Army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2009/10/06/petraeus-treated-for-prostate-cancer/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON &#8212; Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February and has since undergone two months of radiation treatment.Petraeus, 56, was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer, which &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/petraeus-treated-for-prostate-cancer.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON &#8212; Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February and has since undergone two months of radiation treatment.Petraeus, 56, was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer, which was not publicly disclosed at the time because Petraeus and his family regarded his illness as &#8220;a personal matter&#8221; that &#8220;did not interfere with the performance of his duties,&#8221; said his spokesman, Col. Erik Gunhus. President Barack Obama and top members of his administration were informed, he said.As commander of a region running through the Middle East and across Central Asia, Petraeus did make at least one overseas trip during his treatment.The Pentagon termed Petraeus&#8217; treatment &#8220;successful.&#8221; He was treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.In recent months, Petraeus has been noticeably on the sidelines of the public debate over how to salvage the war effort in Afghanistan.Known mainly for the troop build up in Iraq that helped calm the war there, Petraeus once had great star power and used it publicly. He was a darling at Capitol Hill hearings and had former President George Bush&#8217;s ear in regular video conferences to talk about military matters, a relationship that doesn&#8217;t exist with the Obama White House.As the head of the U.S. Central Command, he is still very much involved in the conversation about the two ongoing wars, debating the new Afghan strategy with the National Security Council and flying late last month to Germany for a meeting with the commander in Afghanistan.But he has taken such a low profile publicly of late that some inside the Washington beltway speculated that he was contemplating a run for the presidency in 2012, something his advisers have denied.The more prominent public face of the current war debate is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, sent in the summer as Obama&#8217;s hand-picked commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Petraeus has said that he supports McChrystal&#8217;s assessment of the campaign and McChrystal&#8217;s call for more troops, a position finding limited favor in the administration.DISCUSS: <a href="http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1581047">This story</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/petraeus-treated-for-prostate-cancer.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2012 targeted for new CentCom HQ at MacDill</title>
		<link>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2012-targeted-for-new-centcom-hq-at-macdill.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2012-targeted-for-new-centcom-hq-at-macdill.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clark Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Command]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fla.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Md.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Southwest Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[square foot facility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2009/09/03/2012-targeted-for-new-centcom-hq-at-macdill/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Central Command officials said they expect to move into a new headquarters building at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., by March 2012.The four-story command center will cover 257,000 square feet and provide &#8220;a state-of-the-art planning and command and control facility &#8230; <a href="http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2012-targeted-for-new-centcom-hq-at-macdill.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Central Command officials said they expect to move into a new headquarters building at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., by March 2012.The four-story command center will cover 257,000 square feet and provide &#8220;a state-of-the-art planning and command and control facility to support ongoing operations in the Middle East, Central and Southwest Asia,&#8221; according to CentCom.The current CentCom headquarters building, also at MacDill, is a 220,000-square-foot facility that was built more than 25 years ago. The building will be demolished to make way for a separate reception center with parking and landscaping.The Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District recently awarded Bethesda, Md.-based Clark Construction a $61 million contract to build the new headquarters. Construction began in July and will employ 350 workers at its peak, according to CentCom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.militarylearningcenter.com/2012-targeted-for-new-centcom-hq-at-macdill.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

