This is serious tech, dammit … with defense implications, too. We saw this via our buddy John Noonan’s Twitter feed, and as he wrote, this is a PSA we can all get behind — or in front of …
Fox News reports:
Dr. Elena Bodnar won an Ignoble Award for the invention last year, an annual tribute to scientific research that on the surface seems goofy but is often surprisingly practical. And now Bodnar has brought the eBra to the public; purchase one online for just $29.95.
“The goal of any emergency respiratory device is to achieve tight fixation and full coverage. Luckily, the wonderful design of the bra is already in the shape of a face mask and so with the addition of a few design features, the Emergency Bra enhances the efficiency of minimizing contaminated bypass air flow,” explains the eBra website.
It sounds silly, but Bodnar, a Ukraine native who now lives in Chicago, started her medical career studying the effects of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. If people had had cheap, readily available gas masks in the first hours after the disaster, she said, they may have avoided breathing in Iodine-131, which causes radiation sickness.
The bra-turned-gas masks could have also been useful during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and for women caught outside during the dust storms that recently enveloped Sydney, she said.
And hundreds of new pick-up lines are born. (That’s your cue to write one in the comments …)
To read the rest of the FoxNews.com article go here.
Last week at a cyber warfare conference, the notion that the Stuxnet attack may have been an instrument of foreign policy came up in multiple conversations. At the same time, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called for discussions of cyber weapons and cyber warfare in the same framework as during the cold war, which was one of the longest and most costly foreign policy initiatives in history.
This situation is so different from that of the Cold War, one has to question the effectiveness of putting cyber weapons and conflict in the same context as the cold war. Just think about the difference between weapons of mass destruction — specifically nuclear weapons, which were a high priority and top focus of the cold war — and the more vague issues of cyber weapons.
Was the Stuxnet cyber assault an instrument of foreign policy by some country? If so, was it what got Iran back to the table to negotiate? It seems that former Secretary of DHS Chertoff is right – because during the cold war we focused on two areas, out-spending Russia and pressuring them to negotiate.
The big difference is, during the cold war, the United States arguably had the financial capabilities to do this.
By putting its $40-billion ground combat vehicle (GCV) procurement plan on hold, the U.S. Army is giving itself a breather to come up with a new strategy for its ground vehicle force.
The Army canceled the GCV request for proposal (RFP) this summer and froze funding and development for all major ground-vehicle programs — even Block 2 work on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which the GCV is supposed to replace.
Army ground programs — particularly the GCV — are victims of the Pentagon’s obsession with reviewing and revamping the Defense Department procurement mindset for big-dollar programs. The Army and Pentagon also want to put the brakes on the service’s ground-vehicle programs to ensure it buys the right equipment for the mission. The Army and Defense Department are analyzing whether they are buying — even developing — the right vehicle for the job. Indeed, the military could move away from tracked vehicles, except for specific missions.
“Tracked vehicles are not necessarily the best option for what we plan to be doing,” says John Gresham, a defense analyst and author of books on military equipment and operations. That would be a point of departure for the Army, whose doctrine and checkbook has heavily favored tracked vehicles.
The Pentagon reported about $13.7 billion in transactions for those vehicles in 2008, a 57% increase from 2007, according to an analysis of data provided by the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting. Procurement of those vehicles ranked 10th in Pentagon expenses in 2009 and second in 2008, racking up $16.8 billion in contracts and modifications, the analysis shows.
Defense Tech is checking into the background of this program since the presolicitation on FedBizOpps indicates the program had been cancelled and possibly rescoped this spring and summer. There’s some chatter on other blogs that indicates there was an internal debate over hull-form, speed and size within the NacSpecWar community and that the piracy issue — specifically who’s job it is to counter it — may have factored in as well.
But from the new documents on the program, it looks as if the current configuration of the CCM Mk-1 will have an objective range of 600 nm without reserve fuel, carry up to 19 pax with four crew, travel at around 50 knots and cost in the $4 million per boat and trailer range.
Whereas the RIB is C-130 transportable, the CCM Mk-1 will be transported in a C-17 with its FMTV “prime mover.” The command plans to purchase 30 Mk-1s and supply eight boats per squadron, the documents show. SOCOM plans to start production of the Mk-1 in 2015.
Tough economic realities looming in defense spending are casting a shadow over U.S. Marine Corps plans for its ground tactical fleet, which will likely soon see orders trimmed or possibly scrapped.
Every program in the corps’ fleet, from Humvees to marine personnel carriers (MPC), is under service scrutiny in the wake of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s announcement that he intends to cut $100 billion from the defense budget over the next five years. While most of the cuts are predicted to come from personnel, the corps is bracing for its own contribution, including reductions in vehicle programs.
“Fiscal resources will be reduced and drive reductions in Marine Corps end-strength, equipment and modernization,” writes Gen. James Conway, the commandant, in a report outlining a force structure review that was circulated internally among commanders in August. The review is to conclude Dec. 17.
Leaders worry that the planned vehicle force will be too heavy for expeditionary operations. “The current table of equipment … is too heavy for amphibious shipping,” Conway states in the report, a copy of which was obtained by DTI. “We should expect to continue to be postured forward aboard Navy ships, immediately operationally available,” he said later.
The Force Structure Review Group’s assessment of the corps’ needs will become a baseline for vehicle inventory management, explains Christopher Yunker, head of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command’s Counter Mobility section in Quantico, Va. “We recognize that we’ve got to reduce the inventory,” he says, noting that the corps’ fleet of 43,000 vehicles is expected to be reduced to 32,600. “Our view is that every capability set probably has a contribution to that vehicle reduction.”
Everyone knows Marines run to the sound of the guns. But to the silent jolt of a Taser?
Yes. Absolutely. Oorah! was replaced with “Taze, me, Bro!” at Marine Corps Base Quantico recently, as Marines lined up to be zapped.
Of course, during the Tasing there wasn’t much of anything coherent said, just screams or loud grunts.
“I am an individual who loves adrenalin rushes and I wanted to see what kind of adrenalin rush I would get from being Tased,” Staff Sgt. Michael J. Boafo told Defensetech. “It was a pain that I have never felt before. I felt completely incapacitated and helpless.”
Boafo, operations chief with the Security Battalion at Quantico, said the pain stopped as soon as the Taser was shut off, though his leg “felt weird for about 15 minutes after the fact. Almost like when a leg falls asleep.”
Obliging the zap-curious Leathernecks was retired Marine Col. George Fenton, now vice president for federal and military programs for Taser International.
At the time he retired Fenton was director of the DoD’s Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, where he coordinated research and development of weapons designed to incapacitate rather than kill.
“I always said, without shooting to kill, the ‘Holy Grail’ [of weapons] is neuro-muscular incapacitation,” he told Defensetech.org at Quantico, where Taser was doing a very popular show-and-tell as part of the Modern Day Marine Expo. If the conflict situation falls short of the need to kill, he said, taking someone down with a Taser is the best way to handle it. This would include policing actions such as perimeter or gate security.
“It’s about end-state and consequences as opposed to thinking lethal/non-lethal,” he said. “You need to think about what I’ve got [for defense] and what’s the situation?”
That said, once a situation turns “hot” the Taser would not be the way to go. “You don’t’ take a Taser to a gun-fight; it won’t do you any good,” he said.
Kevin Coleman — Defense Tech Cyberwarfare correspondent
There have been many articles and speeches made about the necessity to assess and secure the critical infrastructure of the United States. In fact Capital Hill even held hearings and proposed legislation about this matter. The General Accounting Office has even gone out an assessed the security of some critical infrastructure assets and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a database that list over 80,000 of these assets.
Who should be doing the security assessment on our critical infrastructure? Recently I was given a Request for Proposal (RFP) to review. The RFP was from a critical infrastructure provider. While multiple sections gave me pause for concern, one section clearly stuck out as an issue. The critical infrastructure provider wanted the organization doing the security assessment to provide detailed information about what they were going to test and how they were going to test it.
They asked for the following -
The proposed testing
Background of each of the proposed tests
Objectives of each of the proposed tests
The benefits of each of the proposed tests
The methodology / approach for each of the proposed tests
The location(s) where testing will be done.
The output or deliverables to be presented at completion of each of the proposed tests
With all this testing information provided to the organization whose critical infrastructure is under security evaluation, one would have to be concerned about the integrity of the tests.
It was clear the organization wanted to do things their way and did not adhere or even mention in their document any security standards (Example — ISO 27000 series). Nor was there any mention of conducting CFI blind-tests (no prior knowledge) or a CFI spot-test (spur of the moment – no time to prepare) in order to ensure the integrity of the testing. Their stated goal was to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of security measures and controls. Is this an acceptable approach to testing the critical infrastructure?
Pivoting off our post last week from Military.com founder Chris Michel who got a ride in a U-2, we learned that yesterday Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic company accomplished another milestone in its quest to open up space to commercial flight.
Virgin Galactic’s space tourism rocket SpaceShipTwo achieved its first solo glide flight Sunday, marking another step in the company’s eventual plans to fly paying passengers.
SpaceShipTwo was carried aloft by its mothership to an altitude of 45,000 feet and released over the Mojave Desert. After the separation, SpaceShipTwo, manned by two pilots, flew freely for 11 minutes before landing at an airport runway followed by the mothership.
The entire test flight lasted about 25 minutes.
I’ve always been a fan of this initiative, mainly because Branson has engaged the expertise of Burt Rutan, who founded Scaled Composits out in Mojave, Calif.I met Burt and toured Scaled Composits back in the day when they were working on Northrup Grumman’s competitor to the Boeing UCAV. What an amazing place, chock full of smart, innovative people.
The six-passenger SpaceShipTwo is undergoing rigorous testing before it can carry tourists to space. In the latest test, SpaceShipTwo did not fire its rocket engine to climb to space.
Until now, SpaceShipTwo has flown attached to the wing of its special jet-powered mothership dubbed WhiteKnightTwo. Sunday was the first time the spaceship flew on its own.
Branson is devoting millions to the quest of space tourism. And if anyone can help him get there, its the 10-pound brains at Scaled Composits.
If Branson and Rutan’s scheme works, who knows what the implications are for defense and commercial applications.
By Kevin Coleman — Defense Tech Cyberwarfare correspondent
Programmable logic controllers, SCADA systems and other computerized control systems have become common throughout our critical infrastructure.
The demand for computerized industrial control within the United States is expected to exceed $16 billion by the end of 2011. These devices have been a target of opportunity for several years.
A target of opportunity is a military term that is used to define an objective that, in a combat scenario, presents itself as a possible target in addition to those targets which are considered to be the primary targets of any particular military operation.
Given these units are now commonly used throughout our critical infrastructure, as well as in military facilities and critical assets like aircraft carriers to control their infrastructure, these targets of opportunity have moved to a high-value targets for cyber attacks.
The Stuxnet attack is a game changer. This hybrid worm was specifically designed to attack the process control systems used in the Iranian nuclear enrichment program as well as the Bushehr nuclear power plant. So the big questions is: How Prepared Are We? In a recently released study on critical infrastructure protection it found that the top five safeguards that respondents felt had LESS THAN a high state of readiness were–
Security training
Awareness and appreciation of the threat by executive management
Defense Tech friend and sometimes contributor Bob Cox, who works for the Fort Worth Star Telegram and writes for their Sky Talk blog, forwarded a post today that’ll make Osprey haters jump for joy.
According to a mishap investigation stemming from an in-air engine failure near Kirtland Air Force Base in March, the V-22 has a known problem with the secure installation of the central de-icing system.
“Multiple deficiency and analysis reports reveal that the design of the CDD mounting assembly is inadequate in enabling the CDD mounting components … to optimally withstand the vibratory and centrifugal forces that exist during engine and flight operations.”
It seems that this was a known problem and that about 50 of the active 120 aircraft now operational have fixes installed.
Get ready for heavy rolls as the anti-Osprey crew — most of whom have never flown one in a combat environment — serve out heaping doses of “I told you sos” to those of us who would rather fly in an Osprey in a war zone than any other rotorcraft…
