Project Valour-IT 2007 Fund Drive

This isn't acceptable. When we are barely over 5% over what I have personally given to Valour-IT, I have a feeling someone, specifically you, isn't pulling your weight. $1, $5, or $10 isn't asking a lot for most Americans, I encourage those who have held out to this point to reconsider. Credit cards are accepted. In case you were wondering, hell no I would never ask anyone to contribute to anything I don't pony up for myself.

So in the spirit of giving you your money's worth, I offer an IT related story for Monday for those who want something for their money. Hopefully it will be entertaining.

As I have said before, I own an IT Corporation. In the past, I have specifically worked in technical security related fields over the last decade as part of the larger trend towards the information age.

Several years ago, I was hired as a consultant as part of a Tiger Team for a security related review of large health enterprise (hospital for outpatient care). They had recently implimented a pilot for biometrics, specifically the use of a finger print scanner as a requirement for users to access data.

It was around Halloween so a few of decided we would get a feel for the hospital area by volunteering to dress up as clowns and entertain the patients. It wasn't hard for some of us, we are clowns most of the time anyway, and the charity was good for us and them. Besides, we had a reason.

Within 5 minutes of 'volunteering' we had been able to sit one of our systems guys at a computer terminal and check out the system security. For the most part, the security was pretty good, with one exception, we could script to disable the virus scanner. We later learned the capability to disable the virus scanner was a 'feature' for nurses due to the virus scanner creating false positives with a specific patient care program, a medication lookup program. Either way, we disabled the virus scanner on every workstation, plugged in a jump drive that had a hidden keylogger on it, and left gummy bears all over the tables in each patient care room. We would then note which doctors and nurses entered the patient rooms.

At the end of the day, we collected our jump drives, enabled all the virus scanners, and removed all the gummy bears from the trash cans, each to a specific labeled bag.

You see, gummy bears leave fingerprints, and keyloggers monitor passwords. By monitoring each nurse and doctor who would go into each patient room, we were able to match fingerprints key logged passwords due to time stamps to people. We were able to grab the fingerprints of 4 doctors and 9 nurses. By midnight that night, exploiting the VPN which was password only, we were able to access all of the patient records by using gummy bears as our finger prints.

We got paid well in exposing the failure of the pilot. Because the biometrics finger print scanner was set on such a low setting, mostly because it was unreliable, gummy bears worked well enough. In the end, the pilot and our review proved fingerprints weren't the best approach, and the company ultimately took our advice and went with RSA SecureID fobs.

Moral of the Story: Never trust a clown on Halloween, and support voice activated laptops over rediculous fingerprint scanners every day until Veterans Day!

India RFP for Midget Submarines

Sea Power magazine is confirming what has been discussed on some Indian Navy related forums, that a RFP has been sent to Larson and Toubro yard for a delivery of 4 new "Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDV)" If you recall, Larson and Toubro delivered a prototype midget submarine to the Indian Navy last year.

The SDVs Indian is looking to acquire are around 30 feet long and 5 feet diameter and are expected to cost $80 million each. Other requirements include a minimum life of 20 years, that they should also be able to operate at a depth of 60 meters and transit at 150 meters. The SDVs are designed to provide capabilities in anything from SOF, Strike, or Surveillance in shallow water, and intended to be operated from any of the conventional submarines used by the Indian Navy including the current Kilo and Tyoe 209s, and future Scorpene class.

According to Sea Power magazine, The SDVs would begin construction in 2009 and be completed by 2014, or sometime around then.

This leaves me wondering, where is the US Navy ASDS?

LCS-4 Cancellation Leads to New FY 08 Shipbuilding Budget

There is a lot of attention being paid to the cancellation of LCS-4, the second General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship that was about to begin construction. This announcement has added to the frustration to date over the Navy's shipbuilding plan, with the most recent announcement point ingout accurately the FFG-7s are draining the budgets. The FFG-7s are old, breaking down, and need replacement. Adding fuel to the fire, there is a new Maritime Strategy that even John Lehman, Sec. of the Navy during the 1986 Maritime Strategy, takes a shot at in the November Proceedings rightfully pointing out that the writers punted the shipbuilding priorities is a glaring mistake of the new "Cooperative Maritime Strategy."

In dealing with the specifics, the media examines the real effects of the cancellation and other aspects of shipbuilding woes.

Although Austal Chief Executive Officer Bob Browning worked "very closely with the Navy to achieve a positive outcome, the company had no control over the prime contractor, General Dynamics, who ultimately controlled negotiations on price with the Navy," the company said in the statement released late Thursday evening in the United States, Friday morning in Australia, where Austal USA's parent company is based.

...

"If you looked at the stock price. we got hammered more than General Dynamics because they're a larger company," Pfister said. As of late Friday afternoon, the share price of Austal Limited, the parent company of Austal USA, had nosedived more than 15 percent since Thursday on the Australian Securities Exchange.

General Dynamics' shares closed Friday at $90.13 on the New York Stock Exchange, down slightly from two days earlier, but still close to their 52-week high.

So much for the whole "use the second tier yard" idea. When the prime contractor is still one of the big guys, using a second tier yard doesn't seem to help much, in this case it created another way for the big guy to step all over the little guy. Congress should take note, because it has been a bad week for the little guy. The Navy has exactly 1 ship that falls into the category of "Littoral Combat Ship" and it is called Sea Fighter, FSF-1. Noteworthy the builder of FSF-1, Nichols Bros., closed its doors and is out of business as of last week.

The question is, where does the Navy go from here? Well, that was decided after the cancellation announcement. The Senate and House Committee worked out some of the major shipbuilding details after LCS-4 cancellation, and while this might shock a few, the person who stepped up was none other than John Murtha. Murtha pushed through a number of items in conference.

First, the full $588 million advanced procurement for the 2nd Virginia class submarine next year passed. This means in FY09 the Navy will build 2 Virginia class submarines.

Second, somehow Murtha changed everyones mind and the FY08 budget will include funding for 2 new Littoral Combat Ships. Prior to Friday, neither the House or the Senate had approved enough funding for even 1 new LCS. This means following passage of the FY08 budget, the Navy will still have funding for 4 total. Believe it or not, that is better than the best case scenario most envisioned following cancellation of LCS-4 last week.

Third, the Senate and House agreed to fund 1 T-AKE this year at $456.1 million, and further added $300 million more for future procurement of more. This is outstanding news for the Navy, the Navy has been reducing its logistics ships and more T-AKE fills the gap of hulls soon to be retired without replacements. If the Navy wants a large fleet, it must have the logistics base to support it.

Finally, the Senate and House agreed to $50 million advanced procurement for the tenth LPD-17. This is also very important, because while the LPD-17 had early cost troubles, the 3rd-9th LPD-17 are either on or under budget. The LPD-17 hull design has a lot to offer the Navy down the line, from new command ships to new hospital ships, and the sustainment of the shipbuilder able to produce the ship is important to keeping those costs down.

While the LCS appears to still be alive, I think what is missing is a legitimate conversation regarding what the Navy should do to address littoral warfare, a FFG-7 replacement, and an honest discussion on what a high/low mix is in the 21st century while realistically addressing cost approaches for high intensity/low intensity conflicts. I think everyone agrees it is a red flag when ~9000 ton or larger ships are fighting pirates off the coast of Somalia. The Navy doesn't have a legitimate low intensity conflict solution. Where is that discussion?

I'm starting that discussion this week.

5th Fleet Focus: The Final Puzzle Piece

First it was announced the big stick, specifically the rather large Truman Carrier Strike Group, deploys on Monday. Then it was pointed out those 'extra elements,' specifically a strike group focused around anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare, would be deploying to the Persian Gulf in early 08. Finally, we have the rest of the puzzle also deploying tomorrow, bringing with it those two specific pieces of defense it is only smart to have.

More than 5,500 Marines and sailors are making final preparations this weekend for a Monday departure and deployment to the Western Pacific and Persian Gulf, Navy officials said.

The amphibious assault ship Tarawa will lead two other San Diego-based amphibs, the dock landing ship Germantown and the amphibious transport dock Cleveland for the scheduled six-month deployment to the U.S. 7th Fleet and 5th Fleet regions.

En route, the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group will link up with three ships: the frigate Ingraham, based in Everett, Wash., and the cruiser Port Royal and destroyer Hopper, both based in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

No, the US isn't sending Marines into Iran, although I believe the 11th MEU is scheduled to do a few weeks training in Kuwait (this is not new). Rather, I'm talking about the USS Port Royal (CG 73) and the USS Hopper (DDG 70).

You have to have two, not one, in case you didn't know. I'm talking about AEGIS Ballistic missile defense, and how it works. In this case, the USS Hopper (DDG 70) acts as the early warning Long Range Tracking ship while the USS Port Royal (CG 73) would act as an interceptor.

I would consider it highly unlikely that the USS Port Royal (CG 73) would deploy with SM-3s though. First, the Navy simply doesn't have enough SM-3s to spare. Second, that information would probably leak. Finally, there are plenty of Patriot missiles in theater that can act as interceptor, removing the need for SM-3s.

Noteworthy none the less, the Navy is sending 2 AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense ships to the Gulf with the Tarawa ESG. In case you are wondering, the Navy has deployed 1 AEGIS destroyer with BMD LRS&T capability in the last 3 Pacific strike groups, specifically the Nimitz CSG, Stennis CSG, and Bonhomme Richard ESG.

So what is different? This is the first time the Navy is sending one of its BMD cruisers to the Gulf. If you ask the Navy, I'm sure they will quote what the British said about the minesweeper deployment, this is a scheduled deployment, and has nothing to do with Iran...

5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle

Order of Battle in the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility.

The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group

USS Enterprise (CVN 65)
USS Gettysburg (CG 64)
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51)
USS Stout (DDG 55)
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98)
USS James E. Williams (DDG 95)
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)


Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Kearsarge (LHD 3)
USS Ponce (LPD 15)
USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44)
USS Vicksburg (CG 69)
USS Porter (DDG 78)
USS Carr (FFG 52)
USS Miami (SSN 755)


Task Force 150

FGS Augsburg (F 213)
FS Commandant Ducuing (F795)
FS La Motte Picquet (D645)
PNS Tippu Sultan (D 185)
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41)

In Theater

Ocean 6
USS Wasp (LHD 1)
RSS Persistence (L 209)
HMS Richmond (F 239)
HMAS Anzac (F 150)
USS Scout (MCM 8)
USS Gladiator (MCM 11)
USS Ardent (MCM 12)
USS Dexterous (MCM 13)
HMS Ramsay (M 110)
HMS Blyth (M 111)


Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2)

TCG Orucreis (F245)
HMS Northumberland (F238)
NMM Aliseo (F574)
HS Aegeon (F460)
SPS Canarias (F86)
FGS Rhoen (A1443)
USS Laboon (DDG 58)