Dozer Speaks

Michael Hoffman of Air Force Times adds another element to the story of “Dozer,” the F-22 pilot who was the subject of a recent operations security (OPSEC) briefing, compiled by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. As we noted in a recent series of recent posts, the AFOSI presentation suggested that Dozer divulged operational and technical details of the fifth-generation fighter, through his comments on a popular internet aviation forum. Yet, our own analysis revealed that virtually all of the information discussed by the pilot was already in the public domain.

As this blog reported last week, the Air Force reached the same conclusion. An OPSEC study by Air Combat Command (ACC) and a security review by an Air Force acquisitions directorate determined that Dozer’s on-line comments did not divulge classified information.

The widely-circulated OPSEC briefing was prepared by the OSI’s detachment at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona after completion of the ACC study and the security review. Members of the Davis-Monthan detachment were not involved in the study or review, and the base has no role in the F-22 program.

In an e-mail exchange with Mr. Hoffman , Dozer said he was unfairly targeted by the briefing, which highlighted his various forum posts and responses to questions by other participants. Dozer, who now serves as commander of an F-22 squadron in Alaska, said he was cautious in posting information about the Air Force’s newest stealth fighter:

I only discussed items that were open source and available to the public,” he said. “It is also why I did not answer many of the questions that were asked because they would have touched on issues that were not appropriate.”

Two Pacific Air Forces officers, who asked to remain anonymous because of the story’s sensitivity, said they were surprised a training tool would use a current commander as an example of inappropriate behavior.

“How is he supposed to ever counsel an airman on OPSEC again?” one officer asked

A better question might be why the briefing was prepared in the first place. An AFOSI spokeswoman told us last week that someone at ACC identified the F-22 incident as a “good example” of on-line security hazards. Members of the Davis-Monthan detachment then prepared their briefing, which was presented to the base Threat Working Group last month.

While the OSI stresses that the unclassified presentation was intended for training purposes only (and not for wider release), those caveats are not listed in the 28-slide briefing. And, while the presentation does not describe Dozer’s on-line activity as an OPSEC violation, it suggests that potential adversaries could have gained valuable information on the F-22 through the internet discussion.

The briefing is also misleading in terms of its suggested scope. On the cover slide, there is a silhouetted F-22, along with the shields of the AFOSI, the FBI, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Inclusion of those shields implies that the other agencies assisted in preparation of the presentation.

In fact, none of those organizations participated in development of the briefing. The OSI says the organizational shields were included because those agencies assist the Air Force in the investigation of cyber-crimes, and participate (as required) in base-level threat working groups, the intended audience for the F-22 presentation.

But we'd guess that’s little consolation for Dozer, whose professional reputation was unfairly maligned in the briefing. In reality, he had been encouraged by Air Force leadership to discuss the F-22, and served as one the program’s most visible representatives.

Before taking command of the Alaska unit, Dozer served as the Air Force’s first F-22 demonstration pilot, showcasing the jet at air shows around the country. He also appeared—with the service’s blessing--in several television documentaries on the jet. During those appearances, his name, rank and status as an F-22 pilot were clearly identified.

Some would say that the OSI owes Dozer an apology, but we say that process ought to begin at ACC. It’s a bit odd that someone on the staff would identify the on-line comments as an example of a security risk—after the same headquarters conducted an OPSEC review that exonerated the F-22 pilot.

In fairness, we should note that the ACC staff is very large; it’s quite possible that the OPSEC study was conducted by a different directorate than the one that communicated with the OSI detachment at Davis-Monthan.

But there’s also the possibility that the ACC tipster had some knowledge of the original OPSEC study, and misrepresented its findings.

If that was the case—and it’s a very big “if”—then Dozer may have been the target of a personal vendetta. And that’s a matter worth looking into.

Author’s note: In preparing our posts on the F-22 matter, we elected not to publish “Dozer’s” real name. The pilot’s identity had already been established in various websites, articles and on-line forums. In our judgment, reprinting “Dozer’s” name and rank would not add to our coverage. We also believed that Dozer was entitled to the same degree of privacy he sought in making his on-line comments.

Giving it Away On-Line?—Dissecting an OPSEC Case Study

The F-22 Raptor in flight. Did a veteran fighter pilot disclose sensitive data about the Air Force's newest fighter, or simply discuss information that was already available in the public domain?

Part I of II

By Nate Hale

Asked to justify restrictions on certain forms of internet activity by military personnel—on government computers—DoD officials invariably cite concerns about operations security (OPSEC). In an increasingly wired world, the Pentagon is worried that adversaries can glean sensitive or even classified information from blogs, chat rooms and other on-line forums.

Noah Shachtman (who runs the widely-read defense blog, The Danger Room) has written extensively about this issue; his most recent post on the topic (which contains quotes from this blogger) can be found here. Mr. Shachtman’s reporting confirms what many already suspect; the Air Force—and other military organizations--see little value in blogs, and are moving aggressively to limit access through its IT network:

"The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address. It's the latest move in a larger struggle within the military over the value -- and hazards -- of the sites. At least one senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so "utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream."

And sure enough, retired Air Force Colonel Tom Ehrhard (now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) invoked the OPSEC issue in defending the crackdown. As he told Noah Shachtman:

"It is increasingly clear that active exploitation could take advantage of airmen and civilians who want to inform and correct the often outrageous, false assertions on these blogs. In doing so, it is easy for well-meaning insiders to violate operational security (OPSEC) tenets, either directly or tangentially. We are in a different world today when it comes to sensitive military information, and foreign intelligence operatives surely understand this and will exploit it. As a former member of Strategic Air Command, where OPSEC was (rightly) an obsession, this has been obvious to me for some time in reading aerospace-oriented blogs. This policy strikes me as a timely reminder to Air Force professionals that they should be on guard when blogging, because someone is watching."

Underscoring the potential threat, the Air Force is now circulating a PowerPoint presentation entitled “CyberOPSEC: An F-22 Case Study,” detailing information about the service’s state of the art fighter that appeared “on a popular public website about military and civilian aircraft.” Apparently, the source for much of the data was a Raptor pilot, who posted under the handle “dozerF22.” A copy of the briefing was obtained by In From the Cold.

The implication of the study--reportedly compiled by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), the Navy’s Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security—is clear. By participating in the forum, answering questions about the F-22 and providing personal information, “Dozer” displayed questionable judgment and might have disclosed valuable information about the nation’s newest stealth fighter. The referenced assessment is “Unclassified/Open Source,” so discussion in public forums does not betray any classified or sensitive information.

Discovering Dozer’s identity wasn’t very difficult, according to the presentation. The pilot’s public profile listed both his name and military e-mail address. And, if that weren’t enough, another poster on the forum quickly testified to Dozer’s reputation as a fighter jock:

"For those who don't know, Dozer is one heck of a fighter pilot.

Then-Capt Dozer, a flight leader with the 'Grim Reapers' of the 493rd FS RAF Lakenheath, UK, on night one of Operation Allied Force led a package of four F-15Cs and four F-16CJs protecting the first wave of F-117A Night Hawks flying over Serbia. Engaging a charging MiG, he launched missiles through the formation of F-117s, ending in the MiG exploding about 1,000 feet off the nose of one of the Night Hawks. The pilot ejected safely out of the MiG-29 fireball.

Dozer encountered some more MiGs later in the conflict and scrambled the night the F-117A, callsign Vega31, Col Zelko, was shot down and rescued (More details and Dozer's photo in the hard-to-find book "Stealth Down," by Ross Simpson).

An honor to be able to chat with a pilot that has been there and done that.

Kevin

Aero-engineer

The pilot’s on-line profile also included his picture in a flight suit (name and rank clearly visible), with an F-22 in the background.

Over the months that followed, postings by Dozer and other forum participants attracted quite an audience, according to the OPSEC analysis. The board’s F-22 discussion logged over 700 posts, which were read more than 68,000 times. New users “came out of the woodwork,” the study claims, creating new accounts and posting questions for the F-22 pilot. The queries covered a broad range of technical, tactical and performance issues for the Raptor. Some sample questions:

· “That rocks…so is a JHMCS (Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System) or equivalent going to be included in the upgrades along with the AIM-9X (air-to-air missile)?
· “With the upgraded air to ground capabilities, will this allow the Raptor to attack mobile/moving targets in addition to autonomously identifying ground targets?“
· “What are your opinions regarding the effectiveness of the 20mm cannon on the F-22?”
· “It has been said that 2-3 RAF Eurofighters have been sent to Nellis AFB for testing and training…might you confirm this information and tell us some details about the result of Raptor versus Typhoon up to now?
· “You mentioned you are moving up north. Where are you heading?”
· "It is said that Raptor nowadays can supercruise with the speed of around Mach 2. Could you make a confirmation or comment for this declaration?”
· “I just want to know if that was the fastest pitch the Raptor can achieve?”
· “If the Raptor was to carry external stores would it loose its ability to supercruise straight away?”

One participant even asked about a specific feature on the F-22’s fuselage, posting a photo of the area in question with the query: "Dozer, what does this picture show?

Over the months that followed, the F-22 pilot responded to scores of questions, offering general information on the radars carried by Raptor variants; the location—and function-- of engine bleed air and bypass doors; the accuracy of aircraft weight numbers published in another aviation forum, and the date when his new unit (located in Alaska) would receive its last jets. A few of his replies are listed below:

· “I think the fuel numbers are not classified.”
· “The F-22 is not sitting alert in Alaska; however, we occasionally pulled a very tiny amount of alert at Langley.”
· “The pace will really pick up in August, both aircraft and pilots (in Alaska)
· “No they aren’t modified, and they have the older generation radar. The AK and beyond tails (although Langley does have three Lot 5 tails) are the ones with the next generation radar.”

According to the study’s authors, months of on-line questions and answers revealed a number of details about the F-22, ranging from its basing status, to the function of specific flaps and doors, and details on how various weapons systems operate. Other responses “confirmed and denied performance rumors,” discussed the status of radar upgrades, and covered “issues with thrust vectoring.”

Judging from the OPSEC presentation, readers would think that the on-line forum provided a veritable treasure trove of information on the Air Force’s newest fighter. But a closer examination of the study--and its conclusions--reveals that much of the information “disclosed” on the discussion board had been circulating for months—even years—before Dozer and other participants weighed in.

Tomorrow: A look at earlier discussions and media reporting on F-22 capabilities, deployments and operational issues. Did Dozer’s on-line comments represent a genuine OPSEC violation—or was it largely a rehash of information already available to the public and potential adversaries? And, what does the incident say about existing military policies on information disclosure and on-line activities?

No Leaks in On-Line F-22 Comments

An F-22 pilot who made numerous internet posts about his state-of-the-art aircraft did not divulge classified information, according to an Air Force operations security (OPSEC) assessment and a security review. Both were conducted prior to a recent briefing by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), which suggested the on-line comments confirmed technical and operational details about the fifth-generation fighter.

An AFOSI spokeswoman also revealed that a widely-circulated PowerPoint presentation on the incident was intended for internal use, and not general release. Entitled “Cyber OPSEC: An F-22 Case Study,” the unclassified briefing was designed as an in-house training tool for the OSI detachment at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. But, after its initial presentation at the Arizona base, the briefing was quickly passed to scores of Air Force units and military bloggers.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation about this,” said Linda Card, a public affairs specialist at AFOSI Headquarters in Washington. She emphasized that the organization did not conduct a criminal investigation into the pilot’s on-line comments, which appeared on a popular aviation forum.

“The guy did something dumb—not illegal,” Card observed.

According to the OSI spokeswoman, the organization’s involvement in the matter was limited to a classification review of material posted by the pilot, who used the screen name “Dozer.” OSI personnel conducted the review in conjunction with SAF/AQL, the Headquarters Air Force acquisition directorate in charge of special programs.

The classification review determined that none of the pilot’s forum comments revealed sensitive information about the F-22. SAF/AQL is the service’s original classification authority for a number of systems that incorporate classified technology, including the F-22.

Card also said that an operations security (OPSEC) study, conducted by Air Combat Command (ACC), reached a similar conclusion. Headquartered at Langley AFB, Virginia, ACC has been responsible for integrating the F-22 into combat units. The Air Force’s first F-22 wing is based at Langley, and the pilot involved in the internet episode was formerly assigned there.

During his tour at the base, Dozer also served as the Air Force F-22 demonstration pilot, showcasing the jet at various airshows around the country. He has also been interviewed by a number of media outlets and appeared in TV documentaries about the stealth fighter. He is now the commander of the first F-22 squadron based outside the CONUS, at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.

The AFOSI public affairs representative said she “did not know” if agents who assembled the PowerPoint presentation spoke with “Dozer” as part of their research. Asked if those agents were “read into” the F-22 program, Card said “not to my knowledge.

Personnel with that status—which requires additional security screening—are privy to the most sensitive information on the “Raptor’s” technology and performance.

Card confirmed that the OSI’s Davis-Monthan detachment built the briefing after receiving information on the OPSEC study from ACC, which cited it as a “good example” of on-line security hazards. First delivered at Davis-Monthan last month, the briefing was intended for unit training. But it quickly circulated to other Air Force units and military bloggers, generating a minor tempest.

The briefing’s cover slide contains a silhouette photo of an F-22 and the shields of four military and law enforcement agencies: the AFOSI, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security. The appearance of those shields suggested that the presentation was a multi-agency product.

However, Card affirmed that none of those organizations assisted with the briefing, or the original OPSEC study. She said that agents who prepared the briefing decided to insert the other shields because they assist the AFOSI in the investigation of cyber-crime and security issues. They also participate (along with the OSI) in threat working groups, a target audience for the cyber OPSEC briefing.

Separately, a DHS official in Washington stated that his organization had no involvement with the OSI briefing or the earlier security assessments. Representatives from the FBI and NCIS did not respond to e-mail requests for comment.

Much of the AFOSI presentation is devoted to Dozer’s various posts on the forum, and queries from other participants. One of the briefing’s final slides, labeled “What Have We Learned About the F-22,” lists a wide range of technical and operational information, ranging from aircraft lot numbers at different bases, the function of specific flaps and doors on the jet, and “weapons systems operational details.”

But an analysis of the information, conducted by In From the Cold, determined that virtually all of the data was already in the public domain. One question, about the F-22’s lack of a helmet-mounted sight, could be easily answered by on-line articles dating back to the late 1990s.

Another interrogatory, about a mock dogfight between the Raptor and the new Eurofighter ”Typhoon,” was also the subject of prior press reporting and on-line speculation. An Aviation Week article—easily accessed through internet search engines–provided details on the deployment, and hinted that the Typhoons had some success in tracking the stealthy F-22.

Answers to other questions were also readily found, through other on-line sources.

Card said it was unclear why the training brief was circulated beyond the OSI detachment at Davis-Monthan. While the 28-slide presentation is clearly marked "unclassified/open source," there are no overt indications that it was intended solely for training purposes--or that distribution was limited to the Arizona detachment.

In the wake of the F-22 controversy, Air Force members have received additional training on security hazards associated with social networking sites. That training has been provided by public affairs specialists.

While cyber-crime is a major mission for the OSI, Card noted that the organization rarely investigates OPSEC issues on blogs and message boards. "The OSI investigates criminal cases for the Air Force," she said in an e-mail. "This particular situation did not warrant a criminal investigation nor an official inquiry."

Giving it Away On-Line?—Dissecting an OPSEC Case Study

A recent Air Force briefing suggests that an on-line forum revealed extensive information about the F-22 fighter, but much of the data was already in the public arena. Was it a violation of Operational Security (OPSEC)--or simply a veiled effort to discourage internet activity by military personnel?

Part II of II

By Nate Hale

In December 2007, a "vigilant witness" approached members of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), the service’s clandestine investigative service. The "witness"—an AFOSI term for a confidential informant—voiced concerns about suspicious information regarding the F-22 stealth fighter, posted at a popular on-line forum about military and civilian aircraft.

The tip eventually mushroomed into an OSI inquiry. Monitoring the website—and its participants—government agents found literally hundreds of posts about the F-22, the Air Force’s newest fighter jet which incorporates sensitive, state-of-the art technology. By one estimate, posts on the stealth jet attracted new users to the forum, and generated almost 70,000 page views.

More disturbingly, the probe revealed that many of the posts had been written by an Air Force F-22 pilot. For more than 18 months, the pilot (who used the handle dozerf22) shared information about his aircraft and responded to on-line queries. That raised concerns about a potential breach of operations security (OPSEC), through the disclosure of sensitive data in a public forum—in this case, a website that could be easily accessed by potential adversaries, anxious to learn more about the F-22.

Concerns about the possible, on-line disclosure of critical data were recently summarized in an OPSEC case study, reportedly produced by the AFOSI, the Navy’s Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

According to a PowerPoint briefing based on their analysis, "Dozer’s" various postings provided a wealth of information on issues relating to the F-22, including aircraft "lot" numbers at different bases; the function of specific doors and flaps on the fifth-generation fighter; fuel loads and their impact on performance, the status of radar upgrades, and operational details about the jet’s weapons systems. A copy of the briefing--which is unclassified--was obtained by this blog.

But the study fails to address an essential question; how much of the information discussed by the F-22 pilot—and other forum participants—was already in the public domain, provided through press releases and media coverage, or through on-line comments on other web sites?

The answer to that question is surprising, and suggests that OPSEC concerns raised by the assessment may be overstated. Using search engines available to anyone the internet, In From the Cold found scores of references to the F-22, covering many of the topics addressed by Dozer at the aircraft site he frequented. That "discovery" tends to confirm something suggested by the various queries cited in the OPSEC study. Based on the tone and phrasing of their questions, any foreign "spies" on the forum were looking for confirmation of already-available information.

Consider a question about the Raptor’s lack of a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), which slaves the aircraft’s weapons to the pilot’s line of sight. The Air Force’s decision to forego this capability in the F-22 has been discussed publicly for more than eight years, and Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman provided an update on the issue last June:

Most fighters today are available with a high off-boresight missile and its essential complement, a helmet-mounted display (HMD) to point it accurately at its intended victim. Big exception: the air-dominance F-22 Raptor. Plans to put the USAF-standard Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) on the Raptor were deferred some years ago, the intention being to use the JSF's bug-eyed helmet instead, but there is still no firm timetable for either that or the AIM-9X missile, leaving the F-22 as the only fighter limited to the old AIM-9M. Program executive vice-president and general manager Larry Lawson defers the question to the air force.

The most logical answer is that there is only so much money and only so many test assets available and that the USAF's priorities are elsewhere. Just getting under way are development tests of the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, which quadruples the fighter's count of air-to-ground weapons and - launched a t high altitude and supersonic speed - gives it a 60-mile standoff range. Weapon releases are due late in 2008 and the SDB should enter service on the F-22 in 2010.

Similarly, another Aviation Week piece—from January 2007--detailed the F-22’s ability to locate mobile ground targets and share information with other platforms. The article was based on the fighter’s first deployment outside the CONUS--to a major exercise in Alaska. Aviation Week writers David A. Fulghum and Michael J. Fabey were invited to watch the exercise, and they interviewed a number of participants. From their report:

The F-22's advanced electronic surveillance sensors also provided additional awareness of ground activity.

"I could talk to an EA-6B Prowler electronic attack crew and tell them where a surface-to-air missile site was active so they would immediately know where to point their electronic warfare sensors," Tolliver says. "That decreased their targeting time line considerably."

In addition, the F-22 can use its electronic surveillance capabilities to conduct precision bombing strikes on emitters--a capability called destruction of enemy air defenses.

"And future editions of the F-22 are predicted to have to have their own electronic attack capability so that we'll be able to suppress or nonkinetically kill a site like that," he says.

The same account described the Raptor’s impressive abilities in air-to-air combat, providing details sought by questioners on the aviation forum:

The F-22 is proving it's a dogfighter after all.

While it wasn't part of a hard-turning furball, an F-22--with its Amraams and Sidewinders expended--slipped into visual range behind an F-16 and undetected made a simulated kill with its cannon during the stealth fighter's first large-scale exercise and deployment outside the continental U.S.

Those and other revelations about the F-22's emerging capabilities are increasingly important as the first combat unit, the U.S. Air Force's 27th Fighter Sqdn., begins its initial Air Expeditionary Force deployment this month to an undisclosed site. And the first F-22 unit, the 94th Fighter Sqdn., will participate in Red Flag in February.

The gun kill is a capability Air Force planners hope their F-22s won't use. The fighter is designed to destroy a foe well beyond his visual and radar range. Within visual-range combat and, in particular, gun kills are anachronisms. In amassing 144 kills to no losses during the first week of the joint-service Northern Edge exercise in Alaska last summer, only three air-to-air "kills" were in the visual arena--two involving AIM-9 Sidewinders and one the F-22's cannon.

[snip]

With its high-resolution radar, the F-22 can guarantee target altitudes to within a couple of hundred feet. Its ability to identify an aircraft is "sometimes many times quicker than the AWACS," he says. "It was a combination of high-resolution sensors and being closer to the targets."

The F-22's radar range is described only as being more than 100 mi. However, it's thought to be closer to 125-150 mi., which is much farther than the standard F-15's 56-mi. radar range. New, active electronically scanned radar technology--optimized for digital throughput--is expected to soon push next-generation radar ranges, in narrow beams, out to 250 mi. or more.

[snip]

In Alaska, because the F-22 remained far forward at high altitude, with an advanced radar it could monitor rescue missions that the AWACS 150 mi. away could not. "We could see the helicopters down in the valleys and protect them," Tolliver says.

In addition to AWACS, the F-22 also can feed data to the RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft to improve situational awareness of the battlespace.

"If a Rivet Joint is trying to get triangulation [on a precise emitter location], he can get more [voice] information" from an F-22, Keys says. "If an AWACS sees a heavy group 40 mi. to the north, Raptor can come up and say it's two F-18s, two F-15s and four F-16s."

It also proved easy to find information on another forum topic—Dozer’s planned move to a new assignment. In June 2006, an Air Force press release identified him as the commander of the "Ready Elmendorf" detachment, who would command the first F-22 squadron at the Alaskan base.

There were also multiple references to aircraft tail numbers and production lots—two other bits of sensitive information identified in the OPSEC study. A Lockheed-Martin media release from March 2002 listed the tail numbers and delivery location for aircraft in Production Lot 3. The highly popular defense site GlobalSecurity.org has even more information the F-22 production schedule, including the number of aircraft in each lot.

With that information—and a January, 2007 entry from defense-update.org, it was possible to calculate the introduction of Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars in the F-22 fleet, and the number of aircraft with that capability. Those sources—and others—were the first to report what Dozer later confirmed; incorporation of AESA technology in the Raptor began with Lot 5 jets.

Google and Yahoo searches also turned up substantial reporting—and speculation—about reported training between the Raptor and Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons. According to various accounts, the Typhoons deployed to Nellis AFB, Nevada in 2005, and participated in mock dogfights with the F-22, with (supposedly) surprising results. Aviation Week provided a summary of the event in its October 3, 2005 issue:

Unconfirmed reports--that is, rumors-- making the rounds in European aerospace industry circles contend that Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons, temporarily operating from Nellis AFB, Nev., were able to pick up U.S. Air Force F/A-22s on their radars, stealth notwithstanding. Similar reports appeared during the 1991 Iraq war concerning the ability of British ships, using large radar arrays, to detect the F-117 and, in later conflicts, the B-2. U.S. officials confirm that the Typhoons were at Nellis to fly with the 422nd Test & Evaluation Sqdn. However, they discount that the Typhoons had seen an F/A-22 in full-configuration stealth. First, they say, the Typhoons and F/A-22s were never in the air at the same time. Second, the F/A-22s always have an enhanced signature for positive air control, except when they go to war or when the range has been cleared for F/A-22-only operations"

Other unclassified sources offered details on the Raptor’s supercruise abilities. Then-Air Force Chief of Staff General John Jumper alluded to the jet’s performance after a 2005 flight:

"Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners," General Jumper said. "To be able to go that fast without afterburners means that nobody can get you in their sights or get a lock-on. The aircraft’s impressive stealth capability, combined with its super cruise (capability), will give any adversary a very hard time."

An F-22 pilot at Langley AFB, Virginia was even more revealing. As he told Defense Daily in February of last year:

Raptor pilots are cleared to fly the aircraft up to Mach 2.0 and altitudes up to 50,000 feet, he said.

"To be able to operate at those altitudes at milpower is not something I am used to in an Eagle," he said.

This combination of speed and altitude offers advantages when firing one of the F-22's complement of air-to-air missiles, such as Raytheon's [RTN] AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), against an opponent, he said.

"If I am at 50,000 feet and going Mach 2, that AMRAAM loves that. It will go forever and it will give [the missile] increased endgame energy," he said.

Other open-source publications suggest that the Raptor can operate at altitudes approaching 65,000 feet.

For virtually every example cited by the OPSEC study, it was possible—with only a little effort—to find other sources that provided as much (if not more) information on questions addressed by the F-22 pilot in the on-line forum.

And, that doesn’t account for intelligence gathering by our adversaries. In some cases (say Dozer’s comments about F-22s pulling alert at Langley), such claims could be confirmed by spy satellites, which could spot aircraft configured for alert duty.

The same holds true for assessments on the Raptor’s various external features. The aircraft has appeared at numerous airshows that are open to the public, with ample opportunities for close-up photography. U.S. intelligence agencies have devoted considerable resources to such collection efforts in the past; there is no reason to believe that our adversaries don’t engage in similar efforts, using hand-held photos, along with classified data, to determine the capabilities and performance features of American aircraft.

So, if much of the information discussed by Dozer on-line was already available in other sources, why did four government agencies devote considerable time (and effort) to their OPSEC study?

For one thing, it’s their job. Ferreting out security threats in cyberspace represents a growth industry, particularly for organizations like the AFOSI and NCIS. The F-22 incident could be used to justify greater on-line surveillance of military personnel and IT systems—and the budgets needed to support that mission.

Secondly, there is little doubt that web sites, chat rooms and discussion boards represent a security risk. Sometimes, the simple confirmation of a bit of data can save time and money for hostile intelligence powers, or allow them to focus collection on higher-priority targets. "Waaay too many spies on this forum," observed one poster, questioning the disclosure of F-22 information on the discussion board.

But the Raptor case also highlights the conundrum facing the Air Force and other military organizations in the information age. While the service can limit or block internet access on its own systems, personnel can still access—and participate--in blogs, chat rooms, message boards and other forums from computers at home, in libraries or other locations.

Faced with that reality, the USAF has imposed even tighter information restrictions. Last month, the service began blocking virtually all websites with "blog" or "blogspot" in their URL. The service maintains that blogs are not legitimate news outlets, and shouldn’t be available to airmen at work.

By comparison, the U.S. Army takes a slightly more liberal approach, allowing soldiers to blog, but mandating that commanders approve their posts before publication. However, the Army has also banned access to many blogs and other websites through its computer systems.

While the military has long maintained that individual blogs and other internet venues pose a security risk, that claim runs counter to the Pentagon’s own data. Last August, Noah Shachtman of the defense site The Danger Room published results of an Army OPSEC audit, which revealed that official military sites pose a far greater security threat than blogs:

The audits, performed by the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell between January 2006 and January 2007, found at least 1,813 violations of operational security policy on 878 official military websites. In contrast, the 10-man, Manassas, Virginia, unit discovered 28 breaches, at most, on 594 individual blogs during the same period.

The results were obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, after the digital rights group filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.

Against that backdrop, opponents argue, the military needs a more coherent policy on internet activity and information sharing. As illustrated by the case of the F-22 pilot, members of the armed forces will inevitably find a way to blog, or share their thoughts on-line, regardless of "official restrictions" or other forms of discouragement.

Rather than trying to deflect the information tsunami, critics say it might be easier for the military to set realistic guidelines for on-line activity, and train personnel to required standards.

Patches Flies On

"Patches" on the ramp at a base in Southwest Asia. Forty years after the C-130's hair-raising flight into Khe Sahn, the airlifter still flies combat missions (USAF photo).

Forty years ago this month, soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Calvary linked up with Marines at Khe Sahn, ending the 77-day siege of the U.S. base (and with it) one of the epic battles of the Vietnam War.

While much has been written about Khe Sahn, the strategy and goals of North Vietnamese forces remain something of a mystery. Launched at the same time as the Tet Offensive, the operation at Khe Sahn tied up thousands of enemy troops--units that could have been used for other attacks across South Vietnam.

Some retired generals and military historians believe the siege was nothing more than a diversionary feint, forcing American commanders to pour resources into the battle. Others claim it was a legitimate attempt to inflict a crushing defeat on U.S. forces, along the lines of the French debacle at Dien Bien Phu. The "riddle of Khe Sahn" will remain unresolved until historians gain full access to the archives of the Hanoi government, something that probably won't happen in our lifetime.

Whatever North Vietnam's intentions might have been, the siege became a testament to the resolve, determination and bravery of the Marine garrison--and those who supported them. The Marines at Khe Sahn dug in and defended their base tenaciously, despite near-constant bombardment by enemy mortars and artillery. Attack jets and heavy bombers flew hundreds of sorties, pounding North Vietnamese positions around Khe Sahn. Helicopter and transport crews risked their lives to resupply the installation and evacuate the wounded. According to one Air Force estimate, airlift crews delivered more than 15,000 tons of supplies to Khe Sahn, running a gauntlet of concentrated enemy fire.

At least one veteran of the siege is still on active duty, five decades after the battle ended. Known by the nickname "Patches," this particular warrior is a C-130E transport, tail number 62-1817. She recently arrived in another combat zone, pulling duty with the 746th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron in Southwest Asia:

"She's a great lady," said Lt Col Daniel Tulley, 746th EAS commander. "I've seen a picture of her at Air Mobility Command headquarters at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, and it was interesting to read about her crew's contribution to history. I'm proud to have her on our ramp."

The "contribution" mentioned by Lt Col Tulley occurred during a run to Khe Sahn, on 5 February 1968. "Patches" was carrying a load of badly needed ammunition, but weather conditions at the besieged base were at flight minimums. Still, the aircraft navigator, Maj Gerald Johnson, believed he could find the runway with an airborne approach radar. His aircraft commander, Lt Col Howard Dallman, elected to press on with the mission. Dallman was a highly experienced pilot, a veteran of more than 40 combat missions during World War II.

Lt Col Dallman and his crew would need all of their skills to survive their flight into Khe Sahn. John Frisbee recounted their valiant mission in a July 1989 article for Air Force magazine:

"..At a sweaty 300 feet they broke out of the overcast, the strip directly ahead. Then as the C-130 ground and bucked to a stop, the big bird was hit by a shell that ignited ammunition boxes in the cargo compartment. Johnson and loadmaster SSgt. Wade Green immediately began fighting the fire, assisted by Behnke, who had called the tower for a fire truck, and flight engineer SSgt. Charles Brault.

Seventeen tons of ammunition could explode at any moment, closing the runway and flattening the built-up area of Khe Sanh, with many casualties. Dallman began backing the Hercules to a safer area at the far end of the runway, where the five-man crew, with help from the fire truck, finally extinguished the fire and helped offload still-smoking ammo boxes.

All was not yet over. As the last pallet of ammunition was unloaded, one of the tires was blown by a sniper's bullet, and a mortar attack bracketed the C-130. Dallman told the crew to leave the plane, which was drawing most of the fire, but every man remained with the aircraft as it was towed for a short distance, then taxied to a maintenance area. There Brault repaired an aircraft jack and managed to change the damaged wheel, all the time under fire from mortars, rockets, artillery, and heavy machine guns.

While the wheel was being changed, Dallman agreed to fly a Marine corporal and his out-of-commission bulldozer back to Da Nang. The 'dozer was loaded and the aircraft positioned for takeoff when one engine, which had ingested debris from an exploding mortar round, quit. The 20,000-pound bulldozer and a disappointed corporal were unloaded and Dallman left the bird to get permission for a three-engine takeoff. In the 10 minutes it took to get clearance from Airlift Control Center, Behnke and Brault got the fourth engine started. Dallman sprinted back to the C-130 as Behnke, a qualified aircraft commander, opened the throttles for takeoff. The Herk was hit again as it took off, but without serious damage. Dallman and his crew had saved a valuable transport plane, delivered a load of ammunition to the surrounded Marines, and prevented major damage to a battered outpost.

For his heroism and leadership, Lt Col Dallman received the Air Force Cross--the first airlift pilot to win that honor; the rest of his crew received Silver Stars. Patches was repaired and soldiered on, serving with a number of units through the years. At the time of its most recent deployment, the venerable "Herk" was assigned to Pope AFB, North Carolina. One crew chief from Pope reports that he has deployed with "Patches" at least three times.

Like everyone who flew C-130s, I have a soft spot for the old war bird. Closing my eyes, I can still feel the rumble of those Allison turboprops vibrating through the fuselage. There was something reassuring about that sound--and the knowledge that you were flying a great airplane, built to bring the crew home time and time again.