Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Key military network operating system made by company with Ptech ties

Edit­ed on Sun Jan-21–07 09:53 PM by ftr23532

Here’s the gist of this post: the Pen­ta­gon is cur­rent­ly throw­ing bil­lions of dol­lars into its vision­ary Future Com­bat Sys­tems net­work (FCS). This is going to the the net­work that allows all of the mil­i­tary sys­tems of the future to com­mu­ni­cat­ed and coor­di­nate, includ­ing remote­ly con­trolled drones that will patrol the streets of tomor­row’s urban war­fare night­mare envi­ron­ments.

It appears that the com­pa­ny cho­sen to pro­vide the embed­ded oper­at­ing sys­tem for the vital “com­mand, con­trol, com­mu­ni­ca­tions, com­put­ing, intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and recon­nais­sance” (C4ISR) infra­struc­ture used across all FCS plat­forms had (and pos­si­bly still has) Yaqcub Mirza on its board. And Yaqcub Mirza just hap­pens to be the guy that set up the Saudi/Muslim Broth­er­hood’s SAAR net­work that was raid­ed in the Oper­a­tion Green­quest raids of 2002 AND sat on the board of Ptech. Frig­gin’ won­der­ful.

Here’s an overview of the Future Com­bat Sys­tems indi­cates how crit­i­cal C4ISR is to the whole sys­tem:

FCS Overview

The Army’s Future Com­bat Sys­tems (FCS) net­work allows the FCS Fam­i­ly-of-Sys­tems (FoS) to oper­ate as a cohe­sive sys­tem-of-sys­tems where the whole of its capa­bil­i­ties is greater than the sum of its parts. As the key to the Army’s trans­for­ma­tion, the net­work, and its logis­tics and Embed­ded Train­ing (ET) sys­tems, enable the Future Force to employ rev­o­lu­tion­ary oper­a­tional and orga­ni­za­tion­al con­cepts. The net­work enables Sol­diers to per­ceive, com­pre­hend, shape, and dom­i­nate the future bat­tle­field at unprece­dent­ed lev­els as defined by the FCS Oper­a­tional Require­ments Doc­u­ment (ORD).

The FCS net­work con­sists of four over­ar­ch­ing build­ing blocks: Sys­tem-of-Sys­tems Com­mon Oper­at­ing Envi­ron­ment (SOSCOE); Bat­tle Com­mand (BC) soft­ware; com­mu­ni­ca­tions and com­put­ers (CC); and intel­li­gence, recon­nais­sance and sur­veil­lance (ISR) sys­tems. The four build­ing blocks syn­er­gis­ti­cal­ly inter­act enabling the Future Force to see first, under­stand first, act first and fin­ish deci­sive­ly.


Com­mu­ni­ca­tions and Com­put­ers (CC) Sys­tems

The FCS Fam­i­ly-of-Sys­tems (FoS) are con­nect­ed to the com­mand, con­trol, com­mu­ni­ca­tions, com­put­ers, intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and recon­nais­sance (C4ISR) net­work by a mul­ti­lay­ered Com­mu­ni­ca­tions and Com­put­ers (CC) net­work with unprece­dent­ed range, capac­i­ty and depend­abil­i­ty. The Com­mu­ni­ca­tions and Com­put­ers (CC) net­work pro­vides secure, reli­able access to infor­ma­tion sources over extend­ed dis­tances and com­plex ter­rain. The net­work will sup­port advanced func­tion­al­i­ties such as inte­grat­ed net­work man­age­ment, infor­ma­tion assur­ance and infor­ma­tion dis­sem­i­na­tion man­age­ment to ensure dis­sem­i­na­tion of crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion among sen­sors, proces­sors and warfight­ers both with­in, and exter­nal to the FCS-equipped orga­ni­za­tion.

The Com­mu­ni­ca­tions and Com­put­ers (CC) net­work does not rely on a large and sep­a­rate infra­struc­ture because it is pri­mar­i­ly embed­ded in the mobile plat­forms and moves with the com­bat for­ma­tions. This enables the com­mand, con­trol, com­mu­ni­ca­tions, com­put­ers, intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance, and recon­nais­sance (C4ISR) net­work to pro­vide supe­ri­or Bat­tle Com­mand (BC) on the move to achieve offen­sive-ori­ent­ed, high-tem­po oper­a­tions.


Net­worked Logis­tics Sys­tems

The key to the suc­cess of the FCS is the Net­worked Logis­tics Sys­tems inte­grat­ed through the Fam­i­ly-of-Sys­tems (FOS) to achieve the logis­tics goals of reduc­ing the logis­tics foot­print, enhanc­ing deploy­a­bil­i­ty, increas­ing oper­a­tional avail­abil­i­ty, and reduc­ing total own­er­ship costs. These crit­i­cal pro­gram goals are includ­ed in the two logis­tics Key Per­for­mance Para­me­ters (KPP), KPP 4 (Transportability/Deployability) and KPP 5 (Sustainability/Reliability). Inher­ent to meet­ing these KPPs is the inte­gra­tion of logis­tics in the com­mand, con­trol, com­mu­ni­ca­tions, com­put­ers, intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and recon­nais­sance (C4ISR) net­work pri­mar­i­ly through the Plat­form-Sol­dier Mis­sion Readi­ness Sys­tem (PSMRS) and the Logis­tics Deci­sion Sup­port Sys­tem (LDSS). These sys­tems pro­vide unprece­dent­ed logis­tics infor­ma­tion and deci­sion tools to the com­man­ders and logis­ti­cians by enabling the dis­tri­b­u­tion sys­tem to deliv­er the right stuff to the right place at the right time. The net­worked logis­tics is fur­ther enabled by the demand reduc­tion tech­nolo­gies designed into the Sys­tem of Sys­tems. Increased Reli­a­bil­i­ty Avail­abil­i­ty Main­tain­abil­i­ty — Test (RAM‑T) goals and imple­ment­ing a Per­for­mance Based Logis­tics (PBL) sup­port con­cept through exten­sive up front sys­tems engi­neer­ing efforts will result in increased Oper­a­tional Avail­abil­i­ty and sig­nif­i­cant decreas­es in both parts and main­te­nance per­son­nel while gen­er­at­ing increased com­bat pow­er for the Sol­diers.

So guess who got the con­tract to pro­vide the C4ISR sys­tem:

Lynux­Works Select­ed as Embed­ded Oper­at­ing Sys­tem Ven­dor for Army’s Future Com­bat Sys­tems Pro­gram

SAN JOSÉ, Calif., April 11, 2005—LynuxWorks™ Inc. today announced it was cho­sen as the embed­ded oper­at­ing sys­tem ven­dor by Gen­er­al Dynam­ics Advanced Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems for the U.S. Army’s Future Com­bat Sys­tems (FCS) pro­gram’s Inte­grat­ed Com­put­er Sys­tem (ICS). Under terms of the con­tract, Lynux­Works’ Linux®-compatible Lynx­OS-178® safe­ty-crit­i­cal real-time oper­at­ing sys­tem (RTOS) will be used to meet the per­for­mance and reli­a­bil­i­ty needs of the FCS, a fam­i­ly of advanced, net­worked air- and ground-based mil­i­tary sys­tems for use by the Army’s Future Force.

As the com­mand, con­trol, com­mu­ni­ca­tions, com­put­ing, intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and recon­nais­sance (C4ISR) infra­struc­ture used across all FCS plat­forms, Gen­er­al Dynam­ics’ ICS will pro­vide com­put­er pro­cess­ing, net­work­ing, infor­ma­tion assur­ance, and data stor­age resources nec­es­sary to sup­port the net­work-cen­tric oper­a­tions of FCS.

Now, look­ing at the Lynux­Works web­site there’s no ref­er­ence to Yuqub Mirza, although, on a side note, for­mer GOP VA gov­er­nor James Gilmore sits on its tech­ni­cal advi­so­ry board. But it turns out that one of the investors in Lynux­works was the Her­don VA-based Ster­ling Man­age­ment Group (SMG), and the Pres­i­dent and CEO of the SMG is Yaqub Mirza. Here’s an SEC fil­ing from 2000 for Lynux­Works (for­mer­ly known as “Lynx Real Time Sys­tems”) that lists “Ster­ling Lynux Group” as one of the own­ers and Yuqub Mirza as a direc­tor. Accord­ing to this site, Yacub Mirza might pos­si­bly still sit on Lynux­Work­s’s board. And here’s anoth­er com­pa­ny, PocketPass.com that has both Mirza and Lynux Chair­man Inder Singh of its board of direc­tors. The two appar­ent­ly put financed the crea
tion of Pock­et­Pass back in 1999, so the two appear to have more than just a casu­al busi­ness rela­tion­ship.

And as men­tioned above, Yacub Mirza also just hap­pens to be both a financier of Ptech (along with accused al-Qae­da financier Yassin al-Qadi) and a Ptech board mem­ber. And for those inter­est­ed, here is some info on Oper­a­tion Green­quest, the SAAR net­work and its ties to Grover Norquist, here is some info on Yassin al-Qadi and obstruc­tion of inves­ti­ga­tions into him (skip down the to the “Oper­a­tion Vul­gar Betray­al” stuff).

To make mat­ters worse, it appears that Ptech was involved with the mil­i­tary’s C4ISR sys­tem:


Mil­i­tary Infor­ma­tion Archi­tec­ture Accel­er­a­tor (MIAA)

The Ptech Frame­Work™ Mil­i­tary Infor­ma­tion Archi­tec­ture Accel­er­a­tor enables mil­i­tary infor­ma­tion archi­tects and deci­sion mak­ers to cre­ate a com­pre­hen­sive, con­cor­dant con­text for plan­ning and man­ag­ing change in the infor­ma­tion-relat­ed capa­bil­i­ties that are crit­i­cal to the suc­cess of mil­i­tary oper­a­tions and enter­pris­es. With domain-spe­cif­ic meta­mod­els based on con­cepts and behav­ior rules adapt­ed from the DoD C4ISR Archi­tec­ture Frame­work, the CADM, and oper­a­tional expe­ri­ence, the MIAA cre­ates and auto­mat­i­cal­ly enforces a con­sis­tent tax­on­o­my (arti­facts, inter­re­la­tion­ships and rules) through­out all oper­a­tional, sys­tem, and tech­ni­cal view prod­ucts. The MIAA also incor­po­rates the abil­i­ty to orga­nize archi­tec­ture data accord­ing to Zach­man, Boer and oth­er archi­tec­ture frame­works, and pro­vides file-based inter­faces to the Joint C4ISR Archi­tec­ture Plan­ning Sys­tem (JCAPS) and pow­er­ful dis­crete event sim­u­la­tion capa­bil­i­ty (Design/CPN).

Who knows what, if any, sig­nif­i­cance this all has, but con­sid­er­ing the Ptech inves­ti­ga­tion just kind of died (along with the Oper­a­tion Green­quest inves­ti­ga­tion) after being obstruct­ed by the FBI in the first place and now it’s appar­ent­ly mak­ing mon­ey pri­mar­i­ly by licens­ing its soft­ware to oth­er com­pa­nies, one won­ders what involve­ment the Ptech soft­ware and/or Mus­lim Broth­er­hood-relat­ed indi­vid­u­als might have with this grand vision for the future of war­fare.


One comment for “Key military network operating system made by company with Ptech ties”

  1. I think Skynet just drooled:

    New drone has no pilot any­where, so who’s account­able?
    The Navy is test­ing an autonomous plane that will land on an air­craft car­ri­er. The prospect of heav­i­ly armed air­craft scream­ing through the skies with­out direct human con­trol is unnerv­ing to many.

    By W.J. Hen­ni­gan, Los Ange­les Times

    Jan­u­ary 26, 2012
    The Navy’s new drone being test­ed near Chesa­peake Bay stretch­es the bound­aries of tech­nol­o­gy: It’s designed to land on the deck of an air­craft car­ri­er, one of avi­a­tion’s most dif­fi­cult maneu­vers.

    What’s even more remark­able is that it will do that not only with­out a pilot in the cock­pit, but with­out a pilot at all.

    The X‑47B marks a par­a­digm shift in war­fare, one that is like­ly to have far-reach­ing con­se­quences. With the drone’s abil­i­ty to be flown autonomous­ly by onboard com­put­ers, it could ush­er in an era when death and destruc­tion can be dealt by machines oper­at­ing semi-inde­pen­dent­ly.

    Although humans would pro­gram an autonomous drone’s flight plan and could over­ride its deci­sions, the prospect of heav­i­ly armed air­craft scream­ing through the skies with­out direct human con­trol is unnerv­ing to many.

    “Lethal actions should have a clear chain of account­abil­i­ty,” said Noel Sharkey, a com­put­er sci­en­tist and robot­ics expert. “This is dif­fi­cult with a robot weapon. The robot can­not be held account­able. So is it the com­man­der who used it? The politi­cian who autho­rized it? The mil­i­tary’s acqui­si­tion process? The man­u­fac­tur­er, for faulty equip­ment?”

    Sharkey and oth­ers believe that autonomous armed robots should force the kind of dia­logue that fol­lowed the intro­duc­tion of mus­tard gas in World War I and the devel­op­ment of atom­ic weapons in World War II. The Inter­na­tion­al Com­mit­tee of the Red Cross, the group tasked by the Gene­va Con­ven­tions to pro­tect vic­tims in armed con­flict, is already exam­in­ing the issue.

    “The deploy­ment of such sys­tems would reflect … a major qual­i­ta­tive change in the con­duct of hos­til­i­ties,” com­mit­tee Pres­i­dent Jakob Kel­len­berg­er said at a recent con­fer­ence. “The capac­i­ty to dis­crim­i­nate, as required by [inter­na­tion­al human­i­tar­i­an law], will depend entire­ly on the qual­i­ty and vari­ety of sen­sors and pro­gram­ming employed with­in the sys­tem.”

    Weapons spe­cial­ists in the mil­i­tary and Con­gress acknowl­edge that pol­i­cy­mak­ers must deal with these eth­i­cal ques­tions long before these lethal autonomous drones go into active ser­vice, which may be a decade or more away.

    Rep. Hen­ry Cuel­lar (D‑Texas) said pol­i­cy prob­a­bly will first be dis­cussed with the bipar­ti­san drone cau­cus that he co-chairs with Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McK­eon (R‑Santa Clari­ta). Offi­cial­ly known as the Con­gres­sion­al Unmanned Sys­tems Cau­cus, the pan­el was formed in 2009 to inform mem­bers of Con­gress on the far-reach­ing appli­ca­tions of drone tech­nol­o­gy.

    “It’s a dif­fer­ent world from just a few years ago — we’ve entered the realm of sci­ence fic­tion in a lot of ways,” Cuel­lar said. “New rules have to be devel­oped as new tech­nol­o­gy comes about, and this is a big step for­ward.”

    There is no plan by the U.S. mil­i­tary — at least in the near term — to turn over the killing of ene­my com­bat­ants to the X‑47B or any oth­er autonomous fly­ing machine. But the Air Force said in the “Flight Plan” that it’s only a mat­ter of time before drones have the capa­bil­i­ty to make life-or-death deci­sions as they cir­cle the bat­tle­field. Even so, the report notes that offi­cials will still mon­i­tor how these drones are being used.

    “Increas­ing­ly humans will no longer be ‘in the loop’ but rather ‘on the loop’ — mon­i­tor­ing the exe­cu­tion of cer­tain deci­sions,” the report said. “Autho­riz­ing a machine to make lethal com­bat deci­sions is con­tin­gent upon polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary lead­ers resolv­ing legal and eth­i­cal ques­tions.”

    Peter W. Singer, author of “Wired for War,” a book about robot­ic war­fare, said auto­mat­ed mil­i­tary tar­get­ing sys­tems are under devel­op­ment. But before autonomous aer­i­al drones are sent on seek-and-destroy mis­sions, he said, the mil­i­tary must first prove that it can pull off sim­pler tasks, such as refu­el­ing and recon­nais­sance mis­sions.

    That’s where the X‑47B comes in.

    “Like it or not, auton­o­my is the future,” Singer said. “The X‑47 is one of many pro­grams that aim to per­fect the tech­nol­o­gy.”

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 26, 2012, 3:02 pm

Post a comment