War Developing and Upcoming Military Technology - Something new at least 3 times a week.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
So, Yesterday was an exciting day for our floating friends.

So, let's jump right into the news then:
Expeditionary Fast Transport Undergoes First Fast-Tracked Integrated Sea Trials
USNI said:
In a move designed to hasten the speed of Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transports (EPFs) joining the fleet, the shipbuilder completed a first-ever integrated builder’s and acceptance trials at sea for the future USNS Puerto Rico (T-EPF-11).

Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 3.43.33 AM.png

Conducting integrated trials enabled builder Austal USA to demonstrate to the Navy Puerto Rico’s operational capability and mission readiness of all ship systems during a single two-day underway, according to the Navy.

Puerto Rico is one of the last EPFs being built by Austal. The future USNS Newport (T-EPF-12) is under construction at the Austal USA yard in Mobile, Ala. Two more, the future USNS Apalachicola (T-EPF-13) and the yet-unnamed EPF-14, are on contract with the yard. Total orders for the class are worth more than $2 billion, according to the company’s financial statements.

Navy officials have previously stated that their shift to a Distributed Maritime Operations concept relies on having more smaller ships, such as the EPF, which can fulfill several missions.

EPFs such as Puerto Rico will have a crew of 26 civilian mariners. With airline-style seating, an EPF can carry 312 troops for intratheater lift.

“The EPF program continues to be an example of stable and successful serial ship production,” Capt. Scot Searles, the Strategic and Theater Sealift program manager within the Program Executive Office for Ships, said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing EPF-11 deliver in the fall and expand the operational flexibility available to our combatant commanders.”

Though the EPF line as it stands today may be coming to an end, the company has made a pitch for the Navy to consider using the hull as an ambulance ship. The Navy included in its Fiscal Year 2020 unfunded priorities list a request for $49 million to convert the last ship on contract, EPF-14, into an Expeditionary Medical Transport through an engineering change proposal to the contract with Austal.
USNI are good guys, do good work.

Further reading related to headline:
UPI said:
Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 3.48.39 AM.png
Aug. 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Navy's Expeditionary Fast Transport ship USNS Puerto Rico finished its first integrated sea trials after two days in the Gulf of Mexico.

The ship, designated EPF 11, completed its trials on August 22, and then returned to the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala., where it was built, the Naval Sea Systems Command announced on Friday.

Integrated trials combine builder's and acceptance trials, allowing a demonstration of the ship's operational capability and mission readiness to the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey.

"The EPF program continues to be an example of stable and successful serial ship production," Capt. Scot Searles, Strategic and Theater Sealift program manager, Program Executive Office Ships, said in a press release. "I look forward to seeing EPF 11 deliver in the fall and expand the operational flexibility available to our combatant commanders."

The USNS Puerto Rico is a non-combatant vessel designed to operate in shallow-draft ports and waterways.

The Spearhead-class of EPF ships specializes in versatility, with operational flexibility for a wide range of activities including maneuver and sustainment, relief operations in small or damaged ports, flexible logistics support, and rapid transport. The ships are capable of carrying vehicles including a fully combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tank.

The Puerto Rico is the 11th Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport and after its commissioning will be operated by the Military Sealift Command.
Defense Blog said:
Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 3.51.59 AM.png
Austal shipyard has announced that the U.S. Navy newest Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF ) ship, the future USNS Puerto Rico (EPF11), has successfully completed acceptance trials.

The shipyard reported that acceptance trials, conducted in the Gulf of Mexico, were unique in that they integrated formal Builder’s Trials with Acceptance Trials for the first time on an EPF vessel.

“By combining the two at-sea trials into one event, there are great efficiencies gained, enabling reduced costs and a shorter completion schedule,” according to Austal.


Austal CEO David Singleton congratulated Austal USA for achieving this critical program milestone.

“The future USNS Puerto Rico successfully completed and passed all tests – a clean sweep – and returned from sea earlier than scheduled, a testament to the effort and expertise of Austal USA’s professional shipbuilding team and the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV),” he said.

“These trials involved the execution of intense, comprehensive testing by the Austal-led industry team while underway, which demonstrated to the U.S. Navy the successful operation of the ship’s major systems and equipment. Sea trials are the last milestone before delivery of the ship. The future USNS Puerto Rico is scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Navy before the end of the year and is the eleventh Spearhead Class ship in Austal’s 14-ship EPF portfolio.

“The flexibility and versatility of the EPF is becoming increasingly evident. From serving as a mother ship to test unmanned aerial and undersea systems in the Atlantic to performing as command ships in Pacific Partnership 2019 (an exercise that includes more than 500 military and civilian personnel from more than 10 nations), the EPF fleet is proving to be a great asset to the future 355-ship US Navy,” Mr Singleton said.

Austal’s EPF program is mature with ten ships delivered and three more under construction in Mobile, Alabama, in addition to the future USS Puerto Rico. The Spearhead-class EPF is currently providing high-speed, high-payload transport capability to fleet and combatant commanders.

The EPF’s large, open mission deck and large habitability spaces provide the opportunity to conduct a wide range of missions from engagement and humanitarian assistance or disaster relief missions, to the possibility of supporting a range of future missions including special operations support, command and control, and medical support operations. With its ability to access austere and degraded ports with minimal external assistance, the EPF provides unique options to fleet and combatant commanders.

According to the Navy, the ships are capable of operating in shallow-draft ports and waterways, interfacing with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities and on/off-loading a combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tank (M1A2). The EPF includes a flight deck for helicopter operations and an off-load ramp that allow vehicles to quickly drive off the ship. The ramp is suitable for the types of austere piers and quay walls common in developing countries. The ship’s shallow draft (under 15 feet) will further enhance littoral operations and port access. This makes the EPF an extremely flexible asset for support of a wide range of operations including maneuver and sustainment, relief operations in small or damaged ports, flexible logistics support or as the key enabler for rapid transport.

In addition to the EPF program, Austal has also received contracts for 19 Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) for the U.S. Navy. Ten LCS have been delivered, five ships are in various stages of construction and four are yet to start construction.
Further reading about the Spearhead-Class:



U.S. Navy awards General Dynamics with $1.6 billion contract for newest expeditionary ships
Defense Blog said:
Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 3.58.39 AM.png
General Dynamics NASSCO, a business unit of General Dynamics, was awarded a contract from the U.S. U.S. Navy for newest expeditionary ships as part of Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) program.

The contract, announced by the Department of Defense, is worth more than $1.6 billion and covers the construction of the sixth and seventh ships of the ESB program, as well as an option for ESB 8.

“We are pleased to be building ESB 6 and 7 for our Navy,” said Kevin Graney, president of General Dynamics NASSCO. “ESBs have proven to be affordable and flexible, and as the fleet has gained experience with the platform, we have worked with the Navy and Marines to develop even more capabilities and mission sets.”

According to General Dynamics, named after famous names or places of historical significance to U.S. Marines, ESBs serve as a flexible platform and a key element in the Navy’s airborne mine countermeasures mission, with accommodations for up to 250 personnel and a large helicopter flight deck. The ship’s configuration supports special warfare and Marine Corps task-organized units.

Work on the two new ships of the ESB program is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2020 and continue to the second quarter of 2023, providing the opportunity to sustain and grow the workforce along San Diego’s working waterfront. NASSCO’s unique location along the historic San Diego Bay provides shipbuilders and skilled tradespeople with unparalleled access to the nation’s leading maritime support businesses, and highly-trained employees allow NASSCO to build and repair some of the world’s greatest ships in the most efficient manner possible.

In 2011, the Navy awarded NASSCO with a contract to design and build the first two ships in the newly created MLP program, the USNS Montford Point and USNS John Glenn. The program expanded with three more vessels, the USS Lewis B. Puller, USNS Hershel “Woody” Williams and the Miguel Keith, configured as ESBs. Following the delivery of the first four ships to the U.S. Navy, the fifth ship, the Miguel Keith, is scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Further reading related to headline:
UPI said:
GenDyn to build two Expeditionary Sea Base ships under $1B contract
Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 4.00.45 AM.png

Aug. 26 (UPI) -- General Dynamics will build two ships for the U.S. Navy under a $1.08 billion contract announced by the Defense Department.

The company's National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. subsidiary, headquartered in San Diego, will build the sixth and seventh ships in the Navy's Expeditionary Sea Base program, the Pentagon announced on Friday. The deal includes an option to build an eighth ship, which would push the contract's value to $1.63 billion.

The vessels are regarded as seagoing platforms used across a broad range of military operations supporting multiple operational phases.

"ESBs have proven to be affordable and flexible," Kevin Graney, president of General Dynamics NASSCO, said in a press release. "As the fleet has gained experience with the platform, we have worked with the Navy and Marines to develop even more capabilities and mission sets."

Acting as a mobile sea base, the ships, originally called Mobile Landing Platform Afloat Forward Staging Bases, are part of the critical access infrastructure to support deployment of forces and supplies. Their design is modeled after Alaska-class crude oil carriers, another General Dynamics NASSCO product.

The first two ships in the program were started in 2011. The USNS Montford Point was launched in 2012, and the USNS John Glenn was launched in 2013.

The contract announced on Friday is a fixed-price-incentive modification to a prior contract. Most of the work will be performed in San Diego, with January 2025 targeted as the completion date.
Further reading on the Expeditionary Sea Base ships:

U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Kimball returns to homeport after final sea trials
Defense Blog said:
Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 4.07.16 AM.png
Coast Guard Cutter Kimball (WMSL 756) returns to its homeport in Honolulu after conducting final sea trials near Hawaii Aug. 20, 2019.

According to U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area, Kimball, the seventh National Security Cutter built for the Coast Guard, is scheduled for a unique dual-commissioning ceremony with Coast Guard Cutter Midgett (WMSL 757), the eighth NSC, at both cutters’ new homeport in Honolulu Aug. 24, 2019.

Known as the Legend-class, national security cutters are capable of executing the most challenging national security missions, including support to U.S. combatant commanders. They are 418 feet in length, 54 feet in beam and 4,600 long tons in displacement.

They have a top speed of more than 28 knots, a range of 12,000 nautical miles, an endurance of up to 90 days and can hold a crew of up to 150. These new cutters are replacing the high endurance Hamilton-class cutters (378 feet) that have been in service since the 1960s.

While national security cutters possess advanced capabilities, over 70 percent of the Coast Guard’s offshore presence exists in the service’s aging fleet of medium endurance cutters. Many of these ships are over 50-years-old and approaching the end of their service life. Replacing the fleet with new offshore patrol cutters is one of the U.S. Coast Guard’s top priorities.

The Kimball’s namesake, Sumner Kimball, served as superintendent of the Revenue Marine, establishing a training school that would later become the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Kimball then was general superintendent of the Life-Saving Service (LSS) from 1878 until the LSS merged with the Revenue Marine to become the U.S. Coast Guard in 1915. The ship’s motto is Lead, Train, and Save.
It is a nice little ship.

Speaking of which:
U.S. Coast Guard commissions two newest national security cutters
Defense Blog said:
The United States Coast Guard commissioned two newest Legend-class national security cutters, during a ceremony in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 24.
Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 4.13.43 AM.png
According to a statement released by U.S. Coast Guard District 14 Hawaii Pacific, the Coast Guard Cutter Kimball (WMSL 756) and the Coast Guard Cutter Midgett (WMSL 757) were ‘brought to life’ during the rare dual-commissioning ceremony at Base Honolulu where the two cutters homeport. The Kimball and Midgett are the seventh and eighth legend-class national security cutters in the Coast Guard’s fleet.

“These national security cutters will continue our 150 years of partnership and commitment to the Pacific region – since September 1849, when Revenue Cutter Lawrence sailed into Honolulu Harbor escorted by Native Hawaiians in outrigger canoes,” said Schultz. “In today’s complex geostrategic environment with rising great power competition, the importance and demand for a strong Coast Guard presence in the Pacific has never been greater.”

The Kimball and Midgett, along with the three fast response cutters also homeported in Honolulu, will further advance the Coast Guard’s longstanding commitment to safeguard the nation’s maritime safety, security, and economic interests through critical deployments across the Indo-Pacific region.

Advanced command-and-control capabilities and an unmatched combination of range, speed and ability to operate in extreme weather enable these ships to confront national security threats, strengthen maritime governance, support economic prosperity, and promote individual sovereignty.

From the Bering Sea and the Arctic to patrolling known drug trafficking zones off Central and South America to working to strengthen the capabilities of our partners across the Indo-Pacific, national security cutters deploy globally to conduct essential Coast Guard missions.

Known as the Legend-class, national security cutters are capable of executing the most challenging national security missions, including support to U.S. combatant commanders. They are 418 feet in length, 54 feet in beam and 4,600 long tons in displacement. They have a top speed of more than 28 knots, a range of 12,000 nautical miles, an endurance of up to 90 days and can hold a crew of up to 150. These new cutters are replacing the high endurance Hamilton-class cutters (378 feet) that have been in service since the 1960s.

The Midgett’s transit to Hawaii was punctuated by two interdictions of suspected low-profile go-fast vessels in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, the first July 25 and a second July 31. The boardings resulted in a combined seizure of over 6,700 pounds of cocaine, estimated to be worth over $89 million.

National security cutters are responsible for 40 percent of the 460,000 pounds of cocaine interdicted by the Coast Guard in the fiscal year 2018. National security cutter crews have interdicted more than 92,000 pounds of cocaine to date in the fiscal year 2019.

Midgett is named to honor all members of the Midgett family who served in the Coast Guard and its predecessor services. At least ten members of the family earned high honors for their heroic life-saving efforts. Among them, the Coast Guard awarded various family members seven gold lifesaving medals, the service’s highest award for saving a life, and three silver lifesaving medals.

The Kimball is the third ship to bear that name, in honor of Sumner Kimball, who served as superintendent of the Revenue Marine and as general superintendent of the Life-Saving Service from 1878 until the two organizations merged in 1915 to become the modern-day U.S. Coast Guard.

“As you take to the seas, you will write the next chapters of the Kimball and Midgett legacies,” said Schultz, addressing the commands and crews of the two cutters. “I charge you with carrying out the operations of these ships in such a manner as to be worthy of the traditions of self-sacrifice, inspirational leadership, and unwavering dedication to duty – traits exemplified by these cutters’ distinguished and storied namesakes.”

Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 4.14.16 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 4.14.07 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 4.13.55 AM.png

Further reading on the Legend-Class:

Low-rate initial production begins for Raytheon Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles
New guidance system has dual mode active and semi-active radar

Raytheon said:
TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 26, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) a $190 million low-rate initial production contract for ESSM Block 2 missiles featuring a new guidance system with a dual mode active and semi-active radar.

This award follows the Navy's decision to shift from development to production on the enhanced intermediate-range, surface-to-air missile, placing the Block 2 variant on track for initial operating capability in 2020.

The ESSM missile is the primary ship self-defense missile aboard Navy aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships. It is an integral component of the Navy's layered area and ship self-defense capability for cruisers and destroyers.

"ESSM plays a critical role in protecting navy sailors worldwide and our international partners share our commitment to evolve this missile," said Dr. Mitch Stevison, Raytheon Strategic and Naval Systems vice president.

ESSM is the foundation of several allied navies' anti-ship missile defense efforts and is operational on almost 200 naval platforms worldwide.

The ESSM program is a cooperative effort managed by a NATO-led consortium comprising 12 nations: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United States.
Further reading on Evolved SeaSparrow Missile Block 2:
TL;DR: Sea Sparrow has its own radar illuminator now.

US Naval News Roundout:
Pentagon’s Investor-Industry Matchmaking Program Will Focus on Small UAS in First Event

USNI said:
THE PENTAGON – The Defense Department’s effort to connect sources of capital with small companies that need investment will begin with a focus on those that design and manufacture small unmanned aerial systems, the Pentagon’s acquisition chief told reporters today.

The Trusted Capital Marketplace, which USNI News first reported on in April, will begin with a first meeting of investors and tech companies in October, Ellen Lord said today in a briefing at the Pentagon.

That meeting will target the small UAS industry sector due to concerns that China currently dominates the market, she said.

“It’s because of where we are right now in terms of having our entire U.S. marketplace eroded, and also because it’s very intuitive – people can understand what these small quadcopters are,” she said when asked why the Trusted Capital Marketplace would kick off with a focus on small UAS.
“So essentially we don’t have much of a small UAS industrial base because (Chinese company) DJI dumped so many low-priced quadcopters on the market and we then became dependent on them, both from the defense point of view and the commercial point of view. And we know that a lot of the information is sent back to China from those, so it is not something that we could use.”

By bringing investors to meet with companies interested in designing and building small fixed-wing or quadcopter UAS in the United States, the American industrial base could regain that capability and, once Defense Department needs are satisfied, potentially compete American drones against Chinese ones on the commercial market.

Since announcing the public-private partnership earlier this year, Lord said a team has stood up to begin managing the vetting requirements for the trusted sources of capital – ensuring that money funding sensitive defense capabilities doesn’t come with ties to China, Russia or other potential adversaries – as well as beginning industry outreach and the industry/capital matching process.

Lord previously thought that DoD might be able to set up a matchmaking website of sorts, where citizens or companies interested in spending money to help shore up gaps in defense capability or capacity could be paired with tech companies working on critical defense needs for which there may not be much potential for profit in the commercial world or who otherwise need a cash infusion to continue working in the defense sector.

Instead, Lord said today, an initial model pointed to a “complicated and expensive website” and caused her team to change plans, instead opting for a series of events around the country instead of working through a website.

Lord said her office already has a list of other topics for tech investment focus areas, and after the October event on small UAS she hoped to have another event with a different focus area in January and then again every few months afterwards.

“The idea is, we do not promise business to any of the businesses that would be there [at these events], but these are areas where we definitely have a strong demand signal,” she said.
“What we’re working on right now is, how we as DoD can invest a little bit in many of these companies as well, so they could be branded as having DoD contracts? We think that would be helpful,” she added.

Additionally, Lord said during her media briefing that the Office of the Secretary of Defense was standing up an “Intellectual Property Cadre” to look at both how to manage intellectual property and data rights between the government and industry and also how to protect IP from China and others who may steal that data. That organization should be formally stood up by October.

“They will develop DoD policy within the whole-of-government effort to address concerns on data rights,” she said.
“[Defense Secretary Mark] Esper, [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo and the president have all spoken about the impact Chinese intellectual property theft is having on our national security, American commerce and our defense industry. Again, we need to go on the offense to protect our technology versus merely acting defensively.”

Despite the urgency of the Chinese theft issue, she said the organization would primarily focus on IP and data rights between the government and the contractors it works with. That continues to be a challenge, as the military services want to own data rights so they can re-compete a program later on, build their own spare parts through additive manufacturing, and so on, while companies want to keep those rights to ensure they make money throughout the life of a program.

“My experience says that typically we have problems with intellectual property when we don’t clearly define what is owned by industry and what will be owned by government at the outset of a program. So a lot of this really has to do with good program planning,” Lord said, adding that the group will leverage work the Army has already done on the topic and seek to establish policy that everyone can live with going forward.

Lord noted that the establishment of an intellectual property cadre was mandated by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act and that her office has been in close contact with Capitol Hill as the group nears being stood up.
Six Major Navy Commands Now Using Cloud-Based System for Financial and Supply Management
USNI said:
THE PENTAGON – Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), the service’s financial and supply chain management system, has migrated to a cloud computing system following a 10-month program replacing a server-based system.

The Navy ERP migration to cloud computing is part of a larger three-year, $100-million effort to upgrade Navy computing systems, James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said during a media briefing last week. The cloud-based Navy ERP gives some 72,000 Navy users better access to data, such as the availability of parts, the status of supplies and the ability to quickly run reports.

“My experience has been, anytime you can increase transparency and ability for users – wherever they are in the system – to get as close to real-time actual data, then that adds efficiencies across the board,” Geurts said.

Since Navy ERP is in the cloud, Geurts said future expansions, upgrades and connections to other Department of Defense systems should be relatively simple to accomplish.

“Now that it’s on a cloud-based system, it gives us tremendous flexibility technically and from a business standpoint for the future – both being important – so we weren’t locked into a particular IT infrastructure or business arrangement,” Geurts said.

The Navy ERP is a Systems, Applications and Products (SAP) high-performance analytic appliance (HANA) cloud-based platform, managed by the Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems’ (PEO EIS) Navy Enterprise Business Solutions program management office. The Navy’s legacy system was a SAP server-based Oracle platform.

Moving to the cloud is an essential step for the Navy to take because it allows the sea service to simplify and modernize its financial reporting process, Thomas Harker, the assistant secretary of the Navy for financial management and comptroller, said during the Friday briefing. Cloud computing helps the commands update data quicker and run reports more frequently.

“For example, there is one we only run on Sundays because the system is not being used, and it would take five or six hours to do; and they can now do that in about 30 minutes, and they’re doing it daily now. So it’s one where that increased accuracy has helped us with operations,” Harker said.

The goal is for all Navy financial systems to consolidate into a single general ledger within the next couple of years. Doing so is essential to producing accurate financial information, obtaining a clean audit opinion and improving the service’s analytics capability.

Six major Navy commands are now using Navy ERP. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP), Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) and the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR, formerly SPAWAR) are all using Navy ERP.

“The magnitude of this accomplishment is incredible,” Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer said in a statement. “The Navy ERP tech refresh is our largest system cloud migration to date and will enhance the performance of our force.”

Geurts said his team initially planned for a 20-month process to build the system and migrate the six major commands. The work was accomplished in 10 months.

“I am proud of the team efforts to accomplish this on an accelerated schedule, cutting the projected timeline nearly in half,” Spencer’s statement said. “The team managed this through innovative approaches to problem solving and close collaboration with integration teams, network engineers and industry partners.”

Putting the ERP in the cloud also adds a layer of protection to the data, Geurts said. The Navy now has only one cloud-based depository of data to protect instead of a myriad of computing hardware.

“I think it is a widely accepted practice, if you can move from many different disparate systems that you’ve got to independently always be checking and protecting and dealing with vulnerabilities and get that into a more coherent single system that reduces the attack surface and allows you to much more efficiently ensure that you’re always keeping that infrastructure safe,” Geurts said.

The process of setting up Navy ERP could prove to be an essential pathway to use in the future as the Navy considers moving other systems to the cloud, Geurts said. For example, the Navy could follow a similar acquisition strategy with the use of small businesses and a similar process used to migrate the data to the cloud. Advanced Solutions Inc., a small-tech firm, is the prime contractor for the Navy ERP migration.

“You’ve heard me talk last year about how we see small businesses having big impacts on the Navy; this is a great example of that,” Geurts said. “Last year we did over $15 billion to small businesses as primes, and this is a great example of a small business as a prime.”
USNI News Fleet and Marine Tracker: Aug. 26, 2019

Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 4.29.55 AM.png
**Warning Format cancer.**
USNI said:
These are the approximate positions of the U.S. Navy’s deployed carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups throughout the world as of Aug. 26, 2019, based on Navy and public data. In cases where a CSG or ARG is conducting disaggregated operations, the chart reflects the location of the capital ship.

Total U.S. Navy Battle Force:
290
Ships Underway
Deployed Ships UnderwayNon-deployed Ships UnderwayTotal Ships Underway
463379
Ships Deployed by Fleet
Fleet Forces3rd Fleet4th Fleet5th Fleet6th Fleet7th FleetTotal
312231556100
In Yokosuka, Japan
5693689.jpg

Chief Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Handling) Reginald Hobson, from San Antonio, signals the landing of a CV-22 Osprey from the Air Force’s 21st Special Operations Squadron on the flight deck aboard the Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) during low-light flight operations on Aug. 22, 2019. US Navy Photo
The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group (CSG) has returned to its homeport of Yokosuka, Japan, after its summer patrol.

Carrier Strike Group 5
5693732.jpg

Capt. Pat Hannifin, the commanding officer of the forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), holds an all-hands call in the hangar bay on Aug. 23, 2019. US Navy Photo
Aircraft carrier
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), homeported in Yokosuka, Japan

Carrier Air Wing 5

5692501.jpg

Aviation Ordnancemen transfer missiles onto a F/A-18E Super Hornet on the flight deck aboard the Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) during flight operations Aug. 22, 2019. US Navy Photo
CVW 5, based at Naval Air Facility Atsugi and Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan, is embarked aboard Ronald Reagan and includes a total of nine squadrons and detachments:

  • The “Royal Maces” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 27 from Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan
  • The “Diamondbacks” of VFA-102 from MCAS Iwakuni, Japan
  • The “Eagles” of VFA-115 from MCAS Iwakuni, Japan
  • The “Dambusters” of VFA-195 from MCAS Iwakuni, Japan
  • The “Shadowhawks” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 141 from MCAS Iwakuni, Japan
  • The “Tiger Tails” of Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 125 from MCAS Iwakuni, Japan
  • The “Providers” of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 30 from Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan
  • The “Golden Falcons” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 12 Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan
  • The “Saberhawks” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 77 from Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan
U.S. 7th Fleet has not named all the escorts for the Reagan CSG, but it includes Japan-based guided-missile cruisers USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and USS Antietam (CG-54).

In the Sea of Japan
5639273.jpg

USS Wasp (LHD-1) transits the Coral Sea on Aug. 1, 2019. US Navy Photo
The Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group is underway between Korea and Japan.

In the Gulf of Aqaba
5689246.jpg

An MH-60S Knight Hawk Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 21 sits on the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD-4) as the ship transits the Red Sea on Aug. 20, 2019. US Navy Photo
The Boxer Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) with 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is in the Gulf of Aqaba.

Amphibious Squadron 5 (PHIBRON 5) is the ARG commander. In addition to the Wasp-class USS Boxer (LHD-4), the ARG also includes Whidbey Island-class USS Harper’s Ferry (LSD-49) and San Antonio-class USS John P. Murtha (LPD-26).

The ARG includes the “Blackjacks” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 21, Assault Craft Unit 5, Naval Beach Group 1, Beachmaster Unit 1, Fleet Surgical Team 5, and Tactical Air Control Squadron 11.

The Camp Pendleton-based 11th MEU comprises Battalion Landing Team 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines; Marine Attack Squadron 214 equipped with AV-8B Harriers; Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 163 (Reinforced); and Combat Logistics Battalion 11.

In the North Arabian Sea
5695082.jpg

Cmdr. Shannon Walker, the supply officer aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), observes an MH-60S Knight Hawk helicopter attached to the “Nightdippers” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 5 transports cargo from the Abraham Lincoln to the fast combat support ship USNS Cesar Chavez (T-AKE-14) during a replenishment-at-sea on Aug. 23, 2019. US Navy Photo
The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group is underway in the North Arabian Sea. Tensions remain high in the area in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

Carrier Strike Group 12
5695070.jpg

Electrician’s Mate (Nuclear) 3rd Class Cameron Neeley helps sort mail by department in the hangar bay of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) during a replenishment-at-sea on Aug. 23, 2019. US Navy Photo
Aircraft carrier
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), homeported in Norfolk, Va. (shifting to San Diego, Calif., upon completion of deployment)

Carrier Air Wing 7

5689333.jpg

An F/A-18E Super Hornet attached to the ‘Pukin’ Dogs’ of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 143 makes an arrested landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) on Aug. 21, 2019. US Navy Photo
CVW 7, based at Naval Air Station Oceana, Va., is embarked aboard Lincoln and includes a total of nine squadrons and detachments:

  • The “Fist of the Fleet” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 25 from Naval Air Station Lemoore, Calif.
  • The “Sidewinders” of VFA-86 from Naval Air Station Lemoore, Calif.
  • The “Jolly Rogers” of VFA-103 from Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.
  • The “Pukin’ Dogs” of VFA-143 from Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.
  • The “Patriots” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 140 from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash.
  • The “Bluetails” of Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 121 from Naval Station Norfolk, Va.
  • The “Rawhides” of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 40 from Naval Station Norfolk, Va.
  • The “Night Dippers” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 5 from Naval Station Norfolk, Va.
  • The “Griffins” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 79 from Naval Air Station North Island, Calif.
Destroyer Squadron 2

5696798.jpg

Aviation Structural Mechanic Airman Danny Alano, assigned to the ‘Grandmasters’ of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 46, inserts a hose into an airbrush to paint aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge (DDG-96) on Aug. 22, 2019. US Navy Photo
The leadership of DESRON 2 is embarked aboard Lincoln and commands the guided-missile destroyers that are operating as part of the CSG.

  • USS Bainbridge (DDG-96), homeported in Norfolk, Va.
  • USS Mason (DDG-87), homeported in Norfolk, Va.
  • USS Nitze (DDG-94), homeported in Norfolk, Va.
  • ESPS Méndez Núñez (F 104), Ferrol Naval Base, Spain
Guided-missile Cruiser

  • USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55), homeported in Norfolk, Va.
In the Western Atlantic
5698580.jpg

Sailors assigned to the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD-5), direct a Landing Craft, Air Cushion into to the ship’s well deck on Aug. 24, 2019. US Navy Photo
The amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD-5) and 26th MEU are conducting an ARG/MEU exercise near Camp Lejeune, N.C. The ARGMEUEX provides essential and realistic ship-to-shore training, designed to enhance the integration of the Navy-Marine Corps team prior to deployment.

5698508.jpg

Sailor directs a T-45C Goshawk training aircraft, assigned to Training Air Wing (TW) 2, as it launches off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) in the Atlantic Ocean on Aug. 23, 2019. US Navy Photo
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) is underway off Jacksonville, Fla., conducting carrier qualifications for pilots in training.

In addition to these major formations, not shown are thousands of others serving in submarines, individual surface ships, aircraft squadrons, SEALs, Special Purpose Marine Air-Gro
 
For large caliber weapon systems the idea is great. For instance: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/1..._40mm_Cased_Telescoped_Cannon_To_British_Army

Telescoping allows much higher energy than would traditionally be available in form factor of that size. It also has a potential to be much lighter pound over pound.

The same applies to small arms technology. Weapon weight is a huge deal for the modern soldier. Especially if you have to hump it over 30 miles of Afghan Mountains.

At the same time, We are going to have to start considering ammunition that is higher powered than the 5.56 as body armor advances in other major powers have started to put into question how lethal a shot to center mass will be.

So, they are testing the platform. If this project works, It will be revolutionary.



All that being said however, I do agree with you. We should have just switched over to a 7.62 round.

Yeah, telescoped ammo has some real advantages. So does caseless. The MP7 was an amazing weapons system, way ahead of anything then. (And prob. way ahead of anything today as well.)

But this kind of weapon system is emblematic of one of the overall problems with the Pentagon.

We’re making billion dollar warships that’ll be up against million dollar missiles.

We’re launching trillion dollar fighters, when the possible opponents make planes that are good enough and cost 50 million.

We’re giving our soldiers 10.000$ guns and ammo that costs a dollars pr round. And they’ll fight guys with 500$ guns and ammo that costs a fraction of ours.

Shit is unsustainable. Especially since military spending have to come down at some point.


(And yeah, obviously we don’t know the price of the weapons system and the telescoped ammo. But if history is a guide to procurements, I’m not that far off.)

Btw: I’m not THAT knowledgeable about the issue... Is the amount of propellant the same in telescoped ammunition?

Or does it use less propellant and is more efficient because of some other factor?

As long as it’s not caseless ammo, wouldn’t the weight be close to the same?
 
The MP7 didn't use a caseless or telescoping round, it was a scaled down version of the regular 5.56, the 4.6x30mm. It was intended to compete with and maybe replace the FN P90. Unfortunately using a bullet that is a more sophisticated hotrod version of a rabbit-hunting round (.17 HMR) isn't so great for dropping tangos. It's still around, I think it's still manufactured, but it goes on the type of mission us plebeians don't hear about.

The HK G11 that was in development from the 60s-90s used a caseless and telescoping ammo, which had a fucking unbelievably complicated clockwork mechanism to feed a rectangular round into the chamber. This causes obvious problems with reliability in the field.

Caseless ammo is great. It's very lightweight, fast-shooting with a flat trajectory, and can be electrically-primed, further reducing weight of your rifle...as long as you keep it completely dry (the powder used is basically pressed into a clay-like material around the bullet and if it gets wet it's fucked), don't subject it to drop damage or other shocks (again, it's a brittle clay), and have a perfectly clean rifle to fire it with.
 
Y
The MP7 didn't use a caseless or telescoping round, it was a scaled down version of the regular 5.56, the 4.6x30mm. It was intended to compete with and maybe replace the FN P90. Unfortunately using a bullet that is a more sophisticated hotrod version of a rabbit-hunting round (.17 HMR) isn't so great for dropping tangos. It's still around, I think it's still manufactured, but it goes on the type of mission us plebeians don't hear about.

The HK G11 that was in development from the 60s-90s used a caseless and telescoping ammo, which had a fucking unbelievably complicated clockwork mechanism to feed a rectangular round into the chamber. This causes obvious problems with reliability in the field.

Caseless ammo is great. It's very lightweight, fast-shooting with a flat trajectory, and can be electrically-primed, further reducing weight of your rifle...as long as you keep it completely dry (the powder used is basically pressed into a clay-like material around the bullet and if it gets wet it's fucked), don't subject it to drop damage or other shocks (again, it's a brittle clay), and have a perfectly clean rifle to fire it with.


Yes, I was about to say, I confused the MP7 with the H&K G11.


Which was an amazing weapon and even today is impresive. The 3 round burst mode shoots 3 projectiles at a speed of 36 shots pr second!

It’s so fast in fact, that the shooter don’t even feel the recoil, until the third round has left the barrel!
 
A quick drop off for right now.


Laser Guided Bombs back in the belly of the B-52
USAF said:
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. --
Laser-Guided Bomb Units, commonly referred to as LGB’s, were dropped from the bomb bay of a B-52 Stratofortress for the first time in nearly a decade during an operational test performed by the 49th Test and Evaluation Squadron here, Aug. 28, 2019.

The munitions used to be dropped from the bomb bay of the jet using a cluster bomb rack system, but the method raised safety concerns and the practice was eliminated.

“We’ve still been able to utilize LGB’s underneath the wings of the B-52, but they don’t do very well when carried externally because they are susceptible to icing and other weather conditions,” said Lt. Col. Joseph Little, 49th TES commander.

According to Little, the seeker head of the LGB can be adversely affected by the elements, potentially reducing its effectiveness.

The advent of the conventional rotary launcher, a bomb bay weapons platform made available to the B-52 fleet in 2017, provides an alternative to the cluster bomb rack system and may once again allow LGB’s to be dropped from inside the jet.

Doing so would keep the weapons protected from the elements, reducing the effects of weather. It also has the potential to increase the jet’s lethality.

“It’s another arrow in the quiver, it gives us the ability to carry more LGB’s on the aircraft or give more variation on a conventional load,” said Little. “It adds capability and is another thing you can bring to the fight.”

Little explained the conventional rotary launcher was not originally designed for gravity-type bombs like the LGB, but recent software upgrades to the system now allow for such munitions.

Getting to the point of operational testing required a team effort between the 49th TES and Reserve Citizen Airmen of the 307th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron. The 307th AMXS took the lead in configuring the conventional rotary launcher to accept the LGB’s.

Staff Sgt. Skyler McCloyn, 307th AMXS aircraft armament systems mechanic, served as the loading team chief for the event.

“It was very cool mission,” said McCloyn. “It is exciting to know you are a part of something that could have a long-term impact.”

Reserve Citizen Airmen's extensive experience contributed greatly to the success of the effort, according to McCloyn.

“When you are doing something for the first time there will always, be kinks,” said McCloyn. “ But the expertise we have from working with so many type of munitions allowed us to adjust and work through those issues without much trouble .”

Little said he appreciated having the breadth and depth of experience offered by the unit.

“The 307th AMXS is on the leading edge of weapons loading and giving the rest of the B-52 maintenance community the data they need for unique scenarios like this,” he said.

Looks like the old bird is getting into a new set of prime years.
 
Sorry for double posting, but eh... it is my own thread.
“Alert 5” said:

“Defense Blog" said:

“USNI” said:

“Defense Post" said:
“DVIDS" said:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ough-taiwan-strait-with-u-s-spy-plane-near-by

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...as-been-installed-on-u-s-navy-7th-fleet-ships

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...raf-f-35bs-flying-together-for-the-first-time


I would pay special attention to this:
“Defense Blog" said:
Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, a business unit of Lockheed Martin, has been awarded a $500 million contract for design, develop, integrate, test and certify the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) 6.0 capability.

The contract, from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and announced on Friday, is valued at more than $327 million.

Aegis BMD 6.0 provides an increased BMD capability by incorporating the Air and Missile Defense Radar, now designated SPY-6, for introduction on the first DDG Flight III.
The work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey, with an estimated completion date of December 2025.

The primarily ship-based system, Aegis BMD 6.0, will enable BMDS element utilization of AMDR data for remote engagement and supplement deployed assets with simultaneous multimission capabilities (e.g. Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD)). It will include IAMD planning; search, track, and discrimination. SPY-6 will support force level (multi-asset) approach to raid defense and enable U.S. Navy ships greater stand-off range from threat environments.

Weapon System Capability Insertion will capture Aegis BMD capability upgrades to modernized U.S. Navy Destroyers (FLT II, IIA and III). Future capability developments beyond Aegis BMD 6.0 will incrementally continue to provide increased BMD capability with the SPY-1 and SPY-6 radars.

These will include further updates for advanced threats, advanced mission planning, search, track, discrimination improvements; and kill assessment updates. SPY-6 will support force-level (multi-asset) approach to raid defense and will enable U.S. Navy ships to have a greater stand-off range from threat environments.

These future capabilities will serve as the path forward to achieve BMDS Increment 6 requirements and beyond for all COTS based open architecture baselines
Integrated Air and Missile Defense is being pushed hard. The SPY-6 is an extremely capable RADAR system, integrating its targeting capability into a larger Command and Control system makes every other system involved stronger as well.
 
Sorry for double posting, but eh... it is my own thread.









https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ough-taiwan-strait-with-u-s-spy-plane-near-by

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...as-been-installed-on-u-s-navy-7th-fleet-ships

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...raf-f-35bs-flying-together-for-the-first-time


I would pay special attention to this:

Integrated Air and Missile Defense is being pushed hard. The SPY-6 is an extremely capable RADAR system, integrating its targeting capability into a larger Command and Control system makes every other system involved stronger as well.
Great thread @BONE_Buddy. It's nice to have this /k/ autism which I'm interested in, but am too lazy to actually seek out, curated in a single place.

I'm a little disappointed I didn't get @'d for the article about the Tiger
 
If I can make a suggestion for the thread @BONE_Buddy, try covering fewer topics and adding some depth to it. The articles on the ESD/ESB don't talk about what the platforms can actually do outside of buzzword bingo. Adding in something about what you like or dislike about a platform would be good too. I'm not asking for a writeup like you did on the Al-Khalid, but a paragraph of background might go a long way with the less dialed in kiwis. I'll give the ESD/ESB news a shot since I really like the concept.

The Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) is a ship class designed to facilitate at sea transfer of vehicles and cargo from Maritime Prepositioning Force ships to LCACs and to act as seabase for amphibious vehicles. The main features of the ESD are a ship-to-ship mooring system, integration of the MPF Roll-On Roll-Off ramps, semi-submersible capability allowing it to flood the forward welldeck, and 3 berths for LCACs.


The Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) is a sub-class variant designed to support special forces, maritime security, and mine clearance operations. The ESB class is intended to support low intensity missions, (operations in and around shithole countries) freeing up the much more expensive amphibious assault ships for other missions and training. Main features differing from the ESD are a helicopter flight deck above the main deck, a hangar capable of storing 2 CH-53Ks, a crane on the main deck for launching and recovering boats up to 11 metric tons, and a forward berthing area for 298 mission personnel. The well deck and semi-submersible capability are not present in the ESB sub-class ships. There is no provision for launching or recovering amphibious vehicles.

I really like the ESD concept. It allows vehicles and cargo to be unloaded from MPF ships without needing a port. It can also be used to prestage a company sized amphibious assault. Years ago I got to talking to some friends in the offshore oil industry about using Platform Supply Vessels as staging for amphibious vehicles and SOF fun times. I think a PSV would be a better basis for the Expeditionary Fast Transport than the catamaran ferry of the Spearhead class. The EFT is slower than most PSVs above sea state 3, can't directly launch amphibious vehicles into the water, and rolls too much to transfer vehicles to an ESD outside of a harbor.

You know what, fuck it. That took way longer than I was expecting. I'll let the professional get back to it.
 
Have there been any updates on the railgun system recently or is that silent? Not much of a follower of weapon development but I'm pretty interested to see it's future, especially if it's possible Zumwalt mount looks like a pipe dream now with the cost of the destroyer by inself
 
I'm a little disappointed I didn't get @'d for the article about the Tiger
I'll start doing that, do you want an @ for every mention there is in the media, or just bigger shit?

If I can make a suggestion for the thread @BONE_Buddy, try covering fewer topics and adding some depth to it. The articles on the ESD/ESB don't talk about what the platforms can actually do outside of buzzword bingo. Adding in something about what you like or dislike about a platform would be good too. I'm not asking for a writeup like you did on the Al-Khalid, but a paragraph of background might go a long way with the less dialed in kiwis. I'll give the ESD/ESB news a shot since I really like the concept.

The Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) is a ship class designed to facilitate at sea transfer of vehicles and cargo from Maritime Prepositioning Force ships to LCACs and to act as seabase for amphibious vehicles. The main features of the ESD are a ship-to-ship mooring system, integration of the MPF Roll-On Roll-Off ramps, semi-submersible capability allowing it to flood the forward welldeck, and 3 berths for LCACs.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LxcdFbhdwts:41
The Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) is a sub-class variant designed to support special forces, maritime security, and mine clearance operations. The ESB class is intended to support low intensity missions, (operations in and around shithole countries) freeing up the much more expensive amphibious assault ships for other missions and training. Main features differing from the ESD are a helicopter flight deck above the main deck, a hangar capable of storing 2 CH-53Ks, a crane on the main deck for launching and recovering boats up to 11 metric tons, and a forward berthing area for 298 mission personnel. The well deck and semi-submersible capability are not present in the ESB sub-class ships. There is no provision for launching or recovering amphibious vehicles.

I really like the ESD concept. It allows vehicles and cargo to be unloaded from MPF ships without needing a port. It can also be used to prestage a company sized amphibious assault. Years ago I got to talking to some friends in the offshore oil industry about using Platform Supply Vessels as staging for amphibious vehicles and SOF fun times. I think a PSV would be a better basis for the Expeditionary Fast Transport than the catamaran ferry of the Spearhead class. The EFT is slower than most PSVs above sea state 3, can't directly launch amphibious vehicles into the water, and rolls too much to transfer vehicles to an ESD outside of a harbor.

You know what, fuck it. That took way longer than I was expecting. I'll let the professional get back to it.

To your first point, I am trying to do that, but as you can see it takes quite a bit of time to even get a couple of paragraphs.

So, I am effectively posting my entire reading list, and pulling out a few of the articles for further highlighting. This is so that people have some more interesting tidbits to ask questions about. Answers to specific questions take a little less time than trying to explain the entire topic myself.

To that end, what I may try to do is start linking people to more general articles on the particular subject in question. So if I talk about the Abrams tank in one of the little breakout articles, I will link to up to date primers on the subject.

Your writeup on the ESB/ESD is excellent.
I must admit, I do not have an amazing depth of knowledge when it comes to the Naval Forces (or for that matter most of the Army or Marines). My two main focuses professionally have been Military Aircraft (with an eye over to the Strategic Bombers), and Missiles/Rockets larger than the Stinger. So if any other autist wants to help/interject I would gladly accept the help, and give them their share of the "glory." And we would all be the better informed because of it.

Have there been any updates on the railgun system recently or is that silent? Not much of a follower of weapon development but I'm pretty interested to see it's future, especially if it's possible Zumwalt mount looks like a pipe dream now with the cost of the destroyer by inself
The program has started to move fairly quickly. When things go quiet in the defense world, it usually means that everyone involved is happy. The last big update (and it is a big update) when it comes to the Railgun was this:
The article explains what it going on better than I could/have-time-for.

As for refitting the Zumwalt class ships with a Railgun platform... It is possible (it is certainly talked about a lot), but I doubt the Navy wants to invest more into that particular project. I could be wrong though. If some Navy sperg wants to correct me, they are welcome to.
 
“Combat Aircraft" said:
“Alert 5" said:
“Defense Blog" said:
“USNI" said:
“Defense Post" said:
“DVIDS" said:
“Jane’s 360" said:
“Military Times" said:
“DoD Releases" said:
Well, there is not much going on today. So here are a couple of small potatoes.

Taiwan to upgrade reconnaissance capabilities of its F-16
Links through to:
https://udn.com/news/story/10930/4022396

“Machine Translation from Taiwanese" said:
The 109th annual budget of the Ministry of National Defense was sent to the Legislative Yuan (budget committee?). The Air Force plans to build a case of 9.8 billion 179,800 yuan next year. It is a new type of RF-16 fighter unit that is stationed in the Hualien nicknamed "Eagle Eye Machine". Detective pod cabin (sensor pod). It is understood that the pod type is a derivative of DB-110 (here is the background: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a390184.pdf).

The military aircraft "far-sea long-haul” (long range recon) is frequently trained around the Taiwan. The ships (Chinese Military Ships?) frequently travel from the eastern seas day and night. I have sent RF-16 fighters to the sea to take pictures of the Liaoning ship, but the existing pods have no night vision capability and lack night fighting functions.

The Air Force Command pointed out that it is planned to purchase long-distance, full-air and day-night surveillance capabilities and real-time image transmission functions in order to meet the difficulties of logistics maintenance and the lack of nighttime surveillance capabilities. The new type of surveillance pods will meet the operational environment of the Taiwan Strait in the future and support the various military training missions of the National Army.

The Air Force Command said that the whole case will be purchased from the US through the military procurement pipeline, which is planned to cost 9.8 billion to 179.80 million yuan and was acquired from 109 to 113 (they will buy between 109 and 113 of the pods).

The Air Force Command said that after the acquisition of the new type of surveillance pods, it can meet the surveillance missions of the reconnaissance planes during the wartime, and conduct joint intelligence surveillance and support national military training exercises.
Taiwan continues to develop its native defense industry, but other than that, it isn't too notable.

Pentagon awards contract for classified ‘Valkyrie’ program
“Defense Blog" said:
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, a business unit of Lockheed Martin Corp., is being awarded a competitive firm-fixed-price contract from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

In a notice posted on the U.S. government’s main contracting website, the Missile Defense Agency announced that under the new contract, the Lockheed Martin will further develop and refine their Hypersonic Defense Weapon Systems Concept Definition White Paper titled “Valkyrie Interceptor Terminal Hypersonic Defense”.

“The work will be performed in Grand Prairie, Texas with an estimated completion date of May 2, 2020,” through a notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, adding that “the performance period is from Sept 3, 2019 through May 2, 2020.”

The classified ‘Valkyrie’ program is operated by Missile Defense Agency and covers the development of next-generation of a weapon system that ability to intercept and destroy hypersonic missile threats.

According to open source, the new ‘Valkyrie’ hypersonic defense weapon system is designing to effectively deter Russia and China, the two largest threats mentioned in the National Defense Strategy.

In an op-ed for The New York Times, a former Obama administration White House official, who asked not to be named said that Hypersonic missiles are ideal for waging a decapitation strike — assassinating a country’s top military or political officials – “Instant leader-killers.”

The enemy’s hypersonic missiles potentially could be aimed, in theory, at nuclear-armed ballistic missiles position, American bombers and other aircraft at bases, military headquarters or the missiles could attack vital land- or sea-based radars anywhere.

According to Express.co.uk, national security experts have warned the U.S. is behind Russia and China in the development of hypersonic weapon technologies.

A cutting-edge ‘Valkyrie’ system will be designed to minimize potential threats that aim to defeat hypersonic, maneuvering weapons.

Boeing Company and Raytheon Missile Systems are also being awarded a competitive firm-fixed-price contract.

The total value of this contract is $4,356,864.00 for Boeing. Under the new contract, the contractor will further develop and refine their Hypersonic Defense Weapon

Systems Concept Definition White Paper titled “Hypervelocity Interceptor (HYVINT) Concept for Hypersonic Weapons”.

Raytheon Missile Systems will further develop and refine their Hypersonic Defense Weapon Systems Concept Definition White Paper titled “SM3-HAWK”. The total value of this contract is $4,445,140.00.
The real notable thing about this is the firm-fixed-price contracts.
 
“Alert 5" said:



“UPI" said:




“Combat Aircraft" said:





“Breaking Defense" said:




“USNI" said:


“Defense Post" said:






“DVIDS" said:


































QUOTE=“Jane’s 360"]




















[/QUOTE]






QUOTE=“Defense News shit"]









[/QUOTE]



QUOTE=“DoD Releases"]



[/QUOTE]



“Military Times shit" said:





















“Defense One shit" said:





War News Updates is a guy who posts a good news aggregate of the International Relations world.

I’ll start throwing in his stuff because it doesn’t take much effort on my part, and it might give some context for the larger goings on for you guys.

His daily World News Briefs are much like my Defense New Round Ups.
















USFK to Bring in New Stealth Fighter Jets

“The Chosunilbo" said:
The U.S. Forces Korea is expected to deploy state-of-the-art F-35A stealth fighter jets at major air bases here in place of the current bread-and-butter F-16s. A South Korean government spokesman on Sunday said they will be deployed from early 2020s.

Separately, the South Korean Air Force plans to deploy 40 F-35As by 2021. The stealth fighters will replace the USFK's existing F-16 fighter jets, of which some 60 are stationed at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province and the one in Gunsan, North Jeolla Province.
The U.S. Pacific Air Forces Command did not deny the reports but sidestepped the question by saying it is working to build strategic bases in the Indo-Pacific region, with the U.S. Air Force deploying weapons in due course.

"The U.S. considers the deployment of F-35As from a strategic perspective in the Indo-Pacific region targeting not only North Korea but also China," a South Korean military spokesman commented.

Back in July, Gen. Charles Brown, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Air Forces, said some 220 F-35 fighters will be deployed for U.S. troops and allies in the region by 2025.

North Korea and China are unlikely to be pleased. North Korea has responded extremely sensitively to the South Korean Air Force's recent procurement of F-35As and launched missile provocations in a fit of protest. China is also expected to protest but has its own state-of-the-art stealth fighters.
USAF is going to be basing a wing of F-35As in Korea (probably Osan Airbase ) to replace (or in addition to) about 60 F-16s based there. The Timeline says early 2020s, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 2020 itself.

Virginia-class sub Delaware completes initial sea trials

“UPI" said:
The Virginia-class submarine successfully submerged for the first time and performed high-speed maneuvers on the surface and underwater.


Sept. 3 (UPI) -- Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division announced the Virginia-class submarine has successfully completed initial sea trials last week.

The nuclear-powered fact attack submarine, built for anti-submarine and anti-surface operations, spent three days at sea proving its system capabilities, the company said in a statement on Saturday.

The vessel submerged for the first time and performed high-speed maneuvers on the surface and underwater, according to HII.

"Delaware performed well during sea trials, which is a testament to the skill and craftmanship of the incredible team of shipbuilders who are working to uphold our high standards of quality," said Dave Bolcar, Newport News' vice president of submarine construction. "We look forward to continuing our testing program to deliver the submarine to the U.S. Navy later this year.”



The Delaware will be the ninth Virginia-class submarine delivered by Newport News to the Navy.

Before the submarine is delivered, it is set to also go through a round of acceptance trials.

Virginia-class submarines are 7,800 tons and 377 feet in length with a beam of 34 feet, according to the U.S. Navy. They operate at more than 25 knots submerged with a crew of 132, 15 officers and 117 personnel, and armament of torpedoes and tomahawk cruise missiles, capable of mine-laying operations.



The Delaware is the 18th Virginia-class submarine built in a teaming agreement with General Dynamics Electric Boat.

It was christened last October by ship sponsor Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of former vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

The submarine was launched into the James River two months later after an elaborate car system moved it into a floating dry dock.



In July, Delaware's crew had its first meal aboard the vessel, another significant step toward its delivery to the Navy.

More than 10,000 shipbuilders from Newport News and General Dynamics Electric Boat, along with 5,000 suppliers, have participated in Delaware's construction since work began in September 2013.

That formatting is shit, and I am not going to take the time to fix it myself. Besides that, it is nice to see another decently capable submarine about read to be added to the fleet.



Now for what I am going to call my name and shame section:

Wait, where are all the women?


“Defense News Travesty" said:
As I write this, it’s one week before the Defense News Conference. And I can say sincerely it’s setting up to be a massive success: two acting secretaries; a chief of staff; three four-star generals, five three-star generals and one three-star admiral; the Pentagon’s top weapons development official; the Air Force’s acquisition head. The list goes on.

I’m proud of this, and I am incredibly appreciative to the defense community for delivering in spades.

But not including our own editorial team, we have only three women participating in the conference. Candidly, that’s pretty unacceptable.

And we got dinged for it. Social media spotted the lack of diversity and called us out. In the words of Maggie Feldman-Piltch, founder of #NatSecGirlSquad: “There are so many of us.”

Some sympathized a bit. They said our conference simply reflects the lack of diversity in senior leadership. Others felt we were just part of the problem by not working harder to spotlight the many smart women in this industry. In the words of one on Twitter: “Conferences like this only want very senior leaders. And few women occupy those roles. So rather than recruiting up and coming women whose inclusion might (over time) prepare them for said senior roles, it becomes a self perpetuating cycle.”

There’s truth to all of that. We do indeed host this conference to provide our audience with access to and perspective from senior leadership. But I’m not going to apologize for fulfilling that goal. And let’s be honest, people come for that access. They want to hear from the people making the decisions and writing the policy. Right now, those are predominantly men. I’d love to say as many seats would get filled if we went one, two or three levels down, but I simply don’t believe that to be true — not in the current state of the industry.

Also — we did try. We’ve tried for the last few years, in fact, and saw some success in 2018. But it’s never been easy. This year was particularly hard.

Does it sound like I’m making excuses? It does. Another truth is we should’ve just tried harder.

But it does, once again, shine a bright spotlight on the fundamental problem — one that has been a bit camouflaged as of late because of the occasional appointment of a woman CEO or undersecretary of defense; or the celebration of the first female Marine to pilot a F-35 fighter jet. Diversity can only be achieved for real when it permeates an entire institution, usually from the bottom up.

In July 2018, I wrote an editorial right after Northrop Grumman announced that then-Chief Operating Officer Kathy Warden would be the next chief executive. I pointed to statements I had heard implying that the market has done it — that defense and aerospace was no longer an old boys’ club. That women get a fair shot. That sex no longer factors into opportunity. That we’ve come so far.

I warned at the time we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. I recommended then: “Let’s just keep moving.”

And I actually would argue that we have a huge opportunity now to do so. The Pentagon seems to sincerely be seeking innovators — those that can spur advancements in technology; experts in science and engineering. The leaders of tomorrow perhaps don’t have to prove their commitment with deployments that last for months. They can earn their place in the military or certainly the defense industry by exceling in STEM. Perhaps that’s one way we can level the playing field.

But it will take time and effort. We need hiring and promotion decisions to reflect this standard we aspire to see. And it’s the women who do exist in the community that we need to see out front and — yes — on stage. We need to make them hard to ignore.

So I offer a big thank you to Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for agreeing to speak on hybrid warfare, and for Splunk Chief Technical Advisor Juliana Vida and Lockheed Vice President Maria Demaree for taking the time as well. And more important than our conference, credit goes to those institutions for elevating women through the ranks, and to the many others that have done the same.

Because yes, they are out there. And next year, we will work even harder to find more of them.

With all the other things you could report on? You chose to publish a puff piece whining about gender disparity in defense reporting of all things?

I expect this kind of shit out of DefenseOne. Not you Defense News.

Jill Aitoro

She is editor of Defense News. She is also executive editor of Sightline Media's Business-to-Government group, including Defense News, C4ISRNET, Federal Times and Fifth Domain.

I take a look at her twitter and this is what I see.

And she has retweeted this:

Not a full blown cow, but one that could easily get there if/when RBG dies.
 
@BONE_Buddy can you post a full version on the article on the Pakistani Navy Corvettes? I'm curious to see if these are based on the Damen Offshore Patrol Vessel or if they are custom built. Damen has been pumping out navy ships out of their Romanian yard the last couple years.
 
@BONE_Buddy can you post a full version on the article on the Pakistani Navy Corvettes? I'm curious to see if these are based on the Damen Offshore Patrol Vessel or if they are custom built. Damen has been pumping out navy ships out of their Romanian yard the last couple years.
They are Damen OPVs. This is their second one.


I will see what I can do get full Jane's articles. No promises on anything though.
 
First of all...sweet new feature! I hope you keep it up B-One.

Secondly...the AH64D is probably the most dangerous thing flying when it comes to anti-tank. The Longbow radar can peek over hills and trees and lock on up to 16 targets*, and the weapon officer can fire them all off in a glorious, Anime-inspired whoosh of guided missile artistry, about 1 second apart each, and each one independently track the targets assigned to them. Four AH-64D's have the potential to destroy literally a battalion of armor in about 8 seconds. Assuming a Pk of 90, that leaves 4 enemy tanks wandering aimlessly about a hellscape of burning vehicles.

If the Apache knows it is going up against "soft" armored targets (BTR-80s, etc.), it can instead carry direct-fire APKWS missiles. These are 70mm Hydra rockets that are normally unguided but in this mode they are fitted with a laser seeker and armor-defeating warhead; the Apache can carry four pods of 19 of those, but it may take more than a single hit with an APKWS-Hydra to knock out one vehicle.

*the Sidearm is an anti-radar version of the Sidewinder that the AH64D can carry, and it homes in on anti-aircraft radars, so it can kill soft-skinned AA vehicles accompanying the armor, so potentially 18 targets per Apache.
 
Work Said no to giving me access to their Jane’s subscription, and I was not inclined to push the issue.
Sorry folks, but you aren’t getting more access from me unless you want to pay me several thousand dollars each.


“Combat Aircraft" said:
“Defense News" said:
“Alert 5" said:
“Defense Blog" said:
“Breaking Defense" said:
“USNI" said:
“Defense Post" said:
“DVIDS" said:
“Jane’s 360" said:
“AFCEA Signal" said:
“Defense One" said:
“Defense News" said:
“DoD Releases" said:
“Military Times" said:

Got today’s Warzone articles here. I would post them but getting them formatted properly here is hellish.
Still they are worth a look. They seem to put out a high ratio of good stuff.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ant-join-forces-on-new-tank-destroyer-concept
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...nto-a-completely-new-and-longer-range-missile
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...per-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...chers-so-it-can-replicate-an-s-300-sam-system




Lockheed nabs $50.3M Navy contract for Aegis system upgrades
More Missile defense developments
“UPI" said:
The contract covers integration and testing of upgrades on nine new Arleigh Burke ships and seven others undergoing modernization.

Sept. 4 (UPI) -- Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems received a $50.3 million U.S. Navy contract modification for upgrades to the Aegis missile defense system, the Defense Department announced.

The contract, announced Tuesday by the Pentagon, calls for ship integration and test of the Aegis Weapon System for AWS Baselines through the system's latest upgrade, known as Advanced Capability Build 16.

Lockheed will provide Aegis shipboard integration engineering, Aegis test team support, Aegis modernization team engineering support, Ballistic Missile Defense test team support, Aegis ashore support and AWS element assessments for a variety of vessels.

The integration and testing includes AWS ship integration and test efforts for nine new construction DDG 51 class ships, also known as Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and the major modernization of seven other DDG 51 class ships.

The Aegis Combat System is an advanced command and control and weapon control system using computers and radar to track and guide weapons to destroy enemy targets. Its Mark 41 Vertical Launch System is available in different versions, with missiles varying in size and weight, for self-defense, tactical and strike purposes.

Advance Capacity Build refers to upgrades in the computers used to integrate the system's AN/SPY-1 radar, MK 99 fire control system, weapons control, the command and decision suite, and SM-2 Standard missile group.

About half the work on the contract will be performed in Lockheed's Moorestown, N.J., facility, 12 percent of the work will be done in Romania and most of the rest at locations around the United States, with a completion date of September 2024.
First next generation Navy’s jamming pod arrives for test preparation
The Growler is going to be getting a quite a bit more powerful over the next couple of years.
“Defense Blog" said:
The U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has confirmed that the first Raytheon’s Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band Engineering Development Model pod arrived at Naval Air Station Patuxent River after a trek across America late July to begin various verification and test procedures in preparation for the second pod delivery early fall.

The pod will start various verification and test procedures in preparation for the second pod delivery early fall, according to a Navy news release.

In 2016, the U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon a $1B Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract.

According to the current information, Raytheon will deliver 15 EMD pods for mission systems testing and qualification as well as 14 aeromechanical pods for airworthiness certification.

Additionally, in the third quarter of 2019, Raytheon will utilize a Prime Power Generation Capability pod installed on a commercial Gulfstream aircraft in order to conduct power generation flight testing and risk reduction efforts in support of the initial flight clearance process.

Raytheon’s NGJ-MB architecture and design include the ability to operate at a significantly enhanced range, attack multiple targets simultaneously and advanced jamming techniques. The technology can also be scaled to other missions and platforms.
U.S. Air Force’s new B-21 bomber will likely have air-to-air defense capabilities
So much for Stealth and Stealth alone.
“Defense Blog" said:
The U.S. Air Force’s new stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider, will likely have air-to-air defense capabilities, just like modern fighter jets.

In an op-ed for the Air Force Magazine, Pacific Air Forces Director of Air and Cyber Operations Maj. Gen Scott L. Pleus confirmed that next-generation bomber will have new capabilities for self-defense during flight.

Maj. Gen Scott L. Pleus exposed details of new equipment and new concepts in order to sustain Air Force’s air superiority in the decades to come, adding that “a B-21 that also has air-to-air capabilities”.

Previously, the Air Force’s leaders also said that new B-21 Raider is a long-range and highly-survivable aircraft capable of penetrating air defenses and conducting a range of critical missions.

Sources familiar with the development of next-generation bomber said the B-21 Raider would be fitted with advanced radar that will be provided air-to-air capabilities. For air-to-air defense, the new bomber also would be added capability to carry air-to-air missiles.

The B-21 Raider program has a mature and stable design and is now transitioning to manufacturing development of the first test aircraft. Northrop Grumman is utilizing its Melbourne facility for the design and development of the B-21 Raider.
BAE Systems unveils improved version of new U.S. Army armored vehicle
AMPV is a bigger, heavier, better armored replacement for the M113.
“Defense Blog" said:
British multinational defense, security and aerospace company BAE Systems has unveiled the improved version of Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle during the 141st General Conference & Exhibition in Denver.

The new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is designed to replace the 5 variants of the U.S. Army’s M113 Armored Personnel Carrier family of vehicles, which have been in service since the Vietnam-era.

First fielded in 1962, the M113 was ubiquitous during the conflict in Vietnam and has seen service in virtually every American military action in the ensuing decades. Though largely surpassed in both use and operation by the M2 Bradley, variants of the M113 continue in operation to this day.


The AMPV will replace the M113 in five mission roles: general-purpose, medical evacuation, medical treatment, mortar carrier, and mission command. The Army determined that development of the AMPV is necessary due to mobility, survivability, and force protection deficiencies identified with the M113, as well as space, weight, power, and cooling limitations that prevent the incorporation of future technologies.

The AMPV’s five variants: a general-purpose vehicle, mission command vehicle, mortar carrier, and medical evacuation and treatment vehicles– have nearly 80% more interior volume than their predecessor, and significantly more power and survivability. Cooling and electrical systems are also upgraded to accommodate both existing and future upgrades.

Although the AMPV uses a new hull design, a majority of subsystems are derived from existing vehicles. For example, the AMPV uses a common powertrain with the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.

The AMPV program entered low-rate initial production in January 2019.
Insurance Companies Are Fueling Ransomware Attacks
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/09/insurance-companies-are-fueling-ransomware-attacks/159625/
“An actually decent article from DefenseOne" said:
Even when public agencies and companies hit by ransomware could recover their files on their own, insurers prefer to pay the ransom. Why? The attacks are good for business.

On June 24, the mayor and council of Lake City, Florida, gathered in an emergency session to decide how to resolve a ransomware attack that had locked the city’s computer files for the preceding fortnight. Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Mayor Stephen Witt led an invocation. “Our heavenly father,” Witt said, “we ask for your guidance today, that we do what’s best for our city and our community.”

Witt and the council members also sought guidance from City Manager Joseph Helfenberger. He recommended that the city allow its cyber insurer, Beazley, an underwriter at Lloyd’s of London, to pay the ransom of 42 bitcoin, then worth about $460,000. Lake City, which was covered for ransomware under its cyber-insurance policy, would only be responsible for a $10,000 deductible. In exchange for the ransom, the hacker would provide a key to unlock the files.

“If this process works, it would save the city substantially in both time and money,” Helfenberger told them.
Without asking questions or deliberating, the mayor and the council unanimously approved paying the ransom. The six-figure payment, one of several that U.S. cities have handed over to hackers in recent months to retrieve files, made national headlines.

Left unmentioned in Helfenberger’s briefing was that the city’s IT staff, together with an outside vendor, had been pursuing an alternative approach. Since the attack, they had been attempting to recover backup files that were deleted during the incident. On Beazley’s recommendation, the city chose to pay the ransom because the cost of a prolonged recovery from backups would have exceeded its $1 million coverage limit, and because it wanted to resume normal services as quickly as possible.

“Our insurance company made [the decision] for us,” city spokesman Michael Lee, a sergeant in the Lake City Police Department, said. “At the end of the day, it really boils down to a business decision on the insurance side of things: them looking at how much is it going to cost to fix it ourselves and how much is it going to cost to pay the ransom.”

The mayor, Witt, said in an interview that he was aware of the efforts to recover backup files but preferred to have the insurer pay the ransom because it was less expensive for the city. “We pay a $10,000 deductible, and we get back to business, hopefully,” he said. “Or we go, ‘No, we’re not going to do that,’ then we spend money we don’t have to just get back up and running. And so to me, it wasn’t a pleasant decision, but it was the only decision.”

Ransomware is proliferating across America, disabling computer systems of corporations, city governments, schools and police departments. This month, attackers seeking millions of dollars encrypted the files of 22 Texas municipalities. Overlooked in the ransomware spree is the role of an industry that is both fueling and benefiting from it: insurance. In recent years, cyber insurance sold by domestic and foreign companies has grown into an estimated $7 billion to $8 billion-a-year market in the U.S. alone, according to Fred Eslami, an associate director at AM Best, a credit rating agency that focuses on the insurance industry. While insurers do not release information about ransom payments, ProPublica has found that they often accommodate attackers’ demands, even when alternatives such as saved backup files may be available.

The FBI and security researchers say paying ransoms contributes to the profitability and spread of cybercrime and in some cases may ultimately be funding terrorist regimes. But for insurers, it makes financial sense, industry insiders said. It holds down claim costs by avoiding expenses such as covering lost revenue from snarled services and ongoing fees for consultants aiding in data recovery. And, by rewarding hackers, it encourages more ransomware attacks, which in turn frighten more businesses and government agencies into buying policies.

“The onus isn’t on the insurance company to stop the criminal, that’s not their mission. Their objective is to help you get back to business. But it does beg the question, when you pay out to these criminals, what happens in the future?” said Loretta Worters, spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute, a nonprofit industry group based in New York. Attackers “see the deep pockets. You’ve got the insurance industry that’s going to pay out, this is great.”

A spokesperson for Lloyd’s, which underwrites about one-third of the global cyber-insurance market, said that coverage is designed to mitigate losses and protect against future attacks, and that victims decide whether to pay ransoms. “Coverage is likely to include, in the event of an attack, access to experts who will help repair the damage caused by any cyberattack and ensure any weaknesses in a company’s cyberprotection are eliminated,” the spokesperson said. “A decision whether to pay a ransom will fall to the company or individual that has been attacked.” Beazley declined comment.

Fabian Wosar, chief technology officer for anti-virus provider Emsisoft, said he recently consulted for one U.S. corporation that was attacked by ransomware. After it was determined that restoring files from backups would take weeks, the company’s insurer pressured it to pay the ransom, he said. The insurer wanted to avoid having to reimburse the victim for revenues lost as a result of service interruptions during recovery of backup files, as its coverage required, Wosar said. The company agreed to have the insurer pay the approximately $100,000 ransom. But the decryptor obtained from the attacker in return didn’t work properly and Wosar was called in to fix it, which he did. He declined to identify the client and the insurer, which also covered his services.

“Paying the ransom was a lot cheaper for the insurer,” he said. “Cyber insurance is what’s keeping ransomware alive today. It’s a perverted relationship. They will pay anything, as long as it is cheaper than the loss of revenue they have to cover otherwise.”

Worters, the industry spokeswoman, said ransom payments aren’t the only example of insurers saving money by enriching criminals. For instance, the companies may pay fraudulent claims — for example, from a policyholder who sets a car on fire to collect auto insurance — when it’s cheaper than pursuing criminal charges. “You don’t want to perpetuate people committing fraud,” she said. “But there are some times, quite honestly, when companies say: ’This fraud is not a ton of money. We are better off paying this.’ … It’s much like the ransomware, where you’re paying all these experts and lawyers, and it becomes this huge thing.”

Insurers approve or recommend paying a ransom when doing so is likely to minimize costs by restoring operations quickly, regulators said. As in Lake City, recovering files from backups can be arduous and time-consuming, potentially leaving insurers on the hook for costs ranging from employee overtime to crisis management public relations efforts, they said.

“They’re going to look at their overall claim and dollar exposure and try to minimize their losses,” said Eric Nordman, a former director of the regulatory services division of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC, the organization of state insurance regulators. “If it’s more expeditious to pay the ransom and get the key to unlock it, then that’s what they’ll do.”

As insurance companies have approved six- and seven-figure ransom payments over the past year, criminals’ demands have climbed. The average ransom payment among clients of Coveware, a Connecticut firm that specializes in ransomware cases, is about $36,000, according to its quarterly report released in July, up sixfold from last October. Josh Zelonis, a principal analyst for the Massachusetts-based research company Forrester, said the increase in payments by cyber insurers has correlated with a resurgence in ransomware after it had started to fall out of favor in the criminal world about two years ago.

One cybersecurity company executive said his firm has been told by the FBI that hackers are specifically extorting American companies that they know have cyber insurance. After one small insurer highlighted the names of some of its cyber policyholders on its website, three of them were attacked by ransomware, Wosar said. Hackers could also identify insured targets from public filings; the Securities and Exchange Commission suggests that public companies consider reporting “insurance coverage relating to cybersecurity incidents.”

Even when the attackers don’t know that insurers are footing the bill, the repeated capitulations to their demands give them confidence to ask for ever-higher sums, said Thomas Hofmann, vice president of intelligence at Flashpoint, a cyber-risk intelligence firm that works with ransomware victims.

Ransom demands used to be “a lot less,” said Worters, the industry spokeswoman. But if hackers think they can get more, “they’re going to ask for more. So that’s what’s happening. … That’s certainly a concern.”

In the past year, dozens of public entities in the U.S. have been paralyzed by ransomware. Many have paid the ransoms, either from their own funds or through insurance, but others have refused on the grounds that it’s immoral to reward criminals. Rather than pay a $76,000 ransom in May, the city of Baltimore — which did not have cyber insurance — sacrificed more than $5.3 million to date in recovery expenses, a spokesman for the mayor said this month. Similarly, Atlanta, which did have a cyber policy, spurned a $51,000 ransom demand last year and has spent about $8.5 million responding to the attack and recovering files, a spokesman said this month. Spurred by those and other cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution this summer not to pay ransoms.

Still, many public agencies are delighted to have their insurers cover ransoms, especially when the ransomware has also encrypted backup files. Johannesburg-Lewiston Area Schools, a school district in Michigan, faced that predicament after being attacked in October. Beazley, the insurer handling the claim, helped the district conduct a cost-benefit analysis, which found that paying a ransom was preferable to rebuilding the systems from scratch, said Superintendent Kathleen Xenakis-Makowski.

“They sat down with our technology director and said, ‘This is what’s affected, and this is what it would take to re-create,’” said Xenakis-Makowski, who has since spoken at conferences for school officials about the importance of having cyber insurance. She said the district did not discuss the ransom decision publicly at the time in part to avoid a prolonged debate over the ethics of paying. “There’s just certain things you have to do to make things work,” she said.

Ransomware is one of the most common cybercrimes in the world. Although it is often cast as a foreign problem, because hacks tend to originate from countries such as Russia and Iran, ProPublica has found that American industries have fostered its proliferation. We reported in May on two ransomware data recovery firms that purported to use their own technology to disable ransomware but in reality often just paid the attackers. One of the firms, Proven Data, of Elmsford, New York, tells victims on its website that insurance is likely to cover the cost of ransomware recovery.

Lloyd’s of London, the world’s largest specialty insurance market, said it pioneered the first cyber liability policy in 1999. Today, it offers cyber coverage through 74 syndicates — formed by one or more Lloyd’s members such as Beazley joining together — that provide capital and accept and spread risk. Eighty percent of the cyber insurance written at Lloyd’s is for entities based in the U.S. The Lloyd’s market is famous for insuring complex, high-risk and unusual exposures, such as climate-change consequences, Arctic explorers and Bruce Springsteen’s voice.

Many insurers were initially reluctant to cover cyber disasters, in part because of the lack of reliable actuarial data. When they protect customers against traditional risks such as fires, floods and auto accidents, they price policies based on authoritative information from national and industry sources. But, as Lloyd’s noted in a 2017 report, “there are no equivalent sources for cyber-risk,” and the data used to set premiums is collected from the internet. Such publicly available data is likely to underestimate the potential financial impact of ransomware for an insurer. According to a report by global consulting firm PwC, both insurers and victimized companies are reluctant to disclose breaches because of concerns over loss of competitive advantage or reputational damage.

Despite the uncertainty over pricing, dozens of carriers eventually followed Lloyd’s in embracing cyber coverage. Other lines of insurance are expected to shrink in the coming decades, said Nordman, the former regulator. Self-driving cars, for example, are expected to lead to significantly fewer car accidents and a corresponding drop in premiums, according to estimates. Insurers are seeking new areas of opportunity, and “cyber is one of the small number of lines that is actually growing,” Nordman said.

Driven partly by the spread of ransomware, the cyber insurance market has grown rapidly. Between 2015 and 2017, total U.S. cyber premiums written by insurers that reported to the NAIC doubled to an estimated $3.1 billion, according to the most recent data available.

Cyber policies have been more profitable for insurers than other lines of insurance. The loss ratio for U.S. cyber policies was about 35% in 2018, according to a report by Aon, a London-based professional services firm. In other words, for every dollar in premiums collected from policyholders, insurers paid out roughly 35 cents in claims. That compares to a loss ratio of about 62% across all property and casualty insurance, according to data compiled by the NAIC of insurers that report to them. Besides ransomware, cyber insurance frequently covers costs for claims related to data breaches, identity theft and electronic financial scams.

During the underwriting process, insurers typically inquire about a prospective policyholder’s cyber security, such as the strength of its firewall or the viability of its backup files, Nordman said. If they believe the organization’s defenses are inadequate, they might decline to write a policy or charge more for it, he said. North Dakota Insurance Commissioner Jon Godfread, chairman of the NAIC’s innovation and technology task force, said some insurers suggest prospective policyholders hire outside firms to conduct “cyber audits” as a “risk mitigation tool” aimed to prevent attacks — and claims — by strengthening security.

“Ultimately, you’re going to see that prevention of the ransomware attack is likely going to come from the insurance carrier side,” Godfread said. “If they can prevent it, they don’t have to pay out a claim, it’s better for everybody.”

Not all cyber insurance policies cover ransom payments. After a ransomware attack on Jackson County, Georgia, last March, the county billed insurance for credit monitoring services and an attorney but had to pay the ransom of about $400,000, County Manager Kevin Poe said. Other victims have struggled to get insurers to pay cyber-related claims. Food company Mondelez International and pharmaceutical company Merck sued insurers last year in state courts after the carriers refused to reimburse costs associated with damage from NotPetya malware. The insurers cited “hostile or warlike action” or “act of war” exclusions because the malware was linked to the Russian military. The cases are pending.

The proliferation of cyber insurers willing to accommodate ransom demands has fostered an industry of data recovery and incident response firms that insurers hire to investigate attacks and negotiate with and pay hackers. This year, two FBI officials who recently retired from the bureau opened an incident response firm in Connecticut. The firm, The Aggeris Group, says on its website that it offers “an expedient response by providing cyber extortion negotiation services and support recovery from a ransomware attack.”

Ramarcus Baylor, a principal consultant for The Crypsis Group, a Virginia incident response firm, said he recently worked with two companies hit by ransomware. Although both clients had backup systems, insurers promised to cover the six-figure ransom payments rather than spend several days assessing whether the backups were working. Losing money every day the systems were down, the clients accepted the offer, he said.

Crypsis CEO Bret Padres said his company gets many of its clients from insurance referrals. There’s “really good money in ransomware” for the cyberattacker, recovery experts and insurers, he said. Routine ransom payments have created a “vicious circle,” he said. “It’s a hard cycle to break because everyone involved profits: We do, the insurance carriers do, the attackers do.”

Chris Loehr, executive vice president of Texas-based Solis Security, said there are “a lot of times” when backups are available but clients still pay ransoms. Everyone from the victim to the insurer wants the ransom paid and systems restored as fast as possible, Loehr said.

“They figure out that it’s going to take a month to restore from the cloud, and so even though they have the data backed up,” paying a ransom to obtain a decryption key is faster, he said.

“Let’s get it negotiated very quickly, let’s just get the keys, and get the customer decrypted to minimize business interruption loss,” he continued. “It makes the client happy, it makes the attorneys happy, it makes the insurance happy.”

If clients morally oppose ransom payments, Loehr said, he reminds them where their financial interests lie, and of the high stakes for their businesses and employees. “I’ll ask, ‘The situation you’re in, how long can you go on like this?’” he said. “They’ll say, ‘Well, not for long.’ Insurance is only going to cover you for up to X amount of dollars, which gets burned up fast.”

“I know it sucks having to pay off assholes, but that’s what you gotta do,” he said. “And they’re like, ‘Yeah, OK, let’s get it done.’ You gotta kind of take charge and tell them, ‘This is the way it’s going to be or you’re dead in the water.’”

Lloyd’s-backed CFC, a specialist insurance provider based in London, uses Solis for some of its U.S. clients hit by ransomware. Graeme Newman, chief innovation officer at CFC, said “we work relentlessly” to help victims improve their backup security. “Our primary objective is always to get our clients back up and running as quickly as possible,” he said. “We would never recommend that our clients pay ransoms. This would only ever be a very final course of action, and any decision to do so would be taken by our clients, not us as an insurance company.”

As ransomware has burgeoned, the incident response division of Solis has “taken off like a rocket,” Loehr said. Loehr’s need for a reliable way to pay ransoms, which typically are transacted in digital currencies such as Bitcoin, spawned Sentinel Crypto, a Florida-based money services business managed by his friend, Wesley Spencer. Sentinel’s business is paying ransoms on behalf of clients whose insurers reimburse them, Loehr and Spencer said.

New York-based Flashpoint also pays ransoms for insurance companies. Hofmann, the vice president, said insurers typically give policyholders a toll-free number to dial as soon as they realize they’ve been hit. The number connects to a lawyer who provides a list of incident response firms and other contractors. Insurers tightly control expenses, approving or denying coverage for the recovery efforts advised by the vendors they suggest.

“Carriers are absolutely involved in the decision making,” Hofmann said. On both sides of the attack, “insurance is going to transform this entire market,” he said.

On June 10, Lake City government officials noticed they couldn’t make calls or send emails. IT staff then discovered encrypted files on the city’s servers and disconnected the infected servers from the internet. The city soon learned it was struck by Ryuk ransomware. Over the past year, unknown attackers using the Ryuk strain have besieged small municipalities and technology and logistics companies, demanding ransoms up to $5 million, according to the FBI.

Shortly after realizing it had been attacked, Lake City contacted the Florida League of Cities, which provides insurance for more than 550 public entities in the state. Beazley is the league’s reinsurer for cyber coverage, and they share the risk. The league declined to comment.

Initially, the city had hoped to restore its systems without paying a ransom. IT staff was “plugging along” and had taken server drives to a local vendor who’d had “moderate success at getting the stuff off of it,” Lee said. However, the process was slow and more challenging than anticipated, he said.

As the local technicians worked on the backups, Beazley requested a sample encrypted file and the ransom note so its approved vendor, Coveware, could open negotiations with the hackers, said Steve Roberts, Lake City’s director of risk management. The initial ransom demand was 86 bitcoin, or about $700,000 at the time, Coveware CEO Bill Siegel said. “Beazley was not happy with it — it was way too high,” Roberts said. “So [Coveware] started negotiations with the perps and got it down to the 42 bitcoin. Insurance stood by with the final negotiation amount, waiting for our decision.”

Lee said Lake City may have been able to achieve a “majority recovery” of its files without paying the ransom, but it probably would have cost “three times as much money trying to get there.” The city fired its IT director, Brian Hawkins, in the midst of the recovery efforts. Hawkins, who is suing the city, said in an interview posted online by his new employer that he was made “the scapegoat” for the city’s unpreparedness. The “recovery process on the files was taking a long time” and “the lengthy process was a major factor in paying the ransom,” he said in the interview.

On June 25, the day after the council meeting, the city said in a press release that while its backup recovery efforts “were initially successful, many systems were determined to be unrecoverable.” Lake City fronted the ransom amount to Coveware, which converted the money to bitcoin, paid the attackers and received a fee for its services. The Florida League of Cities reimbursed the city, Roberts said.

Lee acknowledged that paying ransoms spurs more ransomware attacks. But as cyber insurance becomes ubiquitous, he said, he trusts the industry’s judgment.

“The insurer is the one who is going to get hit with most of this if it continues,” he said. “And if they’re the ones deciding it’s still better to pay out, knowing that means they’re more likely to have to do it again — if they still find that it’s the financially correct decision — it’s kind of hard to argue with them because they know the cost-benefit of that. I have a hard time saying it’s the right decision, but maybe it makes sense with a certain perspective.”

“New batch ofDoD contracts are out" said:
AIR FORCE

Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia, has been awarded a $445,361,476 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Air Force National Capital Region information technology services. This contract provides a full range of classified and unclassified information technology services in the National Capital Region. Work will be performed in the National Capital Region to include Joint Base Andrews, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling and the Pentagon, and is expected to be complete by Sept. 2, 2024. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and three offers were received. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $7,522,000 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force, District of Washington Contracting, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, is the contracting activity (FA7014-19-D-A005).

GTA Containers Inc., South Bend, Indiana, has been awarded a $9,478,079 contract modification (P00004) to previously awarded FA8533-16-D-0001 for collapsible fuel tank production. The contract modification provides for the purchase of additional quantities of 34 10K collapsible fuel tanks; 171 50K collapsible fuel tanks; and 130 210K collapsible fuel tanks being produced under the basic contract. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $15,102,610. Work will be performed at South Bend, Indiana, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2021. Fiscal 2018 other procurement funds are being used and no funds are being obligated at the time of delivery order award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity.

NAVY

Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia, is awarded a $69,929,520 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously-awarded contract N00024-16-C-6425 to exercise Option Year Three for the production of Mk 48 Mod 7 heavyweight torpedo afterbody/tailcone sections, production support material, spares, auto-electrical power source test sets, engineering support, other direct costs and hardware repair services. Work will be performed in Bedford, Indiana (50%); Marion, Massachusetts (29%); Middletown, Rhode Island (16%); and Indianapolis, Indiana (5%), and is expected to be completed by March 2021. Fiscal 2019 weapons procurement (Navy); fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy); fiscal 2018 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); and Foreign Military Sales funding in the amount of $69,929,520 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin, Rotary and Mission Systems, Moorestown, New Jersey, is awarded a $50,307,909 cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-15-C-5151 to exercise options for ship integration and test of the Aegis Weapon System (AWS) for AWS Baselines through Advanced Capability Build 16. The contract provides for Aegis shipboard integration engineering, Aegis test team support, Aegis modernization team engineering support, Ballistic Missile Defense test team support, Aegis ashore support and AWS element assessments. This contract will cover the AWS ship integration and test efforts for nine new construction DDG 51 class ships and the major modernization of seven DDG 51 class ships. It will additionally cover the integrated combat system modifications and upgrades for all current ships with all AWS Baselines up to and including ACB 16. Work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey (49%); Deveselu, Romania (12%); Norfolk, Virginia (8%); San Diego, California (8%); Washington, District of Columbia (7%); Pascagoula, Mississippi (5%); Mayport, Florida (4%); Bath, Maine (3%); and various places each below one percent (4% cumulative), and is expected to be complete by September 2024. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2019 operation and maintenance (Navy); and fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $4,774,574 will be obligated at time of award and $1,452,864 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.

Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems, Braintree, Massachusetts, is awarded a $46,679,930 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-18-C-6405 to exercise Option Year One for the production of MK54 MOD 0 lightweight torpedo array kits. This option provides spares, production support material, and related engineering services, hardware support and maintenance of government-furnished equipment. This modification combines purchases for the Navy (23%); the government of Canada (46%); Netherlands (28%); and Norway (3%) under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. Work will be performed in Braintree, Massachusetts (70%); and Lititz, Pennsylvania (30%), and is expected to be completed by September 2022. FMS funding in the amount of $36,031,476; and fiscal 2019 weapons procurement (Navy) in the amount of $10,648,454 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-18-C-6405).

General Atomics, San Diego, California, is awarded a $33,187,541 cost-plus-incentive-fee, indefinite-delivery/definite-quantity contract for up to two Bearing Support Structure (BSS) inseparable assemblies in support of the Columbia-class program. This contract is for a five-year ordering period and does not include options. Work will be performed in Tupelo, Mississippi, and is expected to be completed by August 2024. Fiscal 2019 National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF) funding in the amount of $12,497,115 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with three offers received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West Bethesda, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00167-19-D-0006).

Homeland Security Solutions Inc., Hampton, Virginia, is awarded a $10,951,521 firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded contract M00264-19-C-0007 to exercise Option Year One. The work to be performed provides program management support, training, human resources services and non-guard security support services to the Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Camp Lejeune/New River, North Carolina (11%); Camp Pendleton, California (10%); Washington, District of Columbia (9%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (8%); Miramar, California (8%); Quantico, Virginia (8%); Camp Smith and Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii (7%); Beaufort/Parris Island, South Carolina (6%); Yuma, Arizona (5%); Barstow, California (5%); San Diego, California (5%); Albany, Georgia (5%); Okinawa, Japan (5%); Bridgeport, California (2%); Blount Island, Florida (2%); New Orleans, Louisiana (2%); and Iwakuni, Japan (2%), and is expected to be completed by September 2020. Fiscal 2019 operation and maintenance (Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $10,095,934 will be obligated at the time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Marine Corps Installations, National Capitol Region - Regional Contracting Office, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity.

Progeny Systems Corp., Manassas, Virginia, is awarded a $10,688,154 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-18-C-6410 to exercise Option Year Two for the production of MK54 MOD 1 lightweight torpedo proof of design components, test equipment, associated production support material, spares, and engineering and hardware support services. This modification combines purchases for the Navy (99%); and the government of the United Kingdom (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. Work will be performed in Charleroi, Pennsylvania (70%); Salt Lake City, Utah (26%); and Manassas, Virginia (4%), and is expected to be completed by March 2022. Fiscal 2019 weapons procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $10,680,514; and FMS funding in the amount of $32,306 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

General Dynamics Land Systems Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan, has been awarded an estimated $38,040,445 modification (P00039) to a three-year base contract (SPE7MX-16-D-0100) with two one-year option periods adding vehicle spare parts. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract. Locations of performance are Michigan and South Carolina, with an Aug. 11, 2020, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Columbus, Ohio.

General Electric Co., Lynn, Massachusetts, has been awarded a maximum $8,845,490 firm-fixed-price delivery order (SPRPA1-19-F-QH08) against a five-year basic ordering agreement (FA8122-19-G-0001) for compressor casings. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a 47-month contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Massachusetts, with a July 31, 2023, performance completion date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 Navy working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

ARMY

RTI Technologies LLC,* McEwen, Tennessee, was awarded an $18,601,016 firm-fixed-price contract for or the procurement of the M700 time blast fuse. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 2, 2024. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity (W52P1J-19-D-0086).
CACI-ISS Inc., Chantilly, Virginia, was awarded a $10,172,707 modification (P00058) to contract W15QKN-15-C-0049 for the Integrated Personnel and Pay System. Work will be performed in Arlington, Virginia, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 30, 2019. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $10,172,707 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey, is the contracting activity.

NW Construction Inc.,* Bozeman, Montana, was awarded a $7,656,775 firm-fixed-price contract for equalizer dam and dike modifications, construction, electrical, controls, and concrete. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2021. Fiscal 2019 Bureau of Indian Affairs construction funds in the amount of $7,656,775 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico, is the contracting activity (W912PP-19-C-0022).

CORRECTION: A $377,006,101 contract award to Southwest Range Services LLC, Las Cruces, New Mexico (W91151-19-C-0008), was announced Aug. 30, 2019, with an incorrect amount of obligated funds. The correct contract obligation amount is $231,230. All other information in the announcement is correct.

U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

International Auto Logistics LLC, Brunswick, Georgia, has been awarded a task order modification (P00024) on contract HTC711-14-D-R025 in the estimated amount of $14,950,112. This modification provides continued support of transportation and storage of Department of Defense-sponsored (DoD) shipments of privately owned vehicles belonging to military service members, and transportation of DoD-sponsored shipments of privately owned vehicles belonging to DoD civilian employees. Work will be performed at multiple locations within and outside the U.S. The option period of performance is Sept. 1, 2019, to Sept. 30, 2019. Fiscal 2019 transportation working capital funds were obligated. This modification brings the total cumulative face value of the contract to $942,359,138 from $927,409,026. U.S. Transportation Command, Directorate of Acquisition, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, is the contracting activity.

*Small Business
Japan seeks improved aerial refueling, military transport capabilities in KC-46 funding request
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/09/04/japan-seeks-improved-aerial-refueling-military-transport-capabilities-in-kc-46-funding-request/
“Defense News" said:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan’s Ministry of Defense has confirmed it is seeking to increase it fleet of Boeing KC-46A Pegasus tankers, adding to its current order of four aircraft.

In response to queries from Defense News, a spokeswoman from the ministry said a budget request for four more KC-46s over the next fiscal year will bring its fleet to six aircraft. Japan already has two KC-46s on contract as part of an original 2015 request for four tankers under the U.S. government’s Foreign Military Sales program.

The latest Japanese budget request, released Friday, contained a line item asking for a further $1.05 billion to fund four more KC-46s, which will be for the remaining two aircraft from the 2015 order and another two.

Japan already awarded contracts to Boeing for two KC-46As previously on order, with contracts each for one aircraft worth $279 million and $159 million issued in December 2017 and 2018 respectively. The first contract included additional logistics support, which accounts for the higher cost.

The request for funding for four KC-46As is a departure from normal procedure. Japan tended to place such orders under a rolling acquisition system, with small numbers of aircraft or systems on a year-on year basis. According to the budget request document, the batch order is a more cost-effective means of acquisition, resulting in $100 million worth of savings.

The addition of the KC-46s will significantly enhance the aerial refueling capabilities of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, of JASDF, which operates four Boeing KC-767 tankers at Komaki Air Base near the city of Nagoya, west of Japan’s capital Tokyo.

The KC-46s will be incorporated into a new JASDF unit and will also be used in a transport role.

The tankers will be compatible with the JASDF’s existing F-15J/DJ Eagle fighter jets, most of which are set to undergo an upgrade to improve electronic warfare and multirole capabilities.

The tankers will also complement the Lockheed Martin F-35A/B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters. Japan has ordered 157 F-35 jets, including 42 "B" models, which have less of an endurance than the "A" model because of the former’s short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing capability.

The Japanese government is placing more emphasis on the defense of remote southwest islands such as the Senkaku group, situated in the East

China Sea approximately 550 miles from the Japanese mainland and whose ownership is disputed by China.

Japan’s armed forces are stepping up their role in regional security and are increasing their involvement in training activities alongside partners such as Australia. They are also working to improve the ability to conduct aerial refueling as well as move cargo and personnel over long distances.

Major War Game To Jolt 4 Services, Force Decisions
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/major-war-game-to-jolt-4-services-force-decisions/
An unusually large war-game is always notable.
“Breaking Defense" said:
In conflicts of the future the Pentagon will need some radically new thinking.

WASHINGTON: The Pentagon is kicking off a new series of joint war games and exercises this fall designed to figure out how to confront peer adversaries like China and Russia, as military leaders rush to come up with new ideas for how to fight through what one Army general describes as a “hyperactive” battlefield.

The “globally integrated exercises” will include all four armed services, some of the 10 combatant commanders, and several government agencies, who together will try to mesh their various ideas for how to counter threats ranging from information warfare and cyber attacks right up to ballistic missile salvos and potential clashes of fifth generation aircraft.

The idea is that exercise will act as a jolt to the Pentagon’s nerve system, and become “a forcing function where you bring your service concept to the table and see how it operates, and then make compromises from there,” Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley, of the Army’s Futures Command told reporters at a Defense News conference today.

“We think we need a solid description of how the joint force sees that [potential future fight] going, and I think that is the next significant effort the services should get after,” he added.

Each branch of the armed services has its own ideas and capabilities for meeting peer competitors, but “what we don’t have is a joint concept that accurately and with rigor describes how the services will fight against a peer adversary,” Wesley said. “That hasn’t been completed yet.”

The idea behind multidomain operations and “being able to connect any shooter with any weapon to any sensor, is not a small challenge,” said Maj. Gen. Mike Fantini, the Air Force’s director of wartime integration. He said in time, if things go as planned, it won’t matter which service operates a particular sensor since the entire armed forces will be networked allowing commanders to “execute thousands of kill chains in hundreds of hours.”

While there are few details available as to the overall scope or specifics of the exercises, but they’re scheduled to take place this month and November, and will help inform how the Pentagon invests in future command and control technologies that will allow the services to quickly share information and communicate, even under the cyber-fog of contemporary combat.

Speaking with reporters at the Pentagon last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joe Dunford, acknowledged the exercises, saying his office has “scheduled a series of globally integrated exercises with participation from across the US government interagency to refine our plans” and help Defense Secretary Mark Esper develop new war plans.

The exercises come at a time of huge leaderships changes at the Pentagon, with Dunford stepping down at the end of this month and Army Gen. Mark Milley assuming the role of chairman on Oct. 1. The two exercises will bookend that changeover, and it is unclear if Milley will have a different vision than Dunford and his staff as to how the event is run.

The war-game will likely inform some hard choices over how the Pentagon will equip its future forces and help decide which sacred cows are slaughtered. “Everybody loves the future force” Maj. Gen. Michael Fantini, director of the Air Force’s Warfighting Integration Capability, said today.

“The challenge is what are we going to stop doing in order to pivot the future.”

The Army has already found tens of billions in savings by hosting the well known “night court” sessions over the past two years to slash and burn programs that had to be jettisoned in order to invest in future capabilities. SecDef Esper, who chaired those meetings while leading the Army, has indicated he wants to do something similar as the Pentagon’s new leader.

The Marine Corps is already questioning the value of the amphibious fleet in getting Marines to the fight, and are currently looking for ways to get their troops — and F-35s — away from large bases and onto smaller, austere camps where they’re more agile, and harder to find and target.

But underpinning all of this are secure networks that can survive sophisticated electronic attacks, while connecting manned and unmanned systems in the air and sea, with ground troops dispersed over hundreds of miles of contested territory.

Currently, “all of these [networks] are controlled at different echelons and by different services,” Wesley said. “You can very quickly see if you want to rapidly integrate all domains in order to take advantage of opportunities on a very lethal battlefield, you need a different type of C2 structure.”

Back in the days of AirLand Battle, all the services would bring their contributions, and it would take days to synchronize communications and planning. But the future battlefield “will be sufficiently hyperactive that we can’t wait for that kind of industrial approach to synchronization,” he added.
Name and Shame Time:
The neo-Nazi boot: Inside one Marine’s descent into extremism
Folks, this has it all:
Quotes from the SPLC and ADL.
Radicalization via racist gamers.
Charlottesville and Unite the Right.
Attomwaffen and spooky internet Nazis
And one edgy but largely harmless manlet.
“Shawn Snow said:
Screen Shot 2019-09-04 at 5.39.45 PM.png
The former Marine junior ROTC cadet and North Carolinian was interested in communism and antifa before he joined a neo-Nazi organization known as Atomwaffen Division — an organization described by some as a terror group.

His ideology has drifted across a spectrum of contradictions from antifa — a group whose name stems from “anti-fascists” and is known to use violence against those it deems fascist or supremacist — to a hate group prepping for a race war and the collapse of the U.S. government.

Marine Lance Cpl. Vasillios G. Pistolis ultimately was booted from Corps mid-summer 2018 for his ties to a hate group. But, his ability to enlist in the Corps highlights a challenge to the military recruiters armed with few tools from records checks to interviews to keep supremacists out of the ranks.

An investigation into his hate group ties by Naval Criminal Investigative Service — obtained by Marine Corps Times through a government records request — reads like a psychological evaluation into extremist thought and behavior, detailing his own path to radicalization and views on various hate groups.

In June 2018, Pistolis was sentenced before a military court to 28 days confinement, reduction in rank to E-1 and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month. He was booted from the Marine Corps in July 2018.

Military officials told Marine Corps Times that Pistolis required no waivers to enlist in the Marine Corps, except a minor medical exception.

Pistolis had no physical paper trail or a criminal background that would connect him to radical groups or extremist ideologies.

That was until a bombshell 2018 ProPublica story exposed his online chat logs and participation in the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.

It was Pistolis’ digital fingerprints that became his downfall, when his commitment to extremist notions was laid bare.

An NCIS cyber review of Pistolis’ confiscated laptop found 279 webpages, 1279 Google searches, 17 videos and six Facebook photos of “evidentiary value,” according to the investigation.

Alarming terms such as “mini 14 supressor,” “balaclava,” “mini 14 anders brevik,” “mini 14 folding stock,” “north hollywood shooters equipment,” “north hollywood shootout museum,” “skull mask,” among others, were found in Pistolis’ search history.

Anders Behring Breivik is a far-right extremist responsible for the July 2011 terror attack in Norway. Breivik killed eight people in a bombing in Oslo and shot up a youth camp on Utoya island, killing 69.

The search term “north Hollywood shooters equipment” may refer to the 1997 shootout between the Los Angeles Police Department and heavily armed bank robbers Larry Phillips Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu. The bank robbers were killed in the shootout and 11 police officers were wounded.

Pistolis’ searches on Amazon and eBay showed he was interested in a vintage fiberglass hockey goalie mask, U.S. Army improvised munitions, U.S. explosives demolitions handbooks, an Ak-AKM rifle builders manual, a gun silencer manual and a sports Ruger mini-14 scope mount.

The search terms are troubling, especially in light of a 2008 FBI report that warned of extremist groups infiltrating the U.S. military to exploit training that could help lone wolfs to carry out violent acts.

A report from the Anti-Defamation League said 2018 was the “fourth-deadliest year on record for domestic extremist-related killings since 1970,” in the U.S.

Pistolis’ path to extremism may have started around 2012

Lance Cpl. Vasillios G. Pistolis told investigators that while he was in middle school in Charlotte, North Carolina, he became interested in antifa and communism through a friend.

He said he knew of some Ku Klux Klan members at the time, but his first conversation with a national socialist was through Xbox live — the online video game portal for Microsoft’s Xbox gaming console.

But it wasn’t until President Donald Trump’s election in 2016 when Pistolis began to view communism and antifa as “stupid,” he told investigators.

At a Trump rally at an unknown location in 2016, Pistolis claimed he was assaulted by a member of antifa. This was all before Pistolis joined the Corps.

At that time in his life, Pistolis told investigators that he considered himself a conservative or a patriot, and then drifted toward libertarian views.

While in the Corps, Pistolis started researching the “Unite the Right” movement, fascism, national socialism and National Bolshevism.
He then attended “Unite the Right” rallies in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Charlottesville in 2017.
Screen Shot 2019-09-04 at 5.47.19 PM.png
The Charlottesville rally turned deadly when 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into counterprotestors, killing Heather Heyer.
Fields, who is alleged to have ties with neo-Nazis, was convicted of first-degree murder, among other charges, and was sentenced to life in prison.

Pistolis said he joined Atomwaffen in 2017 for “shock value.” He described the group to investigators as a “prepper group for the collapse of the United States government,” and said that the “government will collapse and there will be World War III.”

The Anti-Defamation League characterizes Atomwaffen as a “small neo-Nazi group whose members are preparing for a race war to combat what they consider the cultural and racial displacement of the white race.”

Pistolis said he left Atomwaffen in October 2017, describing the leaders of the group as Satanists who purposely leaked his chat logs to ProPublica.
At an October 2017, “Unite the Right” rally in Tennessee, Pistolis told investigators he met the leader of the Traditionalist Worker Party, or TWP.

The Southern Poverty Law Center described TWP as a “neo-Nazi group that advocates for racially pure nations and communities and blames Jews for many of the world’s problems.”

But Pistolis described himself as a “nationalist” to investigators and that he did not want white supremacy.

He characterized militia groups as “live action players,” called the Three Percenters “f*cking gay,” and said that the Vanguard hate group was “pretty much dead.”

The Three Percenters came out of the 2009 militia resurgence following the election of President Barack Obama, the ADL says. The group believes only 3 percent of colonialist fought against the British during the Revolutionary War.

“Three Percenters view themselves as modern day versions of those revolutionaries, fighting against a tyrannical U.S. government rather than the British,” the ADL website states.

The ADL says that the Vanguard hate group “opposes multiculturalism and believes America should be an exclusively white nation.”

Problems for recruiters

Pistolis’ drift toward extremism was largely hidden in the cyber realm, which creates a vexing problem for the U.S. military and recruiters seeking to block the entrance of supremacists into military.

“The digital footprints afford some of the best insights into whether or not someone is already expressing some kind of commitment to extremist ideology,” John Horgan, a professor at Georgia State University. He is also the author of “The Psychology of Terrorism.”

But, Horgan admits, providing those tools and authorities to the U.S. military to screen potential recruits would raise a number of questions about privacy and freedom of speech.

Marine Corps Recruiting Command says the screening process for “aberrant thinking and behavior” is a “multi-layered” approach that involves police records checks, records of convictions and a signed statement and screening form that addresses gangs and racist or extremist organizations and activities.

Whether those tools are sufficient and whether the military understands the social dynamics and psychology underpinning young Americans’ recruitment into extremist groups is questionable.

Pistolis had no criminal background, his earlier political viewpoints while in school in Charlotte were polar opposites until after Trump’s election.

His radicalization process occurred silently online and continued into his entry in the Corps.

“The problem here is that we often place too much emphasis on the ideology, and we think that will tell us something about the motivation,” Horgan said.

“People can become involved in extremism irrespective of what shade it is or ideology,” Horgan explained.
Pistolis’ shift from antifa to a neo-Nazi organization is not surprising to Horgan. He says “extremism is full of contradictions.”
Many extremists are “drifters,” the ideology is often less important than the psychological and social benefits to belonging to a group, according to Horgan.

And “with that comes a pressure to prove oneself” and a “natural eagerness to please, and with the right circumstances that can sometimes result in greater lethality,” Horgan said.

That social and psychological dynamic is valuable to movements like Atomwaffen that may “sense opportunity” from an operational and messaging perspective, Horgan said.

It’s a scenario he says has played out many times, “whether it’s Westerners joining the Taliban or English Protestants joining the IRA [Irish Republican Army].”

“It isn’t always about expressing beliefs,” that often can be faked, Horgan said.

Military accountability

Pistolis’ case is similar to a number of Marines outed in 2018 and 2019 by cyber activists doxing white supremacists’ identities online.

In May, Lance Cpl. Piercy was administratively separated from the Corps for his ties to a hate group, according to Maj. Roger Hollenbeck, a Marine spokesman.

Piercy, who was assigned to 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 4th Marine Division, was under investigation after leaked chat logs tied him to Identity Evropa.

The ADL says Identity Evropa “is a white supremacist group that is focused on the preservation of “white American identity and promoting white European culture.” The ADL also claims the group was founded by Marine veteran Nathan Damigo, who received an other-than-honorable-discharge from the Corps in 2007.

And, in June, the Corps said it was booting out Hawaii-based Lance Cpl. Mason Mead following an investigation into racists posts from the Twitter handle @Jacobite_Edward, which espoused Nazi propaganda. The social media account was alleged to be run by Mead.

These are just a handful of cases during the past couple of years. But, the total number of Marines booted for participation in hate groups over any stretch of time is difficult to nail down.

The only data available comes from a letter dated Aug. 24, 2018, from the Pentagon addressed to then-Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.

C4 Nazi.jpeg
In June, the Corps said it was booting out Hawaii-based Lance Cpl. Mason Mead following an investigation into racists posts from the Twitter handle @Jacobite_Edward, which espoused Nazi propaganda. The social media account was alleged to be run by Mead. (Screenshot of Tweet from Twitter account @Jacobite_Edward)



According to the letter, obtained by Marine Corps Times, there have been 27 reports of extremist activity by service members over the past five years, and 18 of those service members were “ultimately disciplined and/or separated” from the military.

Ellison requested the data from the Pentagon on U.S. service member participation in extremist groups following reports of Pistolis’ membership with Atomwaffen.

Yvonne Carlock, a spokeswoman with Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs, told Marine Corps Times that there is no separation code that allows the Marines to track the number of people booted for ties to supremacist groups.

Many of these Marines are kicked out for failure to abide by a regulation, not specifically for participating in a hate group.

That makes it difficult to know exactly how entrenched the problem is. How many extremists or members of hate groups are slipping through the cracks of the military’s recruitment process?

Carlock did say that reporting requirements in the Corps’ new Prohibited Activities and Conduct policy does provide “some visibility on these offenses.”

“Commanders and Marines alike have the responsibility and opportunity to bring allegations of misconduct to the attention of their chain of command and/or law enforcement personnel for proper investigation and disposition,” Carlock said.

Moreover, the DoD letter to Ellison noted that the Officer of Personnel and Management and FBI signed a memo in November 2009 that gives OPM Federal Investigative Service access to the violent gang file of the National Criminal Information Center.

This access allows further scrutiny of U.S. military recruits who may have potential extremist ties.

Dillon Hopper, the founder of Vanguard America, told Marine Corps Times in 2018 that his organization includes about 200 members across the country. Hooper is also a Marine veteran who served in Afghanistan.

He said that his organization includes “many” veterans and some Marines, but he would not disclose the number.

“For their safety, no active duty or reserve members are allowed to affiliate with my organization until their contract is fulfilled and their contract has ended,” Hopper told Marine Corps Times.

Dillon said his beliefs evolved when he was a teenager and “grew” while he was in the Corps as he “witnessed more and more social, societal and cultural decline on the United States.”

“I tolerated certain individuals being allowed into the Marines and allowed to ‘openly’ serve,” Dillon said.

“I tolerated the curtain of guise, the blanket of blatant deception, mindless obedience and senseless violence. I tolerated all that. I didn’t accept it. Tolerance is not acceptance,” Dillon said.

While it is difficult for the military and to track the number of service members booted for ties to extremist groups, military service law enforcement does partner with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to record service members’ participation in extremist groups.

Specialized training in weapons and explosives could provide deadly skills to extremist or supremacist groups. Though, not every service member booted for ties to hate group was packing lethal skills.

But some of the Marines separated from the Corps over the past couple of years had training with explosives and breaching. Mead, for example, was an assaultman with explosives training.

NCIS obtained phone calls from Pistolis while he was confined to the Camp Lejeune, North Carolina brig, which included discussions about getting his guns back, his disdain for journalists, and hate for people “since this happened.”

Pistolis also mentioned paintball, soccer and potentially leaving the U.S. to go to Greece.

Honorable mention: The headline is clickbait, but the article is almost passable:
Explainer: Why our Founders made sure Trump can’t suspend Congress

Feel free to ask questions, I (or someone else) will probably be able to get you some sort of answer (maybe not quickly however).

Also, if you have any other (free) news source you would like me to add to my rounds (or just generally recommend), let me know.

That's all for today folks.


EDIT:
Forgot one:
SecDef Esper OKs $3.6 Billion Of DoD $$ For Trump’s Border Wall
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/secdef-esper-oks-3-6-billion-of-dod-for-trumps-border-wall/
“Breaking Defense" said:
PENTAGON: Defense Secretary Mark Esper agreed to pull $3.6 billion in military construction funds to build 175 miles of walls and barriers along the US southern border, the first half of which will be available immediately for transfer to the Department of Homeland Security.

The decision, which was made today, clears the way for the first $1.8 billion. The first tranche of funding was originally slated for construction projects overseas, and Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman told reporters today that foreign governments and US embassies overseas are currently being notified.

The remaining $1.8 billion in military construction funds, originally slated for domestic construction efforts, will be tapped if there’s a need for more money after the original $1.8 billion runs out.


Members of Congress in affected states and districts are being notified, and more details will be available once those conversations have wrapped up, Pentagon officials said.

In total, the work covers 175 miles of wall and barriers across DoD property, federal and private property, though defense officials did not break down how much construction will occur where. Esper gave the green light for 11 projects overall. None of the money the Pentagon is handing over will be pulled from family housing, projects already awarded or from fiscal 2019 funds. All were slated to be funded in 2020 or later, Hoffman said.


The Army Corps of Engineers is expected to award the first contracts within weeks, with construction beginning in three to four months time.

President Trump issued an emergency declaration in February in order to free up cash for his controversial border wall, which he had promised would be paid for by Mexico. Congress rejected the transfer of funds, triggering the partial government shutdown earlier this year.


The loss to military construction accounts comes as many of the armed services continue to struggle with readiness issues, particularly the Navy, and as the Pentagon is looking to spending billions to repair bases in North Carolina and Florida after a series of hurricanes smashed buildings and flooded the grounds.

It didn’t take long for Democrats to criticize Esper’s decision.

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the move ”a bid to shift power away from Congress to the president. Clearly, this administration is trying to circumvent Congressional authority…Defense spending is supposed to be for national defense. There is no credible reason to divert these funds and doing so in this manner could disrupt national security efforts.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz — chair of the House Armed Services Committe’s military construction committee — tweeted that the decision will “weaken our national security by stealing billions from our military, including training & intelligence funds from our soldiers & poaching from critical projects our service members & their families need, including schools.”
 
The Jane's link regarding defections from Pakistan and Afghanistan's armed forces seems to be broken. Also, you did already include the article talking about DoD authorizing expenditures on the wall earlier in your post.

Given Japan's (seemingly) continued attempts to increase their ability to project force and the more conservative bent of their governments, I wonder if we'll start seeing more serious rumblings about doing away with Article 9.

Seems a little odd they're giving the B-21 air-to-air capability given that there was supposed to be a fighter that worked in tandem with it. Or did that get cancelled at some point?

[B]In conflicts of the future the Pentagon will need some radically new thinking.[/B] said:
“We think we need a solid description of how the joint force sees that [potential future fight] going, and I think that is the next significant effort the services should get after,” he added.

Each branch of the armed services has its own ideas and capabilities for meeting peer competitors, but “what we don’t have is a joint concept that accurately and with rigor describes how the services will fight against a peer adversary,” Wesley said. “That hasn’t been completed yet.”
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that seems like something that should have been considered in the last 10 or 15 years, especially given how radically technology has changed the battlefield. I know that we haven't had a Russo-Japanese-esque harbinger of wars to come will look like, and that COIN and low intensity conflicts have been the central focus of military planners for the last 30 or 40 years, but still.

Edit:
I'll start doing that, do you want an @ for every mention there is in the media, or just bigger shit?
Either way.
 
Short on time today guys. So you get what you get. My apologies, but I am dead tired.

The Jane's link regarding defections from Pakistan and Afghanistan's armed forces seems to be broken. Also, you did already include the article talking about DoD authorizing expenditures on the wall earlier in your post.
Blame Jane’s, They disappeared that article.

And I post all articles the aggregate section and because I am lazy I don’t take them out. Sue me.
Given Japan's (seemingly) continued attempts to increase their ability to project force and the more conservative bent of their governments, I wonder if we'll start seeing more serious rumblings about doing away with Article 9.
Japan probably won’t get rid of it entirely, though Abe (Japanese PM) has been trying to get rid of it for years. Instead it has and will be “reinterpreted” to allow more aggressive “defensive” weapons. Kind of like things in the US constitution that certain people don’t like, except that article 9 is objectively bad for the Japanese (and their allies).
Seems a little odd they're giving the B-21 air-to-air capability given that there was supposed to be a fighter that worked in tandem with it. Or did that get cancelled at some point?
They discovered stealth fighters have an inherently short range… I wish I was joking. The Idea was there but didn’t get very far.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that seems like something that should have been considered in the last 10 or 15 years, especially given how radically technology has changed the battlefield. I know that we haven't had a Russo-Japanese-esque harbinger of wars to come will look like, and that COIN and low intensity conflicts have been the central focus of military planners for the last 30 or 40 years, but still.
You would think, but from what I hear, that is not the case. There were continuous “updates” and “revisions” to old plans. But there really hasn’t been a bottom up combined review/remake of plans and contingencies for a great power war recently.

The key word here is “combined”. Major plans like this take a fuckton of time to integrate and get people to agree on. Seriously, It will take a couple of years for this to work its way through.
“Military Times Crap" said:
“Defense Releases" said:
“Defense News" said:
“Defpost" said:
“DVIDS" said:
“Defense Blog" said:
“AFCEA" said:
“Alert 5" said:
“UPI" said:
“DefenseOne Crap" said:
“USNI” said:
“Jane’s 360" said:
“Breaking Defense" said:
Here are some more articles on the whole Defense Money Transfer to Border Wall Construction, Someone might want to tell the larger A&H crowd that the wall is actually being built. I am too tired and too lazy to do it. Or even to give it a proper reveal. So sorry, but here you go:

DOD Briefing on Use of 2808 MILCON Funds for Construction of the Border Wall

Sorry for the ass formatting.I would recommend the link above for something more readable.
“DoD Transcript" said:
ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JONATHAN HOFFMAN: All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Hello again. Thank you for being here today. I'm joined by Acting Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller Elaine McCusker, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security Ken Rapuano, and the J3 of the Joint Staff, Lieutenant General Andrew Poppas.
Today's briefing is going to be off-camera, on the record. Audio can be used for accurate reporting, but is not to be used in any broadcast products.
We're here to provide an update on the use of 2808 MILCON [military construction] funds for construction of necessary border wall along the U.S. southern border. We will walk through the process the department took to reach a decision on whether to use that funding, and what the final decision is.
On April 4, 2018, the commander in chief issued a presidential directive that ordered DOD to take all necessary actions to assist the Department of Homeland Security in gaining operational control of the southern border.
On Feb. 15, 2019, the president declared a national emergency at the southern border, requiring the use of the armed forces and authorizing the use of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 2808.
On Feb. 18, 2019, then-Acting Secretary Patrick Shanahan requested from the Department of Homeland Security, a list of prioritized proposed border construction projects that would support the use of the armed forces to assist Customs and Border Protection in securing the southern border.
Since that date, the department has been conducting a deliberate process to consider whether those military construction projects are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in conjunction with the national emergency at the southern border, and which military construction projects should be deferred to fund such emergency construction.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, concluded that military construction projects are necessary to support the use of the armed forces.
Constructing physical barriers along the southern border of the United States is necessary to support the use of the armed forces, in conjunction with the national emergency, because such construction will allow DOD to reprioritize forces conducting military missions that assist DHS in gaining operational control of the southern border, thereby making the use of military personnel more effective and efficient.
Informed by the chairman's analysis and advice, and the department's analysis, Secretary Esper has determined that such construction projects are necessary to support the use of the armed forces, and therefore DOD will undertake 11 border barrier military construction projects on the southern border, pursuant to section 2808 of Title 10 of U.S. code. Once we determined that such military projects were necessary on the southern border, we conducted a logical and thorough process to determine which military construction projects should be deferred to fund the emergency construction. Our strategy was to limit the impact of military construction projects within the United States and its territories.
Further, the identified projects for deferral did not include family housing, barracks or dormitory projects; did not include projects that had already been awarded; and did not include projects that were expected to have fiscal year 2019 award dates. There will be two tranches of funds made available to the Department of the Army for the section 2808 MILCON projects totaling $3.6 billion. The first tranche of funds is associated with deferred military construction projects outside of the United States. This will provide approximately $1.8 billion of the required funds. The second tranche, also totaling $1.8 billion, is associated with deferred military construction projects located in the United States and the U.S. territories.
These funds will be made available to the secretary of the Army only if and when it is needed for obligation. These projects are important. The intent is prioritizing funds in this manner, is to provide time to work with Congress to determine opportunities to restore funds, as well as work with our allies and partners on improving cost -- cost burden sharing for the overseas construction projects. Department of Defense components and military departments provided input and prioritized projects based on effects on readiness and consistency with the National Defense Strategy.
We will not release the list of affected projects today. The secretary has made a commitment to members of Congress whose states and districts are affected that they will receive a personal update prior to the full list being made public. Those notifications are underway and we expect they will be completed tomorrow. When that process is complete, we will release the full list. To be clear, we will not -- we will have no additional information on specific projects affected today. So with that, we'll open it up to questions.
Q: Jonathan, you're not going to release the list of projects. Can you tell us how many there are in each of the two categories? Like a number? You know, there's 40 here, 20 there, whatever.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) ELAINE MCCUSKER: So there's 127 projects overall on the total list. I think I'd like to withhold giving details of how that breaks out until we actually talk to the members of Congress.
Q: Even in national versus domestic? That would seem like not...
MS. MCCUSKER: Yeah, it's nothing that we've discussed with them today, and so I'm trying to be sensitive to the fact that the secretary wants to make sure that the members of Congress get full notification before we -- we give the news to anyone else.
MR. HOFFMAN: OK. Yes.
Q: Hi, thanks. Tara Copp from McClatchy.
Just to follow on Lita's question, could you give us a general description? Are the majority international, the majority of the projects?
MS. MCCUSKER: As Jonathan mentioned, the funding for the projects splits pretty evenly between those outside the United States at $1.8 billion and those that are in the 50 United States and our territories at $1.8 billion.
Q: And besides the -- you know, the 2020 benchmark for funding, given the needs across the force, how did you prioritize which projects to keep funding in and which to take from?
MS. MCCUSKER: It really was mostly related to projected award dates. I mean, we had some really good input from the components and the military services on their prioritization for projects. We looked at readiness issues. We looked at the National Defense Strategy.
When it came down to it, given where we are in the fiscal year, we really tried to preserve a flexibility to make sure that we wouldn't have award dates coming up too soon, that we wouldn't get an opportunity to backfill those projects. And so, what we have on the list are recap projects, projects for which we have an existing capability that can last from -- in a temporary way, until we can get these projects built.
Q: Can you tell us if it’s a new part of wall, or if it's a wall already existing that you are consolidating or reinforcing?
MS. MCCUSKER: It's both.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE AND GLOBAL SECURITY KEN RAPUANO: It is both. It is replacing vehicular wall in some places. It is adding an additional secondary wall -- or a barrier is the more accurate description -- in other places. So it's a combination of areas where there was no barrier previously and areas where they're -- we're replacing existing, older, less capable barriers.
MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, I think the key -- the key to what Ken is saying there, is that this will all go -- funding will all go to adding significantly new capabilities to DHS's ability to prevent illegal entry. In areas where we go from, say, a vehicle barrier to a 30-foot wall, will add significant new set of capabilities that don't exist previously.
Q: And can you tell us how many miles it add -- adds?
ASST. SEC. RAPUANO: The total mileage is -- for the project for 2808 is 175 miles.
Q: New miles or...
Q: New miles?
MR. RAPUANO: So these are -- as Jonathan just described, they're a combination of new barrier, where old vehicular barriers or -- or much less capable barriers in terms of the way they were constructed and the ease of illegal crossing is -- these will -- these will replace those barriers.
Q: Sorry, go ahead.
Q: Travis Tritten, Bloomberg Government.
How would you describe the effect on these 127 projects? Would you say that they are being delayed, or would you say the hope is that Congress is going to backfill those projects and there wouldn't be an effect?
MS. MCCUSKER: The way we're describing it, is really deferred. If Congress were to backfill the projects, our request -- and our request, none of the projects would be delayed, but we do realize this could cause some delay. They're definitely not canceled.
Q: Bill Hennigan, Time.
You said 11 different projects. Can you describe what those projects are? And also with the 175 miles, what states will you be seeing that barrier go up in?
MR. HOFFMAN: Ken, do you want to talk about the list and then we can...
MR. RAPUANO: I don't have the breakdown of states with me. The way we break it up is by project. But we're talking about El Centro, Laredo...
MR. HOFFMAN: Yuma.
MR. RAPUANO: ... San Diego, Yuma, El Paso...
MR. HOFFMAN: We can get you that information.
Q: So -- so when you say 11 projects, you're -- you're basically saying, that's all barrier.
MR. RAPUANO: Correct.
Q: Paul Sonne from the Washington Post.
I have two questions. I was wondering if you could walk us through, General, maybe how you came to the determination that these 11 projects support the use of the armed forces? And then I was also wondering if we -- if we could get a commitment from you guys to come speak to us after we actually have the list of projects so we can actually talk about the projects.
MR. HOFFMAN: General, you...
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ANDREW POPPAS: Well, I'll first go through the four factors for the chairman's analysis. And the first he looked at, he looked at the DHS's prioritization list that they provided. Then we also took a look at what the migrant flow was and we looked at those migrant apprehension rates and where they took place.
Then we took a look at where our own disposition of military forces were. And then the last we took a look at what type of land was being used. Was it federal land already, or was it private?
And then from there we deduced that these projects, all 11, were necessary. And if you take a look, and obviously it'll go to the efficiency and effectiveness of the execution. And if your question was how, obviously, any place that you have a wall where you saw the migrant flow coming across, where you place a wall, you're then going to canalize those individuals that had free access across. Canalize obviously intend to channel to a specific location, this being the legal ports of entry.
So anywhere you've now stopped the flow coming across, where we've committed both detection and monitoring personnel and border police, we no longer have to commit the same number of personnel and that builds in the efficiency and effectiveness of it. And allows them to then go to a location that has both the personnel to process those coming through.
MR. HOFFMAN: OK. And then to the second -- second part of your question is, yeah, we'll commit to you that we will come back and have a conversation with you once notifications are complete.
All right, Ryan?
Q: Just one follow up on something you’d said earlier. You said that the secretary had determined to approve, and then the projects were identified. Is that -- is that sequencing correct or in your opening statement -- I just want to make it clear, when did the secretary actually make the determination to approve the funds?
MR. HOFFMAN: So, to be clear, the secretary made the determination today and -- and signed that he had reached this conclusion today, that the -- the funds will be available for those projects.
Q: Great.
MR. HOFFMAN: The projects were -- the projects were identified by DHS previously, and sent over a list of projects that they had identified that they thought were necessary.
The secretary's conclusion today was that he had -- he has decided that those projects -- that the funding we have available will be -- will be necessary -- are necessary to fulfill those projects.
Q: And just -- thank you for clearing that up.
And then if no U.S. troops had been deployed to support DHS on the southern border, would this be justified?
MR. HOFFMAN: That's hypothetical. I can't answer that for you. But what I can tell you though is that DHS -- or DOD support to DHS for border security has been a historic mission that the department's undertaken under multiple administrations for many years; whether it was jumpstarted under President Bush; whether it was deployments by President Trump. It's a historic mission, and in this case, given the -- the uniformly understood border security crisis and humanitarian crisis on the border, we believe in the administration, that the use of the troops is necessary and is appropriate.
MR. HOFFMAN: Luis.
Q: Question for the general. I think in one of the four criteria that you mentioned, you said that it would free up personnel currently there. Is that correct?
LT. GEN. POPPAS: The criteria wasn’t would it free it up. It was, we looked at the migration and the apprehension and then where our disposition was. So if we had formations that were out there, personnel, obviously the intent would be, where that wall was would free personnel up on the -- after it was executed.
Q: OK, so that's the basis for my question then. So what you're saying is, that there would be military personnel in these areas where the -- where the sections would be built, but those personnel were only there because they were ordered as part of the mission that Ryan was alluding to earlier, correct?
MR. HOFFMAN: I think the -- I think the premise there is that they're there because there is a -- a security requirement for them to be there. By building additional border wall that helps address that security requirement. So I think you're trying to get at whether -- if they were there in the first place. I think we're looking at -- we're looking at ...
(CROSSTALK)
Q: Are these sections near military installations that were already there, or is it a combination of military installations plus new troops, new personnel that were sent there as part of the border support mission?
LT. GEN POPPAS: The elements that were there -- and it's a good back door way to get to Ryan's initial question. But the -- the troops that were sent there, part of the analysis -- now even if there were no troops there, there are other factors that come to play in there. So it doesn't come specific to your question, Ryan. If they weren't there, it (inaudible) build efficiency and mitigates the crisis.
But many of the troops that are here, one of the key factors were, we had committed troops at this location based on this crisis.
Q: So do you expect to be able to reduce the number of troops on the border once -- once these projects are completed?
LT. GEN. POPPAS: We do.
Q: Do you have an estimate?
LT. GEN. POPPAS: I do not.
Q: When will they be completed?
MR. HOFFMAN: Do you have a timeline?
MR. RAPUANO: All the barriers will be completed. The 175 miles per 2808, presuming there are no delays.
MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, what I would tell you on that is that DHS and DOD and the Army Corps are moving as expeditously as possible to -- they've identified the projects, they've been going through the planning, the permitting process, and the engineering process to begin the projects.
So, the goal is to move out as quickly as possible. You will see a rapid increase in the amount of projects completed. Whether it's from 2808 funding, 284, or from appropriated funds, you'll see that increase. I don't have an end date on it. It's -- there's a lot of variables.
Q: Do you expect the contracts to be let soon in the coming weeks?
MS. MCCUSKER: I mean, there's really three different categories. We have DOD land, we have federal land that's not DOD, and we have non-federal land. And each one of those categories has a timeline associated with it and steps that need to be taken. The DOD land is the fastest.
Q: And how -- what -- what kind of timeline are you working off of that?
MS. MCCUSKER: For the DOD land, I think, all in, we're looking at 100 to 135 or 40 days.
Q: And that's obviously the shortest timeline?
MS. MCCUSKER: That's the shortest timeline.
Q: And that’s what, to award the contracts or to complete the construction?
MS. MCCUSKER: That's to begin construction.
Q: Hi, I just want to make sure I understand the timing. Did you say that in the next two days you're going to be notifying Congress and you're going to talk to us immediately after that, so, we'll be expecting to hear from you Thursday or Friday?
MR. HOFFMAN: So actually the expectation is tomorrow. So the secretary had made a commitment to members of Congress. He has been making, and other members of the senior staff at DOD have been making, contact with members of Congress today to give them notification of the signing of the 2808 authorization starting -- it's already actually under way.
But we are moving into the process of speaking with individual members whose projects are affected by this determination. That's going to go -- continue on through the evening and tomorrow, and when that process is complete we'll come back to you guys. We expect it to be tomorrow, but it's going to be when that process is complete.
Q: And you'll (inaudible) that list?
(CROSSTALK)
MR. HOFFMAN: At that time we will provide that information, yes.
We're trying to be very respectful of Congress here in providing them with information first.
So -- actually Barb, I think you have ...
Q: A couple of follow-ups. I'm a little puzzled how you -- you know that you'll be decreasing the number of troops, but you have no estimate of how -- how many. So I'd just like to ask that again. Can you give us any ballpark estimate that forms the basis for saying you expect a troop reduction.
I'd also like to ask two other quick ones, which is, if there is going to be a troop reduction, what does this mean for additional DHS requests for troops?
And finally, how does this help the humanitarian aspects of the -- of the mission that you're talking about? You talked about it both as a security issue and a humanitarian issue. How does it help the humanitarian side?
MR. HOFFMAN: OK, there were three separate questions there. I don't know if -- General, if you want to (inaudible) --
(CROSSTALK)
LT. GEN. POPPAS: The first two that you talked about with the expectation of force reduction and then also, I believe, as we look at reprioritization internal, and how does that minimize – if I’ve understood the -- for this -- the border police, how they're going to adjust?
Q: At -- what this might do to additional DHS requests for U.S. military support, if you also say you're reducing troops. But could you just -- I mean, do you have any ballpark estimate that forms the basis for saying you expect a troop reduction? Or maybe I misunderstood?
LT. GEN. POPPAS: No that -- you didn't misunderstand. And that -- as we look at the building of the border wall itself, as the wall continues to be built -- and part of it will be a reprioritization. It's meant to maximum efficiency for the border police themselves. And where we come forward that allows more badges to be freed up to execute their mission. So as we build the wall, where the migrants were coming across, where we had to have a human capability and capacity that's there, the intent is...
Q: Any estimate of...
MR. HOFFMAN: So I can tell you that if you can go to -- reach out to DHS -- and I know that Border Patrol has these numbers -- they can show you specifically the numbers of how much of a decrease with border patrol that they've seen with the wall coming -- I -- I -- let me finish, Barbara -- so that they can show you that, the difference between the number of resources used to patrol a wall where there's -- where a wall doesn't exist and where one has been completed, drops dramatically. So I think that's -- that -- I think if that's your point...
Q: No, it's not...
MR. HOFFMAN: ... is you want to see what that number is.
Q: No, no. Let me try again. I must be misstating it. I'm so sorry. What I am asking is you -- if I understood you all correctly, you're projecting a possible decrease in U.S. troops once these projects are completed because you won't need as many troops down there. Do you have an estimate? If you say you are decreasing -- going to be able to decrease U.S. troops on the border, there must be some analytical foundation for making that statement. I don't -- it's not precision, but do you have some estimate of what you might be able to decrease in terms of U.S. troops on the border?
MR. RAPUANO: So let me -- let me take a try. The challenge is that dynamics on the border are quite dynamic in the sense that they are ever-changing. And we've seen that over the last two years. While the numbers of apprehensions and presentation for asylum on the border and at POEs [ports of entry] have lessened in the past month and a half, it's still at historic highs in terms of the last over 10 years. So, when we look at that barrier construction on the border in support of the DHS mission, we are expecting fully to get more effective and efficient functioning of not only U.S. military personnel supporting DHS on the border, but of DHS CBP [Custom and Border Patrol] on the border, and that is their expectation and experience as well in terms of barrier -- barriers that they've constructed previously.
So we would -- we would be providing support to them where they need it most if the dynamics continue and the numbers rise. If the numbers lower, based on both enforcement as well as maybe less likelihood of attempts at crossing, we will then be able to take those DOD personnel and apply them to -- to DOD missions.
Q: So you don't know yet whether this will result in a decrease in U.S. troops on the border because you don't really know -- no offense -- you don't know what the situation is.
MR. RAPUANO: We know for certain it will make for more effective and efficient U.S. -- use of military personnel on the border. We expect that it will result in increased effectiveness in enforcement at the border and over time -- we do expect over time that it will lessen the reliance on DOD or the necessity for DOD to support DHS when they're beyond their capacity.
Q: And how does this all help the humanitarian side of the situation?
MR. RAPUANO: Well, number one, it prevents crossing over dangerous parts of the border, where individuals have a much greater risk of -- of injury or of heat stroke, heat exhaustion. Number two, it increases the ability of DHS to process more effectively and efficiently at their points of entry, which -- which is where they are best equipped and resourced to deal with individuals presenting themselves for example...
(CROSSTALK)
Q: ... some specific dangers, physical the areas that present...
MR. HOFFMAN: Barbara, we're going to have to move on to some other people here after this. Yeah.
Q: I have a quick question (inaudible). So with this decision, what's to stop -- what's to stop this administration from deploying forces anywhere to use military construction funds for anything administration related, rather than Defense Department related?
MR. HOFFMAN: So what I'll tell you is that from -- from -- we've looked at -- at the -- the authority that the president has used and used in the -- the -- declaring a national emergency here. We've worked very closely with our attorneys here at the department and with the Department of Justice. We feel fully confident that the use of this authority in this case is appropriate and legal. I cannot get into any hypothetical or other -- other...
Q: I mean, I'm not trying to be hypothetical. The decision based on this particular --
MR. HOFFMAN: I can only speak to this set of facts that we have before us and what the lawyers have looked at in this case, and I can just tell you that with regard to this set of facts, the lawyers have reached a determination that they believe the use of these funds is -- is -- is legal and is authorized under law.
Q: Absolutely, but this -- the facts are that in order to support those forces -- support armed forces, which is how you take 2808. You're supporting forces that are supporting DHS. So really, these funds are being used to be support DHS, but they're being -- I don't want to say twisted, but they're being packaged in a way that they're supporting the armed forces.
So, I just don't understand how this -- this now opens up the gates to where DOD can be deployed anywhere, for CDC -- I mean, all sorts of things. And then military construction funds, which are made for military construction, can therefore be used because there's going to be forces there. So then the justification, as approved in this case, in this instance, is that, well, there's forces there, so then it's supporting them, so then we can remove the forces.
MR. HOFFMAN: So, Carla, that's a -- that's a -- a series of hypotheticals to get us there, but what I will say is, the president has lawfully deployed troops to the border in support of a national security mission, in securing our border, and as a result, in declaring the national emergency -- the lawyers that have looked at this from the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice have determined that that use of -- of authority and the use of these funds is lawfully done. That's all I can speak to today. So let's -- let's -- let's move on...
(CROSSTALK)

Q: ... one more time, because I think I understand the hypothetical.
(CROSSTALK)
MR. HOFFMAN: ... I got it -- I got it -- I understand the question...
(CROSSTALK)
Q: ... I want to ask a legitimate, non-hypothetical question, (inaudible) So...
MR. HOFFMAN: But I -- I got it, we've gone over it a couple times.
Q: Well, does this open up -- not hypothetically, does this now open up the use of it in other instances?
MR. HOFFMAN: I can only speak to this case. I can't give you an answer that you're looking for on -- on other hypothetical cases. I'm only going to speak to the case that we have here today.
Nancy?
Q: I'd like to return to Barbara's question and just ask it in a different way. You said that construction -- the earliest would be 140 days that construction would start. So, if you can't tell when troops will start coming -- the reduction of troops would start, can you tell us the sort of timeline you're looking at in terms of how long troops would be there? If it's 140 days for the earliest projects to start...
(CROSSTALK)
Q: Either way, it sounds like months, if not years-long commitment, for some of those projects on private lands. And -- and so I'm just trying to get a sense – Gen. Poppas, you talked earlier about the disposition of troops as one of the factors the chairman considered. What is the timeline in terms of how long troops could be there, given these construction projects? When -- when does the last one end, such that you can then remove troops from the border, if at all?
LT. GEN. POPPAS: And this -- these are specific to the task we've had and -- but I'll tell you as we continue to plan and work with DHS now and the requests that have come in, and we're -- we're trying to be predictive so -- for the formation that'll be out there, and we're looking at the entire fiscal year '20 at this time. So being predictive out for a year. At least for the ask, and we're asking that of DHS so it doesn't come up continuously. And we've helped them; we've provided planners in order to support the effort to do that. And with the intent that we can be predictive, we can then allocate forces in advance. And then as they're no longer needed, can off-ramp them. That allows both financial and training predictability.
(CROSSTALK)
MR. HOFFMAN: And I think this -- want to go back to the -- the couple of points that have been made is that this is -- there's a variety of factors in here. The construction of border barriers is not the only factor that will impact whether troops are -- continue to be deployed or not.
The president has directed that we support the Department of Homeland Security in their border-security mission. And the troops are going to remain as long as the president determines that that is necessary.
What we're doing here today is trying to make that deployment more efficient and more effective.
Q: Just to clarify, minimally, through fiscal year 2020 based just on these projects, and these projects, I assume, will go on past -- some of these projects will go on past fiscal year 2020, is that correct?
MS. MCCUSKER: I mean, it really depends on a lot of factors. I mean, I think you can envision where non-federal land could go past 2020. But it depends on a number of factors.
MR. HOFFMAN: And once again, it depends on what the crisis is at the border. So as -- as Ken mentioned, the numbers are historically high. If we were to see some sort of dramatic change in those numbers, that you might see a different disposition in the deployment of forces from DOD to support DHS.
MR. RAPUANO: Just one point. One thing that we know for certain, it's hard for us to predict how many people attempt to cross the border in three to seven to 10 months.
One thing that we do know for certain, and was confirmed by the chairman's assessment and the secretary's decision, is that, no matter what the numbers are, we know that the border can be enforced more effectively and efficiently by Department of Homeland Security with barriers. And that lessens their need for augmented support.
Now depending on the dynamics at the border, if there are large numbers continuing to attempt, they may need our continued assistance until that subsides or they are resourced sufficiently through the budget to -- to conduct the activities themselves.
Q: So I appreciate that. I think the reason I was asking is, it was originally tied to sort of the funding of these laws. And now there are additional factors. I think for clarity it would be helpful to get a sense how that disposition is determined.
How much of it is based on border construction versus other factors. Because I think that created a little bit of confusion. So that we have some metric to get a sense of what would lead to troops being deployed or troops being taken off the border.
MR. HOFFMAN: OK. We're going to do two more questions.
Q: I just want to clarify on the money. This designation by Secretary Esper, does it now make the entire bucket of $3.6 billion immediately available, or it's just the first $1.8 billion international available, and then there would be a second, I guess, evaluation if the domestic projects are also needing that money.
MS. MCCUSKER: The first $1.8 will be available first.
Q: So -- but there would -- would there have to be a second designation by Esper that ...
MS. MCCUSKER: No.
Q: ... frees up the next? It's just once the first $1.8 billion is spent then ...
MS. MCCUSKER: Yeah, we'll go into the -- into the next.
MR. HOFFMAN: Last question.
Q: Yeah. You said that projects on military land could be the first to get underway. Are you talking about the Goldwater Range? …
MS. MCUSKER: … mm-hmm [yes] …
Q: … Are there any other military lands? It's just the Goldwater Range, correct?
LT. GEN. POPPAS: Correct.
Q: Thank you.
MR. HOFFMAN: OK guys, thank you very much...
Q: Just a clarification. On the -- on the wall, the whole project will be built by the Army Corps of Engineers?
MS. MCCUSKER: It will be contracted by the Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. HOFFMAN: All right guys, thank you.
Q: … last question. Is there any way you can talk about the international projects? Are you notifying embassies? Is there no reason -- is there a reason why ...
MS. MCCUSKER: We're notifying countries as well.
Q: OK.




Pacific Air Forces commander stresses a more dispersed, expeditionary-style fleet
(Oh, and Vietnam wants to buy some T-6 Trainer jets and we are likely to sell it to them.
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacifi...-dispersed-expeditionary-style-fleet-1.597169
“Stripes" said:
JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii — Pacific Air Forces is moving to distribute its fleet more broadly across the theater to both enhance flexibility and reduce vulnerability as a target, the PACAF commander said Tuesday.

“I do believe if we ever went to conflict, we would be at risk for sitting static in certain locations,” Gen. Charles Q. Brown said during a media roundtable at PACAF headquarters.

“We have to be able to disperse. We can’t all be sitting on big bases and being big targets,” he said. “The ability to move around — and have the flexibility to pick up and move fairly quickly — I think is important.”

A more dispersed, expeditionary-style fleet also heightens deterrence, Brown added.

“We don’t want to go to war, but I want to make it so that I decrease the level of confidence of those that might want to contest us,” he said, adding that PACAF can elevate that deterrence by operating from a multitude of locations.

“I can move quickly,” he said. “I can do it light and lean so I can put capability anywhere in the region.”

Brown oversees a dauntingly vast area of responsibility in which PACAF is in charge of planning and conducting offensive and defensive air operations out of its major air bases in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Japan and South Korea.



Secretary of Defense Mark Esper emphasized the importance of the region last week when he described it as “our priority theater.”

Speaking at the Naval War College, Esper said the U.S. military needed greater presence in “key locations” in the Pacific, which means “looking at how we expand our basing locations, investing more time and resources into certain regions we haven’t been to in the past.”

Esper did not elaborate on where those locations might be.

PACAF’s concept of a light-and-lean fleet calls for small teams to deploy for brief periods in diverse locations, which means working through the logistics of replenishing munitions and fuel and keeping communications open.

“We practice these in various exercises around the region,” Brown said.

For example, in April PACAF airmen and aircraft dispersed from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and rapidly resumed operations at airports in Tinian, Saipan, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau.

The exercise fleet included F-16s, F-15C Eagles and C-130s from Japan, C-17s and F-22s from Hawaii and personnel from Guam and Alaska.

Brown said PACAF is now “codifying” what has been learned from such dispersal exercises so that the new paradigm can be implemented across the Air Force when applicable.

Last month, Brown and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein visited Australia, the Philippines and Vietnam, which cooperate with the U.S. military in widely varying degrees.

Under the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, facilities are being built on five Philippine military bases for visiting U.S. troops. The U.S. will also stockpile equipment and supplies at those sites.

Brown said the Pentagon is considering expanding beyond the five locations.

“There is discussion about trying to do maybe more sites,” he said. “I think it’s important that we actually make sure we get the initial sites right.”

Meanwhile, Vietnam is looking to acquire a fleet of Beechcraft T-6 training planes from the United States – a departure from its usual aircraft supplier, Russia, Brown said. The Air Force is working with Vietnam on site surveys for their location, he said.

Vietnam officials Brown met were unrestrained in their criticism of China’s incursions into Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and were anxious for diplomatic support from the United States, he said.

On Aug. 22, the U.S. State Department issued a statement criticizing China’s “interference with Vietnam’s longstanding oil and gas activities” in the South China Sea.

No one is talking about expanding a U.S. military presence into Vietnam, two nations that were locked in a bitter war just 50 years ago. But the relationship between the former enemies is warming, Brown said.

“It’s rife with opportunity,” he said. “We kind of see things the same way in the region.”
You know, I remember when we were at war with Communist Chinese backed Vietnam, now we are selling Vietnam defense equipment to prepare for a fight against China. Boy howdy, times sure do change.
U.S. Army expects to receive Future Long Range Assault Aircraft no later than 2030
“Defense Blog" said:
The U.S. Army officials have confirmed that it expected received Future Long Range Assault Aircraft no later than 2030, according to a recent service news release.

Currently, the U.S. Army is soliciting for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft Competitive Demonstration and Risk Reduction via the Aviation and Missile Technology Consortium Other Transaction Authority. Phase one of the CD&RR delivers an initial conceptual design to include all substantiating technical documentation to support the design, requirements decompositions, trade studies, and requirements feasibility.

“We are committed to equipping the Army’s first unit with the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft no later than 2030,” said Colonel David Phillips, the Program Executive Office for Aviation’s Project Manager for FLRAA. “This effort will provide critical risk mitigation and inform the program of record as we pursue the material solution to meet the Army’s aviation modernization priority.”

Future Vertical Lift is the Army’s third modernization priority with FLRAA as a critical combat system needed to prevail in future wars by enabling a “leap-ahead” in speed, range, lethality, survivability, and reach to find, fix, and finish enemy threats and subsequently exploiting open corridors with significantly more capable air assault and MEDEVAC capabilities.

According to the Defense News, the Army is embarking on an ambitious plan to procure two major helicopters back-to-back to replace UH-60 Black Hawks, AH-64 Apaches and to fill a gap left open when the service retired its OH-85 Kiowa Warriors in 2014.

The service published a request for information in April this year to gauge industry on the realm of the possible including the acceleration of FLRAA’s fielding schedule with a goal of delivering at least by fiscal year 2030.
Possible, but rather optimistic. Reforms to acquisition are being done, but they take half a decade to start to gain traction unfortunately.
NASA Tests 30-Mile-Long Microphone Array in Preparation for Quiet Supersonic X-59
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/NASA-Tests-Microphone-Array-for-X-59.html
“NASA" said:
NASA has successfully tested a large microphone array in California’s Mojave Desert as part of a flight series in preparation for the agency’s quiet supersonic X-plane, the X-59.

Flying at speeds faster than Mach 1, the speed of sound, typically produces a loud sonic boom heard on the ground below. NASA’s X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology X-plane, or X-59 QueSST for short, will fly over select communities around the U.S. to demonstrate the ability to reduce that sonic boom to a quiet thump. The data from these flights will be turned over to the Federal Aviation Administration to possibly establish new sound-based rules for supersonic flight over land. This could open the door to future faster-than-sound commercial cargo and passenger air travel.

Before these community overflights take place, however, the X-59 will first undergo an acoustic validation phase, during which NASA will deploy an approximately 30-mile-long array of specially-configured microphones to measure the X-59’s thumps, to verify that they are as quiet as predicted.

The recently-completed Carpet Determination In Entirety Measurements flight series, or CarpetDIEM, was NASA’s “first practice” for the X-59’s acoustic validation flights.

“The X-59 is designed to have quiet sonic booms that won’t be disturbing to the people, but first we actually have to go out and prove it,” explained Ed Haering, NASA’s principal investigator for CarpetDIEM. “NASA will do that by flying the aircraft and taking real measurements on the ground before we eventually fly it over communities, to make sure that it is as quiet as it should be.”

NASA will collect these sound measurements using a microphone array on the ground that covers the entire width where the X-59’s quiet sonic thumps can be heard – a measurement area known as the “carpet.” The goal of CarpetDIEM was to practice deploying a large-scale microphone array, and gain valuable lessons on the array’s ideal configuration, instrumentation, and logistics.


The test microphone array for this flight series was deployed along an area of the Mojave Desert near NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, from which NASA flew an F/A-18 aircraft to produce sonic booms under the designated supersonic corridor, which runs from Nevada toward Edwards.

“We chose this area of the Mojave Desert because it’s a nice, wide area under our high-altitude supersonic corridor, where we are able to fly our F/A-18s at supersonic speeds routinely,” said Haering. “Here we can learn how to best deploy a sensor array of this magnitude, and the logistics of getting the hardware out here, using it for testing, and getting it back, and logging the data.”

The array featured high-fidelity microphones, capable of measuring 50,000 samples per second, giving researchers the ability to obtain accurate sound data and assess the loudness of the sonic booms, just as they will measure the quiet sonic thumps from the X-59.

The flight series included engineers, researchers, and managers from NASA Armstrong and NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, as well as participants from the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and graduate students and professors from Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo, Utah. Participants were spread out to cover as much of the wide microphone array as possible.

“We have a series of microphones set up, and the various sites have different configurations,” explained Juliet Page, a physical scientist with Volpe. “We have microphones oriented in different configurations, including inverted, vertical, horizontal, some with different wind screens, and we’re evaluating the acoustic performance and the difference between the different configurations in preparation of the X-59.”


“It’s cool to come out in the desert and just do all these measurements and just kind of geek out with this technology,” Page added.

The data will now undergo analysis in preparation of furthering the technology for future flight tests.

CarpetDIEM was flown under NASA’s Commercial Supersonic Technology project, which supports X-59’s Low-Boom Flight Demonstration mission through conducting supersonic flight research and technology development.

“The Commercial Supersonic Technology project is responsible for measuring and validating the level of the acoustic signature from X-59 prior to our planned community overflight testing. We want to be sure we are fully prepared for that challenge,” said CST project manager Lori Ozoroski. “This joint effort between NASA, Volpe, and BYU involved a number of early mornings and long, hot days to set-up and record sonic booms generated by a NASA F/A-18. Lessons learned from this test will next be applied to the second phase of the CarpetDIEM testing, currently planned for summer 2020.”

The CST project seeks to develop the tools and technologies needed to overcome the technical barriers to practical commercial supersonic flight. If you ask Ed Haering, who has spent 25 of his 35-year-career at NASA researching sonic booms, overcoming barriers is what it’s all about.

“It’s been 70 years since Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier,” explained Haering, standing under the same skies where, in 1947, Yeager became the first pilot to fly faster than the speed of sound.

“Now we’re trying to fix it.”



Matt Kamlet
NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center
You know what would allow passenger aircraft to fly supersonic? Allowing then to break the sound barrier. You could even limit it to over 50,000 ft and make it nearly unnoticeable at ground level.
Or you could spend millions of dollars developing a plane which allows you to fly just over transonic speeds without creating a sonic boom. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Japan’s budget document reveals electronic warfare plans
“Defense News" said:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan is stepping up its investments in electronic warfare, with its latest defense budget request containing a number of related acquisitions and research activities in this domain.

The latest budget request from the Defense Ministry for fiscal 2020, which starts April 1, calls for $50.5 billion, an increase of 1.2 percent over the previous year and the eighth straight year of an increase.

The detailed budget request document released by the ministry contained a breakdown of funding allocation as well as line items of proposed acquisition and research projects. Among these were several items related to Japan’s electronic warfare, or EW, capabilities, ranging from acquiring and researching ground-based jammer systems to improving the EW capabilities of its fleet of F-15 Eagle fighter jets.

Ground-based systems


The budget request included a proposal to acquire one complete system of Japan’s truck-mounted Network Electronic Warfare System, or NEWS, for the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, or JGSDF, with the cost listed as $97 million.

NEWS is used for collecting, analyzing and classifying adversary signals intelligence, and subsequently jamming them. The system is mounted on the air-transportable Toyota Type 73 truck and exists in several sub-types, known in the JGSDF as Type 1, 2, 3 and 4. Each sub-type has a different role and covers different bands on the electromagnetic spectrum.

The JGSDF will also establish a new EW unit by the end of the next fiscal year, reportedly in Kumamoto prefecture in Kyushu, the southernmost of Japan’s three main islands.

The ministry also asked for $35.8 million in research and development funds for a new ground-based, anti-aircraft EW system. The as-yet unnamed system will detect and jam the radars of enemy aircraft approaching Japan to neutralize them. A graphical representation in the ministry’s budget request document shows a large dish antenna mounted on an eight-wheel drive truck with a separate, truck-mounted control station or generator.

Airborne EW


Japan’s airborne EW capabilities are also getting attention in the budget request. The ministry asked for a further $36.7 million and $19.5 million respectively to continue development work on upgrading Japan’s Mitsubishi F-15J/DJ Eagle interceptor fleet and a new standoff jammer aircraft.

Most of Japan’s F-15 fleet will eventually go through the upgrade, which will improve the type’s EW systems and expand its multirole capabilities. The latter will see the carriage and integration of the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, to its arsenal. JASSM is a low-observable standoff air-launched cruise missile used for land-attack missions. It’s currently in use with the U.S. military and by the forces of Australia, Finland and Poland.

Meanwhile, the new standoff jammer is expected to be based on the Kawasaki C-2 airlifter and perform standoff jamming of the adversary’s electromagnetic spectrum in the air, land and naval domains. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force already has a number of EP-3C Orion aircraft in similar roles, and the Defense Ministry is seeking funds to perform life-extension work on these aircraft for a fatigue assessment to ensure the airworthiness of the airframes.
Now, I normally don’t comment much on foreign military developments, but I like this new trend of Japanese rearmament, and Electronic Warfare is a personal hobby horse of mine.

Defense Contract Releases:
Apologies again for shit formatting, it takes a surprising amount of time to fix up.
“DoD Autism Sept.4" said:
NAVY
General Electric Aviation, Lynn, Massachusetts, was awarded $143,680,709 for modification P00005 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-18-C-1007). This modification is for 24 low rate initial production Lot 3 T408-GE-400 turboshaft engines and three Lot 2 T408-GE-400 engines for the CH-53K helicopter. In addition, this modification provides for associated engine and programmatic support, logistics support, peculiar support equipment and spares. Work will be performed in Lynn, Massachusetts, and is expected to be completed in December 2022. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $143,680,709 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. (Awarded Aug. 29, 2019)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (N00189-19-D-Z033); and University of Virginia Darden School Foundation Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia (N00189-19-D-Z034), are being awarded multiple award, firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts worth $24,535,554 that will include terms and conditions for the placement of firm-fixed-price task orders to provide academic programs to educate the Department of the Navy acquisition personnel in support of the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition. The contracts will run concurrently and will include a 60-month base ordering period and an option for a six-month ordering period; if exercised, the total value of this contract will be $27,496,527. The base ordering period of the contract is expected to be completed by September 2024; if the option is exercised, the ordering period will be completed by March 2025. All work will be performed at various contractor locations throughout the U.S., and the percentage of work at each of the contractor facilities cannot be determined at this time. Fiscal 2019 acquisition workforce development funds (Department of Defense) in the amount of $2,000 will be obligated ($1,000 on each of the two contracts to fund the contracts' minimum amounts), and funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured for the award of multiple contracts pursuant to the authority set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation 16.504. The requirement was solicited through the Federal Business Opportunities website, with two offers received. Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet, Logistics Center Norfolk, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia, was awarded a $97,530,579 modification (P00064) to contract W912DY-16-F-0093 for management and technical support necessary to advance high performance computing services, capabilities, infrastructure and technologies. Work will be performed in Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; Vicksburg, Mississippi; and Lorton, Virginia, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 18, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,012,268 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama, is the contracting activity.
RLB Contracting Inc.,* Port Lavaca, Texas, was awarded a $9,571,200 firm-fixed-price contract for maintenance dredging of Houston ship channel. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Brady Island, Texas, with an estimated completion date of March 5, 2020. Fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 operations and maintenance, civil funds in the amount of $9,571,200 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas, is the contracting activity (W912HY-19-C-0015).
Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, was awarded an $8,126,438 modification (P00015) to contract W31P4Q-18-C-0070 for the acquisition of Joint-Air-To-Ground missile engineering services. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, with an estimated completion date of March 2, 2021. Fiscal 2019 procurement, Air Force; and operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $8,126,438 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
The Boeing Co.,* St. Louis, Missouri, has been awarded a maximum $25,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for engineering and supply chain analysis sustainment support and for various spare parts. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a one-year base contract with four one-year option periods. Location of performance is Missouri, with a Sept. 6, 2020, performance completion date. Using customer is Defense Logistics Agency. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 warstopper funds and defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Richmond, Virginia (SPE4AX-18-D-9450).
CORRECTION: The modification announced on Sept. 3, 2019, for General Dynamics Land Systems Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan (SPE7MX-16-D-0100), for $38,040,445 was announced with an incorrect award date. The correct award date is Sept. 4, 2019.
AIR FORCE
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a $8,422,148 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00032) to previously awarded contract FA8675-16-C-0067 for field team support services for Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) development test mission support including, test planning, test operations, test reporting and telemetry analysis. This contract modification provides for exercise of the third option for an additional 12 months of services to support ground tests, captive flight tests and live fire tests conducted for developmental purposes up to and including operational test readiness reviews. The effort also encompasses management and maintenance of AMRAAM separation test vehicles and other assets used for the test programs. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $46,807,656. Work will be performed at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and is expected to be completed by Sept. 5, 2020. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition and only one source was solicited and received. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $2,000,000; and Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $99,600 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity.
The Boeing Co., Defense, Space & Security – Network, Newark, Ohio, has been awarded a $7,494,440 firm-fixed-price delivery order, FA8119-19-F-0094, to basic contract FA8119-14-D-0003 for Air Launched Cruise Missile warhead arming devices remanufacture. This delivery order provides for the remanufacture of 110 Air Launched Cruise Missile warhead arming devices for the fifth option period. Work will be performed at Newark, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by May 9, 2020. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition. Fiscal 2019 missiles procurement funds in the amount of $7,494,440.00 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Sustainment Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, is the contracting activity.
*Small Business
“DoD Autism Sept.5" said:
ARMY

Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense Co., Simsbury, Connecticut (W52P1J-19-D-0065); and Chemring Ordnance Inc., Perry, Florida (W52P1J-19-D-0066), will compete for each order of the $320,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the Anti-Personnel Obstacle Breaching System. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 4, 2024. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity.

Honeywell International Inc., Clearwater, Florida, was awarded a $37,851,458 firm-fixed-price contract for procurement of the commercial Tactical Advanced Land Inertial Navigator 5000 Inertial Navigation Unit. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 8, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-19-D-0082).

MW Builders, Pflugerville, Texas, was awarded a $30,477,000 firm-fixed-price contract to construct a completed fully functional Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility. Bids were solicited via the internet with five received. Work will be performed in Fort Hood, Texas, with an estimated completion date of June 4, 2021. Fiscal 2018 military construction funds in the amount of $30,477,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas, is the contracting activity (W9126G-19-C-0119).

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., Poway, California, was awarded a $29,316,074 modification (P00016) to contract W58RGZ-19-C-0027 for performance based logistics support services for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft system. Work will be performed in Poway, California, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 4, 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $6,469,479 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

Ace Precision Machining Corp., Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, was awarded a $25,000,000 firm-fixed-price Foreign Military Sales (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) contract for hot section parts for the Advanced Gas Turbine-1500 tank engine. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 4, 2024. U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer, Kansas, is the contracting activity (W912JC-19-D-5712).

Nakasato Contracting LLC,* Honolulu, Hawaii, was awarded a $14,200,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the construction of an Operational Readiness Training Complex (Barracks) at Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii. Bids were solicited via the internet with six received. Work will be performed in Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 1, 2021. Fiscal 2018 military construction funds in the amount of $14,200,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (W9128A-19-C-0006).

GP Strategies Corp., Columbia, Maryland, was awarded a $12,693,583 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Life Cycle Logistics Support and Chemical Demilitarization Training Facility operations and maintenance in support of the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Activity, Recovered Chemical Materiel Directorate. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 23, 2020. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity (W52P1J-15-D-0087).

General Dynamics Information Technology, Fairfax, Virginia, was awarded a $7,237,568 modification (P00017) to contract W81XWH-17-F-0078 for support services for the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity. Work will be performed in Fort Detrick, Maryland, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2022. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $7,237,568 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity, Fort Detrick, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

NAVY

Hexagon U.S. Federal Inc., Huntsville, Alabama, is being awarded a $107,067,910 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost-only indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for surface ship Situational Awareness, Boundary Enforcement and Response (SABER) qualification testing and non-recurring engineering, computing hardware production, land-based site equipment, spare parts and engineering services. This IDIQ will support multiple program executive offices and ship programs. Work under this IDIQ contract will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama, and is expected to be completed by September 2023. No funding will be obligated with this IDIQ award; funds will be obligated with each order. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website using full-and-open competition procedures, with two offers received. This competition was conducted under the authority 10 U.S. Code 2304, which states that contracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open competition. Support under this IDIQ is for SABER systems to be installed on various surface ships. This procurement includes shipsets and test site sets, technical data, associated engineering services and spares. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-19-D-4114).

DynCorp International LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an $88,730,512 modification (P00052) to a previously awarded, firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-15-D-0003). This modification provides organizational, intermediate, and depot-level maintenance and logistics support for 16 T-34, 54 T-44, and 287 T-6 aircraft. Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Corpus Christi, Texas (47%); Whiting Field, Florida (42%); NAS Pensacola, Florida (9%); and various locations through the continental U.S. (2%), and is expected to be completed in March 2020. No funds will be obligated at time of award, funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

General Electric Aviation Systems, Vandalia, Ohio, is being awarded a $56,594,358 modification (P00006) to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-18-C-0004). This modification procures 320 Generator Conversion Unit (GCU) G3 to G4 conversion retrofit kits; 547 GCU G4 units; wiring harnesses; and associated technical, financial and administrative data in support of F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft. Work will be performed Vandalia, Ohio, and is expected to be completed in January 2022. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $56,594,358 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

PAE Applied Technologies LLC, Arlington, Virginia, is being awarded a $52,268,318 modification to previously awarded contract N66604-05-C-1277 to reinstate 6 month periods of performance and increase target cost for Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center. Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) is the Navy's large-area, deep-water, undersea test and evaluation range. Underwater research, testing, and evaluation of anti-submarine weapons, sonar tracking and communications are the predominant activities conducted at AUTEC. The contractor performs services required to perform AUTEC range operations and maintenance of facilities and range systems. In addition, the contractor is responsible for operating a self-sufficient one square mile Navy outpost. This modification increases the value of the basic contract by $52,268,318. The new total value is $853,017,162. Work will be performed in Andros Island, Commonwealth of the Bahamas (80%); and West Palm Beach, Florida (20%), and is expected to be complete by March 2020. No funding will be obligated at time of this modification award. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island, is the contracting activity.

Pacific Shipyards International, Honolulu, Hawaii, is being awarded a $32,110,694 firm-fixed-price contract for the execution of USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112) fiscal 2020 selected restricted availability. This is a Chief of Naval Operations scheduled selected restricted availability. This availability will include a combination of maintenance, modernization and repair of USS Michael Murphy. The purpose is to maintain, modernize, and repair the USS Michael Murphy. This is a “short-term,” non-docking availability restricted to the vessel's homeport. Pacific Shipyards International will provide the facilities and human resources capable of completing, coordinating and integrating multiple areas of ship maintenance, repair, and modernization for USS Michael Murphy. Work will be performed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and is expected to be complete by April 2020. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value to $36,916,612, and be complete by April 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $32,110,694 will be obligated at time of award and expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website with one offer received in response to solicitation number N00024-19-R-4404. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-19-C-4404).

Utah State University Research Foundation - Space Dynamics Laboratory, North Logan, Utah, is being awarded a $24,999,998 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for electro-optical research and development. The contract provides research and development efforts in the areas of exploitation software and advanced sensor and processing technologies including digital cameras, processing, compression, command and control, analog systems, power, communications, telemetry, radio frequency/optical sensor payloads and electromechanical systems/support. The maximum total value for this 24 month contract, with no options, is $24,999,998. Work will be performed in North Logan, Utah, and is expected to be complete by Sept. 5, 2021. Fiscal 2019 working capital funds (Navy) in the amount of $5,793,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. In accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(3)(B), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-3, this contract was not competitively procured. Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00173-19-C-2013).

PrimeTech International Inc.,* North Kansas City, Missouri, is being awarded a $12,457,597 firm-fixed-price, time-and-materials six-month bridge contract for logistics services to manage, support, and operate the Marine Corps Consolidated Storage Program warehouse network. Work will be performed in Barstow, California (23%); Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (18%); Camp Pendleton, California (13%); Okinawa, Japan (10%); Miramar, California (9%); Camp Geiger, North Carolina (7%); Twenty-nine Palms, California (4%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (4%); Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii (3%); Yuma, Arizona (2%); Beaufort, South Carolina (2%); Iwakuni, Japan (2%); New River, North Carolina (2%); and Bridgeport, California (1%). Work is expected to be completed March 2020. Fiscal 2019 operation and maintenance funds (Marine Corps) in the amount of $12,457,597 will be obligated at the time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c) (1) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Georgia, is the contracting activity (M67004-19-P-2010).

Oceanit Laboratories Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii, is being awarded a $9,500,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order (N68335-19-F-0393) against a previously awarded basic ordering agreement (N68335-16-G-0028) in support of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for emerging capability and prototype technology. This order is for a Small Business Innovation Research Phase III effort for the continued development of a Prototype Test Unit (PTU) sensor for integration, test and demonstration with a non-kinetic system. The PTU sensor will incorporate the necessary hardware and software subsystems to demonstrate the viability of a novel defensive capability in an at-sea-demonstration aboard a Navy ship. Work will be performed in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is expected to be completed in September 2021. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $9,500,000 will be obligated at time of award, $7,500,000 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

UPDATE: Maryland Industrial Trucks, Linthicum Heights, Maryland (SPE8EC-19-D-0043), has been added as an awardee to the multiple award contract for commercial trucks and trailers, issued against solicitation SPE8EC-17-R-0008, announced April 20, 2017.

DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY

Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia, was awarded a firm-fixed-price, single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract, HC1047-19-D-5001, in support of the Defense Information Systems Agency's (DISA) Defense Collaboration Services (DCS) program. The primary place of performance will be at DISA, Fort Meade, Maryland. The ID/IQ ceiling value is $49,500,000, with the minimum guarantee of $5,000 funded by fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds. Proposals were solicited via FedBizOpps (FBO.gov), and one proposal was received. The ordering period is Sept. 8, 2019, through Sept. 7, 2024. The Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization, National Capital Region, is the contracting activity (HC1047-19-D-5001).

*Small Business
 
Work Said no to giving me access to their Jane’s subscription, and I was not inclined to push the issue.
Sorry folks, but you aren’t getting more access from me unless you want to pay me several thousand dollars each.
:feels:
Thanks for trying

The Polish tank destroyer based around the brimstone missile is interesting. The IDF recently retired the Pereh, a fake tank that carried the Spike NLOS. I don't have any info on their effectiveness, but I imagine they were murder in the desert. I'm not completely sold on "lets stick some missiles on a BMP-1 and call it a tank destroyer" though.
 
Back
Top Bottom