US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Mitt Romney. Even among Republicans, Mitt Romney is looked on as questionable. Add to this that the Obama was more popular at the time of the elections and that the last two presidents before him were both reelected, basicly there seems to be a don't rock the boat mentality. The last American president not to get the reelection was Bush Sr. Way back in the early 90s. A president really has to be viewed as slime to not get the second term.
and even then the opposition actually has to have a candidate who can been seen as capable of doing things better.

Click to expand...

​

Yahoo said:

The U.S. Navy's newest aircraft carrier — a massive warship outfitted with the latest radar technology and sophisticated systems to accommodate unmanned, carrier-launched drones — is set to undergo more than two years of rigorous testing.

The USS Gerald R. Ford is the first of what will eventually be the Navy's fleet of next-generation Ford-class aircraft carriers. The upgraded ships are the first new designs of aircraft carriers since the USS Nimitz was built in the late 1960s.

The USS Ford was christened during a special ceremony in November in Newport News, Va. The massive warship is slated to officially enter service in the Navy in 2016. But first, shipbuilders will spend 26 months meticulously testing the aircraft carrier's various systems.

"We're kind of in the infancy stage of the test program, and the early returns are good," Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, told the Daily Press. "We have a long way to go."

The USS Ford's testing phase is longer and more labor intensive than normal because the next-generation warship incorporates many new technologies, including upgraded radar systems, more efficient nuclear power plants and electromagnetic launchers designed to more effectively propel aircraft off the carrier's deck.

The mammoth USS Ford weighs nearly 100,000 tons, and will eventually be home to more than 4,600 service people and up to 75 aircraft, according to Newport News Shipbuilding, which constructed the aircraft carrier.

The Ford-class carriers are designed to replace the Navy's existing Nimitz-class warships, which have been in operation since the 1970s. The upgraded designs feature larger flight decks, three aircraft elevators and the new ships also replace steam-powered systems with more efficient onboard electrical power.

Some lawmakers and industry officials have criticized the USS Ford — particularly for its $12.8 billion price tag — but the Navy is staunchly defending the warship and its new technologies, according to the Daily Press.

The Ford-class ships are expected to usher in a new era of American naval power, and are designed to operate for 50 years. Construction is already beginning on the next aircraft carrier in the fleet, the USS John F. Kennedy.

Click to expand...

Boeing bullish on E/A-18G despite US budget omission
By: JON HEMMERDINGERWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com in an hour
Boeing insists that prospects for additional sales of its E/A-18G Growler remain strong domestically and internationally despite a lack of funding for the aircraft in the US military’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal.

“Domestically, there continues to be interest, particularly in the Growler,” says Boeing president and chief operating officer Dennis Muilenburg on 10 March. “We know the Growler has been identified as an desirable capability that has been unfunded.”

Muilenburg made his comments during JP Morgan’s Aviation, Transportation and Industrials Conference in New York City.

The military’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal must still be approved by congress, a process that will take months.

Mackenzie Eaglen, analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, says its possible the Defense Department left the aircraft off the budget because “they might fully expect Congress to add them [back] in.”

Boeing says it will lobby lawmakers for more money.

“We are mid-stride in the negotiating process,” Muilenburg says. “While it is urgent, we have some time to work.”

asset image
Barring additional orders, a production slowdown or company-funded production, the St. Louis factory that makes both aircraft will run out of work near the third quarter of 2016, Muilenburg says.

But Boeing has said it needs to place orders for long-lead time materials in the coming months in order to extend production.

The company received a boost from the fiscal year 2014 budget, passed earlier this year, which included $75 million for such materials.

Muilenburg says the F/A-18, a “fourth generation fighter”, remains one of the most-capable fighter jets, and comes at a reasonable priced.

“Look at the capability that the F18 brings to customers, combined with the cost point. There is no other airplane that can match that,” he says.

The aircraft, with engines and weapons systems, cost about $52 million each, while Growlers cost $8 to $9 million more, according to the company.

By comparison, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now costs less than $100 million each, that company has said.

Lockheed has also predicted the cost will decline to less than the cost of fourth-generation fighters by 2019.

Boeing says the Growler’s advanced electronic warfare systems can help newer aircraft like the F-35 be more effective.

And it says an end to production would damage the US industrial base.

“If funding to extend production of those aircraft isn’t provided, unique industrial capabilities will be lost and the U.S. will be solely dependent on one tactical aircraft manufacturer for years to come,” Boeing tells Flightglobal.

Muilenburg is also optimistic about orders from other customers.

“Significant campaigns are underway” to secure orders from countries like Australia, Denmark and Malaysia, he says.

The company is pitching its “Advanced Super Hornet”, which has better engines, avionics and weapons systems, including an upgraded radar and improved infrared search-and-track abilities, Boeing says.

The Advanced Super Hornet has a belly-mounted "enclosed weapons pod" that can carry 1,130kg (2,500lb) of munitions and an external "conformal fuel tank” that can hold 3,500lb of fuel.

Boeing currently produces F/A-18s at a rate of 44 aircraft yearly, although production is scheduled to slow to 36 aircraft annually in fiscal year 2015.

Click to expand...

Editorial: U-2 Has The Edge Over Global Hawk
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

March 10, 2014
Credit: U.S. Air Force
With the presentation of the Obama administration's fiscal 2015 budget request last week, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced his decision in a battle that had been brewing for some time: U-2 (below) versus Global Hawk. With money as tight as it is, everyone knew it was becoming too expensive to have both options for high-altitude intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) missions.

It would be easy to portray this as a contest between modernity and nostalgia, pitting a cutting-edge unmanned system against a piloted Cold War relic—Hal the computer versus an aging jet jockey with a silk scarf. Indeed, when Hagel announced his decision, he said he is opting to phase out the “50-year-old U-2 in favor of the unmanned Global Hawk” beginning in 2016 (see page 30). But that comparison is not just an oversimplification, it is the wrong way to approach the question.

Hagel was more forthright when he acknowledged this was “a close call.” It surely is. The operating costs of the two fleets, for example, have been about the same.

And the U-2 does indeed have a storied place in U.S. history. Developed at the legendary Skunk Works under Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, the U-2 began collecting intelligence in 1956 on Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China and countless other nations of interest. Its role in gathering imagery of Soviet missiles in Cuba was pivotal in the crisis of 1962.

If the U-2 of today were that same airplane, with just a black-and-white camera, Hagel's decision would make sense. But that is not the U-2 of today. The last U-2, the U-2S, rolled off Lockheed Martin's production line in the 1980s. More importantly, the key sensors—electro-optical/infrared camera, radar and signals intelligence antennas—have been upgraded in the past decade.

What is more, the U-2 has a sophisticated defensive system to protect against attack from advanced S-300 and S-400 Russian-built air-defense systems. Global Hawk has no defensive system. And while that unmanned aerial system (UAS) can fly a full day longer without landing, the U-2 can fly higher (70,000 ft.-plus compared to 55,000-60,000 ft.). That allows U-2 sensors more slant range. The U-2 can carry more payload than the Global Hawk (about 5,000 versus 3,000 lb.) and has more electrical power. Being a UAS, the Global Hawk is harder to deploy to a foreign location and operations are harder to get up and running. The UAS does not have an anti-icing system. Thus, reliability rates from the Pacific are low because Global Hawk cannot get through weather as easily.

None of this is to say the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is not valuable. The program has its roots in a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency effort to prove that a UAS could be developed and operated inexpensively. Global Hawk was not designed to perform the U-2 mission. Rather, it was redesigned to do it once the Air Force went with the larger wing design.

In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Global Hawk was pressed into service to augment the U-2 with data collection. Momentum took over from there. The young UAS proved it could collect images and provide radar data of ground and surface targets. The Navy eventually deployed the aircraft to demonstrate its utility for monitoring shipping activities around the Persian Gulf.

Global Hawk has performed admirably for nearly 13 years, but somewhere along the line, the Pentagon leadership decided that the UAS could probably take over the U-2's role without first showing how. There is no better evidence of that issue than the fact that the top commanders (including those at the Strategic, Pacific, Central and European commands) still had the U-2 on their wish lists when Hagel made his decision. Finally, this week, the Pentagon said it would cost about $1.9 billion to upgrade the UAS to “parity” with the U-2, which is almost the full amount the Pentagon says it will save in winding down the U-2.

On balance, we believe the secretary made the wrong call. The U-2 still has the edge in capabilities. Our view is not colored by simplistic views of “old” versus “new” and it has nothing to do with manned versus unmanned. Far from it.

We are huge believers in the future of unmanned systems. The RQ-180 that this magazine revealed last December may eventually take over the U-2 role. But the history of defense programs is littered with examples of systems that have been pressed into service before they are ready. If anything, we fear the erroneous conclusions some might draw about UAS in general, should the program to stand up Global Hawk as a U-2 replacement stumble. Let's keep the U-2 for now.

Click to expand...

Special operations forces from Iraq, Jordan and the U.S. conduct an exercise June 20, 2013, as part of Eager Lion multinational military maneuvers at the King Abdullah Special Operations Training Center (KASOTC) in Amman, Jordan. A small number of U.S. special operations forces are in Jordan training Iraqi troops to fight al-Qaida.

Click to expand...

Report: U.S. troops training Iraqis in Jordan
Mar. 10, 2014 - 10:55AM |

By Jeff Schogol
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Related Links
U.S. developing plans to train Iraqis in Jordan
A small number of U.S. special operations forces are in Jordan training Iraqi troops to fight al-Qaida.

As first reported by Reuters, fewer than 100 U.S., Iraqi and Jordanian troops are involved in the effort to bolster the Iraqis’ counterterrorism skills and special operations capabilities. A former senior U.S. commander in Iraq told Military Times on Monday that the training will help Iraqi special operators forces refine their tactical skills in the fight against resurgent al-Qaida militants in Iraq.

“This is, of course, a resumption of the kind of training that was conducted in Jordan during the development of Iraqi SOF starting in 2004 and that continued there for several years after that until adequate training facilities in Iraq were established as levels of violence were reduced by the operations conducted during the Surge,” the commander said via email, referring to the U.S. military’s 2007 strategy shift designed to improve security in key parts of the country.

With the exception of a small U.S. military contingent at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, all U.S. troops left Iraq in December 2011 after U.S. and Iraqi negotiators failed to reach an agreement that would provide legal protection to allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq beyond their agreed departure date.

Since then, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s policies to sideline Sunnis and the civil war in neighboring Syria have helped al-Qaida in Iraq to come roaring back, raising levels of violence there to the highest levels in years. Earlier this year, al-Qaida militants took over key cities in Anbar province, including Fallujah and Ramadi, where many U.S. troops lost their lives.

Amid the escalating violence, U.S. lawmakers in January removed obstacles to sell 24 AH-64E Apache helicopters to Iraq, but Sen. John McCain has recently called for the sale to be reconsidered after reports surfaced indicating Iraq purchased weapons from Iran. The Iraqi government has said it rejected a proposal from Iran to sell the Iraqi military weapons.

The U.S. government has also agreed to accelerate the sale of Hellfire missiles and ScanEagle remotely piloted aircraft to Iraq.

Click to expand...

Top general to testify about Afghanistan amid impasse over U.S. troop presence
Mar. 11, 2014 - 01:34PM |

By Jeff Schogol
Staff Writer Army times
FILED UNDER
News
Congress & DOD

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, the top commander in Afghanistan, will testify on Capitol Hill Wednesday about the situation on the ground amid a continuing standoff with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is refusing to sign a security agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after this year.

Karzai, whose term in office is coming to an end, has said his successor should be the one to sign the agreement with the U.S. government. Presidential elections are slated for April, but if no clear winner emerges, a runoff election will be held later in the year.

Senators are likely to ask Dunford how much longer the U.S. military can wait for a decision on whether troops can stay in Afghanistan beyond December. The general also may be questioned about how reliable Karzai is as a partner and whether the country would fall apart if all U.S. troops left.

Relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan have been further strained by the Afghan government’s decision in February to release 65 detainees whom NATO called “dangerous individuals,” drawing a rare public rebuke from NATO.

“Detainees from this group of 65 are directly linked to attacks wounding or killing 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and attacks wounding or killing 23 [Afghan National Security Forces] or Afghan civilians,” Army Lt. Col. William Griffin told Military Times last month.

President Obama has not yet decided how many troops would remain in Afghanistan beyond this year if the security agreement is approved, according to the National Security Council.

Dunford has proposed keeping 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan until 2017. But another option being considered calls for leaving 3,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, stationed in Kabul and Bagram Airfield.

In his memoir “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that the Obama administration has been suspicious of military commanders, especially during the discussions leading up to the Afghan surge, when White house officials felt commanders were trying to pressure Obama to escalate the war.

“Suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military commanders,” Gates wrote.

Vice President Joe Biden favored sending fewer troops to Afghanistan and later relentlessly argued that the surge was not working, Gates wrote.

Gates’ criticism of Biden does not seem to have hurt Biden’s standing in the White House or his influence on national security issues.

“I don’t think anybody who has covered us or knows the president and the vice president, knows how this White House functions, has any doubt about the president’s faith in Vice President Biden as an advisor and counselor,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said at a Jan. 8 news briefing.

Click to expand...

By Lolita C. Baldor
The Associated Press/Military times
FILED UNDER
News
Congress & DOD
WASHINGTON — The Navy admiral nominated to be the next head of the troubled National Security Agency is expressing concerns about the U.S. government turning over the bulk collection of telephone data to an independent third party, saying it could result in higher costs and delays identifying potential threats.

Vice Adm. Mike Rogers, who also has been nominated to take over U.S. Cyber Command, provided the first glimpse into his views of the nation’s troubled surveillance programs in answers to a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The document was obtained by The Associated Press.

The panel will conduct a hearing on his Cyber Command nomination Tuesday, giving lawmakers’ their first and most crucial opportunity to judge the man who would oversee reforms to NSA’s sweeping data collection programs.

“I believe that we need to maintain an ability to make queries of phone records in a way that is agile and provides results in a timely fashion. Being able to quickly review phone connections associated with terrorists to assess whether a network exists is critical,” said Rogers, a former intelligence director for the Joint Staff and the current head of the Navy’s Cyber Command.

While the president has the authority to appoint an NSA director, Rogers needs confirmation by the Senate in order to get a fourth star and take over Cyber Command. The hearing, however, will give senators the chance to air their frustrations with the NSA’s data collection programs and grill him on his views of how the NSA should move forward.

Rogers has been nominated to replace Army Gen. Keith Alexander, who is retiring after nearly nine years as NSA director. Alexander also became the first commander of the Pentagon’s Cyber Command, which was set up in 2010.

President Obama has called for reforms to the phone data collection program, which sweeps up the metadata for every phone call made in the U.S. The metadata is the number called, the number from which the call is made and the duration and time of the call, but not the content of the call or the callers’ names.

Asked about proposals to have a third-party or the telephone service providers maintain the data, Rogers said that both options are technically feasible. But he echoed administration worries that such changes might raise other privacy concerns, could cost more money and might not make the data available for a long-enough time.

While he never mentions Edward Snowden, the former NSA systems analyst who has leaked information about the data collection, Rogers acknowledged the leaks, saying they have unfortunately damaged relations with industry.

In other comments, Rogers offered a grim assessment of the growing cyberthreat against the United States, and the government’s abilities to overcome the risks.

He said he believes enemies may consider the U.S. “an easier mark” because the procedures and requirements governing how the nation can respond to a cyberattack “lead the adversary to believe, rightly or wrongly, that we do not have the will to respond in a timely or proportionate manner,” even if it’s clear who launched the breach.

Rogers also says that improvements are being made to staffing and resources for Cyber Command.

Click to expand...

U.S. lawmakers urge inclusion of Sikhs in military
Mar. 10, 2014 - 04:30PM |

By Matthew Pennington
The Associated Press
FILED UNDER
News
Uniforms
Related Links
Wide variety of faiths led to new policy to accommodate them
Religious exemptions for troops easier to request under new rules
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of 105 lawmakers urged the Defense Department on Monday to make it easier for practicing Sikh Americans who wear beards and turbans to serve in the military.

The House members wrote to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel calling for an end to a “presumptive ban” on Sikhs serving.

Under a policy announced in January, troops can seek waivers on a case-by-case basis to wear religious clothing, seek prayer time or engage in religious practices. Approval depends on where the service member is stationed and whether the change would affect military readiness or the mission.

A request can be denied only if it is determined that the needs of the military mission outweigh the needs of the service member.

But the Sikh Coalition, a group that advocates for the estimated half-million Sikhs living in the U.S., says the bureaucratic hurdles remain a disincentive, as waivers are not guaranteed and must be constantly renewed.

It says that in the last 30 years, only three Sikhs have received permission to serve in the Army while maintaining their articles of faith, namely turbans and unshorn hair, including beards.

The lawmakers’ letter cites the service of the three Sikhs, among them Maj. Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi. He earned a Bronze Star Medal for his service in Afghanistan, which included treating multiple combat injuries and reviving two clinically dead patients.

“Given the achievements of these soldiers and their demonstrated ability to comply with operational requirements while practicing their faith, we believe it is time for our military to make inclusion of practicing Sikh Americans the rule, not the exception,” said the letter.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman, said he could not comment on the defense secretary’s correspondence.

But he said the policy announced in January would enhance commanders’ and supervisors’ ability to maintain good order and discipline, while reducing “both the instances and perception of discrimination among those whose religious expressions are less familiar to the command.”

Previously, there had been no consistent policy across the military services to allow accommodations for religion. But now, for example, Jewish troops are able to seek a waiver to wear a yarmulke, or Sikhs can seek waivers to wear a turban and grow a beard.

Click to expand...

Opinion: Rebalancing Military Is A 20-Year Challenge
By Bill Sweetman
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

March 10, 2014
Credit: U.S. Navy
It was not surprising that the mass-media response to the 2015 U.S. defense budget was that it would result in “the smallest Army since before World War II.” It would have been a shock had anyone continued: “and it's a good thing.” But it is—and Russia's current actions in the Crimea do not change that fact.

Reversing the early-2000s growth in land forces is a start on what has to be a “four-FYDP” (future years defense program) effort—20 years—to forge a future-relevant military.

Today's force has its roots in an era when wars were fought on the land and on the sea, zealots explored the air, scientists dreamed of space, and cyber did not exist. Forces had to be within visual range in order to gauge each other's strength and start thinking about tactics. The intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) role was in the embryo stage.

But even in 1939, the boot-centric view of warfare was on shaky ground. Large standing armies with professional leadership were an idea less than 100 years old. The Greek and German classic studies of warfare were based on Europe—then as now unique in short distances and high population density.

Historians bemoan the pre-WWII U.S. Army's lack of readiness and its reversion to pre-1917 habits. But a nation that had no fear of land invasion did not need to make its Army a priority. That is the case today.

The argument that land forces have special strategic significance is weak. The record of boots-on-the-ground wars is that they usually cause more problems than they solve (AW&ST April 1/8, 2013, p. 12). The argument that they are the U.S.'s prime military means, or that other services exist only to support them and get them to the fight, is neither realistic nor helpful.

Globally, there are few cross-border land threats to which the U.S. would respond. North Korea's shift of resources to missile technology means land attack is no longer the main threat to the South. It takes a stubborn refusal to read headlines or history to think the U.S. will send land forces across borders to promote democracy again, at least for a long time.

Events in Ukraine and the Crimea—combining ethnic, civil and international strife—provide a case in point. The strongest conceivable U.S. land or amphibious forces would not provide a military option. In the long term, the most significant effect of the Russian action may be to convince the Putin regime to pursue a military that it can't afford, a policy that did not exactly work out well for the Soviet Union.

Absent major land wars, future conflicts will either be centered on ethnic issues—not along national boundaries, but within or across them—or will involve threats to the global commons, whether at sea, in the air, in space or in the domain of communications.

The air and the sea will be the most important domains for U.S. military power in the next decades, with space and cyber assuming growing importance, and ISR, mostly from the air and space, as the connective tissue for every military action.

Trade and prosperity make the commons important. We will have to recognize a marked change in the motivation of future strategy, in that it will be based on national, material self-interest. There is nothing wrong with such a focus. It is surely preferable to blood-letting in the guise of ideologically guided nation-building.

The U.S. military budget is equivalent to Pennsylvania's gross state product. Its population—uniformed, civilian and retired, contractors and dependents—would also make a mid-ranked state. You couldn't switch Wisconsin from cheese to computing in one year, or even five. There are two ways to change the Pentagon—slowly, or not at all.

That is why a four-FYDP perspective is important. It's asking too much to expect individuals and Congress to sustain such a long focus. However, it is not an unreasonable expectation for uniformed and civilian leadership, professional and appointed, and for the industrial C-suite. Indeed, that's what we pay them to do.

Click to expand...

Global Digital Solutions Files Form 8-K, Announces Unsolicited Letter of Intent to Acquire Remington Outdoor Company, with Estimated Annual Sales of $1.25 Billion and a Purchase Price of Approximately $1.082 Billion
PR Newswire
Form 8-K filing also provides information on proposals to acquire two additional U.S.-based companies - a technology firm with annual revenue of approximately $25 million and a distribution company with annual revenue of approximately $30 million - and a status update of GDSI's transactions with Airtronic USA, Inc.
March 11, 2014: 04:16 PM ET


PALM BEACH, Fla., March 11, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Global Digital Solutions, Inc. (OTC-QB: GDSI), a company that is positioning itself as a leader in providing cyber arms manufacturing, complementary security and technology solutions and knowledge-based, cyber-related, culturally attuned social consulting in unsettled areas, today filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") providing information regarding three proposed transactions, including an unsolicited letter of intent to acquire Remington Outdoor Company, Inc., also known as Freedom Group, Inc. ("Freedom"). GDSI has made an unsolicited offer to purchase freedom for $1.082 billion in cash. Freedom has estimated that its net sales for 2013 will be in the range of $1.250 billion to $1.275 billion and that its adjusted EBITDA will be in the range of $235 million to $240 million. The Form 8-K may be accessed at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or on GDSI's website at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Richard J. Sullivan, GDSI's Chairman and CEO, offered several reasons for optimism regarding the proposed acquisitions discussed in the Form 8-K filing and the company's overall strategy for profitable growth going forward:

"The GDSI team is extremely excited and confident about all three of these proposed acquisitions. There are powerful synergies between Freedom and the two other companies that will fuel our future growth along with the transformation of the cyber arms industry. Cyber-based technologies, coupled with enhanced digital product development and distribution, will be key factors in achieving results that could match – and probably even exceed – what we were able to produce at Digital Angel Corp and Applied Digital Solutions ("Applied"). At Applied, we saw our market capitalization reach $2.5 billion, roughly five times revenue and nearly 25 times EBITDA.

"Results like these truly represent the baseline of our expectations going forward. As discussed previously, we plan to follow a similar acquisition strategy to the one we successfully pursued at Applied. Under my leadership at Applied, the GDSI team successfully executed a private-to-public company roll-up totaling some 42 acquisitions and growing annual revenue from $1 million to $350 million over five years.

"This model, which takes advantage of market trends, technological advances and industry consolidations to fuel profitable growth, presents a value proposition that is perfectly suited to the military armament industry, an industry that is heavily fragmented and evolving rapidly toward a RFID/WiFi-enabled technology platform. In this dynamic environment, we see enormous opportunity to consolidate this market with a program of targeted acquisitions, including the proposed Freedom transaction. Technological convergence is the future in the cyber/smart arms arena and we're eager to leverage our proven history of success by helping Freedom and others navigate the transition from analog to digital.

"Our team plans to drive unprecedented consolidation and convergence in the cyber arms arena at least in part through the acquisition strategy outlined in our Form 8-K filing and elsewhere. We'll also do this by leveraging technologies like GDSI Gatekeeper, which we announced on January 23, 2014. Gatekeeper represents a revolutionary suite of technology-enhanced services that offer personalized, digital small arms safety and security solutions in commercial and military-related markets.

"The bottom line is: Our excitement and confidence derive from the fact that we've done this before and we see enormous potential that we'll be able to do it again."

As described in the Form 8-K, GDSI has also entered into non-binding letters of intent relating to the proposed acquisitions of two privately held, U.S.-based companies. One involves a technology and development services firm with annual revenue of approximately $25 million. The other is a military and law enforcement supply and distribution company with annual revenue of approximately $30 million.

All three proposed acquisitions are subject to completion of due diligence, completion of satisfactory acquisition agreements and other customary conditions, including financing.

The Form 8-K also provides an update regarding GDSI's transactions with Airtronic USA, Inc.

More About Richard J. Sullivan and Applied Digital Solutions, Inc.

Dick Sullivan is an entrepreneurial pioneer. In 1970, he was a founding member of the management team of Manufacturing Data Systems, Inc., which listed at $7.50 per share and was sold to Schlumberger N.V. in 1980 at $65 per share. In 2001, Sullivan received the prestigious World Economic Forum's "Award for Advanced Chip Technology" presented in Davos, Switzerland. During Sullivan's decade-long tenure as Chairman and CEO, Applied was recognized as one of the country's fastest-growing technology companies, regularly topping the NASDAQ in trading volume. The company's stock price rose sharply from $2.50 to $18.00 per share, reaching a peak market capitalization of approximately $2.5 billion. The company spawned two more successful public companies – Digital Angel Corporation and Verichip.

Continuous R&D at Applied, fueled by a series of high-tech acquisitions and steady corporate profits, yielded very impressive results, including:

The first-ever FDA-approved, human-implantable RFID tags that continue to be used by several foreign militaries;
The first proof-of-concept implanted GPS-wireless tracking device which was successfully implanted in a sheep in 2002; and
The first-of-their-kind GPS-wireless tracking devices still sold to and used by probation and corrections offices around the country.
In addition, Applied was the subject of two Harvard Business School case studies that are still being used in the curriculum. The first followed the company's efforts to build a marketing plan for its Digital Angel GPS/wireless personal security device. The second study followed the successful merger of Digital Angel Corporation and Outerlink Corporation.

About Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. (Freedom Group, Inc.)

Freedom describes itself as the world's leading innovator, designer, manufacturer and marketer of firearms, ammunition and related products for the hunting, shooting sports, law enforcement and military markets. It indicates that, as one of the largest manufacturers in the world of firearms and ammunition, it has some of the most globally recognized brands including Remington®, Bushmaster® Firearms, DPMS/Panther Arms™, Marlin®, H&R®, The Parker Gun™, Mountain Khakis®, Advanced Armament Corp.®, Dakota Arms®, Para™ USA and Barnes® Bullets. Additional information about Freedom is available by visiting

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

About Global Digital Solutions, Inc.

Global Digital Solutions is positioning itself as a leader in providing cyber arms manufacturing, complementary security and technology solutions and knowledge-based, cyber-related, culturally attuned social consulting in unsettled areas. For more information please visit

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Forward Looking Statements

This press release contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The statements contained in this press release that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements give the Company's current expectations or forecasts of future events. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that are often difficult to predict and beyond the Company's control, and could cause the Company's results to differ materially from those described. In some cases forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may," "should," "potential," "continue," "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," and similar expressions. These statements include statements regarding moving forward with executing the Company's global growth strategy. The statements are based upon current beliefs, expectations and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict. The Company is providing this information as of the date of this press release and does not undertake any obligation to update any forward looking statements contained in this press release as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. We have based these forward looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends affecting the financial condition of our business. Forward looking statements should not be read as a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Important factors that could cause such differences include, but are not limited to the Risk Factors and other information set forth in the Company's Registration Statement on Form 10 filed on October 7, 2013, and in our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contact:
Richard J. Sullivan
561-515-6163
[email protected]



SOURCE Global Digital Solutions, Inc.

Click to expand...

Army reservist to plead guilty to giving secrets to Chinese girlfriend
Mar. 12, 2014 - 07:48AM |


By Audrey McAvoy
The Associated Press
FILED UNDER
News
Crime
Related Links
Bail revoked for Army Reservist accused of giving secrets to Chinese girlfriend
Woman at center of spy allegations is enigma
HONOLULU — A civilian defense contractor accused of giving military secrets to a Chinese girlfriend half his age will be entering a guilty plea, his attorney said Tuesday.

Benjamin Bishop was expected to plead guilty in federal court on Thursday to one count of transmitting national defense information to a person not entitled to receive it and one count of unlawfully retaining national defense documents and plans.

Bishop, 60, was arrested last March at the headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Command, where he worked.

A document for the plea agreement filed Tuesday said Bishop emailed his girlfriend classified information on joint training and planning sessions between the U.S. and South Korea.

It said Bishop had classified documents at his Hawaii home, including one titled “U.S. Department of Defense China Strategy,” another on U.S. force posture in Asia and the Pacific and a U.S. Pacific Command joint intelligence operations center special report.

An FBI affidavit last year alleged the then-59-year-old gave his 27-year-old girlfriend classified information about war plans, nuclear weapons, missile defenses and other topics.

Bervar has said the two were in love and that the case was about love, not espionage.

Bishop has been in federal detention in Honolulu for the majority of time since his March 2013 arrest.

U.S. District Court Judge Leslie Kobayashi allowed him to move to a halfway house last June. But a magistrate judge ordered him back to jail in December after he violated the terms of his release by emailing his girlfriend and writing her a letter.

The FBI alleged Bishop and the woman, now 28, started an intimate, romantic relationship in June 2011. The prosecution said she was a graduate student and she and Bishop were having an extramarital affair.

Utah state records show Bishop was married until 2012.

The FBI’s affidavit alleged the woman may have attended an international defense conference in Hawaii, where she initially met Bishop, specifically to target people like Bishop who have access to classified information.

Authorities haven’t released her identity or whereabouts. They also haven’t said publicly whether they believe she was working for the Chinese government.

She was living in the United States as a student on a J-1 visa, according to the FBI.

Defendants must normally be indicted within a month of their arrest, but Bishop’s defense team waived the deadline in exchange for an opportunity to view the prosecution’s evidence, much of which is classified.

Bishop, who is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, worked in the field of cyber defense at Pacific Command from May 2011 until his arrest. Prior to that, he helped develop Pacific Command strategy and policy.

Bishop was familiar with the Pacific Command’s highest priority capability gaps, the command’s chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Anthony Crutchfield, said in a declaration filed in support of the prosecution’s motion to have him detained without bail.

From 2010 to 2012, Bishop had access to “top secret” information on efforts to defend against a ballistic missile attack from North Korea, Crutchfield said.

Click to expand...