US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


inside
Navy to begin afloat network pilot using mini clouds at sea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

" ... Rear Adm. Danelle Barrett, director of the Navy Cyber Security Division, said ...
The vision, using a network architecture template that was created 17 years ago, is for a mini data cloud on that ship.
On a ship, she said, instead of having a specific monolithic application that just provides the navigation capability, an application logic could be self learning telling commanders what they need.
...
Additionally, they want to be able to send ship data ashore to a big commercial cloud to tie into big data analytics.
...
“We could be totally wrong,” Barrett said ..."

... and I concur
 

timepass

Brigadier
Trump to Seek 24 Boeing Super Hornets in Budget, Reversing Obama...

1000x-1.jpg


"The Navy has argued that it needs more of the planes designated F/A-18E/F to fill a shortage in its inventory until more of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s newer F-35s are deployed. Before Trump even took office, he’d promoted the Super Hornet as a less costly alternative to the F-35, though the two planes have different capabilities."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Trump to Seek 24 Boeing Super Hornets in Budget, Reversing Obama...

1000x-1.jpg


"The Navy has argued that it needs more of the planes designated F/A-18E/F to fill a shortage in its inventory until more of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s newer F-35s are deployed. Before Trump even took office, he’d promoted the Super Hornet as a less costly alternative to the F-35, though the two planes have different capabilities."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

@Air Force Brat @bd popeye @Obi Wan Russell @FORBIN I know you huys will all like seeing this.

24 more F/A-18Fs for the US Navy...Trum reverses Obama. I am sure we will see more of this.
 
US Navy is seeking proposals for more destroyers
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

vague, but since I read it:
The Navy has submitted a request for proposals for more destroyers to be built by either Maine’s Bath Iron Works or Mississippi’s Ingalls shipyard, or both.

The Naval Sea Systems Command issued its final request on Thursday for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers built with ballistic missile defense capability.

The contract covers the fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

The request for proposal doesn’t mention the number of ships but earlier Navy documents envisioned up to 10 destroyers, with options for more.

Bath Iron Works said Friday that the company will be assessing the latest request. The company had no further comment.
 
Wednesday at 7:57 AM
Yesterday at 4:26 PM
now this one is even more interesting:
Adm. Swift: Pacific Fleet Should Both Train and Operate Forces
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
but US Navy pressing towards major reorg that could strip Pacific Fleet of authorities
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy is pressing toward a major organizational change that could strip U.S. Pacific Fleet of some or all of its manning, training and equipping functions and consolidate that power under U.S. Fleet Forces Command on the East Coast.

That move, along with other organization reshuffling, is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that identified some unclear lines of command and control that stem from a long-held belief inside the service that the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is a unique theater that should have both the force generation and force employment accounts in their grip.

But the idea of removing authorities from Pacific Fleet, as well as some other reshuffling under consideration, has been controversial, with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Tuesday. But it’s unclear if, in the wake of widespread readiness shortfalls found in Pacific Fleet’s Japan-based ships, those objections will hold much weight with senior Navy leadership.

In a recent interview, the Navy’s second-in-command said the reorganizations first put forward in the dual reviews the Navy conducted into last summer’s accidents was being worked by a newly established Readiness Reform and Oversight Council, a board co-chaired by the Vice Chief of Naval Operations along with the Undersecretary of the Navy.

“One of the working groups led by [the deputy CNO for Information, Plans and Strategy], collaborating with the fleet and the office of legislative affairs and others, is going to really look hard at this force generation versus employment,” Adm. Bill Moran said. “And the model that exists today is that both coasts are doing a force generation piece and a force employment piece. And then you have FDNF that’s bolted on to that construct.

“So we’re looking really hard at that,” Moran added. “The Secretary [of the Navy] and [Chief of Naval Operations] have a particular interest in this.”

The other major move being considered is taking the three-star type commander job – Naval Surface Force Pacific and Naval Air Force Pacific – from the West Coast and putting it in Norfolk to be closer to a more empowered Fleet Forces commander, a possibility recommended in the reviews.

Prior to the last major reshuffle in 2001, both coasts had a three-star type commander who oversaw modernization, training and operational concepts development for their ships. But after the reorg, the Navy went to a lead/follow model, where SURFPAC and AIRPAC were the three-star type commanders, and their East Coast counterparts were two-star admirals who follow their lead. (The submarine type commander stayed on the East Coast.)

The secretary of the Navy’s Strategic Readiness Review recommended that all the leads be relocated to Norfolk and the follows be kept in the Pacific, a move designed to keep a newly empowered Fleet Forces close to the TYCOMs. The argument being that the confusing and opaque relationship between the type commanders and their East and West Coast readiness providers — PACFLT and Fleet Forces — obfuscates clear lines of authority.

“Getting the clarity on command and control is very important and I do think over time it got less clear,” Moran said. “Back in the day when we had three-star TYCOMs on both coasts, it was a little more clear. Then we got to the lead/follow and it got a little less clear, even though we tried to make it clear.

“So I think that’s something that this working group is going to have to look at … Is there the potential for other clarifications? I think it’s likely and we’ll let the working group make those recommendations and take it up to the CNO.”

The reviews also recommended reestablishing the defunct 2nd Fleet as the readiness provider on the East Coast, the way 3rd Fleet is on the West Coast. That recommendation is likely to be adopted, several sources said, but the same sources cast doubt on whether the South-and-Central America focused U.S. 4th Fleet would be disbanded, per the recommendation.

Objections

The idea of stripping the West Coast of its three-star TYCOMs and its force generation responsibilities has not been universally praised. Advocates for the move say that getting readiness functions out of the hands of Pacific Fleet will free the four-star commander to focus on the unique strategic and operational challenges in the region.

But in a recent interview with USNI News, Pacific Fleet head Adm. Scott Swift argued that the construct of Pacific Fleet generates readiness well and rejected the idea that having separate centers of force generation creates multiple standards.

“We do not have multiple standards,” Swift said. We train the fleet to the same standard. The last five carrier strike groups that deployed, we built that readiness. PACFLEET did, they all deployed off the West Coast. And they’re performing magnificently in Syria, Iraq, all those other places. So there’s not a double standard.”

Swift acknowledged the shortfalls in readiness generation in 7th Fleet, well documented in both reviews, but seemed to tell USNI that his 3rd Fleet Forward initiative — where groups deploy under the control of third fleet the whole time instead of changing to 7th Fleet when in the Asia-Pacific region — has begun to ease the burden on 7th Fleet.

Supporters of reorganization say that nobody is questioning Pacific Fleet’s ability to generate readiness, but that being a readiness generator as well as a force employer creates a fox-guarding-henhouse scenario where the need for forces can cause, even unwittingly, pressures to cut corners as was documented in 7th Fleet.

“The issue is you are under the gun to provide forces and that will shade into: ‘What do we have to do to get those forces out faster,’” said one retired senior Navy leader. “This is what happened in Yokosuka.

“So let’s look out in the next five years: what’s going to change? Demand for ships? No. Are we going to get more ships? No. So the pressures are only going to grow – I don’t see the pressure to do everything is lessening and inevitably you are going to find a way to provide those forces.”

Retired Adm. Bob Natter, who was the last 2nd Fleet commander and was the first Fleet Forces Commander in 2001, said he agreed Moran’s statements about the potential for major reorganization.

“I certainly support and agree with the vice chief’s comments,” he said. “I think it’s appropriate and timely to make the adjustments’ where necessary.

“Its a different world today than it was when we made the changes and none of this stuff should be etched in stone.”
 
Friday at 8:13 PM
Nov 22, 2017
now Is JSTARS the right way forward? Even Lockheed says it’s a question worth asking.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and Air Force to kill JSTARS recap program for new battlefield management plane
The Air Force intends to cancel the JSTARS recap program
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, tanking one of the service’s few remaining aircraft production opportunities still in contention.

The Air Force had
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to replace its legacy inventory of E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System battlefield management and control aircraft, with Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — the three major U.S. military aircraft manufacturers — all vying for the prime contractor slot.

Instead, it will push forward with a system-of-systems approach that will link together existing platforms to track ground targets and do command and control, sources with knowledge of the budget told Defense News.

The Air Force’s decision to terminate the recap program will come as little surprise to those closely watching the competition. News of the potential cancelation broke in September, when
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that condemned the Air Force’s plans to explore alternate options for the airborne command and control mission.

In recent months, the service seemingly doubled down on the system-of-systems approach, with top officials from the Air Force’s top civilian to the head of Air Combat Command all questioning — in public — whether a JSTARS recap made sense given future threats.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The legacy JSTARS fleet currently meets only 5 percent of the requirements of combatant commanders, she said, and by the time the recap system would be fielded, it would meet “less than one percent” of those needs, she said in November.

Gen. Mike Holmes, the four-star in charge of Air Combat Command,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
during the Air Force Association’s annual conference this September.

“The question really is, how long do we continue to fund the GMTI [ground moving target indicator] capability in the classic way we’ve done it: with an integrated platform that has a sensor and air battle managers onboard,” that then communicate in the line of sight with people to take on tasks, he said.

“How much of our threat environment in the future will allow us to do that?”

Industry setback

The decision comes as a major blow to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Northrop and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, all of which hoped to win the estimated $6.9 billion contract for engineering, manufacturing and design of the plane. Each of the companies have invested millions of dollars of their own funds to hone their designs and were awaiting source selection by the government.

Proponents of the program on Capitol Hill have already noted that taxpayers have invested more than $265 million thus far in early research funding. About $400 million in additional funding has also been approved in the 2018 national defense authorization act, but congressional appropriators — who actually hold the purse strings — have not yet settled on how much to allocate.

Lawmakers have already put some limits on whether the Air Force will be allowed to go through with their plan to cancel the program. The 2018 NDAA stipulates that, should the service at any time terminate the program, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis must submit a report at the time of the budget request laying out why it was canceled and how the service will continue to meet the mission. He must also certify that a capability gap will not be caused by the decision.

Now, the T-X training jet and UH-1N Huey helicopter replacement program — both also in source selection — stand alone as the service’s major aircraft modernization opportunities. Boeing and Lockheed are competing in both contests.

Of the three primes, Northrop, the prime contractor on the legacy E-8C JSTARS, is the most hurt by the program’s cancellation.

The company dropped out of the T-X competition last year and does not manufacture helicopters. It also had
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to produce the radar for the JSTARS recap program, which would have given it a win even if it had not nabbed the EMD contract.

Boeing also had high hopes for its JSTARS recap bid, envisioning its 737-based offering as the start of a line of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that could eventually replace planes like the E-3 AWACS or RC-135 Rivet Joint.

During an interview at the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on Tuesday, Orlando Carvalho, the head of Lockheed’s aeronautics division, said that source selection activities were continuing and that competitors
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. However, he indicated that Lockheed would not fight the cancellation of the program, if that was what was decided.

“If ultimately the Air Force decides to not go forward with that program, clearly we will respect that decision. And frankly, we understand,” he said during an interview Tuesday at the Singapore Airshow. “Having insight into some of the operations that have been going on in the Middle East, things like that, we can appreciate the tradeoff that the Air Force is trying to make.”
source is DefenseNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Both house of the US Congress need to get together and solve this budget impasse. This is ridiculous.
money are coming, just DOD to Release Fiscal 2019 Budget Before 2018 Spending Approved
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Defense Department on Monday will roll out its Fiscal 2019 budget request, even though it’s still waiting on Congress to approve Fiscal 2018 funds. The move comes just one business day after an hours-long government shutdown—the second one within two weeks—and enactment of a fifth continuing resolution, which funds the government through March 23.

However, the latest CR, which President Trump signed Friday morning, is attached to a two-year budget agreement that includes increases in defense spending in both fiscal years and will provide some much-needed stability for military planners.

The chairmen of the House and Senate defense committees issued statements Friday lauding the move, with both saying it is a step toward restoring the military.

“Now the Defense Department will have the budget certainty it needs to begin the process of rebuilding the military, restoring readiness, and modernizing our forces—all of which are required to maintain America’s military edge over our adversaries in the era of renewed great power competition outlined in the new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

The deal, according to a Bloomberg summary citing a senior House staffer, increases defense spending caps from $549 billion to $629 billion in Fiscal 2018, and increases the overseas contingency operations fund, which is not subject to budget caps, by $71 billion. For Fiscal 2019, the cap on defense spending will increase from $562 billion to $647 billion, and OCO funds are set at $69 billion.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said the measure “begins to rebuild and restore America’s military” and passed “because members of both parties made our security and our service members a priority.”

“Now we must make sure that Congress fulfills this promise to our military, that the Pentagon spends this money wisely, and that the era of using troops as leverage for political gain has ended,” he said.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the senior Democrat on Armed Services, lauded the defense provisions in the agreement, although he was critical of Trump and the new Republican tax policy, which he says have “thwarted commonsense efforts to adequately meet our country’s domestic and defense needs.”

The budget framework, “isn’t perfect, but it is a pragmatic step toward breaking the cycle of short-term budgeting and offers an opportunity to provide some much needed certainty and stability,” said Reed. “I am pleased this bill lays the groundwork to fund strategic priorities in the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that Sen. McCain and I authored. It will enhance military readiness and help us meet evolving national security challenges now and in the future.”

AFA President Larry Spencer also praised the agreement.

“As the former Air Force budget leader, it is critical to our warfighters and to our nation that the US Air Force has stable and predictable funding to plan programs and operations,” said Spencer. “We applaud Congress’ decision to defer sequestration while providing increased funding for the next two years.”
 
Today at 9:23 AM
money are coming, just DOD to Release Fiscal 2019 Budget Before 2018 Spending Approved
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now A Pentagon budget like none before: $700 billion
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It’s the biggest budget the Pentagon has ever seen: $700 billion. That’s far more in defense spending than America’s two nearest competitors, China and Russia, and will mean the military can foot the bill for thousands more troops, more training, more ships and a lot else.

And next year it would rise to $716 billion. Together,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
provides what
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says is needed to pull the military out of a slump in combat readiness at a time of renewed focus on the stalemated conflict in Afghanistan and the threat of war on the Korean peninsula.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that President Donald Trump signed Friday includes huge spending increases for the military: The Pentagon will get $94 billion more this budget year than last — a 15.5 percent jump. It’s the biggest year-over-year windfall since the budget soared by 26.6 percent, from $345 billion in 2002 to $437 billion the year after, when the nation was fighting in Afghanistan, invading Iraq and expanding national defense after the 9/11 attacks.

The extra money is not targeted at countering a new enemy or a singular threat like al-Qaida extremists or the former Soviet Union. Instead the infusion is being sold as a fix for a broader set of problems, including a deficit of training, a need for more hi-tech missile defenses, and the start of a complete recapitalization of the nuclear weapons arsenal.

Every secretary of defense since 2011, when the Congress passed a law setting firm limits on military and domestic spending, has complained that spending caps set by the Budget Control Act were squeezing the military so hard that the number of ready-to-fight combat units was dwindling. Aging equipment was stacking up, troops were not getting enough training and the uncertain budget outlook was clouding America’s future.

“I cannot overstate the negative impact to our troops and families’ morale from all this budget uncertainty,” Mattis said just hours before the House and Senate approved the deal.

More money for the Pentagon, however, is not the simple solution some might think. Even with the spending caps of recent years, the defense budget has been robust by historical standards. Todd Harrison, a defense budget specialist at the Center for Security and International Studies, says military funding has been near the inflation-adjusted peak levels of the armed forces buildup during the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan.

The problem, Harrison says, is that the budgets have been stretched by rising personnel costs, more expensive technology investments and other factors, compounded by the cumulative effects of more than a decade of combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. And throughout this period, the military has been required to keep up or even increase its pace of operations at home and abroad — and there is no letup in sight.

“We are stretched too thin,” Harrison said Friday. “We are trying to do too much with the size force that we have all around the world. Money doesn’t necessarily fix that.”

The U.S. has far fewer troops in Iraq than it did 10 years ago, and the roughly 15,000 in Afghanistan today compare with a peak of 100,000 in 2010-11, but the trend is leaning in the opposite direction under President Donald Trump, including stepped up counterterrorism operations in Somalia and Yemen. Trump has added several thousand troops in Afghanistan. Also, the prospect of war against North Korea looms large as Trump insists on compelling the North to give up its nuclear weapons.

The enormous increases in defense spending agreed to by lawmakers on Friday go beyond what Trump ask for. Of the $700 million in spending for the 2018 budget year that started last Oct. 1, about $629 billion is for core Pentagon operations and nearly $71 billion is for the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Trump had requested a 2018 military budget of $603 billion for basic functions and $65 billion for war missions.

The deal Congress approved early Friday also sets the Pentagon’s 2019 budget at $716 billion, giving Mattis the financial stability he’s been demanding.

The biggest winners in the military buildup are the country’s largest defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics, that spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress.

The legislation that Trump signed Friday is expected to translate to billions more for one of the Pentagon’s highest priorities: missile defense. The appropriations committees still need to finalize exactly what will be in the 2018 defense budget. But they’re likely to follow closely the defense policy bill approved by Congress late last year. That included $12.3 billion for the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency and ordered a more rapid buildup of the nation’s missile defenses as North Korea has refused to back away from developing nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States.

The policy bill included money for as many as 28 additional Ground-Based Interceptors — anti-missile missiles that would be launched from underground silos in Alaska in the event the U.S. decided to try to shoot down a North Korean missile heading toward the United States. The bill also grants U.S. troops a 2.4 percent pay raise, slightly higher than the Pentagon had proposed.

Before the budget deal was reached, Congress frequently resorted to the use of stopgap spending bills. Under these short-term measures, the Pentagon’s budget was locked at current levels and the military services could be barred from starting new programs or ending old ones. The Pentagon complained that the stopgap approach forced them to shift dollars intended for new weapons and other needed equipment to pay for ongoing operations.
 

timepass

Brigadier
US recognition that aid suspension to Pakistan will not Pay off....

Untitled-12-min-640x320.jpg


US State Department informed Congress that the Trump administration’s decision to suspend its security assistance to Pakistan had failed to achieve its objectives because Islamabad had not changed its policies.

Discussion over Pakistan was a major part of Tuesday’s hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the administration’s new South Asia strategy in which both US officials and lawmakers acknowledged that Islamabad played a vital role in bringing peace to Afghanistan.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Yesterday at 8:52 AM
Wednesday at 7:57 AM
but US Navy pressing towards major reorg that could strip Pacific Fleet of authorities
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and related is some way is Trump expected to nominate head of US Fleet Forces Command for top post in Pacific
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is seeking to nominate the head of U.S. Fleet Forces Command to be the top U.S. military officer in the Pacific, according to three defense officials who spoke on background.

Adm. Phil Davidson’s nomination sits with the White House, officials said, which means that barring any objections he’ll relieve Adm. Harry Harris,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to be the U.S. ambassador to Australia. It also would mean that Davidson
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from the Air Force’s top officer in the Pacific, Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy.

An OSD spokesperson declined to comment for the article, saying “I have nothing to announce at this time.”

If Davidson is in fact nominated, the 1982 Naval Academy graduate will inherit a nuclear standoff with North Korea and a slow-motion conflict with China over its expansive claims of maritime rights in the South China Sea. Adm. Harris, the outgoing PACOM, developed a reputation for being aggressive with U.S. forces deployed in the region, including a major show of force in November where three aircraft carriers conducted a simultaneous patrol in the waters near the Korean peninsula.

Davidson has spent most of his career on the East Coast. He commanded the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, the cruiser Gettysburg and the frigate Taylor. Prior to being Fleet Forces commander, he commanded U.S. 6th Fleet in Europe. He has previous experience earlier in his career at a staff job at PACFLT, according to his official biography.

Davidson recently presided over the Navy’s Comprehensive Review of its Japan-based U.S. 7th Fleet after two deadly accidents claimed the lives of 17 sailors. Davidson’s review
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and a culture that cut corners to meet the unrelenting demand for Navy ships in the region.

It is unclear if O’Shaughnessy is still under consideration, but sources said it was likely Davidson was the only name sent over. The Pacific Air Forces commander was the early favorite to replace Harris because of his extensive experience in the Pacific. But the post has always been a Navy admiral and many speculated that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
source is DefenseNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top