HG S2 (Intel Bot)

Americas Northrop Grumman won a $57.5 million modification, which exercises options to provide continued sustainment, engineering, logistics, and test support for MQ-4C Triton air vehicles, mission control and operator training systems; continued field service representative’s technical support to ensure that the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) aircraft are mission-capable for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance […]View the full article

Regular readers know the importance of the United States being the world’s premier sea power, but that is inside the lifelines of our corner of the national conversation. For a whole host of reasons we have discussed here over the years and on Midrats – in spite of our nation surrounded by the fruits of the open seas – the larger American public does not see it. We suffer, in essence, from our success. The time when the free flow of goods across the globe was not a given has slipped well out of living memory. Except for older cohort GenX and older, no one even remembers the regional threat the Soviet Red Banner Fleet aspired to be right before the empire she served collapsed and disaggregated. Not just the United States, but the developed and developing nations throughout the globe who benefit from the post-WWII maritime environment suffer from seablindness. There are other powers - resentful, bitter, and grasping – who even though they benefit from the global agreement – wish to break it down and create something new. Not so much that they want something better – they just don’t like a system they had no role in creating – one defined by the assumed ever-presence of the United States Navy and her friends. As fish are not aware of the water they swim in, so the global economy does not fully understand the world it exists in … and the fact that it is under threat of disappearing. Our friend Jerry Hendrix has been an integral and valuable part of the public conversation for well over two decades – longer inside the lifelines of the US military. This month he has an exceptional article over at The Atlantic titled, “America’s Future is at Sea” or in the more flashy online version, "The Age of American Naval Dominance is Over" that you need to take time to read. He weaves together not just the history, but the economic, diplomatic, and civilizational threads that all connect to American seapower. What adds additional importance to his article is the venue. As I mentioned in the opener to this post, “we” know this story – or at least most of it. The problem is too many others do not. The Atlantic has a certain readership segment which includes many people of influence and proximity to the levers of power, or a degree or two separated from someone who does. The vast majority of its readers who are not soaked in the details involving the maritime domain. These people need to understand the issues as much as readers here do. You really need to read it in full, but here are a few pull quotes I’d like to share. He starts out strong; Very few Americans—or, for that matter, very few people on the planet—can remember a time when freedom of the seas was in question. But for most of human history, there was no such guarantee. Pirates, predatory states, and the fleets of great powers did as they pleased. The current reality, which dates only to the end of World War II, makes possible the commercial shipping that handles more than 80 percent of all global trade by volume—oil and natural gas, grain and raw ores, manufactured goods of every kind. Because freedom of the seas, in our lifetime, has seemed like a default condition, it is easy to think of it—if we think of it at all—as akin to Earth’s rotation or the force of gravity: as just the way things are, rather than as a man-made construct that needs to be maintained and enforced. But what if the safe transit of ships could no longer be assumed? What if the oceans were no longer free? Nothing is guaranteed ... or as Papa Salamander would often tell me, "No one owes you a living." Imagine, though, a more permanent breakdown. A humiliated Russia could declare a large portion of the Arctic Ocean to be its own territorial waters, twisting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to support its claim. Russia would then allow its allies access to this route while denying it to those who dared to oppose its wishes. Neither the U.S. Navy, which has not built an Arctic-rated surface warship since the 1950s, nor any other NATO nation is currently equipped to resist such a gambit. Or maybe the first to move would be Xi Jinping, shoring up his domestic standing by attempting to seize Taiwan and using China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles and other weapons to keep Western navies at bay. An emboldened China might then seek to cement its claim over large portions of the East China Sea and the entirety of the South China Sea as territorial waters. It could impose large tariffs and transfer fees on the bulk carriers that transit the region. Local officials might demand bribes to speed their passage. "Gentlemen's agreements" only work if both parties act as gentlemen and keep their word. What happens when one party decides not to be? What is the enforcement mechanism ... or is there one at all? If oceanic trade declines, markets would turn inward, perhaps setting off a second Great Depression. Nations would be reduced to living off their own natural resources, or those they could buy—or take—from their immediate neighbors. The world’s oceans, for 70 years assumed to be a global commons, would become a no-man’s-land. This is the state of affairs that, without a moment’s thought, we have invited. This is not alarmism. A discordant and ill-timed blending of demography, debt, economics, and politics are driving the global system of crisis - what we warned of starting 13-yrs ago as "The Terrible 20s." —a “free sea”—first enunciated by the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius in 1609. The United States and Great Britain, the two traditional proponents of a free sea, had emerged not only triumphant but also in a position of overwhelming naval dominance. Their navies were together larger than all of the other navies of the world combined. A free sea was no longer an idea. It was now a reality. In this secure environment, trade flourished. The globalizing economy, which allowed easier and cheaper access to food, energy, labor, and commodities of every kind, grew from nearly $8 trillion in 1940 to more than $100 trillion 75 years later, adjusted for inflation. With prosperity, other improvements followed. During roughly this same period, from the war to the present, the share of the world’s population in extreme poverty, getting by on less than $1.90 a day, dropped from more than 60 percent to about 10 percent. Global literacy doubled, to more than 85 percent. Global life expectancy in 1950 was 46 years. By 2019, it had risen to 73 years. What happens if global trade retrogrades to a prior, less safe, less predictable (hurting insurance carriers ability to properly set rates) and vibrant time? Well, you look at the positive effects of growth in the past to see an inverse of what a return to the multipolar ocean might bring the future. That is what Jerry just did. Re-read the above and ponder even a fraction of that headwind; It is important as we look at today's challenge to accept that we are not a passive victim of a changing world. No. We are here mostly as a result of our own actions. Decline is a choice. As a side note, if you are not already thinking of another article in The Atlantic from 16 year's ago, Robert D. Kaplan's "America's Elegant Decline," go ahead and read it now. It is never to a nation’s advantage to depend on others for crucial links in its supply chain. But that is where we are. In 1977, American shipbuilders produced more than 1 million gross tons of merchant ships. By 2005, that number had fallen to 300,000. Today, most commercial ships built in the United States are constructed for government customers such as the Maritime Administration or for private entities that are required to ship their goods between U.S. ports in U.S.-flagged vessels, under the provisions of the 1920 Jones Act. The U.S. Navy, too, has been shrinking. After the Second World War, the Navy scrapped many of its ships and sent many more into a ready-reserve “mothball” fleet. For the next two decades, the active naval fleet hovered at about 1,000 ships. But beginning in 1969, the total began to fall. By 1971, the fleet had been reduced to 750 ships. Ten years later, it was down to 521. Reagan, who had campaigned in 1980 on a promise to rebuild the Navy to 600 ships, nearly did so under the able leadership of his secretary of the Navy, John Lehman. During Reagan’s eight years in office, the size of the Navy’s fleet climbed to just over 590 ships. Then the Cold War ended. The administrations of Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton slashed troops, ships, aircraft, and shore-based infrastructure. During the Obama administration, the Navy’s battle force bottomed out at 271 ships. Meanwhile, both China and Russia, in different ways, began to develop systems that would challenge the U.S.-led regime of global free trade on the high seas. Read it all. If this isn’t enough Hendrix, and there is never enough, Jerry will join us this upcoming Sunday for Midrats. Don’t miss it! View the full article

Americas Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems won a $48.5 million modification for AEGIS fielding and sustainment engineering support, software development, in-service maintenance, integration, and logistics and fielding support for AEGIS combat system configurations already delivered, or in the process of being delivered, to the Navy fleet. Work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey […]View the full article

To see where we are and where we need to go, it is always helpful to remind ourselves how we got here. First let's look where we are; the Navy telling Congress to bugger-off; Via Caitlin Kenny at DefenseOne; The Navy is proposing to drop its amphibious fleet below 31 ships, despite an agreement with the Marine Corps and a potential violation of last year’s defense policy law. Sent to Congress on Monday, the Navy’s proposed $255.8 billion 2024 budget aims to retire eight warships before the end of their intended service life, including three Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships, or LSDs, that it proposed to scrap last year but which were saved by the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act There are a lot of people out there so far this week doing great work reading the entrails of the latest budget, so I won't try to replicate their fine work here. This did not happen by accident. This is not happening as a result only of a lack of funds. This did not happen because a black cat walked in front of the CNO. No. This is the predictable result of three things Big Navy has control of, but by acts of commission and omission, consistently made the wrong decision. Wound One: Material Condition: (We) did a ship-by-ship review, to understand the material state of each of the ships. What we found on the LSDs is that they are challenged in terms of readiness.As we have covered here for the better part of two decades, as have others, the Navy decided to take savings from maintenance, hide once UNCLAS INSURV behind a classified wall, and - like someone avoiding the dentist or a regular physical - more than willing make things easy by doing nothing now, knowing full well that it will only be worse later on. Unlike tooth pain or colon cancer though, the person making things easy now is not the same as the person who will take the pain later. Kind of like a programmatic/leadership "Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Sociopathic Tendencies." Leadership let their fleet rot, and then pretends as if it was something that happened to the Navy, not allowed by the Navy. Wound Two: The Tiffany Amphib: “What we are making sure that we are doing as we move forward with our budget plans, is making sure that we have the right capabilities at the right price aligned to not only meeting military requirements, but working with industry,” Raven said. “And for LPD, we're taking a look at the acquisition strategy moving forward, again, to make sure that we would have the right capabilities at the right price and working with industry partners to put together that plan moving forward.” From the start of the LPD-17 program, our ongoing criticism was that this was way to expensive on a per-hull basis for the mission of a LPD. From the titanium firemain on, the entire design had no respect for budget challenges to buy the numbers needed so in a future conflict, we were not one or two ships sunk from being mission ineffective, but here we are. It took a lot of seabags full of money and Sailor sweat to fix the ship, but her cost remains a sea-anchor if you wanted more ships in 2024. If you need 10-ships, but price each unit such that you can only buy 7 ships - you own that 3 ship delta. Would Three: Institutional Parochialism: Berger on Monday reiterated the reasoning behind the 31-ship requirement for amphibs. “Anything less incurs risk to national defense by limiting the options for our combatant commanders,” he said in a statement to Defense One. “Per strategic guidance, the Marine Corps must be able to provide the nation with crisis response capabilities and build partnerships with allies and partners in support of integrated deterrence—difficult to achieve without the requisite number of amphibious warships.” ... Buying amphibious ships tends to be the last priority for the Navy after spending shipbuilding funds on aircraft carriers, submarines, and destroyers, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Bryan Clark said March 9 during Defense One’s State of the Navy event. “Whatever gets left over is what can go towards the amphibious ships and the support ships. And when you do all the numbers for that, you always end up with you know maybe not quite enough for the amphibious ships, because if you're building one LHA every four or five years that you can incrementally fund, that's a chunk of money that's on the scale of you know, $500 million a year. And then you've got maybe $500 million or a billion dollars leftover for one more amphibious ship, which isn't quite an LPD,” Clark said. From promotion rates to "prestige" - the Gator Navy has always been like that really good offensive lineman. They do their job and no one ever hears about them. Though they are paid less and don't get endorsements, without them no quarterback would be able to shine - no team achieve victory - and yet, the bias remains. How exactly are we supposed to take and hold territory across the vast Pacific littoral? Who will do that, with what, and in how many places? There are a lot of emoting going on about problems now that are directly the predicable results of decisions we've made. As we review our budget, perhaps we also need to review our institutional system of incentives and disincentives that drive such decisions; the rewards and punishments that result in the selection of the leaders who make them. View the full article

Americas According to Defense Post, The US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is developing a next-generation missile concept with a rapidly pivoting forebody. The missile’s “active morphing” capability increases its range and effectiveness against highly maneuverable targets at a limited cost. The missile’s agility is achieved through the articulation control actuation system (ACAS), a “composite […]View the full article

The long post-Cold War period of low defense spending - for serious nations - is coming to an end ... at least those are the words and the vibe ... but what are the actions? It is one thing to say you want to do more, the United Kingdom is actually talking about putting its money where their theory is; The UK will spend an extra £5bn on its military and aim to lift defence spending to 2.5% of GDP as part of an updated strategy to counter intensifying threats from China and Russia.Aspirations are good ... and so are statements of reality. Did you note the "C" word? The revised defence, security and foreign policy review will describe the Chinese Communist Party as an "epoch-defining challenge" in a toughening of language. The top priority will be to tackle the "fundamental risk" to European security posed by Moscow and to deny President Vladimir Putin from benefitting from his invasion of Ukraine. It is easy at this point to, like I did, get a little too must towards singing "Rule Britannia," as we will have to watch for a followthrough. That is always the hard part. Applied optimism leavened with the cynicism of experience; Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, speaking before his updated review is published on Monday, said the new money for defence over the next two years would replenish and grow ammunition stockpiles and top-up funding for the nuclear deterrent. This is a wise first move. No one can deny that the last 30-yrs of wargaming, theory, and funding of magazine depth and industrial capacity was an exercise in self-delusion. This would be my recommendation. Of course, like we are doing with the new SSBN, an expensive bit of kit, the British have to recapitalize that as well. If you want to have a credible strategic deterrence, you have to make it happen. Not the best timing, but such is the flow of history. Investing in her nuclear deterrent will have a nice knock-on effect of beefing up their submarine construction capabilities in preparation for AUKUS builds in the 2030s, To synch back to one of my favorite phrases as it relates to the Mother Country, like her children she is a maritime and aerospace power. That is where her comparative advantage is. Yes, a strong army is needed, but if funding is not exactly as great as you would like - if you have to place risk somewhere - for a maritime and aerospace power, the land component is where that risk must be; But the amount - while welcomed by the Ministry of Defence - is much less than what military chiefs are thought to require. Sources have told Sky News that the British Army alone needs an extra £3bn a year to avoid further cuts. Then they need to find more money ... and this is when Lucy walks up to Charlie Brown with a football; Mr Sunak, on a trip to the United States, also failed to commit to a timeframe on when his ambition for defence expenditure to reach 2.5% of national income, up from just over 2%, would be achieved other than in the "longer term".That is ... unfortunate. The ever famous "out years," but I'll take it. At least the British are stretching to reach 2.5% - many of the rest of our allies aspire to get near 2%. View the full article

Americas Boeing won a $18.7 million order to procure the long lead components and parts in support of MH-47G rotary wing aircraft. The MH-47G aircraft provides US Special Operations Forces heavy assault, rotary wing aircraft support. This contract action supports a requirement for replacement of the aging fleet of remanufactured MH-47G aircraft that has airframe […]View the full article

As we ended last week's show with a whole list of topics we wanted to discuss, this Sunday we're going to pick up right where we left off with a Midrats Maritime Melee! From submarines to Australia to the opening of mud season in Ukraine, we'll cover the latest - or at least the more interesting - topics in the national security arena. As with all our free-for-all formats, we have open topic and the switchboard phone line is open. If you have a topic you would like to discussed or want to call in with a question for the hosts ... join us live from 5-6pm Eastern. No guests, no set agenda, just open phones, open minds, and open chat room for those who are with us live Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern. Join us live if you can, but it not, you can get the show later by subscribing to the podcast. If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here. You can find us on almost all your most popular podcast aggregators as well. View the full article

Many know about the second USS LAFFEY (DD-724), the "ship that would not die," but what about the first? Put yourself in the shoes of its first, and only, Captain. Your ship is only been commissioned seven months. Heck, she still smells of shipyard. You don't care though. Sure, it took you 15-years after you graduated from Annapolis to make LCDR, but that's OK. Promotions were slow from 1925 to the buildup before the war. Two years later you get command of brand new destroyer, the USS LAFFEY (DD-459) just five months after Pearl Harbor. You get through your shakedown cruise and five months in to command you bring your crew of 208 Sailors in to combat. Less than a month after arriving in the southwest pacific, your crew had their first test at Battle of Cape Esperance. The action would not stop ... but the night of 13 November 1942 would make your ship legend; LAFFEY sighted both Japanese battleships shortly after CUSHING came under fire. LAFFEY passed under the bow of HIEI at a range of 20 yards, blasting the battleship at point-blank range with 5” shells and 20mm fire (officers on the bridge of LAFFEY also fired their side-arms at the battleship.) RADM Abe and the captain of HIEI were both wounded and Abe’s Chief of Staff killed by fire from LAFFEY. Abe did not remember the rest of the battle after being wounded. The early hits from LAFFEY and CUSHING, set HIEI’s massive superstructure aflame (described by some as a like a burning high rise apartment building) with the result that HIEI drew fire and numerous hits (over 85) from almost every U.S. ship engaged in the battle, resulting in massive topside damage, but none which penetrated to her vitals. In the confusion HIEI also fired on several Japanese destroyers. LAFFEY escaped from HIEI only to run into the large anti-aircraft destroyer TERUZUKI, which scored repeated hits on LAFFEY and blew off her stern with a torpedo before a salvo of 14” shells from the battleship KIRISHIMA hit LAFFEY. TERUZUKI avoided using her searchlight and as a result avoided drawing fire. As fires raged out of control from more hits by three other Japanese destroyers, LCDR Hank gave the order to abandon ship, just before a massive explosion tore LAFFEY apart, killing Hank and many men. Presidential Unit Citation. LCDR Hank awarded posthumous Navy Cross. Out of that crew of 208? 57 KIA/114 WIA. That is an 82% casualty rate. Fullbore. View the full article

Americas Boeing will commence production of the first 13 MH-139A Grey Wolf multi-mission helicopters under a $285-million contract with the US Air Force. The production begins an effort to replace the service’s aging UH-1N Huey fleet with up to 84 MH-139As. Once delivered, the helicopters will be used for aircrew survival training, airlift missions, and […]View the full article

No well meaning, honest person can say that it is bad to desire a color blind society, to want everyone to be treated equally relative to immutable characteristics, or to be judged by the content of their character - and then tell you they oppose racism. No one who desire a free nation should want to compel speech to squash debate ... but here we are. The absolute worst people in public discourse cannot argue their position, cannot stand for their policies to see the light of day ... so they will instead strive to destroy any voice that runs counter to their own. Weak people with weak ideas are always the most vicious. Congrats, you are a racist...in Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has redefined being racist as anybody who believes in “equality but not equity” or those who “refuse to engage in self-reflection and education to address their own” supposedly racist beliefs. This is an amazing bit of Maoist positioning by Canada. Everyone get your self-criticism written and dunce hat fitted. This Cultural Marxist Kendism is what, without a pause, the CNO thought everyone should think about, Note how it weaves in the very defendable with socio-political sectarianism. Simply destructive, and will lead to more conflict, not less ... but that is the point of this whole grift. It was too close to going away ... and there is too much money to make - they can't let unity and equality be the standard. What an evil ... what is it ... a religion, political philosophy, cult? Don't know ... but there is no place where things get better in their world. Crisis and strife is their oxygen. Admiral Gilday would still be pointing our Navy towards this nasty bit of sectarianism if Congress did not put as much pressure on him as it did. Don't forget that. View the full article

Americas Tech firm ThirdEye Gen has received a contract to deliver augmented reality and artificial intelligence (AR/AI) solutions to support US Navy and Marine Corps aviation maintenance operations. According to ThirdEye, AR/AI platforms can yield up to a 40 percent increase in operating efficiencies. The US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has ordered three […]View the full article

Outside everyone's interest in knowing "who'dun'it" in the blowing up on the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea, there has yet to be an full appreciation of the larger meaning of its destruction. 1937's bombing of Guernica gave a preview of what would befall Europe's cities just a few years later. The Russo-Ukrainian War is giving hints of what has changed over the last few decades that should give everyone pause to review their assumptions and critical vulnerabilities. Small and medium wars are good for that - they give hints to issues that will arise in future large wars. While it is easier to understand, even in the face of "sea blindness," the importance of the trade that arrives by ship, food and fuel at the top of the list, from the man on the street to policy makers in nations' capitals, the importance of what lies on the sea bed is lost to most. Though focused on the UK, our friend Alessio Patalano today has an article up at the Council on Geostrategy, Unseen but Vital: Britain and Undersea Security, that is worth an investment in your time for a quick read; The first and third aspects of today’s maritime century have direct relevance to undersea security. Maritime connectivity is both a function of, and a key driver behind, contemporary prosperity. It is a well-known fact that some 90% of global trade is carried by sea, yet it is a less well-known fact that some 99% of the world’s communications are delivered by 1.4 million kilometres of submarine cables. Of no less significance, a substantial part of gas and electricity resources is delivered through a series of undersea connectors. ...between 2010 and 2021, the capacity of energy interconnectors has increased to unprecedented levels. According to official data, electricity imports to the UK increased almost tenfold, with HM Government planning to expand the country’s capacity from 7,440 megawatts to 18 gigawatts by 2030. Within this context, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Republic of Ireland are primary energy trade partners for the UK, with new interconnectors set to link the UK to Germany and Denmark in the near future. The undersea security of Northern Europe is indivisible from the security of the UK. By a similar token, much of the UK economy and social services rest upon the continuous and uninterrupted use of undersea cables delivering data connectivity. As one informed observer recently noted, a disruption to the network of the approximately 60 British undersea cables would have potentially devastating consequences. Incredibly diverse aspects of life in the UK, from multimillion international bank transactions to medical activities resting on access to cloud-based access to data, would be at risk if a sufficient number of cables were severed or sabotaged. As we covered in a FbF back in 2009, attacking undersea cables dates back to the 19th Century - but the modern reliance on what is on the sea bed is orders of magnitude greater than just telegraphs were back then. Getting to them is not easy ... but life once they are cut is even less easy. Time to think about what is needed to keep them secure, especially in any time of heightened tensions...but in an era of international terrorism, is there really a time of peace for vulnerable targets? View the full article

Americas Textron Aviation has delivered a Cessna Grand Caravan EX utility aircraft to the Belize Defense Force as part of a $7.84-million US Army foreign military sale. The handover was conducted at the Williamson Hangar Complex in Ladyville. The delivery includes spare parts, training support, and on-site maintenance services. The aircraft will be flown for maritime […]View the full article

As important as it is to count the number and type of warships the People's Republic of China (PRC) is building for their navy is, how productive their shipyards are, and even the negative impact of their crashing demographics - there are other things that are arguably more important to track in order to see what the challenge will be before it comes over the horizon. That is what we have been doing for the last 18-years of the "Long Game" series on the PRC - looking further than the threat of the next few POM cycles. The PRC is playing a long game, we should do our best to understand it. Where a warship has an effective life of 30-yrs or a bit more, there are assets that last much longer, continually modernize themselves, and when combined together, are much more powerful in aggregate than the sum of the individuals - that is human capital, specifically intellectual capital. In 2023, the American taxpayer and their elected representatives would not stand by and accept if our defense contractors were building warships, aircraft, and armored vehicles for the PRC's military (one hopes). No arguments from industry about profits or the number of jobs these contracts would bring to communities in the USA would gain traction (one hopes). If anything, it would bring a popular revolt (one hopes). If that is true, then why would the American higher education system be any different? Specifically I am referencing the top research universities - which almost all American taxpayers pay for - STEM undergraduate, and especially the very few masters and PhD programs? I don't care if they are paying full price - why are we helping the PRC develop their future technology? Anyone who, like your humble blogg'r, has kids and relatives of college age whose graduation ceremonies you attend can tell, PRC passport holders are taking up a HUGE portion of available slots. In a highly competitive environment, the difference between getting a spot or not in highly competitive programs at our top universities is a matter of small degrees. For each PRC national getting a PhD in chemical engineering at a top tier university, that is an American citizen - or the citizen of an allied nation - who is not. This has been going on for decades. What is the result? Over at Breaking Defense there is a nice wakeup call to what we have helped create; In a new report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the US comes second to China in the majority of critical technology research areas examined, like artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology and quantum technology and specifically in defense and space-related technologies. The report uses ASPI’s new Critical Technology Tracker, a tool that lets users track 44 technologies considered “foundational” for national security, economies and more areas. ... China is outpacing the US and other democratic nations in 37 out of 44 technology research areas considered advanced and critical, setting the stage for potentially devastating immediate and long-term consequences if western nations don’t “wake up,” according to a think tank’s latest findings. In a large part building off the first generation of people educated in the USA and other Western nations' best universities, the PRC has some good universities ... but they cannot hold a candle to the culture of innovation and research at ours. In dual use technology areas ... we are not just helping them get a technological edge, we are helping them bring their military closer to a qualitive equality - eating away at our hedge against the quantity a nation 4x the size of ours will bring to any fight. In many of these areas, the PRC is not a "pacing" or "rising" threat - they've already lapped us; “To close, and surpass, the technological gap China is creating, the US not only needs to invest more, but also harness the power of commercial data to inform strategic investments to expel foreign influence and adversarial capital from our industrial base,” she added. “Only then can we begin to find America’s edge in the fight against China.”People matter. We cannot change the mistakes of the past. The PRC has what they have. “In the long term, China’s leading research position means that it has set itself up to excel not just in current technological development in almost all sectors, but in future technologies that don’t yet exist…,” the report says. What we can do is control our decisions for the future. If someone from the PRC wants to come to the USA to get a PhD in Gender Studies; knock yourself out. Comparative French Literature? Sure. Other things ... naw ... ASPI made a total of 23 recommendations in its report, calling for increased investments in areas like research and development, talent development and the production of intelligence strategies, while also advocating for governments to come up with more creative policy ideas and more collaboration between partners and allies. This is the point of the article that I started to get frustrated. You can almost feel the author trying NOT to propose what is the most logical first step; stop training your adversaries. Until we stop underwriting the development and ongoing modernization of the PRC's intellectual capital, their strength and dominance in existing and emerging strategic dual use technology will only grow. Universities will not do it. At the State level, citizens need to tell their governors and state legislatures they don't want their universities sending citizens away in order to take PRC money. At the federal level, Congress must act where appropriate. Graph credit Eric Rosenblum. View the full article

Americas The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) seeks a high-speed, runway-independent next-generation aircraft demonstrator. DARPA is working with the US Special Operations Command on the Speed and Runway Independent Technologies (SPRINT) X-Plane program to validate scalable concepts and technologies for different size military aircraft. The SPRINT project intends to develop an air platform […]View the full article

You can't grow a Navy if you can't find a place for the people you have today to work. You won't even be able to recruit them. People decide to join the military or a whole raft of reasons from the honorable to the random to the undefinable. A significant number of those reasons are word of mouth from friends or family who are already serving. Once in, keeping a productive climate where the demanding nature of the military adds enough stress and frustration is a hard balance. It is often based on the degree servicemembers feel their command/service "has their back" and is trying to provide the most basic support so the servicemember can do the job they joined to do. Every time the military screws up pay, makes Sailors wait 3-hrs for a 5-minute evolution, forces them to use a website interface that is slow, dysfunctional, or has impossible software/hardware requirements - the people we try so hard to get to join and stay have one more thing to add to their list of reasons to go. As we talked about towards the end of yesterday's Midrats - something as simple and straight forward as parking should be one of the most fixable things we do - and is something we stubbornly insist that we won't fix. We know how many Sailors we have. We know where they work, etc... However ... we seem to have lost the bubble - and have for decades - on the fact that there is a gap in our understanding that these people - who we like to say are our most valuable asset - have to drive to work, park, and then get to where they are assigned. Basic stuff. The notice below from the commander of Naval Base San Diego below came across the transom last week and triggered me into one of those vicarious frustration/anger moods for a bit. This is not a new or unidentified problem. I remember well the nightmare of 1990s NB Norfolk - and that experience set in stone my dislike of these mega-master bases. I've been stationed at big, medium, and as a baby JO a small naval base. The larger the base, the lower the quality of work, quality of life, and negative impact on work-life balance. From pass-tag, PSD, to the traffic jams at peak times - mega bases are a dystopian horror in a Soviet like cultural way. Because of the massive nature of bases like NB San Diego, NB Norfolk, NAS Jacksonville etc - especially for servicemembers who have families and can't afford to pay for private schooling - a 45-minute or more commute to affordable housing and good schools is not uncommon. Then you get on base, you have to park a long way away unless you get there REAL early. San Diego is nice, but in the heat and rain of summer in Virginia or Florida - every time you have to hike in 95F to the car you parked half a mile away after an hour commute that AM with a walk in that soaked you to the bone in rain before dawn, worked 10-hrs, and now it will take you 20-min to get off of base and another 45-min to drive home ... you might be a little cynical - especially when the people telling you that parking is part of the job have assigned parking space 10-yards from the quarterdeck. In the civilian sector, any company that forced its employees to have such a difficult situation would soon find itself losing their best employees and those remaining were disgruntled until you went out of business. This is a decades old problem because for some reasons we have an institutional mindset set in the middle decades of the 20th Century when most Sailors lived on ship, on base, or near base and reliable public transportation was an actual thing. We are approaching the mid-21st Century and we refuse to do what other organizations adjusted to decades ago. One of the first things a competent organization does it make sure their people have convenient parking to get to work. There is nothing magic here. Parking garages with multiple floors are not exotic, are poured concrete. How many trillions of dollars have we spent in the US military in the last decade? I checked in with a few folks who work on Naval Base San Diego and asked them exactly what Sailors who live off base have to deal with each day. How much time do they spend each day just getting from their car to the quarterdeck? How about an hour. How much "free time" does your standard issue sea duty Sailor have per day? So, Sailors will find ways to get better parking. Is asking someone who averages 5-hrs of sleep a day to "come in earlier" a good response? No. If it looks like a parking spot, people will treat it like one. That creates problems. Those responsible for the safety and appearance of bases get a bit grumpy when people do that ... and yet, there is a cost-benefit analysis going on here. Choices: a Sailor can park in a place that doesn't have lines but isn't a hazard and will make muster in 10-minutes (there was a wreck on the way in eating up 30-min of the 15-min buffer he gives himself each day), or he can park a half-mile away, maybe, and make muster. People will do what they have to do. Then Big Navy has to respond. To start with, I don't blame the Commander of NB San Diego. He has a problem that isn't fixing itself regardless of previous efforts. He isn't the one who for decades did not build adequate parking. He isn't the one who decided to make a large base larger in one of the most densely populated parts of the nation. He just has to find a way to make it work with what he has in his PCS cycle. That is where I found my triggered self not directing my ire towards beautiful San Diego and its leaders, but once again to the permanent class that is the Potomac Flotilla. How many times have the issues with parking in San Diego, Norfolk and other soul-sucking mega-bases been raised to the Regional Commanders and then on to OPNAV in that dysfunctional imperial city? This isn't the base commander's fault - this is the fault of over a quarter century's worth of Chiefs of Naval Operations. At the end of the day, that is where the buck stops and forces a base commander - in desperation - to draconian actions against Sailors who are not lazy or disobedient, no, they are just exhausted and trying to get to work on time. This isn't just unnecessary - it is an abusive relationship between 4-star leadership and their Sailors. No other large organization would be able to treat employees like this in the 21st Century. Oh, and what a hell of a Valentine's Day love letter. View the full article

Americas Lockheed Martin won a $214.5 million deal for multinational early start engineering efforts including planning and advance studies, requirements development, and performance assessment of the planned modernization and new combat system capabilities selection for current and future International Partner ships operating AEGIS. This contract involves Foreign Military Sales to Canada and other countries. Work […]View the full article

The news does not stop on the national security front, and as we approach the end of 1QCY23, a couple of weeks without a Midrats can only add to everyone's confusion. For the full hour we're going to cover the waterfront from the Sea of Azov to the parking lots of San Diego's waterfront. As with all our free-for-all formats, we have open topic and the switchboard phone line is open. If you have a topic you would like to discussed or want to call in with a question for the hosts ... join us live from 5-6pm Eastern. No guests, no set agenda, just open phones, open minds, and open chat room for those who are with us live Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern. Join us live if you can, but it not, you can get the show later by subscribing to the podcast. If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here. You can find us on almost all your most popular podcast aggregators as well. View the full article

Though the Americans are now in the fight, still on every front; desperation. At every morning brief, more ships sunk. The enemy surrounds you as you starve. Your ships and aircraft sit idle for lack of fuel and parts. Through waves of attacks, a relief convoy comes ... and you wait. Do they know your desperation? Will they make it? What can be done? Well, in comes the US merchant marine professional, Captain Dudley Mason - the master of the tanker SS OHIO - and his crew and convoy. For the details, let's look at the citation for his George Cross and the award to two of his crew, Frederick August Larsen, Jr., Junior Third Officer and Francis A. Dales, Deck Cadet-Midshipman on SS Santa Elisa/SS Ohio. A little note about those two men, they were not originally part of the crew of the OHIO. They had been rescued from the SS SANTA ELISA when it was sunk. Then they volunteered to man the guns on the Ohio. Via WWIIToday: During the passage to Malta of an important convoy Captain Mason’s ship suffered most violent onslaught. She was a focus of attack throughout and was torpedoed early one night. Although gravely damaged, her engines were kept going and the Master made a magnificent passage by hand-steering and without a compass. The ship’s gunners helped to bring down one of the attacking aircraft. The vessel was hit again before morning, but though she did not sink, her engine room was wrecked. She was then towed. The unwieldy condition of the vessel and persistent enemy attacks made progress slow, and it was uncertain whether she would remain afloat. All next day progress somehow continued and the ship reached Malta after a further night at sea. The violence of the enemy could not deter the Master from his purpose. Throughout he showed skill and courage of the highest order and it was due to his determination that, in spite of the most persistent enemy opposition, the vessel, with her valuable cargo, eventually reached Malta and was safely berthed.The George Cross citation is very brief, as is the British custom. More detail is available with Larsen and Dales' Merchant Marine Distinguished Service Medal citation; His ship was a freighter carrying drums of high-octane gasoline, one of two American ships, in a small British convoy to Malta. Orders were to “get through at all costs.” Heavily escorted, the convoy moved into the Mediterranean, and before noon of that day the enemy’s attack began. From then on the entire convoy was under constant attack from Axis planes and submarines. Assigned the command of an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the bridge, Dales contributed to the successful defense of his ship for three days. At 4:00 A.M. on the morning of the fourth day, torpedo boats succeeded in breaking through and two attacked from opposite sides. Sneaking in close under cover of the darkness one opened point-blank fire on Dales’s position with four .50 caliber machine guns, sweeping the bridge and killing three of his gun crew in the first bursts. The other sent its deadly torpedo into the opposite side of the freighter. Neither the heavy fire from the first torpedo boat nor the torpedo from the second drove Dales and his crew from their gun. With only flashes to fire at in the darkness, he found the target and the first boat burst into flames and sank. But the torpedo launched by the other had done its deadly work. The high-test gasoline cargo ignited and the American ship was engulfed in flames. Reluctantly, orders were given to abandon her. Two hours later, the survivors were picked up by a British destroyer, which then proceeded to take in tow a tanker [SS Ohio] that had been bombed and could not maneuver. After five hours constant dive-bombing, the tanker was hit again–her crew abandoned her–and the destroyer was forced to cut her loose. But the cargo she carried was most important to the defense of Malta, and it had to get through. The rescue destroyer and another destroyer steamed in– lashed themselves on either side of the stricken tanker–and dragged her along in a determined attempt to get her to port. Dales and four others volunteered to go aboard the tanker and man her guns in order to bring more fire power to their defense. The shackled ships, inching along and making a perfect target, were assailed by concentrated enemy airpower. All that day wave after wave of German and Italian bombers dived at them and were beaten off by a heavy barrage. Bombs straddled them, scoring near misses, but no direct hits were made until noon the next day, when the tanker finally received a bomb down her stack which blew out the bottom of her engine room. Though she continued to settle until her decks were awash, they fought her through until dusk that day brought them under the protection of the hard fighting air force out of Malta.Here's the twist. How did they get the OHIO back to port with this much damage? Because of the vital importance of her cargo (10,000 tons of fuel which would enable the aircraft and submarines based at Malta to return to the offensive), she could not be abandoned. In a highly unusual manoeuvre, the two destroyers (HMS PENN and HMS LEDBURY) supported her to provide buoyancy and power for the remainder of the voyage. Mission focused; mission first. Fullbore. First posted AUG2018.View the full article

Americas The US Army has approved the requirements to begin prototyping its new Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (eLRV). According to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Sustainment Timothy Goddette, the budget is now being prepared. Prototyping and the early stages of the program could begin as early as next year. However, the first prototypes may be partially electric […]View the full article

Some developments on the "Diversity Statement" front ... or "DEI Statement" or "DEIA Statement" or whatever they are calling it this week. How do you connect the U.S. Naval Academy to the University of South Carolina, Florida, VMI, and the University of North Carolina System? Let's check in where the other school's are, and then we'll finish up what is happening at our Navy's undergrad institution. Thanks to John Sailer we have a look behind the curtain at the not so innocent "Diversity Statements" that so many colleges are making people fill out when applying for a teaching or tenure track position. Sure, they may tell you that there is no correct answer ... but ... The rubrics punish candidates who espouse race neutrality. They dictate a low score for anyone who states an “intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and ‘treat everyone the same.’” pic.twitter.com/TuQD31NAWG — John Sailer (@JohnDSailer) March 1, 2023 Oh, how about those sectarian "Affinity Groups" our Navy is so in love with? The rubrics likewise punish candidates for failing to embrace controversial DEI practices. They dictate a low score to candidates who object to the practice of racially-segregated "affinity groups." pic.twitter.com/fk4LVog4ku — John Sailer (@JohnDSailer) March 1, 2023As Sailer points out, this is being pushed via the federal government grant system - so you're paying for it to the tune of a quarter billion dollars. In Florida, Governor DeSantis is going right after that part of issue - paying for it. As we've covered on Thursdays for almost two decades, the costs are huge. “As the Executive Office of the Governor prepares policy and budget proposals ahead of the 2023 Legislative Session, it is important that we have a full understanding of the operational expenses of state institutions,” Spencer wrote in the memo. The memo said colleges and universities are required to “provide a comprehensive list of all staff, programs and campus activities related to diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory.” In addition, they are directed to detail “costs associated with the administration of each program or activity,” including a description of the activities, paid positions and how much of the money is provided by the state. ...and at one public university - the first of hopefully many moves was made; New College of Florida's Board of Trustees abolished the office handling diversity, equity and inclusion programs during a contentious and emotional meeting Tuesday ... only recently was the faculty handbook revised so that prospective hires are asked to submit a statement in their job application outlining how they will promote diversity.Oh, did they? Well, so much for that. Under the new regulation, DEI will be defined to include "any effort to manipulate or otherwise influence the composition of the faculty or student body with reference to race, sex, color, or ethnicity." The definition of DEI also would include: "Any effort to promote as the official position of the administration, the college, or any administrative unit thereof, a particular, widely contested opinion referencing unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgender ideology, microaggressions, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender theory, racial or sexual privilege, or any related formulation of these concepts." I do love the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes due to the Greatest Governor in the USA; If DeSantis gets his way—and he likely will—diversity, equity and inclusion efforts will be eliminated from every public college and university in Florida. https://t.co/JEvIHzhANa — VICE News (@VICENews) March 1, 2023 The Free State of Florida leads the way! Heading up to the Mid-Atlantic, there is a quasi-civil war going on at VMI. The weapon of choice is one the left has used for a long time - money. Things got so bad, the mass of alumni are rising up; The Virginia Military Institute continues to face intense pushback from an alumni group that opposes the military school’s ongoing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The activists in recent months upped their efforts by seeking to redirect the institute’s alumni fundraising in an effort to persuade campus leaders to pull back on critical race theory policies and programs. “The only way you can influence them is by hurting their pocketbook,” alumnus Gene Rice told The College Fix in an interview. In a Jan. 23 letter to their fellow “Brother Rats of the great VMI Class of ’74,” concerned alumni requested that for their 50th reunion class gift, they do not donate to VMI Alumni Agencies but instead to the Cadet Foundation. “All contributions directed to the Cadet Foundation would be used to fund programs and projects that directly benefit cadets but not those that would impose divisive changes derived from political agendas and policies on the Corps, Ratline and Honor System,” the letter stated. “…We desire to take a stand and save what is left of the VMI experience,” the letter added. “… DO NOT fund programs and policies that force changes on the Corps, Ratline, and Honor system, resulting from political agendas and ideologies such as CRT, a divisive DEI Program, and others.” The donation disruption effort is the latest in an ongoing campaign by a large and vocal company of alumni, cadets, parents and friends of VMI calling for the discontinuation of DEI programs at the school. Last week there is an even stronger pushback in the University of North Carolina System - which is a lot more than just Chapel Hill; The University of North Carolina (UNC) System announced plans to ditch diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as compelled speech requirements from hiring decisions following a board of governors meeting on Thursday. The System, which includes 17 public universities serving nearly a quarter of a million students, will no longer “solicit nor require an employee or applicant for academic admission or employment to affirmatively ascribe to or opine about beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition to admission, employment, or professional advancement,” the resolution reads. The statement added that hiring practices will further prohibit “statements of commitment to particular views on matters of contemporary political debate or social action contained on applications or qualifications for admission or employment included as criteria for analysis of an employee’s career progression.” How does this circle back to the U.S. Naval Academy? Well, there are a lot of things going on in the background there - a few we've covered here before - and others involving hiring which are off the hook bad that are not my place to publish ... but notice all the concern about the "Diversity Statements" - especially the South Carolina example above? Remember how that shows how they is operationalized. "Diversity Statements" are already thick in the hiring decisions at Annapolis. If you want to teach Midshipmen - depending on your academic area of expertise - you will be required to; "... submit a ... diversity statement" or send "A diversity statement that gives applicant’s experience with or commitment to diversity in service, research and/or teaching." At the link above you can hunt around all the job openings, but in my brief review I saw a pattern ... a little hint of an internal civil war. Inconsistency. If you are interested in teaching or applying to an tenure track position in English, Russian/Eastern European History, Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, you may get variations of the above such as; (provide) A description of the candidate’s experiences and approach to working with students from diverse backgrounds. For more information on the range of student backgrounds our faculty interact with daily, please see the USNA 2025 Class Portrait (https://www.usna.edu/Admissions/Apply/Class-Portrait.php) They are already well trenched even in some of the hard sciences and Rickoverian majors - which though not calling them "diversity statement" even Aerospace Engineering is asking for one. In the teaching or research statements as appropriate, candidates should describe their experiences and approach to working with students from diverse backgrounds, as doing so is integral to success as an educator at USNA. Sailing Instructors, Wrestling Coaches, and those teaching Math will have to read "diversity" a few times in the job posting, but no statement required. You will have to suffer through this; Applicants are encouraged to submit a Demographic Information on Applicants Form to the Academy's Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion by emailing the form to Renee Sharps at rsharps@usna.edu. Your responses are optional and will not be shared with the search committee or anyone else involved in the selection process for this position.I guess the kind would say this is just to feed the metrics that need reporting ... but really ... do you really believe that statement? "Optional" ... "not shared" ... ummm. Sure. If you don't know where to start in writing your Woke Shahada, universities are nice enough to provide a bevy of examples of correct thinking and goodthink. Will the USNA alumni grow the spine of the VMI alumni? We'll see. There is an action point here, and Governor DeSantis is showing the way. At some point, a (R) will be in charge of the Executive Branch and will be Commander in Chief. All (R) looking to have that job need to be asked at some point if they are willing to go after the diversity industry in the military service academies as Florida has at its public institutions? If not, they really don't know what time it is and (R) inclined voters should be encouraged to look elsewhere for someone who does. View the full article

Americas Boeing won a $1.2 billion contract action for the E-7A Rapid Prototype program. This contract provides for the initiation of the development activities for the program. Work will be performed in Seattle, Washington, and is expected to be complete by August 2024. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, is […]View the full article

There are good things, smart things, happening in The Philippines; "Meetings have already been set and probably we may have the Japanese and the Australians join in," Philippine Ambassador to the United States Jose Manuel Romualdez told Reuters. "They would like to join in for joint patrols to make sure that there's the code of conduct and there's freedom of navigation," adding it was still "an idea under discussion". If the plan materializes, it will be the first time the Philippines has joined multilateral maritime patrols in the South China Sea, a move that would likely anger Beijing, which claims most of the sea as its territory. The United States - quietly and with a deft hand - needs to do whatever it takes to facilitate this taking place. Just powerful. The patrol talks and renewed engagement with the United States underscore how much Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has realigned his country with its historic ally, moving away from predecessor Rodrigo Duterte's hostile approach to Washington while still pursuing close economic engagement with regional powerhouse China. ... The United States, Japan and Australia have been conducting trilateral naval exercises, and joint patrols with those countries would be "good for the Philippines and for the entire area", Romualdez said, adding: "We want to have freedom of navigation." 'These are our allies' The patrols "could be initially country-to-country" and expanded eventually "because these are our allies, like-minded countries", he said. If we could find some way to have a PASSEX with the Vietnamese Navy while we were at it ... perfect ... but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Early this month, Marcos granted the United States greater access to Philippine military bases by adding four more sites, on top of five existing locations, under the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, or EDCA, an agreement predecessor Duterte had threatened to scrap. EDCA allows US access to Philippine bases for joint training, pre-positioning of equipment and building of facilities such as runways, fuel storage and military housing, but not a permanent presence. Romualdez, who was also ambassador under Duterte, said recent developments showed "the relationship between the United States and the Philippines today is definitely at its best" Step by step. Layer by layer. That is how you build strong, lasting, and mutually beneficial security partnerships. Good news. View the full article

Americas Boeing won a $50 million modification, which exercises options to procure eight P-8A Increment 3 retrofit A-kits, to include associated special tooling in support of anti-submarine warfare capabilities upgrades for the Navy. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, Florida; and St. Louis, Missouri, and is expected to be completed in July 2026. Fiscal 2023 […]View the full article