HG S2 (Intel Bot)

The NHF Five Star Mess Night beyond the Fight Top in the Navy Museum With Covid restrictions finally lifted, the Naval Historical Foundation hosted its third annual Mess Night on Saturday, November 5 at the National Museum of the United States Navy. As with previous Five Star Mess Nights, the event was built around a theme and this year’s centennial of U.S. naval aircraft carriers provided the appropriate occasion for the event. Although the USS Langley (CV 1) had been placed in commission in March of 1922, it was not until the autumn of that year that the converted collier got underway to conduct the first launches and traps of “aeroplanes” from Langley’s “flying deck.” The Five Star Mess Night opened with the traditional parading of the colors parading of the colors by personnel from Naval District Washington’s Ceremonial Color Guard, a stirring rendition of the national anthem by Miss Xepher Winkler of West Potomac High School, and the parading of the Beef after which Adm. William J. Fallon USN (Ret.) declared it “fit for human consumption.” Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle With a century of flight operations from ever increasingly sophisticated platforms and aircraft now behind us, the Guest of Honor, Director of Aviation Warfare Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle, spoke on what the next hundred years of aircraft carrier operations might entail, noting that the floating airfield mobility remains the platform’s strongest asset, adding that the capability of aircraft embarked is the true X-factor to consider when deciding defense expenditures. To illustrate his case, Rear Admiral Loiselle discussed the capabilities of the first air wing assigned to Enterprise back in 1962 versus the air wing that finally detached from that legendary ship upon her decommissioning a decade ago. Loiselle’s remarks were well-received in a room that featured a number of “Wings of Gold” on formal attire lapels. NHF Chair Admiral Fallon addresses the attendees Following Rear Admiral Loiselle’s presentation, the NHF Chairman publicly announced that he had been in conversation with a number of naval heritage organizations with the objective of furthering the naval heritage outreach mission. He also noted that a better funded Naval History and Heritage Command was now performing many functions once the purview of the NHF. Lamenting declining NHF membership and revenue streams, Admiral Fallon concluded that naval history could be better served if some of the recognition programs and assets of the NHF were turned over to the organization that launched NHF in 1926 with Dudley Knox’s “Our Vanishing History” article and $10,000 in seed money — the U.S. Naval Institute. The Boards of both organizations have approved the move, with talks and the merger set to conclude at the end of this year. Director of Naval History and Heritage Command Rear Admiral Cox applauds Captain Creekman, Commander Winkler, and Rear Admiral Masso as well as Gunnery Sergeant Bryant (not in picture) Having been made aware of Admiral Fallon’s initiative beforehand, the Director of Naval History Rear Adm. Samuel J. Cox (USN (Ret.) cited his prerogative as an Echelon II commander to bestow the Department of the Navy Meritorious Public Service Award to former NHF Executive Director Capt. Charles (Todd) Creekman, USN (Ret.); current staff historian Cdr. David F. Winkler, USN (Ret.); current Executive Director Edward (Sonny) Masso, USN (Ret.); and Office Manager/Executive Assistant Gunnery Sergeant of Marines Harold Bryant, USMC (Ret.). In the citation that came with the award, the quartet were recognized for their work to make possible the opening of a Cold War Gallery in 2012, their digitization for easy access thousands of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, their initiative to launch numerous recognition programs for outstanding scholarship in the field of naval history, their ongoing outreach to the American public and academic communities, and their support for the NHHC and Navy Museum through critical IT hardware and programmatic support. Following the award presentation, the tradition formal and informal toasts were given beginning with “To the Commander in Chief” and ending with “To the United States Navy.” In between, Mr. Vice – Rear Admiral Sonny Masso – took the opportunity to note infractions of Mess Rules that were published in the evening program. Members of the Mess happily acknowledged their errors and dropped contributions to the Navy Museum donation box to support Navy Museum projects and programs. Enterprise Holdings (represented above), along with Huntington Ingalls Industries were the lead sponsors of the Five Star Mess Night. Mr. Vice Rear Admiral Masso raved about the two Huntington Ingalls Industries-built ships he served on and reminded guests that Enterprise is the only company he rents from Overall, this proved to be a most memorable Five Star Mess Night with great appreciation given to the two major corporate sponsors, Huntington Ingalls Industries and Enterprise Holdings. Much thanks also go to the Honorable William L. Ball II and Rising Sky for their support for the event. The post A Memorable Five Star Mess Night first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

The NHF Five Star Mess Night beyond the Fight Top in the Navy Museum With Covid restrictions finally lifted, the Naval Historical Foundation hosted its third annual Mess Night on Saturday November 5 at the National Museum of the United States Navy. As with previous Five Star Mess Nights, the event was built around a theme and this year’s centennial of U.S. naval aircraft carriers provided the appropriate occasion for the event. Although the USS Langley (CV 1) had been placed in commission in March of 1922, it was not until the autumn of that year that the converted collier got underway to conduct the first launches and traps of “aeroplanes” from Langley’s “flying deck.” The Five Star Mess Night opened with the traditional parading of the colors by the Navy Color Guard, a stirring rendition of the national anthem by Xepher Winkler of West Potomac High School, and the parading of the Beef of which Adm. William J. Fallon USN (Ret.) declared “Fit for Human Consumption.” Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle With a century of flight operations from ever increasingly sophisticated platforms and aircraft now behind us, the Guest of Honor, Director of Aviation Warfare Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle, spoke on what the next hundred years of aircraft carrier operations might entail, noting that the floating airfields mobility remains the platforms strongest asset, adding that the capability of aircraft embarked is the true X-factor to consider when considering defense expenditures. To illustrate his case, Rear Admiral Loiselle discussed the capabilities of the first air wing assigned to Enterprise back in 1962 versus the air wing that finally detached from that legendary ship upon her decommissioning a decade ago. Loiselle’s remarks were well-received in a room that featured a number of “Wings of Gold” on the lapels of the formal attire. NHF Chair Admiral Fallon addresses the attendees Following Rear Admiral Loiselle’s presentation, the NHF chairman spoke at the podium to publicly announce that he had been in conversation with a number of naval heritage organizations with the objective of furthering the naval heritage outreach mission. He also noted that a better funded Naval History and Heritage Command was now performing many functions once the purview of the NHF. Lamenting declining NHF membership and revenue streams, Admiral Fallon concluded that naval history could be better served if some of the recognition programs and assets of the NHF were turned over to the organization that launched NHF in 1926 with Dudley Knox’s “Our Vanishing History” article and $10,000 in seed money — the U.S. Naval Institute. The boards of both organizations have met and approved of the ongoing merger talks which would conclude with the transmission of a donation letter to USNI at the end of the year. Director of Naval History and Heritage Command Rear Admiral Cox applauds Captain Creekman, Commander Winkler, and Rear Admiral Masso as well as Gunnery Sergeant Bryant (not in picture) Having been made aware of Admiral Fallon’s initiative beforehand, the Director of Naval History Rear Adm. Samuel J. Cox (USN (Ret.) cited his prerogative as an Echelon II commander to bestow the Department of the Navy Meritorious Public Service Award to former NHF Executive Director Capt. Charles (Todd) Creekman, USN (Ret.); current staff historian Cdr. David F. Winkler, USN (Ret.); current Executive Director Edward (Sonny) Masso, USN (Ret.); and Office Manager/Executive Assistant Gunnery Sergeant of Marines Harold Bryant, USMC (Ret.). In the citation that came with the award, the quartet were recognized for their work to make possible the opening of a Cold War Gallery in 2012, their digitization for easy access thousands of Naval Documents of the American Revolution, their initiative to launch numerous recognition programs for outstanding scholarship in the field of naval history, their ongoing outreach to the American public and academic communities, and their support for the NHHC and Navy Museum through critical IT hardware and programmatic support. Following the award presentation, the tradition formal and informal toasts were given beginning with “To the Commander in Chief” and ending with “To the United States Navy.” In between, Mr. Vice – Rear Admiral Sonny Masso – took the opportunity to note infractions of Mess Rules that were published in the evening program. Members of the Mess happily acknowledged their errors and dropped contributions to the Navy Museum donation box to support Navy Museum projects and programs. Enterprise Holdings (represented above), along with Huntington Ingalls Industries were the lead sponsors of the Five Star Mess Night. Mr. Vice Rear Admiral Masso raved about the two Huntington Ingalls Industries-built ships he served on and reminded guests that Enterprise is the only company he rents from Overall, this proved to be a most memorable Five Star Mess Night with great appreciation given to the two major corporate sponsors, Huntington Ingalls Industries and Enterprise Holdings. Much thanks also go to the Honorable William L. Ball II and Rising Sky for their support for the event. The post A Memorable Five Star Mess Night first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

Americas Northrop Grumman Systems won an $9 million deal for the manufacture of initiating propellant used on the MK48 heavyweight torpedo. This contract includes a three-year ordering period with no options. All work will be performed in Elkton, Maryland, and is expected to be completed by November 2025. Weapons procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $2,203,980 will be issued for delivery order N00104-22-F-ZN01 that will be awarded concurrently with the contract and funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. In July 2017, Northrop was awarded a $50.1 million contract to manufacture 45 torpedo transducer array and nose shell assemblies for the heavyweight torpedo. A US Air Force T-38 assigned to Columbus Air Force Base crashed out of the airfield around 1 pm local time on November 7. The pilot ejected safely after the aircraft suffered an in-flight emergency. The T-38 Talon is a twinjet supersonic jet trainer produced by American aerospace and defence company Northrop Grumman. Middle East & Africa The Turkish government’s defense industrial-policy office, the Defense Industries Presidency SSB, has unveiled the MIR, an unmanned naval vehicle designed to fight submarines from the surface. Ismail Demir, head of SSB, told the press that the MIR will come in three features. It can be used autonomously, in a remote control operations or manned with a crew. Europe The UK Royal Air Force’s first Wedgetail E-7A airborne early warning and control aircraft has received a multi-role electronically scanned array (MESA) sensor. Developed by Northrop Grumman, the MESA system will enable the E-7A to monitor its surroundings over 360 degrees in flight. The sensor will assist airmen in detecting, identifying, and tracking targets at longer ranges while maintaining continuous surveillance in an operational area. The Polish Army has ordered 11 more Wolverine armored personnel carriers for $30.8 million, with delivery expected between 2024 and 2025. In 2018, the Polish Armed Forces received 33 Wolverine vehicles following a June 2014 deal valued at $50 million. The 8.3-meter (27 feet) Wolverine is equipped with a remote-controlled armament module and a 7.62-meter (25 feet) machine gun allowing for enhanced observation and self-defense capabilities. Asia-Pacific Collins Aerospace and PT Dirgantra Indonesia (PTDI) have signed an agreement to support the Indonesian Air Force’s C-130 Hercules with a new digital cockpit. As part of the air force’s Phase 2 rollout plan, Collins will supply 11 C-130s with its Flight 2 Integrated Avionics System, which includes the latest AOS-7000 digital auto-pilot system. The system offers the military transport aircraft “the most cost-effective and lowest-risk communications, navigation and surveillance systems for air traffic management (CNS/ATM) upgrade solution,” according to Collins. Naval Group and PT PAL Indonesia inked a memorandum of understanding to develop an energy research laboratory for submarines and propulsion solutions at the Indo Defence 2022 Expo and Forum in Jakarta. The joint research and development will involve potential submarine energy storage, such as embedded electrical networks, next-generation Li-Ion batteries, and hydrogen cells. Today’s Video WATCH: USAF Aircraft Type and Size Comparison 3D View the full article

For the last two decades here we have reminded people that - as much as one can on this net - they need to look hard at their magazine inventory and bounce that off REALISTIC (not official) expected wartime expenditures. Congress is mostly kept in the dark on this, and worse - people in uniform pimp vignettes and wargames that almost seem designed to minimize requirements. Our concerns have been hand-waved for years, often by the people you would usually rely on to push warfighting concerns to the front. The cold hard fact is we simply cannot sustain a large conflict for very long - especially with our best, most accurate and long-legged standoff weapons. One of the best immediate byproducts of the Russo-Ukrainian War is that more people are starting to see how even the "Arsenal of Democracy" has not properly prepared for war. We have let production lines go cold without replacement, let inventories barely able to sustain peacetime requirements, and have consolidated and windowed industry to the point it can't flex even if it wanted to. In to the conversation comes Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Bill LaPlante. It looks like the Legislative Branch wants to pick up this ball and run with it ... but it needs to be sustained. There is a lot of work to do. Read this twice; For Pentagon acquisitions, LaPlante said, the crisis in Ukraine ought to inject a new focus on whether a weapon is easily mass produced and functions as well as whether troops can be trained on it quickly ― and whether it’s applicable in the Pacific. Those factors should be part of conversations about the viability of developmental projects that rely on emerging technologies or nontraditional avenues like the Defense Innovation Unit and other transaction authorities. “If somebody gives you a really cool, liquored-up story about a DIU or OTA, ask him when it’s going to production; ask him how many numbers; ask him what the [unit cost] is going to be; ask him about work against China,” La Plante said. “Ask them all those questions because that’s what matters.” “The tech bros aren’t helping us too much in Ukraine; they want to,” he added. “Ukraine is not holding their own against Russia with quantum [computing], they’re not they’re not holding their own with [artificial intelligence]. They’re not ― whatever your favorite gadget is. It’s hardcore production of really serious weaponry.” Did you catch that? He wants the "good" now because the much promised "perfect" will never show up, and if it does, it won't be of much use. We need serious money buying serious weapons that can be used at war NOW. Not 2035. Not 2040. Now. Better late than never ... but good people have known this for a long time, they just didn't have the wind at their back. Now they do. Get to work. Make it happen. View the full article

Regardless of how seriously you take national and alliance security issues, never forget that both are worm-ridden with unserious people who only see defense structures as an exceptionally pliable organization with lots of money that can be used for other purposes. Always remember this. If you forget, they will remind you. Case in point today. After the Cold War, NATO remained in place for a couple of reasons. First was that the major nations of the West had over the decades developed a comfortable habit of 80/20 meshing our security concerns and capabilities together. Institutional inertia, yes - but more than that; in fits-and-starts we saw a stability almost unheard of in Europe for its history as there was more of a focus on working together with the powers on the other side of the Atlantic, than finding reasons to distrust or ignore each other. Secondly, even with the Soviet Union gone - national memory did not forgot that it was just the Russian Empire under new leadership and though some of its captive nations managed to get free of Moscow's orbit - the Russians were still here. NATO was a good hedge. So we find ourselves three decades after the fall of the Soviet Union where, as expected, the Russians are once again on the march of conquest they have been on after pushing the Mongols back east. In a position not dissimilar to the USA from 1939-41 against the Axis powers, NATO nations today are bankrolling and arming the Ukrainians in the defensive war against a Russian imperial war of conquest in the mindset that it is best to fight the Russians with Ukrainians on the Dnieper than with Poles and Americans on the Vistula. In spite of a couple of tight moments in the Cold War and even a spark or two at the end of the last century in the Balkans, 2022 finds NATO at its greatest moment of threat of stumbling in to war due to our support for Ukraine. Well meaning people can argue the wisdom of this, but we are we are - and it will continue. The public lead of NATO is the Secretary General, presently my older and less good looking doppelgänger Jens Stoltenberg, the former Prime Minister of Norway. He's been in the job for 8-years and is looking to move on to a new position. He may extend for a year, but there is a move to replace him - even at this critical moment. The position of Secretary General requires a deft combination of good coalition political experience, peer respect, personability, and a turn-key knowledge of alliance and European security issues. It is not a place for on the job training, figureheads, or personalities who don't understand the exceptional complexity of European politics. This is why the present Secretary General was a former Prime Minister. He predecessor was Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Prime Minister of Denmark who held the job for over five years. Before him, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, in addition to the individuals mentioned above, we had a former British Defense Minister, Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and a German former Defense Minister. Do you see a common thread there? Of course, a serious organization of such importance has to be led by serious people who are ready for the job on day-1. This is not a NGO or think tank - you screw this up and you can help start of world war. So, via NYT, as a war wages in Eastern Europe and NATO is looking for a new Secretary General, what is the focus? The behind-the-scenes jockeying for who should succeed Jens Stoltenberg has begun in earnest, with a focus on women.Here's the CV: While the officials cautioned that these are early days, and very often the names that surface first do not survive the bargaining among NATO’s 30 members, they said one prime candidate has surfaced in Washington: Chrystia Freeland, 54, the Canadian-Ukrainian deputy prime minister and finance minister of Canada. Ms. Freeland, 54, a former journalist (who is married to a reporter for The New York Times), has also been Canada’s foreign minister. Her advantages are considerable: she speaks English, French, Italian, Ukrainian and Russian; she has run complicated ministries; she is good at news conferences and other public appearances; and she would be the first woman and first Canadian ever to run NATO. The fact that word is on the street that the primary filter here is if someone is XX vs XY would be laughable if not so destructive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman being Secretary General, but that should have nothing to do with the decision. The fact is leading with that as the first criteria, any woman selected as Secretary General this round, would - rightly - always have a shadow over them for this simple fact that they did not get the position on merit - but simply an attempt to signal virtue to ... well ... fellow members of the woke left in the West, I guess. NATO's potential enemies will only be encouraged by such an act. This does nothing for NATO or women - and it degrades both by the process. That being said, as her name is being floated, let's look at Freeland. Many US citizens may recognize her from her very undiplomatic interactions with the Trump Administration. It wasn't just Trump, but something worse that seeps out. Even during the Biden Administration, her not-so-subtle sniffs of standard issue leftist Canadian anti-Americanism. It crops up on a regular basis. It only gets worse when she deals with Americans to the right of Bernie Sanders. In NATO, you need someone who is a subtle politician - again with experience working in a vigorous multi-party coalition with highly different views, priorities, and goals. That is why Europeans make such good Secretary Generals. While Canada also has a parliamentary system, it and its parties are VERY different than the European model. Freeland only gets partial credit here. There is also the issue of temperament. Read the links above. Freeland likes to pick fights, often in public. Worse, she seems to enjoy - again as most standard-issue Canadian leftists do - in making snide comments about the government and people of the alliance's largest monetary and troop contributing nation - the United States of America. The Secretary General of NATO has to be someone by temperament and habit seen as a non-partisan person toward the USA so that they can work with American administrations from all political parties. Freeland has significant issues with the American Republican Party in general and American conservatives in particular. That alone should be enough for serious alliance nations from Poland to Great Britain to be against her as a possible candidate. In summary; Freeland does not possess the skills or temperament for the position. Now is not the time for such frivolity. The last reason - and the most important reason for me - that Freeland should not be the Secretary General will be recognizable to regular readers here. It has nothing to do with her as a person, but her nation, Canada. I love Canada and Canadians - but this is not personal, this is business. Serious alliance business. Simply by the numbers, Canada has not earned the position. Review my post from September if needed, but Canada spends ~1.3% of her GDP on defense. This is WELL below NATO's 2% minimum. Only Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg spend less. We are well past being polite to alliance members who refuse to pull their fair share of the burden. Canada simply has not put herself in the position to reward any of her political elite with the position of Secretary General, man or woman. If anything, a public point should be made that the nationals of nations below the 2% threshold will not be taken in to consideration for this or any other high-level uniformed or civilian role in NATO. If a security alliance wants to send a signal to the world about its serious understanding of place and time, then first we would want to pick a person from a nation who has earned a spot. Secondly, that nation should have a perspective useful in this time and place - pick an experienced Polish politician. View the full article

Americas Bell Textron Inc. has delivered the 189th and final AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter for the US Marine Corps at Amarillo Assembly Center in Texas, concluding the Program of Record for the latest H-1 platforms. With the delivery of 160 UH-1Y Venom choppers in 2018, the marine corps now has 349 H-1s in service. The Bell AH-1Z Viper was developed to replace the older two-bladed AH-1W Super Cobra. Meanwhile, the UH-1Y replaced the UH-1N Twin Huey constructed specifically for the US Army. The US Navy is developing a torpedo-tube launch and recovery system for nuclear attack submarine-launched underwater drones. Submarines currently require a dry deck shelter and divers to recover a medium-sized unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), limiting the vehicle’s capacity. “The Medium UUV can go on any one of our submarines. That is a priority for us. We have no problem launching UUVs. That’s easy. The recovery part has been the critical aspect,” USNI News quoted Submarine Force commander Vice Adm. Bill Houston as saying. Middle East & Africa Israel-based Gadfin Aero-Logistics Systems has secured a contract with Israel’s medical GPO & logistics company – SAREL, for sending supplies from its advanced medical logistic center, to gradually connect all the major hospitals in Israel, in a radius of up to 200Km, under a long-term exclusive partnership agreement. Gadfin says that this will make Israel the first western country in the world to have an automatic, on demand, medical delivery aerial grid. This contract will allow SAREL to have constant supply of medical equipment, medicines Vaccines, blood, Serum ,lab samples and more, using a star model all across Israel, at less than one hour from call. Europe Belgium’s 349th squadron has painted an nearly 50-years old F-16 in a special paint scheme to commemorate the unit’s 80th anniversary. The plane’s decorated tail fin shows a drawing of Spitfire pilot Ivan Du Monceau de Bergendal, its first commander, wearing a leather helmet. On the left, it is decorated with an F-35A stealth fighter – the future mount of the squadron from 2027 – and a pilot wearing the latest generation helmet with the words “349 Sqn. Proud of the past, Ready for the future.” The US State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Finland of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) and related equipment for an estimated cost of $535 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale. The state department is still in the process of diverting 50 percent of the procurement from US stocks. A final decision based on this process will determine the GMLRS version Finland receives. Asia-Pacific North Korean forces said they would respond to joint exercises by the United States and South Korea with “sustained, resolute and overwhelming” military measures, its state media reported Monday. The warning came following a spate of missile tests by North Korea last week, including four ballistic missiles on Saturday, while the United States and South Korea conducted their biggest-ever air force drills. Hundreds of US and South Korean warplanes — including B-1B heavy bombers — participated in the Vigilant Storm exercises last week. The US military flew an demonstration flight of the MQ-9 at Maritime Self-Defense Force Base Kanoya to local officials on November 5. Attending the event was Kagoshima Governor Shioda, Mayor Nakanishi of Kanoya City, Kagoshima Prefecture, and town councilors from around the base. Today’s Video WATCH: Demonstration flight of the U.S. military’s MQ9 unmanned reconnaissance aircraft conducted View the full article

Americas Northrop Grumman won a $29 million modification, which exercises an option that provides five aerial refueling retrofit kits including installation onboard E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft for the Navy. The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is the newest variant of the E-2 aircraft platform. It features a state-of-the-art radar with a two-generation leap in capability and upgraded aircraft systems that will improve supportability and increase readiness. Work will take place in Florida. Expected completion will be in August 2025. On November 2, the 31st and final AC-130J gunship was delivered by Lockheed Martin to the US Air Force Special Operations Command. The warplane will be assigned to the 27th Special Operations Wing at Cannon Air Force Base. Middle East & Africa The Royal Jordanian Air Force is getting 10 Bell 505 helicopters to train its student pilots. The five helicopters will be delivered in 2023 with the rest the following year. These rotorcraft will go to King Hussein Air College. They will replace the existing Robinson R44 Raven II trainers. Europe Norway will sell 32 of its F-16 fighters to NATO partner Romania. The contract was signed on November 4. “The agreement signed by the NDMA will help strengthen the air power of one of our allies, at the same time as it will generate revenues for both Norwegian industry and the Norwegian state,” said Norwegian Minister of Defence, Bjørn Arild Gram. All jets will be modified to the M6.5.2 Romanian configuration prior to delivery starting next year. Asia-Pacific Bloomberg reports that Boeing “is concerned about the ability of” Indonesia to finance the deal to buy F-15EX fighters. Earlier in February, the US government cleared the sale of up to 36 F-15EX fighters to the South East Asia nation. The deal is worth $14 billion, figures given by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency show. Indonesia’s Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto had also said late last month during a visit to the United States that the country wants to pay for the F-15EX deal in installments. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has clinched a $308 million deal to develop amphibious attack helicopters for the Republic of Korea Marine Corps, the company announced. KAI will develop three prototypes in 46 months under the contract, signed with South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration. Today’s Video WATCH: 50 Years Undefeated! Why is the F-15 the best fighter jet? View the full article

There is no such thing as a "normal watch," especially on Nov. 22, 1975 onboard the USS BELKNAP (CG-26); We were on plane guard. They put us on a plane guard because their TACAN was down. We had been making this same maneuver to port eight or nine times a day – from the start of the turn to completion was 3600 yards. This time we made a turn to starboard. I’ve read the investigation report, so even though I was down in the fire room, I’ve since come to know what happened up on the bridge. With the lights of the carrier looking the same, there was confusion, and miscommunication, and we made a right-hand turn this time, and the arc was half of what it had been for the last 15 or 20 times. We were going to stop, let them go past us, come across the wake, and get back in position, but we couldn’t determine what their position was. So, I’m in the phone booth, and the next thing I know, we’re getting all these bells. I said, “Okay, everybody, be alert.” Usually on this shift there is nothing going on—no exercises or drills, and the off-watch crew is watching the movie. I was actually writing a letter to my wife and I put it down in the phone booth. The engineering spaces are very noisy, and the phone booth is a place where you could talk. I saw the shaft stop, and I said, “What the hell’s going on?” So I told the guys, “Everybody pay attention. Something’s going on.” And then they called “Captain to the bridge! Captain to the bridge!” on the 1MC general announcing system. I knew they would normally pass the word, “Commanding Officer, your presence is requested on the bridge,” and only if they couldn’t reach him on the phone, or send the messenger to find him in time. But I knew from when I was on Blandy, going to Viet Nam, that “If you hear this terminology, you know there’s a serious problem.” So, I said, “Okay, everybody, get up. Get up. Get ready. Something’s gonna happen.” And then all of a sudden the ship started to shudder, and I thought, “What’s going on?” And I looked over to the stack periscope. With the periscope, you can look out to see whether you’re smoking or not. And usually, if you were smoking it gets black at the bottom and it goes up to the top. What we didn’t know down in the fire room at that time was that when we hit, JP-5 fuel lines were cut up on the carrier, and fuel poured down onto our ship, and into the air supply for ventilating the engineering spaces. We had combination stacks and masts, called macks. All that fuel came down into the after mack. The forward mack never got any oil on it. All that fuel came down MY mack, and they estimated like 18 hundred gallons.Required reading of an interview with a great Sailor, BT1 Andrew Gallagher. Hat tip Sean. First published May 2016.View the full article

Americas Northrop Grumman Systems won a $25 million contract modification, which adds scope for fabrication and installation support to retrofit the Delta System Software Configuration 4.0 capabilities, to include tactical targeting network technology and the beyond line of sight in the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. Work will be performed in Dallas, Texas; Melbourne, Florida; Boulder, Colorado; Norfolk, Virginia (8%); Salisbury, Maryland; Ronkonkoma, New York (3%); and various locations within the continental US, and is expected to be completed in September 2025. Sikorsky won a $21.4 million modification, which exercises options to procure one CH53K containerized flight training device (2F243-3), as well as associated technical data based on low-rate initial production Lot 4 configuration in support of CH-53K phase II training system efforts. Work will be performed in Chantilly, Virginia; Stratford, Connecticut; and Orlando, Florida, and is expected to be completed in February 2025. Middle East & Africa The flagship product of D-Fend Solutions, an Israeli company which develops counter-drone, cyber-takeover solutions, has received a recommendation by the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO). The recommendation, which came out of a formal US government evaluation event held at Yuma Proving Ground in April 2022, pertains to the EnforceAir system, which, according to the company, features the world’s premier counter-drone, cyber, radio frequency (RF)-based takeover technology. Europe Russian firm PPSh Laboratory has unveiled an electronic warfare gun capable of jamming “American unmanned aerial vehicles,” state-owned TASS revealed. The Saint Petersburg-based company is testing the LPD-802 gun, an upgrade on the LPD-801 being used in the Ukraine conflict. The company unveiled the LPD-801 in 2021. The counter-drone device jams “drone control channels and navigational signals, in particular, disabling Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS, Galileo and Glonass satellite system signals and quashing unauthorized data transmission.” Asia-Pacific Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) may enter a joint venture with a foreign ejection seat manufacturer to make the escape devices in India. The news report suggest HAL is interested in capturing a slice of the market now dominated by Britain’s Martin Baker. The Biden administration has given approval for Australia to buy 24 C-130J-30 aircraft and related equipment on November 2. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency made the announcement shortly after Australia says it will stick with the C-130J for its future airlifter project. In Transmittal No 22-62, the DSCA says the Foreign Military Sale contract is worth up to $6.35 billion. Today’s Video WATCH: E2D Advanced Hawkeye View the full article

Time for a quick revisit to the most important DivThu related Supreme Court case we have seen since we started this series. We first touched on in 2018, and most recently back in August. This case has forced everyone to take the mask off concerning what anyone who has served on active duty for the last few decades has known as a truth; the US military actively discriminates based on race and ethnicity.So, we now have Students for Fair Admission v. President and Fellows of Harvard College & the University of North Carolina. If you need the details of that case, click here. We have a 2022 amici curiae for this case as well with Joe Reeder and his law firm again at the front. We have this time 35 (33 retired GOFO plus Sen. Kerry and Reeder) signing on vice 36. Their Summary of the Argument seven years later from Fisher reads in part;Prohibiting educational institutions from using modest, race-conscious admissions policies would impair the military’s ability to maintain diverse leadership, and thereby seriously undermine its institutional legitimacy and operational effectiveness. Amici respectfully request that, in considering whether to reverse decades of precedent affirming the constitutionality of such admissions policies, the Court will continue to consider how such policies enable the military to serve our Nation’s security interests.What a gift to truth. Their policies can never survive the light of day. They can try to defend it – but especially as our nation becomes even more mixed-heritage – as the people are WAY ahead of the entrenched sectarians – fewer people are going to see any positive attribute to having government institutions line up with some outdated “one drop” rule, or look the other way to red in tooth and claw racial self-identification fraud for fun and profit.Regulars here know all the different angles to this topic, but we have new readers every day. So, for them I will offer to click the “Diversity” tab and catch up if they need to. I’ve not deleted a single DivThu for the well over decade and a half it has been running and stand by every word. Enjoy, or not. Today I want to ponder the institutions that tie the US military in to the goings on at the admissions office at Harvard and UNC … the service academies. Those GOFO as linked in the August post who signed on to this have no one to blame but themselves, so here we go. Here is what they – through injecting themselves and the US military in to this fight – are confirming to everyone; despite the sweet little stories we have told for decades, the half-truths, equivocating, and for that matter just blazon lying by our most senior leaders, the service academies including the US Naval Academy – remember that admissions are a zero-sum game here – actively discriminate for an against +/- 18-year old men and women, all of whom were born in the 21st Century, based on self-reported race and ethnicity. That my friends is as I like to say, red in tooth and claw racism … and you’re paying for it. In the legal world, discovery is a wonderful thing. Over on twitter, Monitoring Bias has a great pull from discovery in this case. Make no mistake, this data is available from Annapolis, West Point, and the other service academies. It is also available for the Navy writ large in Millington. It was there 20-years ago, I am positive even better data is there today. It is closely held, very closely held, and won’t be provided outside a Congressional inquiry or something like the US courts. It is there, thousands of us have seen it…and it is damning. How does this operationalize? The numbers are stark in their results. I’d offer you to review Harvard’s “45%” number … but the numbers are true. Isn’t there something to be said about not living by lies, but by truth – no matter how hard it might be? People will say, “It is just one factor…” but as reported by Daniel Di Martino, that simply does not wash.Harvard lawyer defending affirmative action: "Race, for some highly qualified applicants, can be the determining factor just as...being an oboe player." C.J. Roberts: "We didn't fight a civil war about oboe players. We did fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination."We all know how this works. It is a glorious thing to finally see this being dragged out into the light. That won’t stop them from fighting … and gaslighting everyone including SCOTUS.Toward the end of the oral argument in what has been a controversial Supreme Court case about the legality of affirmative action, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar echoed a key argument of defenders of the inclusive policy: that a diverse officer corps is necessary for national security.“Our armed forces know from hard experience that when we do not have a diverse officer corps that is broadly reflective of the diverse fighting force, our strength and cohesion and military readiness suffer,” Prelogar said.No, actually, we don’t know that to be true. What does negatively impact “strength and cohesion” is any sniff of favoritism or unfairness. Position and promotion gained simply by being part of an approved – or being denied the same for being part of an unapproved – ethic or racial group will destroy any unit’s effectiveness, and is an insult to those of those same groups who got there on their own merit.“We have had experiences in the past where the officer corps and its racial composition did not reflect the diversity of enlisted service members,” Prelogar said Monday, in an apparent reference to internal conflict during the Vietnam War, “and it caused tremendous racial tension and strife.” Responding to a question from Justice Elena Kagan, Prelogar said that the service academies had considered race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action. According to Prelogar, the academies found that, for now, no such alternatives would lead to an officer corps with adequate diversity.First, read last week's DivThu, secondly – this is not 1972. These people simply cannot leave the Johnson and Nixon Eras. There is good and bad here;“With respect to the military, the United States brief on that is long on assertions that race-neutral alternatives are not available to it and would not work, but not actually long on any evidence of that fact,” he said. “We don’t know precisely what race-neutral alternatives they have looked at. We don’t know what has been tried. We don’t know what else could be available to them.” Strawbridge suggested that the military could try drawing more officers from the enlisted ranks or from military prep schools.The oral argument in a similar case, one debating affirmative action at the private Harvard College, was held later on Monday. That case is less directly tied to the service academies than the case pertaining to UNC. Still, it could have implications for colleges and universities with ROTC programs. Prelogar also offered input during the Harvard argument, briefly reiterating her stance on officer corps diversity.The good here is that once again we have an open acknowledgement that the US military actively discriminates on the basis of race and ethnicity – so throw that back in a GOFO’s face when they throw up a smoke screen – but the bad here is that there appears to be an opening for a carve out for US service academies. If that happens, Congress could fix that, or we could have another case in a few years. We’ll see. On balance though, this is all great. Let’s leave this DivThu on a note of optimism;…Chief Justice John Roberts, has shown no sign of squishiness in race cases. He was after all in dissent in the Court’s last affirmative-action case, Fisher v. UT-Austin II (2016), and in a 2007 school busing case famously wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."You can never go wrong promoting a race-neutral meritocracy, to desire all people to be seen as individuals worthy of the respect to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.View the full article

Americas L3 Technologies won a $20.7 million deal for the Manned/Unmanned Teaming hardware and technical and engineering support for the Apache attack helicopter. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. The US Air Force carried out its first test of the rappelling system on the new MH-139A helicopter on October 6. During the mission, special operators successfully rappelled out of a hovering MH-139A at Eglin Air Force Base. Middle East & Africa Israel’s Elbit Systems announced that that it was awarded a contract valued at approximately $25 million from the Finnish Ministry of Defense to supply radio communications systems to the Finnish Army. The contract will be executed over a two-year period. Under the contract, Elbit will supply advanced secured radio communications systems that enable enhanced tactical command and fire control and are backward compatible with analogue radio equipment that is currently in use by the Finnish Army. Military radio communications solutions of Elbit Systems have been selected to-date by several European and NATO countries including Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Canada, Spain and others. Europe Sweden’s new prime minister said Tuesday he was open to allowing nuclear weapons on Swedish soil once the country becomes a NATO member, a turnaround from the previous government’s stance. When asked if the two nations would accept nuclear weapons on their soil, Marin replied: “We shouldn’t put any preconditions… We have decided that we don’t want to close any doors for the future.” Kraken Robotics has won a $1.1 million contract to provide its AquaPix synthetic aperture sonar for the sub-surface drones of two NATO navies. AquaPix was designed to replace traditional high-end side scan systems on autonomous vehicles. It delivers improved range, resolution, and area coverage. Asia-Pacific The Royal Australian Navy has tapped BAE Systems to provide in-service periscope support for its six Collins-class submarines. The $45-million extension contract guarantees the Royal Australian Navy continued maintenance and logistic services, as well as engineering and supply support. Today’s Video WATCH: The First MH-139A Grey Wolf Flight • UH-1N Replacement View the full article

With all its inefficiencies, bloat, and error; with all its problematic revolving door issues between government/military and civilian sectors – there is no greater existential requirement for a mature nation than to have its own military-industrial sector. In peace it is easy to forget that in times of war – times that will always come with our warlike species – the vanities of peace can soon become a bleeding ulcer at war. While small nations simply cannot sustain the full spectrum of military equipment due to overhead and development costs, medium to large nations have options. You may on occasion have to partner with friendly nations, but what strings come with those partnerships? Regardless of whose insignia is on a certain system, who really controls its use? At peace when decisions are made in the moment, a greater appreciation of political risk down the road at war is required. A lot of, “what if” type questions need to be asked, and little tolerance should be allowed for the “that will never” or “unlikely given present circumstances” hand-waving away of problematic assumptions that would avoid either investment in significant reserve stockpiles of finished product or raw materials, or in higher per-unit production locally. A perfect example of this trap can be found in the tracked anti-aircraft gun produced by the Germans, the Gepard (Cheetah), retired over a decade ago but taken out of reserve and handed over to the Ukrainians to great effect. Via Bild; With its 35mm machine guns, this cheetah alone has already been able to destroy two Russian cruise missiles and a double-digit number of drones, says Max, confirming for the first time that a cheetah can also deal with these targets very well under combat conditions. "The Shahed drones are very easy to fight when we're within range," says Max. The cheetah's search radar can pick them up well, and the explosive incendiary ammunition then makes short work of the slow drones. Advantage cheetah: The machine guns can also fight swarms of cheaply produced drones very well. During an operation near Odessa, ten drones were shot down within a short period of time. This countered the tactics of the Iranian kamikaze drones, which are usually sent out in swarms to overwhelm the air defenses. The ghosts of the peacetime accountants will haunt you at war. Via FT; Germany wants to send 12,000 Swiss-made 35-milimetre rounds that were bought by Berlin decades ago to restock the 50 Cheetah flak cannons it has pledged to Ukraine. The Swiss government, as part of the original sales contract with Germany, has a veto over the munitions’ resale or donation. Politicians in the wealthy alpine state believe that sending them to Ukraine would jeopardise its neutrality. Switzerland refused a request from Denmark for the re-export of two dozen Swiss-made “Piranha” armoured personnel carriers to Ukraine in May. The German government has been struggling to find more shells to send to Kyiv. Brazil, which makes suitable munitions for the Cheetah guns, has also refused to allow their re-export. … “For once, the Swiss government is right,” said Thomas Borer, former Swiss ambassador to Germany and an architect of Switzerland’s current laws on neutrality. “It’s clear that delivering arms of weapons into a conflict would infringe the core principle of what neutrality means for Switzerland. As a friendly neighbour that is aware of our laws and obligations, Germany shouldn’t put Switzerland in this position.” Lambrecht wrote to her Swiss counterpart Viola Amherd saying the Cheetah munitions were purely defensive. In the letter, she said the weapons were “vital” for the protection of Black Sea grain exports from potential bombardment, according to Ukraine’s military. Bern has yet to formally respond to Berlin’s renewed request, which has been made in parallel with diplomatic lobbying from Ukrainian officials. The Swiss defence ministry has passed the new German request on to the finance ministry, which handles export licences, a Swiss government spokesperson said, declining to comment further. A spokesperson for Germany’s defence ministry said: “We are always actively finding ways to support Ukraine through our partners and alliances.” Discussions with Switzerland were part of that process, they added. Senior German politicians, including members of parties in the governing coalition, have been more forthright, with Germany being Switzerland’s largest arms export market. As I’ve said often before, were I German I’d be a member of the FDP party. As such, this makes me nod my head a bit smugly; “Anyone who does not deliver munition to an attacked state for national defence can no longer be a reliable supplier of ammunition for us either,” Marcus Faber, head of the liberal Free Democratic party’s parliamentary defence group, wrote on Twitter on Sunday. “If Switzerland refuses this to Ukraine . . . then for security reasons, we can no longer get anything from there.” Like the lessons from the 40-year old Falklands conflict still are of use today – of even more importance to this century are the legion of lessons that are coming out of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Smart people are taking note of the sometimes uncomfortable truths at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels that are emerging clearly with each month – truths that need to be look at with an unblinking eye. Some theories pushed by industry are being found to be garbage – and other proven “old think” as shown as immortal “new think” and the Gods of the Military Copybook Headings are validated once again. There are also a bountifully supply of lessons in the diplomatic, economic, and informational domains that need attention as well. Military-Industrial policy is one of them. Add this to the list. View the full article

By David F. Winkler, Ph.D. Staff Historian Finally on the morning of Saturday November 18, Cdr. Kenneth Whiting, the executive officer of the USS Langley, climbed into the cockpit of a PT seaplane which was positioned on that trolley contraption connected to the end of the catapult that had been installed on the flying deck of the U.S. Navy’s first aircraft carrier that was nicknamed “Little David.” What he was attempting to do would not go unnoticed. An hour earlier, representatives from five different motion picture companies set up their cameras alongside those of the Navy as the ship remained anchored in the York River. Not only did the Bureau of Naval Aeronautics Rear Adm. William A. Moffett arrive, but other notables came down from Washington including Capt. Emory Land to view the event. At 11:38 a.m. the deck log recorded “T.P. A—6048 was successfully launched from the catapult with Comdr. K. Whiting as pilot” – the first “cat shot” from a carrier in U.S. naval aviation history, much to the relief of those who watched the aircraft descend from view from the edge of the flying deck and count endless seconds until the seaplane came back in view. It was not a flawless evolution. Whiting turned the engine up to full power and the PT roared down the deck. Apparently, lift on the seaplane’s wings caused the aircraft to foil the trip-release mechanism the Lt. Frederick W. “Horse” Pennoyer had built into his trolley contraption. Whiting succeeded in getting airborne, unaware, to Pennoyer’s horror, that bottom planking for both of his pontoons remained up on the focsile still attached to the trolley. With Whiting flying the plane around Langley, with hands on deck pointing up to him to alert him of the damaged pontoons. With Langley’s crane swung out in anticipation of hoisting Whiting and the PT back aboard, calmly landed and pulled up under the crane hook, latching on before water had a chance to fill to pontoons. Langley’s crane then hauled the plane out of the York River. With news of Whiting’s successful cat shot, Moffett would go before the House Appropriations Committee on November 22, to make a case for additional funding. He noted what that the British were still well ahead with regards to carrier aviation but the United States had a lead with regards to naval aviation on ships in general – given the number of catapults that were being installed on battleships and cruisers with an aim towards deploying aircraft to destroyers and submarines. For a view of the catapult and a later takeoff by “Horse” Pennoyer see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YthjqlK_xUk The post The First Cat Shot first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

St Johann Press, Haworth, New Jersey, 2018. Reviewed by Chris Ketcherside First to Go is a collection of anecdotes from the USMC Combat Correspondents Association, with no specific author credited. It uses significant material from a previous publication, Last to Know, First to Go by Garry Cameron, the unofficial history of Marine Combat Correspondents, published in 1987 by Charger Books. First to Go builds on that work by adding material from conflicts since 1987. The book’s purpose, according to the preface written by Jack T. Paxton, Captain, USMC (ret), himself a correspondent, is to record the stories of combat correspondents and demonstrate that while they were correspondents, they were also Marines who could and did fight alongside the Marines they were reporting on. While books written by combat correspondents abound, with Martha Gelhorn, Ernie Pyle, and David Halberstam being among some of the most notable, they focus on the specific conflict these correspondents were reporting. Only very recently, possibly because of the extensive coverage of the long conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has there been significant academic work about the combat correspondent as an institution and not just about the conflict reported on, such as Becoming the Story: War Correspondents since 9/11 by Lindsay Palmer, The Military and the Press: An Uneasy Truce by Michael S. Sweeney, and Pen and Sword: American War Correspondents, 1898-1975 by Mary S. Mander. First to Go belongs more in the latter category, although it does not attempt a definitive history of Marine Corps combat correspondence as a whole or as an institution, rather it is an extensive collection of individual narratives provided by the correspondents themselves. The book starts with the establishment of a Marine publicity bureau in Chicago in 1907, spreading to the rest of the Corps by 1911 for the purpose of recruiting. It then outlines the initial administration of the publicity bureau, and how it recruited reporters and submitted stories. This is all covered in the four pages of chapter one. Chapter two discusses World War II (World War I is inexplicable left out) where the book reveals its purpose in presenting the who, what, where, and when of individual correspondents. After briefly discussing their training, this chapter details who the correspondents were by name, where they went, and what they did there, primarily reporting on and often participating in the fighting. The book then moves chronologically over the next five chapters, covering Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, world hotspots which are Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama, and the War on Terror. The bulk of these chapters is composed of first-person narratives of correspondents in those conflicts, and further details of other correspondents who were there and what they did. Chapter 8 covers the relationship between Marine combat correspondents and Leatherneck magazine, the magazine by Marines, for Marines. Like the former chapters, this chapter focuses on individuals and what they contributed to the magazine from its first publication in 1917 until now. The last chapter is a collection of interviews and first-person narratives of combat correspondents from WWII through the War on Terror. These are not directly connected to previous chapters but it seems they would have been better suited there. Their placement in chapter 9 seems as if they were put in at the last minute so to be included, but those narratives might have been better incorporated into their respective conflict. This is not the only fault of the book. Above all else, First to Go is badly in need of editing. Almost from the beginning the reader encounters clumsy, confusing sentences, which is very surprising since undoubtedly the authors, all correspondents, were trained in writing clear and concise sentences. None the less, sentences such as this from page 8 abound, “The Marine Corps never before had experienced a program wherein specific individuals were recruited and old-timers never had seen the type of relationship Gen. Denig had with his correspondents.” The cutting and pasting of the previous work, Last to Know, First to Go, with this expanded book also needs some attention to detail. On page 9, where the book discusses where correspondents for WWII were sent, has this glaring example, “Seven of these, however, were slated to go to Company X, a “mystery unit.” More on this later.” No more is said about Company X in the remainder of the book. Also surprising for a book by correspondents who pride themselves on obtaining multiple sources for a story (as discussed in the book) is that there are no citations at all. Most block quotes are set apart only by a different font. There are quotations added ostensibly for narrative to demonstrate the opinions of Marines in general, but these are not cited nor explicitly described as created rather than cited. Given what the book sets out to accomplish, citations are not strictly necessary, but on page 20 the book describes a correspondent that had a fuel drop tank for a P-38 converted with a glass bubble so he could fly in it over a battlefield and take pictures. This anecdote challenges credibility and needs a citation, as it more likely falls into the category of a “sea story” than an actual event. Not for the least of reasons because the Marine Corps did not use the P-38, so it’s unlikely Marine mechanics could have done this conversion and this correspondent have access to the aircraft to begin with. Perhaps the most regretful criticism is what the book does not cover, which is what combat correspondents did between conflicts. For example, on page 48 First to Go discusses the infamous 1956 Ribbon Creek incident where six recruits drowned as a result of the negligence and abuse by their Drill Instructor. While the event is neatly summarized in a concise paragraph, this ends chapter 3 and there is no discussion of the involvement of Marine Corps public relations or of any combat correspondents. First to Go is an excellent collection of primary source material about combat correspondents, such that the only index is of names of correspondents and the pages they are discussed. Most of these narratives are interesting and entertaining, but the book would be much improved by further edited editions. Chris Ketcherside is a visiting professor of U.S. history at the Missouri University of Science and Technology. He is currently ABD pursuing a PhD in American History at Saint Louis University. St Johann Press (Haworth, New Jersey: 2018). The post First to Go: The History of the USMC Combat Correspondents Association first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

By Gerry Doyle and Blake Herzinger, Helion and Company (2022). Reviewed by Joseph F. Greco Much attention has been paid to the Chinese ASBM (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile) program, a strategy that targets the U.S. Navy’s command over the East and South China Seas. As a consequence, the program brings into question the effectiveness of supercarriers that now face hundreds of missiles pointed at the American fleet. In their book Carrier Killer: China’s Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles and Theater of Operations in the Early 21st Century, journalists Gerry Doyle and Blake Herzinger, bring to life the current Chinese program giving even the casual reader a thorough and graphically illustrated understanding of the strategy and its tactics. What makes the work a unique and a welcome addition to the field is the unique perspective it brings to the current research by employing multiple maps, charts, and tables accompanied by extensive photographs. Extensive endnotes and timely references support a well-researched synthesis that builds on previous research. Both authors’ strong journalistic backgrounds and writing styles infuse a dynamism to the seventy-page flow of detailed information. Although the narrative contains few citations and references to the photos, charts, and maps, the style of writing fashions an effective narrative that is clear and easy to comprehend. The greatest strength of the work is the ability to bring the missile program vividly to the reader’s imagination. Presenting details that have been overlooked in the current research the authors explore the question of the supercarrier’s future with supporting evidence that provides a realistic assessment of the current strategy employed by both sides. For example, the well-designed maps clearly diagram for the reader the territorial claims of China and its neighbors, a visualization of naval strategies, and the range of current and potential ASBMs. In an assessment of future carrier effectiveness, the work focuses on the questions of how, when, and why the ASBM program began; what the A2/AD (Anti-access/area denial) strategy is; what it looks like using photographs and extensive maps; what tactical armaments comprise the ASBM program; what are its strengths and weaknesses; and what countermeasures exist to stop the program. Ultimately, the work coalesces around its main theme: the future of the supercarrier in light of the Chinese missile program in the Near China Seas. Beginning with the origins of the Chinese ASBM program, the authors contend that the blatant show of America’s command of the seas in 1996 demonstrated by the undetected arrival of two nuclear-powered supercarriers in the straits of Taiwan sparked the Chinese military buildup. The resulting anti-access, area denial (2A/AD) strategy challenges the U.S. Navy’s access today. Doyle and Herzinger spend quite a few pages laying out the challenging requirements of an effective ASBM strategy such as excellent precision, the advantage of geography, and other issues of how to make the missile work well. They focus the reader on an in-depth assessment of the strategy and its impact on the future effectiveness of supercarriers in the South China Sea. Following a brief history of the aircraft carrier from the pre-World War One era through the multibillion-dollar nuclear-powered carrier programs of the U.S. Navy today, the authors develop the strategic dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies’ navies today: confronting a new sphere of influence, symbolized by the DF-21D ASBM. Well-designed charts illustrate the stages of the missile’s trajectory from pre-launch to the terminal dive and the critical importance of radar guidance involved in hitting the target accurately. Using another series of critical and well-designed maps, the authors diagram the potential missile coverage of the Chinese radar systems, the use of tactically placed sensors, and the importance of satellites that play a major role in giving the best overview of the open seas. In questioning the missiles’ effectiveness, the work points to the active public relations campaign marketed by China’s state media that shrouds the ASBM program in a “haze of incomplete information,” and deliberately acts as a deterrent to keep the Western military planners at arm’s length. For concerned naval planners, the work claims that most of the system’s weapons have been untested without an end-to-end demonstration crucial to setting up a missile arsenal. On the other hand, wariness of an escalating conflict forces Western navies to alter the type of defensive missiles they carry and to hesitate sailing fleets within ASBM range. Acting as a deterrent alone, Doyle and Herzinger argue that the ASBM Program has successfully caused Western navies to expend additional funds to alter the makeup of their onboard inventory of weapons. Ultimately, the authors present a convincing and thorough argument that a carrier strike group’s best chance to avoid an ASBM attack is to avoid detection. Whether the Chinese defense strategy uses its missiles aimed at ships at sea or bases on shore, the ability to menace U.S. forces across the region will drive the efforts of future naval planners. Although Chinese propaganda attempts to portray the ASBMs as invincible, Doyle and Herzinger debunk the argument by citing countermeasures especially cyberweapons, that make them vulnerable. In summary, the authors make the claim that no ASBM attack currently is capable of taking out a supercarrier without exhausting the Chinese magazine and inviting significant retaliation. The authors argue convincingly that the most effective path for U.S. naval planners to deter ASBM attacks is to destroy satellites and radars that play a crucial role in China’s ability to accurately aim its missiles. Even though the U.S. and allies’ supercarrier fleets remain the single most effective weapon without a match, the authors’ ultimate assessment concedes that the Chinese ASBM program has ended the U.S. supercarriers’ ability to sail carefree in the southeast Asia seas. Joseph F. Greco has taught courses in global risk management at the California State University, Fullerton for over twenty years. He researches and publishes articles related to financial markets, global trade, and the Chinese threat to U.S. naval power. Gerry Doyle is an editor on the Global News Desk at Thomson Reuters. He has been posted overseas for 13 years, 10 of them in Asia, with a recurring focus on defense and security. A native of Kansas City, Mo., in the United States, he has degrees in journalism and philosophy from the University of Kansas. His career has taken him from the Midwest to Florida (where he was part of the 2000 general election team) to Chicago (where he interviewed Barack Obama on a streetcorner) to the Middle East (just in time for the Arab Spring) before landing him in East Asia (where he helped cover the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong and North Korea’s burgeoning nuclear weapons program). His novel, From the Depths, was published in 2007 and was a finalist for the American Thriller Writers’ Best Debut Novel award. He lives in Singapore with his wife and two children. A third-generation sailor, Blake Herzinger joined the Navy while studying political science at Brigham Young University. He first experienced Asia as an officer in the U.S. Navy deployed to Okinawa and moved to Singapore in 2013, completing a masters degree in strategic studies while serving as a naval liaison. He became a consultant to the U.S. Navy in the Asia-Pacific after leaving active service in 2017, but remains in the U.S. Navy Reserve. He writes regularly on naval matters and the Asia Pacific, with work published in Foreign Policy, Brookings, and War on the Rocks, and joined the Pacific Forum as a Non-resident WSD-Handa Fellow in 2021. He lives with his wife, son, dog and cat in Singapore. Carrier Killer: China’s Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles and Theater of Operations in the Early 21st Century. By Gerry Doyle and Blake Herzinger (Helion and Company: 2022) The post Carrier Killer: China’s Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles and Theater of Operations in the Early 21st Century first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

In the very serious and expensive game of national defense, words matter. Even more than words, published documents with the President or Cabinet Secretaries' signatures are the source code of what our government will do as a matter of effort and expenditure. They are the "Ref. A." and regardless of their readability or subjective goodness, they require serious understanding and careful reading. Readers could not ask for a better mind to look at the most recent National Defense Strategy than our friend and occasional guest poster, Bryan McGrath. Refresh your drink of choice and dive in to his overview below. Bryan, over to you. Following close on the heels of the Biden Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS), the Secretary of Defense released last week the 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) which is designed to explicate how the Department of Defense will prioritize and align to carry out the tasks assigned it (explicitly and implicitly) by the NSS. Released alongside the NDS were the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, neither of which are addressed in this essay. The lens through which this assessment is made is that of a navalist and unreconstructed Seapower advocate. Those biases acknowledged up front, the reader must decide whether the quality of analysis is impacted. The document is well-written, and is a quick read, digestible by most readers who stay abreast of national security and international events. It is—like most of its predecessors—far more like the strategy it replaces than it is different. We tend not to lurch but to probe. The format of this evaluation is to assess the goods and others of each section in turn. Verbatim quotes are in bolded italics. LETTER OF PROMULGATION The purpose of this section of the document is to give the reader insight as to what the Secretary of Defense considers the most important of the most important parts of the strategy. The letter is clear and well-written and avoids diving too deeply into any of the more controversial parts of the NDS. Goods The NDS directs the Department to act urgently to sustain and strengthen U.S. deterrence, with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the pacing challenge for the Department. This is superb. This sentence is the entire strategy boiled down to twenty-eight words. Would that it had remained so. The PRC remains our most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades. I have reached this conclusion based on the PRC’s increasingly coercive actions to reshape the Indo-Pacific region and the international system to fit its authoritarian preferences, alongside a keen awareness of the PRC’s clearly stated intentions and the rapid modernization and expansion of its military. As President Biden’s National Security Strategy notes, the PRC is “the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order, and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do so.” Again, this is superb. This is the problem statement, and as such, it cannot be improved. Even as we take these steps, we will act with urgency to build enduring advantages for the future Joint Force, undertaking reforms to accelerate force development, getting the technology we need more quickly, and making investments in the extraordinary people of the Department, who remain our most valuable resource. There is potential for greatness in these words, as what is implied here is the buildup of both offensive and defensive power. We will return to them. Others Our central charge is to develop, combine, and coordinate our strengths to maximum effect. This is the core of integrated deterrence, a centerpiece of the 2022 NDS. Integrated deterrence means using every tool at the Department’s disposal, in close collaboration with our counterparts across the U.S. Government and with Allies and partners, to ensure that potential foes understand the folly of aggression. The Department will align policies, investments, and activities to sustain and strengthen deterrence—tailored to specific competitors and challenges and coordinated and synchronized inside and outside the Department. We will come back to this, the creation of the term “integrated deterrence” to somehow differentiate how the Biden team intends to conduct what previously was known as… “deterrence.” The suggestion that previous administrations—irrespective of party—did not do these things as the jot and tittle of their approach to deterrence is uninformed, ahistorical, and incorrect. The Department will also campaign day-to-day to gain and sustain military advantages, counter acute forms of our competitors’ coercion, and complicate our competitors’ military preparations. Again, we will return to this concept of “campaigning” later in the document. But when I read those words above, I find myself nodding and saying “Yep. Deterrence.” I. INTRODUCTION The introduction restates much of what was in the Secretary’s Letter of Promulgation. Goods The strategy identifies four top-level defense priorities that the Department must pursue to strengthen deterrence. First, we will defend the homeland. Second, we will deter strategic attacks against the United States, our Allies, and our partners. Third, we will deter aggression and be prepared to prevail in conflict when necessary. Fourth, to ensure our future military advantage, we will build a resilient Joint Force and defense ecosystem. Clear, unobjectionable. My only quibble is the annoying adoption of the word “ecosystem”—first by the computer science world and now by all the other cool kids to describe a “system” or a “system of systems.” But that is just me. We cannot meet these complex and interconnected challenges alone. Mutually-beneficial Alliances and partnerships are our greatest global strategic advantage – and they are a center of gravity for this strategy. We will strengthen major regional security architectures with our Allies and partners based on complementary contributions; combined, collaborative operations and force planning; increased intelligence and information sharing; new operational concepts; and our ability to draw on the Joint Force worldwide. The strength of our economy (protected and sustained by our Navy) is the most important contributor to our military strength. The second most important contributor is our network of friends and allies (I do not capitalize “ally” or any of its variants—although I do capitalize “Seapower,” so sue me). This is clear and unambiguous here, and throughout this strategy. Time will tell whether posture decisions demonstrate our commitment to these friends and allies. Others The Department will advance our priorities through integrated deterrence, campaigning, and actions that build enduring advantages. Integrated deterrence entails working seamlessly across warfighting domains, theaters, the spectrum of conflict, all instruments of U.S. national power, and our network of Alliances and partnerships. Tailored to specific circumstances, it applies a coordinated, multifaceted approach to reducing competitors’ perceptions of the net benefits of aggression relative to restraint. Integrated deterrence is enabled by combat-credible forces prepared to fight and win, as needed, and backstopped by a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. Broken record alert—integrated deterrence is deterrence—it is not new; it is not novel. It is—as a term of art—cunningly constructed to indicate a preference for the increased importance of (and resource allocation from) OTHER “instruments of U.S. national power” so that defense resources can be either applied differently or harvested for other domestic policy preferences. The term is a creation of the DoD, and if the NSS or statements by other key figures in the national security apparatus (POTUS, SECSTATE, NSA) is any guide to the degree to which it has been adopted elsewhere in the “whole of government,” one can assume it is not widely respected. Day after day, the Department will strengthen deterrence and gain advantage against competitors’ most consequential coercive measures by campaigning – the conduct and sequencing of logically linked military initiatives aimed at advancing well-defined, strategy-aligned priorities over time. The United States will operate forces, synchronize broader Departmental efforts, and align Departmental activities with other instruments of national power to counter forms of competitor coercion, complicate competitors’ military preparations, and develop our own warfighting capabilities together with those of our Allies and partners. The inclusion of “campaigning” alongside “(integrated) deterrence” and “building enduring advantages” is a category error. The second sentence in this paragraph IS deterrence. As a navalist/conspiracy theorist, I have some anxiety about this concept. This is the camel’s nose in the tent for those with an adolescent understanding of naval presence (the “why do you need all those ships over there sailing around without a real mission?”) crowd, who wish to reduce the size of the Navy and have it operated more from a surge posture than from a forward posture. II. SECURITY ENVIRONMENT Goods This is a very well-written and conceived section that focuses on what the Administration considers important. Others Climate Change and other Transboundary Challenges. Beyond state and non-state actors, changes in global climate and other dangerous transboundary threats are already transforming the context in which the Department operates. Increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and more frequent extreme weather conditions will affect basing and access while degrading readiness, installations, and capabilities. Climate change is creating new corridors of strategic interaction, particularly in the Arctic region. It will increase demands, including on the Joint Force, for disaster response and defense support of civil authorities, and affect security relationships with some Allies and partners. Insecurity and instability related to climate change may tax governance capacity in some countries while heightening tensions between others, risking new armed conflicts and increasing demands for stabilization activities. I believe climate change is happening and that man is contributing to it. I believe we are an adaptable species and that we can and will adapt. I find myself often shaking my head when I read DoD officials talking about climate change and the degree to which they attempt to steal a rhetorical base by turning it into a national security threat. Climate change will cause DoD to make investments in bases over time—either creating new ones or buttressing old ones. Over a long time. If—as I am so often reminded—climate change will cause an acceleration and intensifying of all manner of “climate events” (a.k.a “natural disasters”), then there is a serious “say/do” mismatch between their rhetoric and their resourcing. To wit: the Navy’s large amphibious ships are not only important for the projection of land power ashore, but they are among the defense arsenal’s MOST useful platforms to mitigate human suffering in the event of natural disasters. The capacity for cargo carrying, power generation, water-making, and food distribution—not to mention the labor force contained therein, a labor force assembled for far more violent ends—makes these ships invaluable. Yet the Defense Department is trying to kill off the LPD 17 Flight II class at three ships (instead of 10), a resource driven requirement that is not only short-sighted, but unwise. III. DEFENSE PRIORITIES Goods Defending the homeland, paced to the growing multi-domain threat posed by the PRC;Deterring strategic attacks against the United States, Allies, and partners;Deterring aggression, while being prepared to prevail in conflict when necessary –prioritizing the PRC challenge in the Indo-Pacific region, then the Russia challenge in Europe; and,Building a resilient Joint Force and defense ecosystem This short section is clear and straightforward, except for the previously stated objectionable use of the term “ecosystem.” IV. INTEGRATED DETERRENCE I have already spilled enough electrons in my criticisms of “integrated deterrence,” and so I will not belabor them here. This is—to my knowledge—the first real attempt by OSD to create a “definition” of integrated deterrence. There is an interesting discussion in the section of “How We Will Deter” (not “How We Will Integratedly Deter”) that brings up the standard deterrence theory terms “denial” and “punishment”, and the degree to which THIS administration is unwilling to cast its lot with one over the other (the Trump team having explicitly come down on “denial”). Others Meeting the challenge requires a holistic response: integrated deterrence. In the past, the Department’s approach to deterrence has too often been hindered by competing priorities; lack of clarity regarding the specific competitor actions we seek to deter; an emphasis on deterring behaviors in instances where Department authorities and tools are ill-suited; and stovepiping. Integrated deterrence is how we will align the Department’s policies, investments, and activities to sustain and strengthen deterrence – tailored to specific competitors and coordinated to maximum effect inside and outside the Department. This is a broad swipe at every single administration since the end of WWII, and I am not aware of scholarship that backs up this view of how deterrence has been achieved. Deterrence by Resilience. Denying the benefits of aggression also requires resilience – the ability to withstand, fight through, and recover quickly from disruption. The Department will improve its ability to operate in the face of multi-domain attacks on a growing surface of vital networks and critical infrastructure, both in the homeland and in collaboration with Allies and partners at risk. Because the cyber and space domains empower the entire Joint Force, we will prioritize building resilience in these areas. Cyber resilience will be enhanced by, for example, modern encryption and a zero-trust architecture. In the space domain, the Department will reduce adversary incentives for early attack by fielding diverse, resilient, and redundant satellite constellations. We will bolster our ability to fight through disruption by improving defensive capabilities and increasing options for reconstitution. We will assist Allies and partners in doing the same. So, let us review some of the terminological excesses of this strategy. First, it attempts to create a new kind of deterrence, called “integrated deterrence,” which is not in fact, new at all. Or even required. Next, it raises “campaigning” to the level of deterrence, when it is in fact, a means to achieve deterrence—deterrence by denial. The next crime is this new concept of “deterrence by resilience,” which up until a few days ago, I had never heard of. This is because virtually every word in how this term is defined applies to deterrence by denial. It is an unnecessary attempt to add a veneer of intellectual heft to an already well-understood topic. Finally, a portion of this section is devoted to “Tailored Deterrence Approaches” (not “Tailored Integrated Deterrence Approaches” …I am so confused). It attempts to take highly classified approaches and plans and present them in an unclassified fashion. Doing so is unfortunate, as this section is not useful in an unclassified setting. V. CAMPAIGNING This section is unnecessary and should have been included in the “(Integrated) Deterrence” section. VI. ANCHORING OUR STRATEGY IN ALLIES AND PARTNERS AND ADVANCING REGIONAL GOALS Goods The clear message here to friends and allies is that “you matter.” Our network of friends and allies is important. Others The Department will seek to improve denial capability, including resilience, particularly for those most exposed to military coercion. If one needed more proof for my contention that “deterrence by resilience” is just “deterrence by denial,” one only needs to consider this sentence. VII. FORCE PLANNING Goods Our approach to force planning aims to build strength and capability in key operational areas. To maintain information advantage, the Department will improve our ability to integrate, defend, and reconstitute our surveillance and decision systems to achieve warfighting objectives, particularly in the space domain, and despite adversaries’ means of interference or deception. To preserve command, control, and communications in a fast-paced battlefield, we will make our network architectures more resilient against system-level exploitation and disruption so as to ensure effective coordination of distributed forces. To enhance our ability to deny aggression, we will improve the speed and accuracy of detection and targeting. To mitigate adversary anti-access/area denial capability, the Department will develop concepts and capabilities that improve our ability to reliably hold at risk those military forces and assets that are essential to adversary operational success, while managing escalation. For logistics and sustainment, we will reinforce our adaptability to quickly mobilize and deploy forces and to sustain high-intensity joint denial operations despite kinetic and no-kinetic attack and disruption. This is excellent stuff, and it represents effective thinking at DoD. Would that it were married to a sense of dread at the capacity problems all the services face. Others The Joint Force will remain prepared to employ combat-ready forces on short notice to address aggression or crisis, an ability critical to strengthening deterrence. At the same time, the Department will make sure that day-to-day requirements to deploy and operate forces do not erode readiness for future missions, or bias investments towards extant but increasingly less effective capabilities at the expense of building capability and proficiency for advanced threats. Further to my earlier discussion of conspiracy, this is the Austin/Hicks DoD approach to knee-capping the Navy. One can sense the disdain associated with the words “day-to-day requirements to deploy and operate forces do not erode readiness for future missions, or bias investments towards extant but increasingly less effective capabilities at the expense of building capability and proficiency for advanced threats” as OSD continues to question the operational value of forward based naval forces as instruments of U.S. security and prosperity. This is the stuff of ridiculous “presence for presence’s sake” arguments, and flies in the face of the will of the House of Representatives (at least for now), which passed a 2023 NDAA changing the Title 10 mission of the Navy to include these vital peacetime activities. Predictably, OSD has objected to this change, and is hoping to derail it in upcoming House/Senate NDAA negotiations. VIII. BUILDING ENDURING ADVANTAGES Goods Transform the Foundation of the Future Force. Building the Joint Force called for by this strategy requires overhauling the Department’s force development, design, and business management practices. Our current system is too slow and too focused on acquiring systems not designed to address the most critical challenges we now face. This orientation leaves little incentive to design open systems that can rapidly incorporate cutting-edge technologies, creating longer-term challenges with obsolescence, interoperability, and cost effectiveness. The Department will instead reward rapid experimentation, acquisition, and fielding. Any red-blooded American ought to be all for this. Any red-blooded American who understands the system (not “ecosystem”) knows how heavy a lift this will be. Because Joint Force operations increasingly rely on data-driven technologies and integration of diverse data sources, the Department will implement institutional reforms that integrate our data, software, and artificial intelligence efforts and speed their delivery to the warfighter. We have an immense amount to learn from how the commercial world handles data, software, and AI. Continuing to try and build these competencies within DoD—rather than aggressively partnering with industry to provide them—is a legacy (and weakness) of the system described above. The Department will strengthen our defense industrial base to ensure that we produce and sustain the full range of capabilities needed to give U.S., allied, and partners forces a competitive advantage. Hear, hear! Others The Department will act urgently to better support advanced manufacturing processes (e.g., aircraft and ship building, preferred munition production) to increase our ability to reconstitute the Joint Force in a major conflict. This is the single most dangerous, simplistic, wrong-headed, and non-strategic statement in this entire strategy. The suggestion of “reconstitution “in a “major conflict” is a pipe dream. The complexity of what will need to be reconstituted, along with the lack of reconstitute-able industrial capacity, means we will fight with what we have. The time to build and stockpile is NOW, not when the shooting starts, especially given the prominence of the next decade in how this DoD sees the threat environment. How this sentence survived into the final cut is beyond me. IX. RISK MANAGEMENT Inside baseball and not useful to readers. X. CONCLUSION Nothing objectionable in the document’s conclusion. My conclusion raises objections. There is a gigantic hole in this strategy, in that it does a wonderful, clear-eyed job of defining the threat and the challenges, but then offers up a flaccid and insubstantial justification of what it intends to do about them. The “divest to invest” mantra we have heard so much about is out of phase with an NDS that appears to cite a near-term threat. Pointing to “integrated deterrence” and “campaigning” as the two of the three primary ways to achieve its ends, it offers a reduced and destabilizing vision of what DoD does when it is not shooting at people to shift resources from critical peacetime security and prosperity activities to, both legitimate war-fighting needs and less legitimate domestic policy preferences. It accelerates and deepens the path we are on—one of being better able to fight a war that we are increasingly less able to deter. We must do both. Bryan McGrath is the Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group LLC. These views are his own and do not represent those of any client. View the full article

Americas Sikorsky won a $280.4 million modification, which exercises an option to procure long lead items in support of full rate production Lot 8, CH-53K aircraft. CH-53K King Stallion is a next-generation heavy-lift cargo helicopter. Work will take place in Connecticut. Expected completion will be in December 2023. General Electric won a $1 billion requirements contract for repair, replacement, and program support of 784 F414 engine components in support of F/A-18 aircraft. This contract includes a five-year base with no options. Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support is the contracting activity. Work will take place in various continental US contractor locations that cannot be determined at this time, and in Florida. Work is expected to be completed by October 2027. Middle East & Africa The shooting training center of the Special Forces Command (KSK) of the German army in the town of Calw has been using training system components from the Israeli company Trango Systems. According to German website Soldat & Technik, in a report on the visit of the German Minister of Defense to the German Army’s Special Forces Command, photos were publicly revealed for the first time indicating that the command is using modern means in the shooting training center, including system components from Trango Systems. The Turkish government will assist the country’s maiden unmanned helicopter project, the Alpin, its manufacturer Titra reported. Ankara has put the project on its “regional priority investment list,” ensuring subsidies and incentives, the Ankara-based firm added. The government has promised to buy the dual-use platform following field trials, and could export it to friendly countries once it is battle-proven. Europe Norway, a NATO member that shares a border with Russia in the Arctic, will raise its military readiness, its prime minister said on Monday, stressing however that no direct threat had been detected. “The military will as of tomorrow raise its preparedness in Norway,” Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store told reporters. Asia-Pacific The Royal Australian Air Force will continue to stick with the C-130J as the platform for its medium air mobility fleet. The Australian government announced on November 1 that Project AIR 7404 Phase 1 has chosen the C-130J. The project’s aim was to replace and expand the current fleet of 12 C-130J with a new aircraft. The defense ministry determined that the C-130J was the only option that meets the requirements for low risk, being certified in all roles, that is proven, mature and affordable. Today’s Video WATCH: The US Marine CH-53K King Stallion Helicopter is Worthy of Its Name View the full article

Americas A US Navy EA-18G is back flying again five years after it was grounded after a mid-air collision. Formerly attached to VAQ-133, the electronic attack jet is now assigned to VAQ-129. More than 2,000 man hours were spent fixing the aircraft back to a serviceable state. Lockheed Martin won a $111 million contract modification, which adds scope for the development of a Common Reprogramming Tool (CRT) minimum viable product, as well as establishing network connections required to establish the CRT development network and selection of a service-oriented architecture needed to commence development of enhanced reprogramming tools in support of efforts to replace legacy programming tools utilized by reprogramming labs to modernize and revolutionize F-35 reprogramming. Work will take place in Texas. Expected completion in October 2024. Middle East & Africa Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz heralded Thursday a new era in his country’s overt security ties with Turkey after a decade-long rupture, marked by a whirlwind visit to Ankara. Gantz’s one-day trip to the powerful NATO member came two months after Israel and Turkey renewed diplomatic ties. Europe Australia has confirmed the delivery of 30 additional Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles to Ukrainian forces. The latest military aid will increase the number of Bushmasters donated to Ukraine to 90. “Since their arrival, the Bushmasters have been used extensively by the Ukrainian Armed Forces with more requested by the Ukrainian President, Minister for Defence, and the Ambassador,” Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said. Asia-Pacific Bo-105 helicopter donated by Dornier Technology, Inc. was inducted into service with the Philippine Army (PA) Aviation Regiment at Fort Ramon Magsaysay on October 26. “The donation of the cutting-edge Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm Bo 105 will be an additional mission-essential equipment for the Army Aviation that will support the Army units and other government agencies during disasters and calamities in the country,” PA spokesperson Col. Xerxes Trinidad said in a statement. After much procrastination, South Korea has decided that the Marine Attack Helicopter (MAH) proposed by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is the platform that will meet the requirements of its Marine Corps for an attack helicopter. The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) gave KAI a $303 million contract to develop its MAH and the company has 46 months to come up with three prototypes. Today’s Video WATCH: GROWLER BALL 2022 View the full article

The big navalist news over the weekend was unquestionably what appears to be a successful attack on the Russian Navy at Sevastopol by remotely piloted surface craft by the Ukrainians. Some reports call them "drones" or other such descriptors, but really they appear to be an upscaled militarized remotely piloted surface vessel on a one way trip. There is a lot of expected hyperbole about the attack, and that is what I wanted to address today. I am concerned that the overhype by the ignorant, click hunting, or agenda driven people in the public space will cause us to miss the most important lesson here. This attack was not historically significant in a larger sense, no more than the attack on the Moskva was. This is not a glimpse into the future of naval warfare. This was simply a continuation of sound naval tactics with a pedigree directly tracible thousands of years in to the past. Not to understand this is to dangerously not understand what happened First of all, let's take a moment to state the obvious: the Russians should have been ready. They had about as clear of a warning as possible in September. A MYSTERIOUS vessel widely believed to be a Ukrainian suicide drone has washed up near to a Russian naval base. The vessel was found in Omega Bay, by the port of Sevastopol, which is home to Vladimir Putin's Black Sea fleet. We can safely assume - as the videos below seem to demonstrate it - that the ones used in the attack are of the same design. We will loop back to this point later, but just behold the simplicity of it via the article from The Sun linked above; This is all COTS technology riding on either a canoe or ocean going kayak. If you have someone with an understanding of explosives and communications (the only part requiring military expertise +/-) and then any garden variety electrician, small engine pro, and fiberglass guy ... and you can run a production line of these on a shoestring budget at scale. They look fragile, but ... well ... I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's finish setting the table. In a classic, "We live in magical times.." moment, take some time if you have not already to look at the released video we have of the attack as published by The Guardian; Now that we're through with the fun stuff, let's get to the serious lessons. First - and this is the most important - this is no transformational breakthrough in warfare at sea. From the start of the written record of naval warfare, attacking another nation's navy - especially a stronger navy - in port with remotely piloted or unmanned surface vehicles has been "a thing." Before the advent of explosives, they were simple "fire ships" like these Song Dynasty examples; Even a thumbnail review of the next thousand years through the Crusades and untold numbers of European wars to WWI and WWII - this tactical action is used. Even non-state actors like the ever-inventive Houthis of Yemen have a recent record of similar use just five years ago. The details of the Ukrainian attack on Sevastopol will come out in time but the bold faced lessons are clear - as are the warnings.This is another demonstration that the military culture of Russia is broken. The human element in the Sevastopol was manifested in the complete lack of preparation for the attack in spite of the warnings so clearly provided in September. As old as "fire ships" are to naval warfare are the defenses to them. They are as simple as are the weapons they need defend against. Barriers at the water level and crew served weapons - preferable optically sighted - as a backup. Part of the video above you can see both surface ship and helo gunfire taking out the threat from one boat, but other ones were able to approach surface ships underway and penetrate deep in to port. Why? What is one of the things we have repeatedly discussed here for the last 18-years? When war comes you never have enough of what? That's right, anti-aircraft defenses and medium caliber guns including crew served weapons. We build our ships around the most high-technology threats and equally exquisite defenses against them, but completely overlook the low-tech weapons that are just as deadly. We ignore mine warfare, and we also ignore threats as simple as a converted kayak. It isn't sexy and the contracts awarded are small ... but the threats are real. There isn't a sexy or expensive defense to them - though you can try to sell one - and the best defense you have are Sailors on watch - with good surveillance equipment to support them - and weapons they can use at scale and volume. Yes, there is a cost to have increased manning levels, additional weapons in the armory and drills/training to maintain readiness ... but if that is the cost to be ready for war ... then do it. Look at the early lessons from WWII to the Falkland Islands War etc; at peace we get lazy. When war arrives, we find ourselves lining the rails with anything that can throw lead. The Russians do not appear to have taken the most obvious and immediate steps to address this cheap, low-tech threat. They did not have significant barriers in place at the entrance to their harbors or around their ships' berths. They did not have Sailors on watch with weapons at the ready. They were complacent. They were arrogant. They assumed too much. Now is the time to loop back to a few points made at he top. This is where everyone needs to focus their attention. 1. For thousands of years, weaker naval forces have significantly damaged superior naval forces by using their disadvantage to advantage. When large and heavily armed warships are designed, trained, and manned for war against their peers on the high seas, how do you best attack them? Inshore with simple; small, lightly armed civilian derived boats roughly designed, simply trained and unmanned. Be it a raft filled with burning straw and tar, or a butched-up sea-kayak filled with RC boat tech, commercial satellite data, Sea-Doo propulsion, duct taped explosives and contact detonators. If the larger naval force in a mix of arrogance and bureaucratic sloth, or just professional malpractice, refuses to see the full spectrum vulnerability - even when I&W tells you it is there - then the motivated, flexible, and capable smaller power will reach in to history's toolbag to pick out the best bang for the buck. 2. You do not have to be a state power to create the modern "fire ship." You do not have to access controlled technology. You don't need even a lot of money. You just need imagination and the bare minimum of technical capability. 3. Most readers here are familiar with San Diego, Norfolk, Mayport and our other major naval bases. Can you wargame the rest? Yes, we have some nice barriers you can even see from GoogleEarth, but what about getting from the pier to the open sea in 2022? Where could the enemy hide? How much warning do you have? How many crew served weapons do you have ready ... and what is your ROE in such crowded ports? I don't know about you, but I like Mayport even more now. Good on the Ukrainians for using this time proven tactic. It was clear the Russians were not ready for it - a common characteristic of the Russian military - so the Ukrainians took advantage of their sloth. As for the US military, I'm really not interested in the question of how we could use such tactics, but as we are the big Navy, I want to know more what we do to protect ourselves from this tactic. We can start with what is the most obvious: more crew served weapons. More smaller boats to escort our ships to sea (USCG or USN, don't care). If I were a state or non-state actor watching this scene - I'd already have plans in place and just wait for the moment to be ripe. I hope we are ready for same. View the full article

Americas Boeing won an $11.4 million contract modification, which exercises an option to provide for installation of 25 previously procured A-kits in support of the Increment 3 Block 1 retrofit requirements for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, Florida, and is expected to be completed in December 2023. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) has completed a flight test of its air-to-air laser communication system at Montgomery Field in Kearney Mesa, California. The laser system was trialed to enable General Atomics-built drones to perform beyond-line-of-sight communications in multi-domain operations and other air-to-space communication applications. Middle East & Africa Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) will exhibit at the Bahrain International Airshow, taking place November 9-11th. IAI will showcase a variety of its state-of-the-art aviation products, including civil aviation, radars and avionics, air defense systems, coastal guard and drone guard systems. This is the first time that an Israeli company is participating in the event. Europe Germany has declared success in destroying drones with a high-energy laser weapon system installed on board frigate Sachsen. The test was carried out on August 30 in the Baltic Sea near Putlos Major Training Area. The drones were taken out at short and very short range, Rheinmetall said in a press release. Additional tests will be carried out till the middle of next year in order to hone the system into a fully functional, operational laser weapon. Bulgaria’s government has decided to buy a follow-on batch of eight F-16 fighters from Lockheed Martin. The order will split equally between the C and D models. It would be the second batch acquired by Bulgaria, which contracted to buy eight multi-role F-16 Block 70 aircraft in July 2019 for $1.3 billion. Plans initially called for the first planes to arrive in Bulgaria in 2023 and the last ones in 2024, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed delivery until 2025. Asia-Pacific Japan is looking into buying US-developed Tomahawk cruise missiles as it seeks to counter growing regional threats, including from North Korea, the government said Friday. The purchase would likely be controversial in a nation whose military is not officially recognized under its post-World War II constitution. Today’s Video WATCH: P-8 Poseidon | The new submarine hunter of the West View the full article

Saturday, November 05 2022 6:00 PM – 9:30 PM [EST] Washington Navy Yard, DC, 736 Sicard St SE, Washington, DC, 20374, United States Register The post Celebrating the Centennial of Naval Carrier Aviation Five-Star Mess Night first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

I like well hidden history, especially those with good shoes. There are many stories out there that we are only now hearing about ... and this is one. From DailyMail, If the story sounds interesting, click the link above for an extended summary, or you can get the details in Operation Kronstadt: The True Story of Honor, Espionage, and the Rescue of Britain's Greatest Spy The Man with a Hundred Faces by Harry Ferguson.Wouldn't it make a great movie ... if Hollywood still made movies of this type? Wrong heroes, I guess.Originally posted JUL10.If you want to hear more, and I know you do, historian Justin Reay has almost an hour for you on a man who two world wars later would rise to the rank of Commodore. View the full article

Americas The US Air Force’s Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has taken the Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concept one step further by having the MQ-9 operate in a simulated base situated behind enemy lines. Field 6 at Eglin Air Force Base was used for the simulation. A team of airmen secured Field 6 after arriving on board an MC-130J and cleared it for the MQ-9 to land and take off. The flight operations of the MQ-9 were carried out using Satellite Communications Launch and Recovery so that no Launch and Recovery Element was required at the site. “We did this by using a small team, landing at a simulated forward operating base, refueling and continuing to fly the mission. All of this was accomplished with an extremely small footprint which opens up the possibility for using MQ-9s in places we could not reach previously,” according to a MQ-9 pilot from the 2nd SOS. The B-52H bomber will no longer require an external cart nor gunpowder cartridges for starting up its engines in future. Boeing is said to have selected Honeywell’s 36-150 auxiliary power unit (APU) as part of the Commercial Engine Replacement Program. “The B-52 is one of the most enduring USAF aircraft ensuring force readiness against emerging threats,” said Dave Marinick, president, Engines and Power Systems, Honeywell Aerospace,” said Dave Marinick, president, Engines and Power Systems. Middle East & Africa Israeli and Lebanese leaders finalized a US-brokered maritime demarcation deal on Thursday, bringing a measure of accommodation between the enemy states as they eye offshore energy exploration. Leaders from Lebanon, Israel and the United States have all hailed the deal as “historic” but the possibility of a wider diplomatic breakthrough remains slim. As a result, there was no joint signing ceremony: Lebanese President Michel Aoun signed a letter approving the deal at his palace in Baabda in the presence of the U.S. official who mediated the accord, Amos Hochstein. Europe RAM-System won a $277.8 million deal for fiscal 2023 procurements for Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Block 2B Guided Missile Round Pack (GMRP) and spare replacement components for RAM Block 2 recertification. This contract is a 100% purchase for the German navy under a cooperative memorandum of understanding (MOU). Work will take place in Arizona and Germany. Expected completion date will be in March 2029. An engine designed by the Austrian company Rotax was discovered installed in one of Russia’s Iranian-made Mohajer-6 drones that went down over the Black Sea earlier this month. Rotax says it has launched an investigation into its engines powering Iranian drones. The delivery of such hardware to Iran violates violates European Union sanctions banning the export of items with both civilian and military purposes, such as vehicle parts. Identical sanctions are imposed by the European Union against Russia, as well. Rotax is an Austrian subsidiary owned by the Canadian company Bombardier Recreational Products (BRP), which is known for producing engines for snowmobiles, boats, motorcycles, airplanes and a significant number of drones. BRP’s Rotax jet engines are known to power the advanced US MKU-1 Predator drone and Israel’s Heron drones. Asia-Pacific The Armed Forces of the Philippines led the first-ever simultaneous joint maritime exercises with the US Navy and Royal Australian Navy. A total of 742 sailors from the three nations participated in the eight-day drills, including representatives from the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Canada, Brunei, and Malaysia attending as observers. The exercises, held in the Philippines’ Visayas region, enhanced the participating navies’ warfighting capabilities in territorial defense, terrorism, and transnational crime. Today’s Video WATCH: RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile View the full article

We have not had the chance to dig up LCS and gibbet it at the entrance of the harbor recently, so let's take a nice overview by Sam about the healthy churn between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government to see how it looks in the light of 2022; As part of the FY 2023 submission, the Pentagon proposed cutting warships from the Navy’s battleforce – including six cruisers, four Whidbey Island/Harper’s Ferry-class amphibious Dock Landing Ships, nine Littoral Combat Ships as well as Montford Point and John Glenn. The youngest ship on the list, USS St. Louis (LCS-19), commissioned in 2020. Years before LCS hull-1 was commissioned, we tried to warn the Navy what they were setting us up for. Long time members of The Front Porch know the story well, new folks can click the LCS-tab to catch up on a couple of decades of discussion. I'm not sure even in our darkest moments we saw it coming to this much ruin...but perhaps we were optimists. Imagine being one of the Sailors assigned to the St. Louis. "So, what did you do in the Navy?" ...and yet - where is our accountability for such a potlatchish waste of institutional capital and taxpayer money? The above is clearly a generational failure by The Potomac Flotilla, and in an article by our friend Jerry Hendrix over at NRO, we have another example where The Potomac Flotilla has intentionally steered our Navy in to shoal water with barely a whistle, On Tuesday, the conservative Heritage Foundation released its annual “Index of U.S. Military Strength.” For the first time in the near-decade-long history of the index, it rated the U.S. military as “weak.” Implicitly criticizing multiple administrations, Heritage’s analysts charged that U.S. military forces are under-strength, under-trained, and under-funded, and thus are not ready to meet the current challenges of great-power competition. Heritage highlighted in particular the small size and poor material condition of the U.S. Navy and Air Force, which will be critical in facing a potential conflict in the Asia–Pacific region. None of these failures are the fault of the Sailors and company and field grade officers in the Fleet - the ones our Navy has no problem holding to very public account for their failures - but of the senior uniformed and civilian leaders spanning multiple administrations ... and yet - who is being held to account? Combine this with the fact that we tried to tie the loss of a multi-billion dollar large-deck amphib around the neck of an undesignated Seaman only to have him found not guilty after two years ... with still no one of note held to account but scapegoats ... where do the American people have to go in order to have their military leadership held to account? Where? When? Who? This should not be how any of this works. View the full article

Americas General Dynamics won a $122.8 million contract modification for lead yard support and development studies and design efforts related to Virginia Class submarines. This contract modification includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of the modification to $164,071,626. Work will take place in the continental US. Expected completion will be by August 2025. Raytheon Intelligence and Space won a $12.1 million deal or non-personal and non-commercial services for operations and maintenance services of the Cobra King radar system. Work will be performed at Patrick Space Force Base, Florida; and various overseas locations on board the US Naval Ship Howard O. Lorenzen, and is expected to be completed by October 31, 2023. Comprising S and X-band phased radars, the Cobra King is a new, mobile radar system that enables the USAFTAC to offer high-quality, high-resolution and multi-wavelength radar data to the Department of Defense’s strategic community, the Missile Defense Agency and other government agencies. Middle East & Africa Twenty-two countries have requested to purchase Iranian drones, one of the country’s top military commanders proclaimed recently. Special military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, revealed the development while addressing a military academy in Tehran. Highlighting the country’s employment of science and technology in the military domain, the former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander-in-Chief said that drones were deployed to monitor the recent missile and artillery strikes against terrorist groups in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Europe Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday surveyed drills carried out by his nuclear-capable forces as Moscow pressed unfounded claims to India and China that Ukraine was developing a “dirty bomb”. The drills are the latest in a series of escalatory comments from Moscow and Putin — who observed the drills from a control room — that the eight-month conflict in Ukraine could turn nuclear. The US and Spain will begin negotiations to renew a 1988 bilateral pact to expand the US naval presence at the Rota naval base in southern Spain, Spanish foreign minister Angeles Moreno revealed to parliament last week. The statement comes months after White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan disclosed the plan in June to expand the number of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers stationed at the base from four to six. Asia-Pacific Australian technology firm DroneShield has been awarded a nearly $1 million deal to supply a portable counter-drone system to an unspecified country in the Asia-Pacific. The company said that the country is an ally of the West. Delivery of the counter-drone system is expected in March 2023. Today’s Video WATCH: $3.6 Billion US Gigantic Submarine – Virginia Class Submarine View the full article