July 26, 2019 | International, Other Defence
By: Leo Shane III and Joe Gould
House lawmakers on Thursday advanced a two-year, $2.7 trillion budget plan with $738 billion in military funding in fiscal 2020 over the objections of conservative colleagues who objected to the increased federal spending levels.
The measure — which passed 284-149 — has the support of President Donald Trump and leaders from both chambers, but drew the support of only 65 Republicans in the final vote. That's roughly one-third of the House GOP membership.
Senate lawmakers are expected to take up the matter next week. The measure is designed to prevent a partial government shutdown this fall and stabilize appropriations plans for all aspects of federal agencies until after next year's presidential election.
On the House floor Thursday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., called the deal a critical step forward in restoring regular budget order and predictability not just for military programs, but for all of the government.
“There is no secret we have big differences between the Democratically controlled House and White House and the Republican-controlled Senate,” he said. “Despite those differences, we have to function. We have to be able to fund the government and meet our responsibilities to the American people.”
Ahead of the vote, Trump worked to bolster Republican support for the measure, which would increase Defense Department spending by more than 3 percent over fiscal 2019 levels. He tweeted that the new budget plan “greatly helps our Military and our Vets.”
White House officials (and Republican congressional leaders) had pushed for even more in defense spending recent weeks, while congressional Democrats had insisted any military funding increase be offset with additional non-defense spending.
In the end, the non-military money in the new budget deal will grow by about $10 billion more than defense spending over the next two years, and the military spending for fiscal 2020 will fall about $12 billion short of the White House's hopes.
Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., and chairman of the Republican Study Committee, in a statement called the compromise plan “a massive spending deal that will further in debt future generations and remove reasonable safeguards to prevent the growth of government and the misuse of taxpayer dollars.”
Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and a House Armed Services Committee member, said he would only vote for the deal if it were paired with congressional action to look for paths toward debt reduction.
“It you could create a commission that was empowered to bring its recommendations to the floor for an up or down vote, and had members who were younger, next-generation members, I think it could work,” Gallagher said in a video posted to Twitter.
Two weeks ago, House Republicans voted against a $733 billion military spending topline as part of the annual defense policy bill, in large part citing insufficient funding totals for national security.
House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Mac. Thornberry, R-Texas, on Thursday voted for the slightly larger defense spending total, telling reporters the two-year deal would provide much-needed stability for the military.
“Given the political turmoil that comes with an election year ... having a two-year budget deal that takes us to the end, hallelujah, of the Budget Control Act is more valuable than if you had held out for a few billion,” Thornberry said.
Democrats had misgivings of their own, including the deal's lack of restrictions on Trump's ability to shift money within the budget toward a controversial border wall. The Pentagon was expected to shift a total of about $6.1 billion from its budget to help build a border wall, including about $3.6 billion from military construction projects.
But in the end, all but 16 Democrats in the House backed the measure.
House members began their extended summer break on Thursday night, leaving the details of separate appropriations bills reflecting the new budget deal to be sorted out in September. The Senate is scheduled to begin their break at the end of next week, after voting on the measure.
October 30, 2024 | International, Land, C4ISR
New technologies can lower the bar for manufacturing dangerous weapons, while also helping watchdog organizations in detecting treaty infractions.
October 10, 2019 | International, C4ISR
By: Nathan Strout Managing data is the biggest challenge to developing a new space-based sensor layer that would help detect hypersonic weapons, the director of the Missile Defense Agency said Oct. 7. The agency is working toward building the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor, a layer of sensors on orbit that would be capable of detecting and tracking hypersonic weapons that the nation's current missile defense architecture was not designed to handle. The new system will be built into the Space Development Agency's constellation of low earth orbit satellites. For Vice Adm. Jon Hill, the director of the agency, designing the sensors for the system is a surmountable engineering issue and evolving commercial launch capabilities mean it will be easy to get the technology to space once its ready. The real challenge is “the passing of track data between different space vehicles and maintaining track and dealing with clutter.” Hypersonic weapons are dimmer than traditional ballistic missiles, making them harder to detect. The sensors will have to be able to remove that clutter, detect the threat and then pass their data to the next LEO sensor, which will pick up the object as it travels around the globe at hypersonic speed. Allowing for that data flow from sensor to sensor is essential to the effective operation of the system. Hill compared the complexity of that data transfer to his time in the Navy, where information had to go between moving vessels, but the data issue with satellites is magnitudes of order more difficult. “When you put yourself on a moving body that's moving, not at 30 knots but at a much higher speed, you know, maintaining the stability of that track, being able to pull the clutter out of it, determining how much you want to process up on orbit versus how much you want to feed down and process on the ground, then how you distribute. Do you distribute directly from the sensor? Do you control the weapon from space? Or do you take it to the ground station and do it there? There [are] different trades, and we'll probably do it differently in a lot of different ways because that adds to the overall resilience of the system,” Hill said speaking at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event October 7. Finding the right answers to those questions will be a priority for the MDA as it works to works to get the system on orbit quickly. “It's going to be a great capability. We just need to get it up there as soon as we can and rapidly proliferate,” Hill said. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2019/10/09/the-data-challenge-of-space-based-hypersonics-defense/
January 14, 2021 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy wants to buy a next-generation large surface combatant by the end of the 2030s, but its not being built for a new kind of sensor or weapon system. The newly dubbed DDG(X) is being built for power. The Navy has, of course, built ships around advancements in engineering systems before: Nuclear power or steam engines, for example, have led to big leaps in naval design. But the large surface combatant is being built around a significant challenge. Weapons systems of the future such as high-powered electronic warfare systems, laser weapons, and high-powered radars and sensors will put an uneven and sometimes even unpredictable load on a ship's power system. That's pushing the Navy toward an integrated power system, says Rear Adm. Paul Schlise. “We're going to incorporate an Integrated Power System that has the ability to power up the weapons and sensors of the future,” Schlise said during the Surface Navy Association's virtual annual symposium. “[That's] the key to the realm here. It's DDG-1000-like, in some respects in that it'll have that integrated power system, but the most important thing is including the space, weight, power and cooling — reestablishing those margins to incorporate future systems that are not yet mature. “There's a lot of promise in some of those systems, but that integrated power system is the key to incorporating those feature systems that we're looking at, that we think are going to be part of that class of ship.” What is an integrated power system? Mark Vandroff, a former senior director of the National Security Council and a retired Navy captain who was the program manager for the Navy's new DDG Flight III program, said it's a major break from the kind of system used on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. “A major advantage of a ship with an integrated power system is that the power generated by any of the ship's engines can be used for either propulsion or electricity, rather than having engines solely dedicated to one or another.” On today's destroyer, and on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, the ship has separate systems that power the twin propulsion shafts, which turn the ship's propeller and generators that work exclusively to power the ship. An integrated power system, similar to what is on the Zumwalt-class destroyers, uses all the ship's engines to make electricity that turns the propellers and powers the weapons and sensors. The integrated power system on Zumwalt is a new layout that uses advanced induction motors to produce up to 78 megawatts of electrical power, far more than any previous destroyer or cruiser. But the issue with the large surface combatant is a little more complicated than just producing a ton of power. What energy weapons or advanced electronics systems do is put a huge tax on the electrical system of a ship, often requiring more power than the ship is able to produce at one time. So while the integrated power system isn't new, the kinds of demands these new systems will place on the power grid meant to run everything is a new kind of challenge, said Matthew Collette, associate professor of naval architecture and marine engineering at the University of Michigan. Therefore, the Navy must figure out how to best store energy so it can be available to meet unpredictable demands. “The issue is, this is different than integrated electric propulsion, which we've had on cruise ships and offshore supply vessels for two decades at this point, and it works really well,” Collette said. “But on those ships, all the electrical loads are pretty well behaved: They rise and fall slowly, and there's no issues with the stability of the electrical system. “High-powered radars, high-powered electronic warfare, certainly rail guns, the lesser extent lasers — they all ask for power really quickly, faster than a mechanical generator can suddenly produce it. So now you have to think about whether [you] use batteries or flywheels or capacitors or other techniques to get the energy available on the timescale that the load needs.” It's not an insurmountable problem, and it is one the Navy has used elsewhere. The electromagnetic launch system on the Ford-class, which has had its share of technical problems, operates off a flywheel energy storage system. But the new power system already has Congress nervous, and lawmakers are pressuring the Navy to build a land-based engineering site to test out the power and propulsion system before getting too deep into the design work for the ship. Collette said that's a sensible approach, and that on the timeline the Navy is discussing, the technology should be sufficiently advanced to support the new class. “There's been a ton of work done on this, and I think it's certainly something that in the timeframe of a large surface combatant, I would expect would work,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2021/01/13/for-the-us-navy-the-future-of-shipbuilding-and-warfare-is-in-the-power-plant