Lithuania pledges to spend at least 3% of GDP on defence

On the same subject

• 

  June 3, 2019 | International, C4ISR

  The Army wants to talk to anyone, anytime, anywhere

  By: Mark Pomerleau As the Army moves forward with its multipronged network modernization, the branch has set its sights on servicewide communications capabilities integrated from top brass down to the smallest tactical units. Army leaders expressed the need for technologies to enable units' communication from the tip of the spear down to systems in vehicles and at command units. “The ‘integrated' part of ‘integrated tactical network' is making sure we don't field a set of stovepiped capabilities that do not provide the robust capability that we think we want for the future fight,” Maj. Gen. David Bassett, program executive officer for Command, Control, Communications-Tactical, told C4ISRNET. “We've got to field this as an integrated capability. It's not just about focusing on one piece or the other. We've got to work it all together along with network operations tools that help soldiers employ those system.” The Army's integrated tactical network (ITN) is described as a mix of existing programs of record and commercial off-the-shelf capabilities that allow a unit to communicate in congested environments and provide situational awareness. The network also feeds into programs such as the Command Post Computing Environment (CPCE). CPCE is a web-enabled system that will consolidate disparate command post tools, programs and tasks and help the Army to react faster than the enemy. This includes the Tactical Ground Reporting System (TIGR), Global Command and Control System-Army (GCCS-A), Command Web and Command Post of the Future (CPOF). This uniform interface will be available from the command post to ground vehicles to dismounted soldiers, allowing each to upload and share information in a centralized database. During exercises last year, soldiers worked through how to identify targets on the ground and pass that information through the network via vest-mounted tablets and a Google Maps-type function. “Target acquisition from an operator's perspective starts in the ITN. Then it will make its way eventually to CPCE if we can get the ITN and CPCE to talk to each other, which is definitely the next bridge line for these systems,” Maj. John Intile, executive officer for 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, told C4ISRNET during a battalion event at Camp Atterbury, Indiana. The Army's fire support Command and Control (C2) system, Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS), is slated to be incorporated in CPCE after the first round of aforementioned systems. “While the integrated tactical network in our first line of effort is focused on the lower echelon war-fighting units, the Command Post Computing Environment ... is really done at the corps and down trace units,” Maj. Gen. Peter Gallagher, director for the network cross-functional team, told C4ISRNET. https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2019/05/31/the-army-wants-to-talk-to-anyone-anytime-anywhere/

• 

  September 28, 2018 | International, Naval

  Navy Awards Ingalls 6 Destroyers, Bath Iron Works 4 in Multiyear Deal; Ingalls to Build Both 2018 Ships

  By: Megan Eckstein The Navy awarded six of its next Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to Ingalls Shipbuilding and four to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, in a combined $9-billion purchase right at the end of the fiscal year. The two companies had been competing for work in a five-year multiyear procurement (MYP) deal that would cover at least 10 Flight III destroyers. The contracts span Fiscals Years 2018 – which ends on Sunday – through 2022. “These contract awards are further evidence of the Navy's continued delivery of lethal capacity to the nation with a sense of urgency while ensuring best value for the taxpayer,” Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said in a Navy news release. “The Navy saved $700 million for these 10 ships by using multiyear procurement contracts rather than a single year contracting approach. We also have options for an additional five DDG 51s to enable us to continue to accelerate delivery of the outstanding DDG 51 Flight III capabilities to our Naval force. We executed this competition on a quick timeline that reflects the urgency in which the Navy and our industry partners are operating to ensure we meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy.” Ingalls Industries' contract is worth $5.1 billion and covers two ships in FY 2018 and one a year in FY 2019 through 2022. It also includes options for additional ships, which may be subject to a future competition with BIW. Bath Iron Works' contract is valued at $3.9 billion and covers one ship a year in 2019 through 2022 – and none in the short-term in 2018. According to the Navy statement, “each shipbuilder's contract contains options for additional ships in FY18/19/20/21/22, providing the Navy and/or Congress flexibility to increase DDG 51 build rates above the 10 MYP ships in the Navy's FY 2018 budget request, if appropriated.” Lawmakers in the House and Senate armed services committees have pushed for faster acquisition of the destroyers, and in the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act they authorized the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract with the two builders for as many as 15 destroyers – three a year, compared to the previous shipbuilding rate of two a year. The lawmakers on the appropriations committees only provided money to buy two ships in 2018, but they did fund three DDGs in the 2019 spending bill, which the Senate passed last week and the House passed this week. It is unclear if that third ship in FY 2019 would have to be competitively awarded or if the Navy would be allowed to select a shipyard based on schedule, performance or other factors – the contract announcement notes the options “may” be subject to a competitive process. Program officials had been mum during the competition on their acquisition strategy and how to handle options for additional ships. All the ships covered under this pair of contracts is for the Flight III configuration, which is built around the powerful AN/SPY-6(v) Air and Missile Defense Radar. “This procurement will efficiently provide Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability for our future fleet while strengthening our critical shipbuilding and defense industrial base,” DDG-51 program manager Capt. Casey Moton said in the news release. “The Navy is proud to be working alongside the dedicated shipbuilders at BIW and Ingalls to continue to deliver these warships to the fleet.” Moton told USNI News in a December 2017 interview that the contracts would be structured in such a way that additional ships – beyond the previous two-a-year rate – could be added easily if the Navy deemed it a priority in its spending request or if lawmakers wanted to add in more funding. With this contract award, the two shipyards – who, for a time after the production line had restarted remained neck-and-neck on contract awards and deliveries – will further diverge. Ingalls Shipbuilding was awarded a contract in June 2017 to begin work on its first Flight III ship, DDG-125. Two months later, Bath Iron Works was awarded a contract that would have the yard build DDG-126 with a Flight III configuration but DDG-127 in the older Flight IIA design, like the rest of the ships in the previous multiyear procurement contract. Though Navy and congressional officials would not comment while the competition was occurring, Bath Iron Works had been challenged to balance the Arleigh Burke-class program and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program. Keeping DDG-127 – which Congress incrementally funded in FY 2016 and 2016 – at the Flight IIA design would help ease the yard into Flight III production. The yard will not be building any new destroyers in FY 2018, according to the contract announcement, whereas Ingalls will take on two Flight III ships. https://news.usni.org/2018/09/27/navy-awards-ingalls-6-destroyers-bath-iron-works-4-in-multiyear-deal-ingalls-to-build-both-fy-2018-ships

• 

  October 31, 2024 | International, Aerospace

  Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

  Col. Charles "Tre" Del Pizzo said the commandant of the Marine Corps ordered his removal from command after reviewing the crash investigation.