US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

"What can you do with a general, when he stops being a general?" crooned Bing Crosby in the 1954 movie "White Christmas." "Who's got a job for a general when he stops being a general?"


Alas, the answer, 58 years later, is now clear. Retired generals don't open ski resorts in Vermont. Instead, they hunker down in Washington as the paid employees of corporations that draw most of their income from the service branch in which the generals worked. Once there, they work to maintain a stream of funding from the public treasury.

The revolving door between government service and private companies for those with beribboned chests is now an entrenched feature of life in Washington, according to a new report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit government watchdog group.

Updating a 2010 Boston Globe report that documented the practice, CREW found that over the last three years, 70 percent of the 108 three-and-four star generals and admirals who retired "took jobs with defense contractors or consultants."

What's more, CREW found, some of these same retirees were then appointed to Pentagon advisory boards, such as the Defense Policy Board. The study did not cite examples of improper decision-making, but said the retired generals' advice to the Pentagon may not be "unbiased," due to their new financial interests.

The Pentagon's rules only require a one-year wait before retired generals can contact former colleagues still at the Pentagon on behalf of their new employer. But even before that brief period ends, they can provide useful advice to new bosses about how to tap into fresh revenue streams and tip them on upcoming contract opportunities.

As Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) put it during a 2009 hearing on Obama's nomination of former Raytheon executive William Lynn to become the deputy secretary of defense, "it's an incestuous business, what's going on in terms of the defense contractors and the Pentagon and the highest levels of our military."

The financial impact of these cozy relationships was studied this year by two political economists at the Swiss Economic Institute, who concluded after a rigorous examination of the Pentagon's revolving door across six administrations that investors widely expected that hiring senior defense officials would produce higher profits.

They found that American defense companies merely had to announce they had hired a top former Pentagon official to see their stock prices jump, a circumstance they observed in dozens of instances. It was particularly evident in cases where the officials joined corporate boards or became top company executives during Democratic administrations, when strong government-corporate ties are generally scarce.

"It is hard to think of other reasons for higher expected returns than conflicts of interest," said the scholars, Simon Luechinger and Christoph Moser.

After the London Sunday Times published an article last month revealing that retired British general officers were helping defense firms obtain contracts and boost revenues, British defense minister Philip Hammond told reporters that he was contemplating banning the retirees from the ministry building and rewriting any contracts found to have been tainted by such connections.

No similar outrage has erupted on this side of the Atlantic.

Click to expand...

DOD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for Fiscal 2012

The Department of Defense announced today recruiting and retention statistics for the active and reserve components for fiscal 2012.

Active Component.

Recruiting. All four active services met or exceeded their numerical accession goals for fiscal 2012.

Army - 60,490 accessions, with a goal of 58,000; 104 percent
Navy - 36,329 accessions, with a goal of 36,275; 100 percent
Marine Corps - 30,514 accessions, with a goal of 30,500; 100 percent
Air Force - 29,037 accessions, with a goal of 29,037; 100 percent

Retention. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force all exhibited strong retention through fiscal 2012.

Reserve Component.

Recruiting. Five of the six reserve components met or exceeded their numerical accession goals for fiscal 2012. The Army Reserve shortfall was the result of precision recruiting which was implemented in an effort to rebalance the force.

Army National Guard - 47,997 accessions, with a goal of 46,000; 104 percent
Army Reserve - 26,041 accessions, with a goal of 26,875; 97 percent
Navy Reserve - 8,269 accessions, with a goal of 8,255; 100 percent
Marine Corps Reserve - 8,910 accessions, with a goal of 8,910; 100 percent
Air National Guard - 9,437 accessions, with a goal of 8,210; 115 percent
Air Force Reserve - 8,116 accessions, with a goal of 8,031; 101 percent

Attrition - All reserve components are on target to achieve their fiscal attrition goals.

Detailed information on specific recruiting data can be obtained by contacting the individual military recruiting commands at 502-626-0164 for Army; 210-565-4678 for Air Force; 703-784-9454 for Marine Corps and 901-874-9048 for Navy. The reserve components can be reached at the following numbers: National Guard Bureau 703-607-2586; Army Reserve 910-570-8330; Air Force Reserve 703-697-1761; Navy Reserve 757-322-5652; and Marine Corps Reserve 504-678-6535.

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

^^ This is not news per say. These sort of dealings have been going on for decades. Move along..nothing to see here.

Indeed, conflict of interest is the ultimate sin of every government institution. They need to be stumped out before they destroy the nation from within. I hope congress can do something about this.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

and now for something Completely Different.



Heavy IFV's are more becoming the norm but this takes the CAKE!

Click to expand...

jackliu said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It appears revolving door politics is not just limited to the financial industry.

Click to expand...

delft said:

There are only the C-5 and the An-124 able to fly such monsters, unless they succeeded in increasing their width and/or height to make this impossible too. I expect not even the Pentagon will want such nonsense.

Click to expand...

Female military members sue to serve in combat
By Paul Elias - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Nov 27, 2012 16:38:52 EST
SAN FRANCISCO — Four female service members filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, hoping the move will add pressure to drop the policy just as officials are gauging the effect that lifting the prohibition will have on morale.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, is the second one this year over the 1994 rule that bars women from being assigned to ground combat units, which are smaller and considered more dangerous since they are often in battle for longer periods.

The legal effort comes less than a year after the ban on gays serving openly was lifted and as officials are surveying Marines about whether women would be a distraction in ground combat units.

"I'm trying to get rid of the ban with a sharp poke," said U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, who was among the plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit and was injured in 2007 when her Humvee ran over an improvised explosive device in Iraq.

Hunt and the other three women said the policy unfairly blocks them from promotions and other advancements open to men in combat. Three of the women are in the reserves. A fourth, Marine Corp Lt. Colleen Farrell, leaves active duty this week.

Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. The lawsuit alleges that women are barred from 238,000 positions across the Armed Forces.

At a Washington, D.C., news conference, Pentagon press secretary George Little said the Defense Department was making strides in allowing more women to experience combat. He said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has opened about 14,500 combat positions to women.

"And he has directed the services to explore the possibility of opening additional roles for women in the military," Little said. "His record is very strong on this issue."

American Civil Liberties Union Ariela Migdal, who represents the four women, said Panetta's actions weren't enough. She called for an end to the combat ban. "These tweaks and minor changes on the margins do a disservice to all the women who serve," she said.

"It falls short," she said. "It is not enough."

Marine Corps Capt. Zoe Bedell said she left active duty, in large part, because of the combat exclusion policy. Bedell said she was frustrated that her advancement in the Marines was blocked by her inability to serve directly in combat units.

"The military is the last place where you are allowed to be discriminated against because of you gender," she said.

Bedell said the blurred front lines of modern warfare, with suicide bombs and sniper attacks, have put more and more women in combat situations.

More than 144 female troops have been killed and more than 860 have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began, according to Pentagon statistics. Roughly 20,000 of the 205,000 service members currently serving in Afghanistan are women.

Military leaders say they want to make sure lifting gender-based barriers would not disrupt the cohesion of the smaller combat ground units and military operations.

The Marine Corps' top leader, Gen. James Amos, ordered a survey of 53,000 troops to get their views, including whether they believe women in those units would distract male Marines from doing their jobs. The results have not been released yet.

The lawsuit alleges the ban violates constitutional female service members' equal rights. "As a direct result of this policy," the lawsuit states, "women — as a class and solely because of their gender — are barred from entire career fields.

The lawsuit also alleges that women are already serving unofficially in combat units.

Air National Guard Major Mary Jennings Hegar sustained shrapnel wounds in 2009 when she exchanged fire on the ground in Afghanistan after her Medevac helicopter was shot down. Both she and Hunt received Purple Heart medals for their injuries.

The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Associated Press writers Julie Watson in San Diego and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

Click to expand...

Delegate calls for D.C. flag in displays
The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Nov 28, 2012 16:14:24 EST
WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia's delegate to Congress wants the district's flag to be included anytime the military displays the flags of all 50 states.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton will lead a series of speeches on the House floor Wednesday. Delegates from other U.S. territories are also expected to participate.

Their goal is to encourage the Senate to adopt language already approved by the House that would require the military to display the flags of the district and other territories alongside the flags of the 50 states. Norton's office says the Army flies the district and territorial flags as a matter of policy, but other branches of the military do not. Norton says the practice is disrespectful to service members who don't get to see their flags represented.

Click to expand...

Amendment adds more Marines for embassy duty
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Nov 28, 2012 15:15:35 EST
The Senate voted Wednesday to authorize a 1,000 person increase in the size of the Marine Corps to provide additional protections for embassies and consulates.

By voice vote, the Senate approved an amendment to the 2013 defense authorization bill that is in direct response to the Sept. 11 attack on the diplomatic consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty.

The additional Marines would be assigned to the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group at Quantico, Va., and to regional commands and detachments at embassies, consulates and diplomatic facilities. The extra personnel would be authorized beginning Oct. 1, 2013, and would be available for three years.

Because there is no similar provision in the House version of the defense bill, the fate of the provision will be determined by negotiations involving the House, Senate, Defense Department and White House over final details of the measure. Those negotiations won’t begin until the Senate passes its full version of the $648.5 billion bill, something not expected before Friday.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who offered the amendment, said the Benghazi attack was “a stark reminder that the security environment confronting American personnel serving in the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad is as dangerous as any time that I can remember.”

The additional 1,000 Marines are needed, he said, because there are many diplomatic facilities that have no Marine Corps personnel providing security and many facilities that have Marine security guard detachments of only six people.

“Today, there are 126 U.S. diplomatic missions outside the United States without Marine Corps security protecting [them], including parts of Asia and Africa where we suspect that al Qaida is expanding its presence,” he said.

Extra Marines need to be provided, he said, because moving Marines from some diplomatic facilities to improve security at other facilities would be unwise. “Increasing one — as is necessary in light of the attack at Benghazi — cannot come at the expense of another,” he said.

In addition to the extra Marines, the amendment calls for a reassessment by the Defense Department of the risk for diplomatic personnel. That does not necessarily mean a detachment is needed at every diplomatic facility, McCain said.

Click to expand...

Marine Corps bans popular rifle magazines
By James K. Sanborn - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Nov 26, 2012 17:42:33 EST
Polymer rifle magazines, preferred by many combat troops for their durability, have been banned by the Marine Corps, according to a new administrative message published Monday.

Effective immediately, only standard-issue 5.56mm metal magazines are approved, according to the message, signed by Lt. Gen. Richard Mills, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for combat development and integration. They have a 30-round capacity with either tan, green or black followers, the internal plate that pushes rounds into a rifle’s chamber.

TELL US

How will the ban on the polymer magazines affect the way Marines fight? Send us a letter to the editor: [email protected].

The message announces a handful of updates stemming from the Corps’ most recent marksmanship symposium, held in October. Marine officials reviewed everything from approved combat equipment to marksmanship training and education.

The polymer magazine ban is likely to upset Marines who tout their superior durability. Traditional metal magazines do not spring back once they are bent, meaning they may not feed rounds properly to the weapon — a grave concern in the heat of a firefight.

Some manufacturers of polymer magazines claim their products still function properly after routine bumps and drops, being rolled over by heavy tactical vehicles and, in some cases, after being penetrated by a bullet.

Marine officials began ad hoc bans on polymer magazines last year, citing concerns over their lack of compatibility with select weapons. The new message from Mills, who doubles as the commanding general of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, makes the ban official across the force.

While they work well in standard M16 and M4 rifles, polymer magazines present potential problems when used with the Corps’ new M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, which is being fielded throughout the force as a substitute for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in some formations. More than 5,000 M27s have been delivered to the Corps, with many in the hands of deploying Marines. An additional 1,400 are slated for delivery in the months to come.

The M27 has unique tolerances in its magazine well that can prevent polymer magazines from seating correctly, resulting in failures. That poses the risk for malfunction should an automatic rifleman share magazines with his squad members during a firefight. Metal magazines are standardized across the Corps’ 5.56mm rifles.

Companies that produce polymer magazines are releasing new products they say are designed fix compatibility issues. This summer, for instance, Magpul released its third-generation polymer magazine, which it bills as compatible with the M27. It remains to be seen whether this may sway the Corps to reverse its ban.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Troops are getting these because they work, The Latest version of the popular Pmag and the Emag are actually designed too fit Hk416. I wish they would Review STANAG form time too time and make updates.

By the way both of the last two stories are from Military times network.

Click to expand...

GAO denies latest Colt M4 protest: Could this be it?

The lights are on and the credits are rolling in the Army’s M4 contract drama, and the story doesn’t appear to be ending well for Colt Defense. The GAO has released a decision dismissing Colt’s latest protest of the Army’s $83.9 million M4 contract previously awarded to Remington Defense.

The latest decision, dated Nov. 16, dismisses Colt’s protest of the Army’s interpretation of the M4 technical data package licensing agreement. This is a complicated issue, but the dismissal should clear the way for Remington to resume work on the Army to re-award the M4 contract, likely to Remington. This is a qualified statement because there is a chance Colt underbid Remington in the amended solicitation, though this seems unlikely given Colt’s latest protest of the contract terms.

Though, and this could be the Memento moment of the whole drama, Colt’s protests may have been part of a strategy to smoke out the competitors pricing info and lay bare the Army’s plans for the royalty pricing schedule. There is a chance Colt actually used the protest process to its advantage and put in a bid lower than Remington’s in the amended solicitation.

Also, it should be noted that the GAO says it “will not resolve a dispute involving interpretation of a license agreement … because this involves a matter of contract administration not subject to GAO’s review.” This allows Colt to take the matter before a government contract appeals board or the Court of Federal Claims.

“The Army intends to complete the source selection process and promptly issue a contract award in accordance with the amended solicitation,” said Don Jarosz, TACOM’s deputy public affairs officer. “No contract award has been made yet and we are not aware of any appeals made by Colt.”

Colt hasn’t responded to our email.

Remington spokesperson Teddy Novin didn’t have much to say Wednesday tonight. “We are awaiting next steps and remain confident that the Army will make the right decision for its personnel and the American taxpayer.” No doubt, Remington is holding its breath as they await word that the Army has cleared the docket of any other protests and that their award still stands.

While we reported on the first protest decision, from July 24, we were working from extracts provided by the GAO. With both decisions now in hand, we can shed some light on the basis of Colt’s protests as well as issues surrounding the award.

QUICK RECAP: In spring, 2012 the source selection report presented to the source selection authority determined Remington represented the best value to the government. The decision was based on four criteria: Remington presented the best production capability approach, utilized small business appropriately, showed satisfactory past performance of government contract work, and had the lowest price.

Aug. 19, 2011: Army issues a solicitation for up to 120k M4/M4A1 carbines.
April 20: Army awards contract to Remington.
April 26: Colt protests the following:
The way the Army performed its price evaluation.
Army’s evaluation of Remington’s past performance.
Army’s evaluation of Remington’s production capability.
July 24: GAO sustains Colt’s price evaluation protest. Dismisses others.
Sept. 12: Army issues updated solicitation. Submission deadline is Oct. 9.
Around Sept. 20: Colt files protest of adjusted royalty terms with Army.
Sept. 28: Army dismisses protest.
Oct. 9: Colt files protest of adjusted royalty terms with GAO.
Nov. 16: GAO dismisses Colt’s protest.
According to the GAO’s July 24 decision, Colt was unimpressed with the way the Army evaluated Remington’s production capability and its past performance. Both are criterion in the source selection authority’s determination of the manufacturer’s suitability for the contract. Colt also raised issues with the way the Army calculated the royalties that would have to be paid by any offeror that didn’t have rights to the M4′s technical data package — essentially any company other than Colt.

PRODUCTION CAPABILITY: As far as the Army’s evaluation of Remington’s production capability, Colt says it should have been rated higher than Remington since Colt has the facilities, machinery and tooling already in place to build the guns; Remington does not. The GAO agreed with the Army’s stance that Remington has “more than ample facilities to meet the requirement with no additional facilities required. … Remington has some, but not all the required key tooling and equipment in place, but its proposal provided a very detailed plan for key tooling and equipment.”

The GAO concluded that the Army is capable of making this determination and denied Colt’s protest.

PAST PERFORMANCE: The next issue dealt with the way the Army evaluated Remington’s past contracting performance. The Army determined that Remington only had two contracts on which it could base its rating for past performance. Initially, the source selection board (SSB) decided that the two contracts didn’t offer a enough information on which to base a “meaningful performance risk prediction.” The board assigned a rating of “unknown confidence” for the past performance criterion.

Later, the source selection advisory council, to whom the SSB reported, judged those two contracts enough to raise the rating from “unknown confidence” up to “satisfactory confidence.”

According to the decision, the GAO finds “nothing unreasonable about the agency’s assignment of a satisfactory confidence rating to Remington’s past performance and we find that the conclusion is supported by the underlying record.”

PRICE EVALUATION: The GAO upheld Colt’s initial protest about the way the Army applied the royalty fees to the offerors price but denied the second.

The solicitation’s language suggested that the Army would simply tack 5 percent on to any offeror’s price if it didn’t own or have license to use technology or technical data that belongs to Colt. Here’s the actual language:

“The royalty rate is 5%. If an offeror does not indicate that it is the owner or a licensee of the technology/technical data, its offer will be evaluated by adding an amount equal to the royalty to its proposed prices.“

Instead of applying a flat rate, the Army went through the carbine submissions part-by-part to determine just how much of the current M4 design was still subject to the 1997 M4 Carbine Addendum to Technical Data Sales and Patent License Agreement. The Army broke the gun down into its components to arrive at an aggregate percentage representing the Colt proprietary parts and applied the 5 percent surcharge to the cost of only those parts.

This is key because Colt likely relied on the solicitation’s blanket 5 percent guide when gaming its price. If Remington’s gun cost $1,000, then it would be subject to a $50 royalty adjustment. Colt no doubt used this math as a basis to estimate its competitors’ prices. When the Army used a different formula, the playing field was no longer level, Colt contended.

At issue is the wording, “an amount equal to the royalty.” Colt argued this meant 5 percent as it stated in the sentence preceding it. The Army said it meant the amount would be calculated based on the 5 percent royalty but didn’t elaborate further, leaving room for ambiguity.

In short, the GAO agreed and sustained this portion of Colt’s protest. The Army responded by putting out an amended solicitation laying out just how this calculation would be done and invited offerors to resubmit their proposals.

That brings us to the latest Colt protest and the second GAO decision, dated Nov. 16, also based on royalty calculations.

PRICE EVALUATION II: The amended solicitation went out with an attachment laying out how the royalty would be calculated. The solicitation also listed weapon configurations and the appropriate royalty percentage to be applied to each.

Colt had a look at the amended solicitation and protested with the Army. The Army denied the protest, then Colt protested with the GAO.

The basis for Colt’s second price evaluation protest was based on the fact that Colt and the Army haven’t agreed on the royalty schedule at the heart of this M4 contract. Colt says that since it hasn’t come to an agreement on the actual royalties it is due, then there is no way the Army can accurately calculate the royalty rate.

The GAO applied logic and determined that since the basis for the Army’s calculation was laid plainly out for all the offerors, then things were fair. Whether it was based on estimates or real numbers is irrelevant. GAO denied this protest.

NOW WHAT: It’s up to the Army to again award the contract — or in the case that Remington Defense is still the winner, effectively lift the stop order and let Remington get to making the guns under the terms of the amended contract.

That is, unless Colt Defense loses its bid and takes its case to a DoD contracting board of appeals or files a case in federal court.

Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Navy Moves To Replace Presidential Helicopters

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has launched a new project to replace the aging helicopters used by the U.S. president, three years after a program was canceled due to surging costs.

The next generation of Marine One choppers used by the White House incumbent would start flying in 2020, replacing the current fleet of 19 VH-3D Sea Kings and VH-60N Night Hawks manufactured by Sikorsky.

In a draft request for proposals, the U.S. Navy said it wants to buy 25 helicopters and to integrate advanced communications equipment into a chopper that is already operational, instead of building an entirely new aircraft.

The future presidential chopper, dubbed VXX, will “provide a comprehensive and secure communications capability to ensure connectivity between the President and U.S. government agencies or foreign governments, throughout the threat spectrum, regardless of location,” according to the Navy’s website.

“It is the government’s desire to hold development to an absolute minimum on the VXX Program” and “change to major components such as drive train, rotors, engines and basic structure is highly discouraged,” it said.

Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin won a contract to build 28 new presidential helicopters in 2005. But the project was scrapped four years later after the cost almost doubled to $11.2 billion, amid an expanding list of technical requirements.

The Marine One acquisition program is overseen by the Navy, and the helicopters are flown by the Marine Corps.

Click to expand...

WANA, Pakistan, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- A suicide bombing in South Waziristan, Pakistan, injured Taliban commander Mullah Nazir and killed at least six others, officials said.

The bomber, described as 10 to 15 years old, pushed a hand cart carrying explosives into a vehicle carrying Nazir's aides in the South Waziristan tribal region's Wana area, Pakistan's Dawn News reported.

Geo News described the attacker as riding a motorcycle.

Assistant Political Agent Shahid Ali Khan said six people were killed and nine others injured in the blast. At least four of Nazir's aides were killed in the attack, Dawn News said.

Nazir, who was standing near the car, suffered a slight injury to his leg.

Three vehicles and eight nearby shops were destroyed.

Nazir is an influential Taliban leader whose group is accused of attacking foreign troops in neighboring Afghanistan. U.S. drones have repeatedly targeted the anti-U.S. commander



Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Shatner to attend Enterprise’s inactivation
The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Nov 29, 2012 11:27:59 EST
NORFOLK, Va. — Capt. James T. Kirk will be on hand when the Enterprise is officially retired.

A publicist for William Shatner told The Daily Press that the actor will attend the aircraft carrier’s inactivation ceremony on Saturday at Naval Station Norfolk. Shatner is scheduled to perform Friday in Newport News.

Shatner played Kirk, who led the starship Enterprise in the “Star Trek” television series and several movies.

The world’s first-nuclear-powered aircraft carrier hosted another crew member of its fictional counterpart in 1983. George Takei was aboard the Enterprise when it ran aground on a sandbar while returning to Alameda, Calif., from a deployment. Takei played Lt. Cmdr. Sulu.

The Enterprise returned to Norfolk from its final deployment earlier this month. Saturday’s inactivation will be its last public ceremony.

Click to expand...