Friends of FOD
Hey, I’m getting tired of talking to myself here. I need your comments to make this worthwhile to me and to others. I’m sure you Friends of FOD have some opinions. Let’s hear/see something from you. And if you have suggestions or personal contributions surrounding an event or a interesting tidbit from around the dates of a particular edition. I’d really like to hear from you active duty Friends of FOD.
Trump Verses Transgender Service Members
The big news across the military today is President Trump’s tweet from July 26th saying transgender individuals would not be allowed to serve in any capacity in the US military. This announcement came as a shock to Pentagon leaders who had no idea such a policy change was coming. In fact Secretary of Defense James Mattis (left) is on personal leave this week and newly confirmed Deputy SECDEF Patrick M. Shanahan (below right) is holding down the fort. Previously, the policy allowing the enlistment of transgender recruits into the military was put on hold pending a six-month review of all military policies. That review did not cover transgender individuals already serving openly. There are many unknowns here and more questions than answers. Does a tweet make policy, or does it need to be codified before a change in policy can be enacted? What happened to the requirement to be published in the Federal Register? What guidance should be provided to unit-level commanders regarding men and women under their command? And more importantly, what does a change in policy mean to thousands of men and women who have identified themselves in the months since the Obama administration’s policy allowed and welcomed them to serve openly? I think it’s a bit too late for such a radical change of policy. That horse has left the barn! The military, rightly or wrongly has been THE organization where social changes have been codified ahead of societal norms in the civilian population. I was going to mention this in FOD anyway, but Executive Order 9981 was an executive order issued on July 26, 1948, by President Harry S. Truman. It abolished racial discrimination in the United States Armed Forces and eventually led to the end of segregation in the services long before segregation was dealt with by the civilian sector. In January 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta issued an order to end the policy of “no women in units that are tasked with direct combat”, though it still has yet to be determined if and when women may join certain direct combat roles, but changes are occurring. Women are now in leadership roles across all commands, demonstrating there are no glass ceilings if you have good leadership and management abilities. And women in the military are paid equally for their service, something women are fighting for today in the nearly all civilian sector jobs. Just to conclude, President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that transgender service members could be forcibly separated because the Defense Department cannot, “… be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.” Military Times pointed out, the Defense Department spends 10 times as much money on Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications than it spends on healthcare services for transgender troops. So the expense for transgender troops will never fly in Congress. And Military Times also reported Top defense lawmakers on Capitol Hill quickly blasted President Donald Trump’s transgender military ban Wednesday, calling the policy change short-sighted and potentially dangerous. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., called the surprise news “yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter.” He said Trump’s statements on the issue were unclear and confusing. “Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving,” he said. “There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military, regardless of their gender identity.” Expect to see legal actions filed soon. Your comments appreciated.
Continue reading “FOD Fireball’s Observations of the Day July 25 through 27 2017”
Friends of FOD
I’ve been travelling and working on the ’31 Chevy and as a result new editions of FOD have been delayed. Photos in the next edition. Congrats to Friend of FOD Rickey on his retirement from Boeing. Rickey, all I can say is that retirement is good!
Navy Asking For New FFG Design Inputs
Contrary to the existing LCS platform designs, the U.S. Navy is looking for inputs from industry on a new multi-mission guided-missile frigate adapted from existing ship designs, a major departure from its modular littoral combat ship, according to a Request For Information (RFI) released Monday and covered by Defense News. The RFI lays out a ship that opens the door to almost any existing design that can be adapted to the Navy’s needs, which extends beyond just the two LCS hull forms being built by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA (left). The Navy is looking to avoid “sticker shock,” said Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, the service’s director of surface warfare, said in a Monday telephone interview, and engage with ship builders about what trade-offs the Navy would have to make to get the most capability from the ship. Boxall (right) did not say how much the U.S. Navy is willing to spend but said the RFI was intended to draw out what the U.S. Navy could get for its shipbuilding dollar. In order to get the ship to the fleet as fast as possible, the U.S. Navy wants builders to adapt from existing designs, the RFI said. “A competition for FFG(X) is envisioned to consider existing parent designs for a Small Surface Combatant that can be modified to accommodate the specific capability requirements prescribed by the US Navy,” it reads. The U.S. Navy wants a frigate that can keep up with the aircraft carrier — a nagging problem with the current classes of small surface combatants — and have sensors networked in with the rest of the fleet to expand the overall tactical picture available to the group. “The FFG(X) will normally aggregate into strike groups and Large Surface Combatant led surface action groups but also possess the ability to robustly defend itself during conduct of independent operations while connected and contributing to the fleet tactical grid.” The U.S. Navy would like for the ship to be able to: Kill surface ships over the horizon
- Detect enemy submarines
- Defend convoy ships
- Employ active and passive electronic warfare systems
- Defend against swarming small boat attacks
The U.S. Navy is looking to limit the number of ground-breaking technologies that go into the ship, looking for engineering and combat systems that are already common in the fleet. The U.S. Navy lists several capabilities, among the most important including:
Other capabilities in “tier two” include various sonar equipment such as variable-depth and towed-array sonar, Cooperative Engagement Capability to be able to share target data with other ships and aircraft in the fleet, rigid-hull inflatable boats, Next Generation Surface Search Radar, and a MK 110 57mm gun and related systems. The U.S. Navy wants the ship to be used for surface and anti-submarine warfare — traditional frigate roles — and to take on lower-level missions, such as security cooperation, that don’t require multibillion-dollar warships. It also must be hardened against electronic warfare attack. The U.S. Navy is also particularly interested in having the frigate be a platform for deploying unmanned systems “to penetrate and dwell in contested environments, operating at greater risk to gain sensor and weapons advantages over the adversary.” The frigate should be able to establish a complicated picture of a tactical environment with its on-board sensors, unmanned systems and embarked aircraft and beam that information back to the fleet through secure communications. The U.S. Navy intends to award the contract for the first FFG(X) in 2020. It will buy one in 2020 and one in 2021, followed by two each year after that. The U.S. Navy’s requirement is for 52 small-surface combatants, the bulk of which will be LCS.
Continue reading “FOD Fireball’s Observations of the Day July 10 through 13, 2017”
Friends of FOD
A bit delayed on this edition. I’ve been moving the last few days. It’s a pain in the butt. And it doesn’t get easier with age or with the number of moves made in my lifetime. Suffice it to say I’ve traded a great lake view for a great mountain view. So things have gotten a bit behind. Plus I had to wait until today to get my internet installed. I know – excuses will be listened to, but not tolerated!
US Companies Providing Russians with Security Source Code
We have known for quite some time the Russians are employing every possible cyber tactic to undermine US computer systems, establish hacker networks and steal millions of dollars on a recurring basis. So where are they getting some of the most critical product security secrets you might ask? From the very companies developing the software. Cisco, IBM and SAP have all acknowledged and acceded to the demands by Russia to review source code for security products such as firewalls, anti-virus applications and software containing encryption before permitting these products to be imported to and sold in Russia. This, according to Reuters, has been going on for quite some time and those requests have increased since 2014. Supposedly these requests are done to ensure foreign spy agencies have not hidden and “backdoors” that would allow them to borrow into Russian computer systems. But in doing so Russian inspectors have the opportunity to find vulnerabilities in products’ source code and instructions that control both basic and advanced operations of computer equipment. While a number of U.S. firms say they are playing ball to preserve their entree to Russia’s huge tech market, at least one U.S. firm, Symantec, told Reuters it has stopped cooperating with the source code reviews over security concerns. That halt has not been previously reported. Symantec said one of the labs inspecting its products was not independent enough from the Russian government. U.S. officials say they have warned firms about the risks of allowing the Russians to review their products’ source code, because of fears it could be used in cyber attacks. But they say they have no legal authority to stop the practice unless the technology has restricted military applications or violates U.S. sanctions. (photo above left is the Russian Security Service Building). From their side, companies say they are under pressure to acquiesce to the demands from Russian regulators or risk being shut out of a lucrative market. The companies say they only allow Russia to review their source code in secure facilities that prevent code from being copied or altered. I wish I were making this up. My recommendation – don’t sell them anything – let ’em rot.
Continue reading “FOD Fireball’s Observations of the Day June 20 through 25, 2017”