Friday News Roundup — July 2, 2021
Good morning to you from Washington, D.C., and happy Independence Day weekend! It has been a busy week in Washington, even with the Senate in recess, as we’re continuing to read the tea leaves on infrastructure plans, while also tracking the latest companion legislation in the House following the Senate’s action on U.S.-China competition. Absent a bipartisan commission, Speaker Pelosi also went ahead to name a Select Committee to investigate the January 6th insurrection, naming Rep. Liz Cheney to the committee — after she and Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger were the only Republicans to support the legislation establishing the Committee. The Supreme Court also weighed in on its cases, and the most significant impact is likely to come from the 6–3 ruling in Brnovich v. DNC, which leaves Congressional action (and certain Senators’ thoughts on the filibuster) as the last bulwark for the Voting Rights Act.
At CSPC this week, Reps. Nye and Rogers called for continued momentum for national security space missions, while Dan looked ahead at the growing pressure on the private sector from U.S.-China tensions. On a week when President Biden became the 7th president in a row to launch airstrikes in the Middle East, Ethan argues for a return to Congressional oversight of war powers, as the September 11th AUMFs have run their course. Joshua also reviewed Future War and the Defense of Europe by Gen John Allen, LTG F. Ben Hodges, and Julian Lindley-French.
Next week, on Wednesday, July 7th, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, we will be hosting our rescheduled fireside chat with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to discuss the successes and challenges in the continuing 5G rollout, and what is ahead for competition in 6G leadership. We hope you can join us.
This week in the roundup, Dan looks at Independence Day given our current divisions. CSPC Senior Fellow Robert Gerber proposes innovations that can be included in infrastructure plans. Michael analyzes the recent report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena issued by the intelligence community. Joshua covers the launch of the sea trials of Russia’s newest submarine and what it means. Ethan examines the different choices of the Navy and Army for the future of their helicopter lift, and, as always, we wrap with news you may have missed.
Independence Day(s)
Dan Mahaffee
When Juneteenth was recently made a Federal holiday — officially Juneteenth National Independence Day — an objection raised was not over the celebration of Juneteenth or what it commemorated, but rather the invocation of another “independence day” other than July 4th. While one could appreciate the argument, and disagree wholeheartedly with such an objection justifying a “nay” vote — the argument almost gets to the truth, almost…
Independence Day, July 4, 1776, is best remembered for the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
dispute thIt is beyond dispute that in 1776, the ideas of equality and who was entitled to life, liberty, and happiness were far from universal. Yet, in that moment, and in those words, our founders set forth basic, fundamental values — and leave the challenge to future generations to determine who would be equal and what life, liberty, and happiness meant. Immediately after, the Declaration adds: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
From the creation of the United States through the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, our founders wrestled with the standard set by these values and the hypocrisies of their time. Yet, they set the foundation for a country that could be governed by its people. From there, the challenge would fall to future generations to wrestle with just to whom the words of the declaration apply.
In the way that the dates of history strangely align, it is perhaps fitting that the victories of the Civil War at Gettysburg and Vicksburg — turning points in the war — also fell on July 3rd and 4th, respectively. Look no further than the words of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to understand how that conflict came from wrestling with the idea of who would benefit from the liberty promised by the founders. Lincoln of course saw “A new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” yet also one fighting for “a new birth of freedom” so that “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
While Juneteenth came after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the U.S. Army’s liberation of Confederate Texas, it too reflects a step forward in ensuring that the United States was headed towards meeting the promise laid forth on July 4, 1776. In that sense, even if the name of the new holiday was laborious, then we should think of Juneteenth as not something rivaling Independence Day, but something marking another step in fulfilling its promise.
Today, that promise is in peril, as is our unity as Americans. Our nation is beset by challenges at home and from abroad. Politicians and pundits seek voters and viewers by pitting us against each other over our values and history, rather than asking how we live to that standard of building a free and equal country. Abroad, autocrats in Beijing, Moscow, and elsewhere create their own narrative of democracy’s failures, while arguing that their model of techno-authoritarianism or kleptocratic oligarchy serves the world better. They see our divisions and take pleasure at how little effort on their part is required to weaken us further.
It is up to us whether we want to use our history as something to learn from — successes and failures — to move this country forward, righting wrongs and building opportunity, or we can be mired down simply using the past as further shibboleths to divide us. From our failures, we can resolve to build a better, fairer future, while we can also unite around our traits that have made the United States successful: our tenacity, enterprise, vision, and openness, to name a few. It is up to us to determine how we meet the standards of the Declaration of Independence and apply those words to the America we want to see. We are a country governed by its people — a gift from our founders, but also a challenge.
An Infrastructure Plan that Spurs Innovation?
Robert W. Gerber
Last week President Biden agreed to a $570 billion booster plan for infrastructure ($1.2 trillion total spending over five years) that was crafted by a group of 21 Republican and Democratic Senators. Some pundits have commended the Administration for taking a bipartisan approach in line with Biden’s campaign pledge to build consensus, but some Democratic party leaders in Congress oppose the measure, demanding more climate action and restoration of the “human infrastructure” elements of the original White House “American Jobs Plan”–which they want to pass in a budget reconciliation bill. Also unclear is how the infrastructure plan would be paid for.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave America’s infrastructure a “C-“ grade in its 2021 report card. The compromise legislation would add an additional $109 billion for roads, bridges and major projects, $73 billion for power infrastructure, $65 billion for broadband infrastructure, $66 billion for rail transport, and $49 billion for public transportation–on top of what Congress has already authorized. Airports, EV charging infrastructure, and climate change resiliency would also receive funding.
Details on how the plan will be paid for are murky at best. We know it will not be financed by augmenting the 18% federal gasoline tax (24.4% on diesel), which was last raised in 1993, as neither party seemed interested in this measure. Raising the gas tax would have made sense in the context of the Administration’s climate goals, but there were concerns this tax increase would be too regressive in terms of its impact on lower-income Americans. States also play a major role in infrastructure and maintain their own gasoline taxes on top of the federal tax. The White House said it plans to repurpose some funds from the American Rescue Plan and would collect fees from spectrum auctions to pay for new infrastructure.
If properly designed, the legislation could repair the nation’s roads and bridges while also spurring innovation. This combination would make the nation more economically competitive and resilient in a rapidly changing world. Here are four ideas to spur innovation through infrastructure funding:
Bury the power lines — Visitors from Western Europe to the United States are surprised to see above ground power lines in many communities. Not only are above-ground power lines anachronistic and ugly, but they contribute to weather-related power outages that cost Americans over $150 billion each year. When we put power lines underground, we could lay fiber optic cable at the same time, delivering on the Administration’s promise to expand broadband connectivity across the country. If we replaced power lines with trees, we would have the additional benefit of carbon capture and cooler streets.
Smart Grids — The infrastructure plan should promote technology and regulatory solutions that make smart grids de rigeur, boosting the resilience of electricity networks and enabling the proliferation of decentralized/distributed energy production, featuring micro-grids and nano-grids. The emergence of new renewable energy technologies demands flexible energy distribution systems that integrate smart and AI-supported technologies.
Dedicated bus lanes — This would give Americans more transport options in both urban and non-urban areas, with particular benefits for lower-income folks. Dedicated bus lanes could also function as test beds for smart transport technologies, connected vehicles, and autonomous transport, thus spurring innovation in these strategically important sectors. Likewise, bike lanes in urban areas would spur development and proliferation of sustainable e-mobility solutions while reducing congestion.
A rendering of a proposed intersection in Raleigh, NC (Image Credit: City of Raleigh, NC)
Build Roundabouts — The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that roundabouts are safer than regular four-way intersections, reducing vehicular crashes by 39 percent and injury crashes by 76 percent. They also bring environmental benefits: “Modern roundabouts are not only capable of improving traffic flow, but they can cut down vehicular emissions and fuel consumption by reducing the vehicle idle time at intersections and thereby creating a positive impact on the environment,” according to the International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Plus, they are fun to drive around.
Building these features into the infrastructure plan would ensure that it spurs innovation that enhances America’s competitiveness and meets our environmental challenges while creating more livable urban and rural communities.
Regarding the way forward: infrastructure is generally popular with both parties, and the Trump Administration endorsed but was unable to pass major infrastructure legislation. This set the stage for a bipartisan initiative in 2021. But hard choices loom as Congress and the Administration face decisions on what exactly will be in the legislation, how to pay for new infrastructure, and whether or not it should be tethered to additional $5 trillion in spending the Democrats want. Raising taxes to pay for spending entails political risk, but so does deficit spending: 75% of Americans believe too much debt can hurt the economy (Ipsos Poll April 23–26), while the last two administrations have pushed debt-to-GDP ratios to record levels. Hopefully, collaboration and compromise will result in a plan that minimizes the inevitable pork projects, addresses America’s most urgent infrastructure needs, and spurs innovation, without major impact on the nation’s ballooning debt. These are key pillars of economic competitiveness and resilience.
UFOs Are [Probably] Not Extraterrestrial. They’re Worse
Michael Stecher
If I may let you behind the curtain of how we run things on the Policy Team, when we have our weekly assignments meeting to determine who is going to write about what topic, we tend to break down easily into lanes or beats. While this is not a comprehensive list, Joshua is an expert on Russian and Eurasian politics; Ethan has a downrange view on Air Force technology and acquisition; and Dan covers the U.S.-China relationship and Geotech. I have other lanes, but I have also acquired the totally normal “Aliens” beat after I wrote about the U.S. Navy’s encounters with what it has started calling Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) two years ago.
I was not the only person who found that story interesting, however. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did too and they instructed the Director of National Intelligence to tell them what was up with UAP as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. After some strategic leaks over the past few weeks, the unclassified report — but for obvious reasons not the classified annex — was released last Friday. While I may have the reputation around the office of being too much of a science fiction fan, this report seems to signal that the most likely cause of UAP is terrestrial and more threatening as a result.
When the Defense Department began publicly discussing UAP, many wondered whether the phenomena actually existed or whether they were some combination of computer blips and human error. This report seems to settle that question: of the 144 incidents reported between 2004 and 2021, “80 involved observation with multiple sensors.” A sensor ghost or a pilot seeing something unexpected because of “natural atmospheric phenomena” could explain a handful of cases, but it would be much stranger for both of these to happen at the same time over and over.
In 11 cases, pilots reported “near misses” with UAPs, which means that they closed to ranges where seeing a mirage is less likely. There were also 18 incidents where pilots described UAP as having “unusual … movement patterns or flight characteristics,” implying that the UAP were under observation for some time. This information does not tell us very much about what UAP are, but it is a good sign that they are actual phenomena that are worth exploring.
The biggest question left unanswered by the unclassified report relates to the following statement:
Although there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited to allow for detailed trend or pattern analysis, there was some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion. UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies.
Is the U.S. military like the drunk looking for his car keys under the streetlight (because the light is better there)?
It is hard to tell from this description — does “tended to cluster” mean that 30% of observations were near training ranges? Does it mean 95%? — but the inverse of this statement would clearly have significant meaning. If UAP were spotted in areas far from U.S. military operations, it would suggest a higher likelihood that they should fall into the bucket the report calls “other” (by which they mean beyond their current scientific understanding, but not using a word like “aliens”).
If this is not just collection bias and UAP are actually clustered around U.S. military (and particularly U.S. Navy) training ranges, it massively increases the odds that these are intelligence-collection platforms launched by Russia and/or China. While most of the public commentary on UAP describe hypersonic speed, aerodynamically implausible maneuvers, and acceleration without visible propulsion, most of the incidents referred to in the reports and all of the actual videos and still images released by the Defense Department do not.
Over at The War Zone, Tyler Rogoway makes a compelling case for the adversary drone hypothesis. He points out that U.S. Navy testing ranges are among the only places where carrier battle groups will activate their full range of advanced sensors and communications systems outside of combat. Observing and assessing these capabilities in action generates extremely valuable intelligence that an adversary would want to collect in order to duplicate, counteract, or neutralize sensors.
Rogoway points out that a mix of powered balloons and drones could be configured to display many of the characteristics described in the report. Balloons could be configured to have strange visual appearances, as well as large or strange infrared and radar signatures. Drones flying in formation with electronic warfare packages to jam or spoof sensors could appear to undertake wild, physics-defying maneuvers. If they appear so weird or threatening that a ship or aircraft locks onto it with its fancy radar, the drone/balloon could acquire even more valuable signals intelligence. These platforms could be launched from a submarine or even a passing freighter. He also goes into the historical record and finds examples from the Cold War of balloons being used for this kind of intelligence collection. I would add to his analysis that flying near an integrated air-defense zone to generate targeting information is a key part of the military’s suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.
This explanation of UAP may seem disappointing, but it points to a larger change in contemporary warfare. Through the 1990s, the U.S. military was primarily concerned with combatting enemies that looked like them, thought like them, and fought like them. After 9/11, they have spent 20 years fighting enemies with dramatically lower capabilities, but who nonetheless used technological solutions like IEDs or (increasingly) commercial drones to offset U.S. capabilities.
If the adversary drone hypothesis is correct, it shows another way that the next generation of warfare will involve state-level actors with advanced technical capabilities that nonetheless do not look like U.S. military capabilities. Since 2016, for example, the U.S. Air Force has toyed with the idea of acquiring a new light attack aircraft platform (called OA-X) that could be operated for low cost in an environment with limited enemy air defenses. Recent experience, most notably the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has shown that this is almost certainly the wrong approach. In that conflict, the Azerbaijanis used Turkish- and Israeli-made combat drones to conduct strikes with lower risks and less cost than manned aircraft.
Unlike Rogoway, I do think that the Defense Department is taking the drone threat seriously, even if the results are still probably years away from being fielded. Without knowing what is in the classified annex, however, we are unlikely to find out enough details to reliably test the adversary drone hypothesis. We can look out for its byproducts. If Congress quiets down about the risk of UAP, they are more likely to be earth-based in nature, since terrestrial threats fit much better into the military’s conception of the universe and classification systems. If, on the other hand, the Federal Aviation Administration starts publishing guidance to civilian and commercial aircraft to record and report UAP sightings, we should think a little harder about little green men. Luis Elizondo, a former intelligence analyst who has been widely quoted about UAP, may say that “if the public had access to all the classified information, the mood would be sombre,” but this report definitely leans in the other direction.
Sea Trials of Russia’s Largest Submarine in 30 Years Begin
Joshua C. Huminski
This week, the Russian submarine K-329 “Belgorod” put to sea for trials. It is the largest submarine the Russian Navy has fielded in nearly 30 years, and second only to the Typhoon submarine — made famous in the book by Tom Clancy “The Hunt for Red October”, later adapted into a film starring Alec Baldwin and Sean Connery. Based on an enlarged Oscar-II hull, it is believed to be over 580 feet long and 50 feet across, and is expected to displace in excess of 19,000 tons — well more than the Oscar-II. It is larger in every respect than the largest U.S. submarine in the Ohio Class.
The Belgorod is something of an enigma believed to serve two purposes. In the first, it is classes as a “special missions” vessel acting as a mothership for autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) (such as the Klavesin-29-M (Клавесин-2Р-ПМ, also known as Harpsichord), hosting deep-sea submersibles — to include rescue vessels — and settling onto the ocean floor to tap into undersea cables. It is interesting to note that while the Belgorod will be nominally crewed by the Russian Navy, it will operate under the Main Directorate Deep Sea Research organization (which reports to the Ministry of Defence), further masking its mission.
The Belgorod is expected to host the nuclear-powered Project 10831 Losharik submarine, which suffered a serious accident resulting in the deaths of 14 sailors in 2019. Another submersible is believed to be in the process of retrofitting to replace the Losharik, while it is being repaired. These deep-diving submersibles would allow the Belgorod to deploy assets to reach deeper and hardened communications and surveillance assets, and to establish “Autonomous nuclear deep-water stations” (автономной атомной глубоководной станции), or AGS on the ocean’s floor. For this mission, it is believed to have hardened or reinforced lower rudders in case it needs to settle on the ocean’s floor. It is also possible that the Belgorod has retractable skids to further facilitate a delicate landing.
The K-329 is also believed to have a nuclear strike and deterrent role, which is seemingly at odds with its “special purpose” mission set. The surveillance and intelligence mission would almost certainly place it in high-risk, high-threat environments, while its utility as a deterrent would rely on its ability to remain hidden. It is expected to carry upwards of six 2м39 or “Poseidon” (Посейдон) “Intercontinental Nuclear-Powered Nuclear-Armed Autonomous Torpedoes” (NATO reporting name: Kanyon). At 65 feet in length and over twice the size of traditional submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), these nuclear tipped torpedoes are more AUV than traditional torpedo. While not in service yet, the Poseidons are expected to be ready by 2022.
The Belgorod is undeniably impressive, but it does not appear to be the start of a whole new class of submarines. Its genesis has been tortured, with construction first started in the early 1990s, but suffering from a series of stops and restarts, culminating in it finally putting to sea for trials this week. With its nominal dual missions, it appears to be more of a special purpose submarine rather than the first hull of a series of modern submarines. Given its capabilities it would appear ideally suited for operating in the Arctic, an area of increasing interest for Moscow.
The arguments about its deterrent role are indeed interesting. In the mid-1990s, the Soviet Navy could field, according to U.S. Intelligence, somewhere between 60 and 70 SSBNs. By 2020, this number had shrunk to just over 10. Russia operates four Borei next generation SSBNs, one Delta III and four Delta IVs, and one Typhoon (with two in reserve), but this is largely a missile test bed. This is, of course, well down from the peak of the Soviet Union, but still represents a formidable deterrent (on its own and when combined with Russia’s land-based nuclear arsenal). The Borei-class is the latest and most advanced SSBN in the Russian fleet, and a successor to most of the Delta-class family of submarines. Russia is also deploying a new class of SSGNs or guided missile submarines, the Yasen and Yasen-M or “Graney” class.
Six Poseidon nuclear torpedoes on one boat are impressive, but not sufficient for a secure second-strike capability alone. Yet, introducing an autonomous nuclear-armed drone torpedo will complicate Western strategic calculus, as it is fundamentally designed to evade any surface-level missile defense system. Such a torpedo could target harbors or waterfront cities and act like a dirty bomb, showering the inlaying areas with contaminated water, in addition to any resulting destruction. This is especially the case after Russia has had some difficulties introducing a next-generation submarine launched ballistic missile.
Here, in addition to the “traditional” developments, the Poseidon is indicative of a “novel” weapons development, which along with the hypersonic cruise missile and others, is further evidence of Russia’s rearmament and reinvestment. Arguably, the Belgorod would be well-placed to sit in the Arctic, support its “special missions” and have its own onboard deterrent in the form of the Poseidons. In any case, it is indicative of Russia’s continued — if halting — military modernization.
The Belgorod will certainly be a submarine of keen interest to the United States and its allies. With its ability to conduct deep sea operations and potentially deploy the AGS, it will pose a formidable risk to the undersea communications and internet cables, as well as the SOSUS underwater surveillance and early warning networks across the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap.
In any case, the Belgorod going through sea trials is evidence of Russia’s long, if halting, military modernization, and its investment in next generation capabilities. One wonders how long it is before there is a new version of “The Hunt for the Belgorod”, yet sadly Tom Clancy passed away some years ago and there are too few authors with the technical chops to make a book both thrilling and accurate.
Rotary Wing Philosophy: Navy redux while Army Futures
Ethan Brown
Of all the defense thematic things that catch my eye while preparing my section of the Roundup, two stand out — JADC2/All-Domain Ops, and DoD modernization programs aimed at strategic competition. Don’t worry, this week won’t be about JADC2, but it will contrast two dramatically different philosophies between the Navy and the Army in terms of its Rotary Wing (military lingo — “RW”, better known as helicopters) procurement to deal with peer adversaries in the future.
This week, the Navy awarded Sikorsky an $879 million contract to begin production on the Lot 5 iteration of the behemoth CH-53K King Stallion heavy lift helicopters to be delivered in 2024. “Lot” meaning the developmental phase under the broader “K” model moniker, which merely indicates a slight upgrade in the use of materials, structural hardening, and certain pre-fabricated avionics. This contract is in place to meet the Marine Corps heavy-lift requirement, since the tiltrotor CV-22 Osprey has proven that it isn’t up to par with the demands of the force for troop mobility and logistics support. The contract includes an incentivized option to procure a future Lot 6 at a reduced-cost price, while bringing the current fleet of Lot 5 K model King Stallions in the inventory to 33. Compared to the Lot 4 iteration, which cost $102.1 million per unit, Lot 5 reduces unit cost to $97.6 million, and the Lot 6’s in the pending future option will roll in around $94 million.
So in short, the Navy is looking to beef up its heavy lift RW fleet while attempting to incentivize the defense contractor to save taxpayer money in the future. Based on my limited understanding of Earned Value Management as I study project management in graduate school, the numbers do actually shake out for acquisitions efficiency (that $7.4 million difference means Lot 5’s are more valuable today than Lot 6’s will be in the future, while still providing the exact same product).
We aren’t here to discuss Project Management fundamentals, however (thank goodness), this column seeks to inquire why the Navy is throwing money at a large dinosaur for its troop and cargo mobility when the Army has put its eggs in the Future Long-Range Vertical Lift (FVL) basket. FVL, as I have explored in previous roundup analysis, led by a Sikorsky-Boeing partnership, aims to provide the Army with light attack, reconnaissance, and mobility platforms to replace the aging UH-60 Blackhawk fleet with an eye for long ranges and air-defense survivability, i.e., countering Chinese aggression in the Pacific theater. As much as I loathed helicopters and flying on them, the Blackhawk was easily the smoothest ride of the bunch, but it won’t stand up to the rigors of a future conflict, which has spurned a massive acquisitions effort by the Army to find a solution that increases range, speed, lift capacity, modularity, and of course streamlines supply-chain SNAFU’s seen in earlier era’s of defense acquisitions.
The King Stallion only meets one of those criteria with any real advantages — lift capacity. First developed in the post-Vietnam 70’s era of cavalry surges, the titan of rotary wing platforms is 100ft long, 27ft tall, and can accommodate upwards of 50 personnel (not including flight crew) in its massive cargo bay, depending on configuration. With a max takeoff lift capacity of over 35,000 lbs, feeling its seven rotor blades beating the air into submission is comparable to the worst roller-coaster lunge at an amusement park. It is pretty fast too, recording a sustained speed of 170 kts and able to reach 18,000ft above sea level. The Boeing CH-47, by comparison, hits roughly 65% of those benchmarks, give or take on the speed capability.
So the King Stallion is big, fast, and can move just about anything, although the engines are not well-suited to desert and sandy environments, which you can learn a bit about here. So while the ability to move things is great, the sheer size and relative lumbering maneuverability makes this juggernaut a juicy target for enemy air defenses, especially if the Navy is landing 50+ Marines on an amphibious beachhead or advancing heavy artillery to the front lines in an island hopping campaign. Physics says that big does not mean nimble, even if the King Stallion can perform 60° banks ( per the sales pitch. Not only that, but the system design itself is over five decades old, and the very nature of production development here means that supply chain issues, maintenance, and necessary sustainment will inevitably retain many of the pre-digital industry flaws of its progenitors, despite the cool branding that Lockheed-Martin (the parent company manufacturer for Sikorsky) puts out to sell its product.
There is likely a strategy paper or study that isn’t within keyboard’s reach of yours truly, one that explains exactly why the Navy has opted to redux this legacy behemoth to support the Marines lift needs, instead of, say, exploring the benefits of digital engineering to ascertain and develop a new heavy-lift platform for maritime employment. But those reasons are not clear and evident, other than the existing relationship between the Navy and Sikorsky to keep the status quo ahead of the pending defense budget crunch. The Army recognizes this perilous predicament, which is what has driven the FVL program to speed up its prototype proposals and validation flights in the past two years.
The DoD needs to modernize, not play at redux with its legacy systems. Regarding rotary wing programs, the Navy is currently lagging far behind the Army with regards to how it will solve the Pacific theater problem. The King Stallion is a tremendous feat of rotary wing engineering, with a long and storied history, but nostalgia isn’t the solution to the challenges of future conflict in new domains with capable adversaries.
News You Might Have Missed
California Bans State-Funded Travel to Five States for LGBTQ Bias
Annmarie Youtt
In recent years,California has banned state-funded travel to states that they deem limit youth LGBTQ rights. This week, California added four more states, including Florida, to its travel ban as a political protest against anti-LGBTQ laws. This announcement also came on the 52nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. Since 2016, the list has grown to 17 predominantly conservative states across the country. The California government supports this choice by stating that they cannot have relations or financial agreements with states that marginalize groups. Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that “California must take action to avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people” The ban has some limited exception for contracts entered with the state before the laws were passed. California continues to use this new tactic to address issues within the United States that they feel should be addressed. The state could be setting a new precedent for politically protesting certain laws. It remains to be seen how this will eventually affect state to state relationship, but for now 17 states are off the travel list for California funded travel.
UN Court Sentences Former Milosevic Aides to 12 years for War Crimes
Maria Ruiz Del Monte
On Wednesday, the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals convicted Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic for financing and equipping Serb militias during the former Yugoslavia’s breakup and for crimes committed in a Bosnian town in 1992.
The ruling came after a prolonged retrial, which took place due to the legal errors in the verdict of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Stanisic and Simatovic, who served as aides of Milosevic’s government, pleaded not guilty to the charges against them and may appeal. In a summary of the judgment, the court declared that they felt satisfied that “the accused provided practical assistance which had a substantial effect on the commission of the crimes of murder, forcible displacement, and persecution committed in Bosanski Samac and were aware that their acts assisted in their commission.”
Italian Forces Kicked Out of Middle East Base Over UAE Arms Embargo
Arik Gulati
Earlier this week, the United Arab Emirates ordered Italian forces to withdraw from the al Minhad airbase by Friday. This announcement comes as a response to Italy’s decision to stop the sale of arms to the UAE and Saudi Arabia due to their involvement in the war in Yemen. Al Minhad is used by many NATO countries and was strategically key to Italy for flights in the Middle East, as well as to the Horn of Africa and the Indian Ocean. This eviction adds complications to Italy’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, as they now must find a different staging base to use. The UAE has also not allowed Italian military planes to fly in its airspace. There are ongoing negotiations to settle the matter, though it seems unlikely that will resolve anything. “This eviction is emblematic of a broken relationship with an ally,” said Matteo Perego Di Cremnago, an Italian member of parliament. He added, “when relationships break down in the Gulf it is very hard to resurrect them.”
The House Advances Bill Removing Confederate Imagery From Capital
Liam Miller
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed a bill to remove statues and images of Confederates and advocates of slavery and white supremacy from public display in the U.S. Capitol. The bill passed 285–120 with bipartisan support from 218 Democrats and 67 Republicans. According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), “Symbols of slavery, sedition and segregation have no place in the halls of Congress.” This is a great example of how Congress and the rest of the nation continue to grapple with their own history of slavery and systemic racism. However, the bill encountered opposition from some House Republicans who felt it was ill-intentioned and greatly overstepped the rights of states to select statues for display in the Capitol. This is not the first bill of this nature that was passed by the House of Representatives; an earlier version passed in July 2020, but did not receive a vote in that Senate. At that time, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), argued that, “The selection of the statues should be left to the states.” The dynamics have changed as the Democrats now control the Senate and the White House, which makes the passage of the bill into law more likely. Senate bipartisanship would still be tested as 60 votes are required for the bill to advance, which means that at least 10 Senate Republicans would have to vote with all 50 Senate Democrats.
The views of authors are their own, and not that of CSPC.