DOCSLIB.ORG

Costs of Creating a Space National Guard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Costs of Creating a Space National Guard JUNE 2020 Costs of Creating a Space National Guard The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year additional costs beyond those incurred for existing units 2020 established the Space Force as a new, independent in the Air National Guard and Army National Guard military service within the Department of the Air Force. that have space-related missions. Specifically: Intended to conduct operations that involve space—such as maintaining satellites that are used for communications, • CBO considered a smaller version of a Space National observing the weather, and monitoring other countries’ Guard that is based on a February 2020 proposal missile launches—the Space Force is currently authorized by senior National Guard personnel. Under that to operate only with regular (active component) proposal, 1,500 personnel in existing Air National personnel. Guard and Army National Guard units would be transferred to the new Space National Guard. CBO The creation of this new service has led to various pro- estimates that DoD would incur about $100 million posals to establish a Space National Guard, which would in additional costs annually to operate and support supplement the Space Force’s active component forces this smaller Space National Guard. Creation of such as required. Such proposals have typically focused on a force also would probably result in onetime costs of existing units within the Air National Guard and Army about $20 million for the construction of additional National Guard that have space-related missions, includ- facilities. ing national space functions (such as missile warning and missile defense or space tracking) and deployable mis- • CBO also considered a larger version of a Space sions (primarily involving satellite communications). The National Guard that would be about one-third Department of Defense (DoD) is studying the issue of the size of the Space Force, the same size that the whether to create a reserve component for the Space Force, Air National Guard currently is in relation to the either a Space National Guard or a Space Force Reserve, Air Force. (Unlike the first option, this one is not that would be similar to those of the other services.1 based on a specific public proposal.) Under that approach, the Space National Guard would consist In this report, the Congressional Budget Office examines of 4,900 to 5,800 personnel. CBO estimates that two options for establishing a Space National Guard DoD would incur $385 million to $490 million in that would support the Space Force. In its analysis, additional costs annually to operate and support this CBO focused on a smaller version of a prospective Space larger Space National Guard. Creation of this larger National Guard and a larger version, and estimated the force also would probably result in onetime costs of $400 million to $900 million for constructing 1. Throughout this report, “reserve component” refers collectively additional facilities and equipping the new units. to the nonactive component of the U.S. military, which encompasses the National Guard and reserves. Notes: Unless otherwise indicated, the years referred to in this report are federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 to September 30 and are designated by the calendar year in which they end. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars. Costs for years before 2021 have been adjusted for inflation with the gross domestic product price index from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2 COSTS OF CREATING A SPACE NATIONAL GUARD JUNE 2020 A reserve component to support the Space Force could functions (just as the Marine Corps depends on the Navy be structured in other ways—including a Space Force for such functions). The report does not include a plan Reserve that would operate exclusively at the federal for the organization of Space Force reserve component level, rather than a National Guard that would allow for (RC) forces, stating that the matter would be addressed shared control between the federal government and states in a report to be issued in March 2020. The department and territories. However, the costs of National Guard has not yet issued that report. or reserve units would not differ significantly. The size of the reserve component would be the primary factor History and Organization of National Guard and affecting costs. Reserve Forces All U.S. armed services other than the Space Force have Background an active component and a reserve component. Each ser- The creation of the Space Force has led to various pro- vice’s RC includes a reserve (the Air Force Reserve, Army posals to create a Space National Guard. Those proposals Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve). The have been influenced by the historical experience and Air Force and the Army (but not the Navy or Marine organization of existing National Guard and reserve Corps) also have National Guards (the Air National forces. Guard and the Army National Guard). Thus, for exam- ple, the entire Army is composed of the regular Army, Creation of the Space Force the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. Enacted in December 2019, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) The primary difference between service reserves and established the Space Force as a new military service National Guards is that reserves are organized as single within the Department of the Air Force. That act did not entities wholly under federal government control (as create either a Space National Guard or a Space Force provided by title 10 of the U.S. Code). By contrast, Reserve, so, at present, the Space Force has legal authority National Guards are organized on the basis of states and to operate only with active component (AC) military territories, with legal authorities that allow for hybrid personnel. state–territory and federal control (as provided by titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code). Governors’ authorities DoD is still developing its plans to organize and equip extend only to Guard units within their respective state the Space Force. In its budget request for fiscal year or territory: The governor of Texas, for example, may call 2021, the department indicates that the Space Force will up (activate) and command the Texas National Guard consist of 6,400 military personnel in 2021 and grow but not Guard forces from other states.3 to a force of 8,100 military personnel by 2025. At least in the short term, the Department of the Air Force will Before the Vietnam War, RC forces were considered to create the Space Force primarily by transferring existing represent additional increments of capability that could Air Force organizations and units with space-related be maintained at relatively low cost in peacetime and missions to the Space Force. Although there are units then activated in times of conflict when active compo- with space-related missions in the other military services, nent forces were insufficient to deal with the military DoD has not yet issued a plan to transfer those units to challenges (the “strategic reserve” model). The combina- the Space Force. tion of very small AC ground forces during peacetime and this traditional view of reserves as providing addi- The most recent guidance detailing the Department of tional increments of capability led the United States to the Air Force’s plans for structuring the Space Force is rely heavily on RC units in military conflicts. During the described in a February 2020 report titled Comprehensive Vietnam War, however, in a break from historical prece- Plan for the Organizational Structure of the U.S. Space dent, policymakers chose to limit reliance on RC forces. Force.2 That report indicates that the new service will depend on the Air Force for many support and overhead 3. All state National Guards are also part of the United States National Guard (which is administered by the National Guard 2. See Department of the Air Force, Comprehensive Plan for the Bureau). For example, the Army National Guard is part of both Organizational Structure of the U.S. Space Force, Report to the Army and the United States National Guard. The same Congressional Committees (February 2020), https://tinyurl.com/ applies at the state level. For example, the Texas Army National y9mm8zth (PDF, 824 KB). Guard is part of both the Army and the Texas National Guard. JUNE 2020 COSTS OF CREATING A SPACE NATIONAL GUARD 3 In the post–Vietnam War era, DoD has transitioned are expected to be important for RC units in the away from the strategic reserve model and instead Space Force, transferring the current Air National operates under what is known as the Total Force Policy. Guard and Army National Guard units that conduct Although each military service interprets this policy space missions to a Space National Guard—as somewhat differently, the policy in general requires the outlined in the first option that CBO analyzed— services to integrate RC personnel and units into their could allow them to do so. plans by using such units when they are best able to meet needs or perform missions. That approach differs from • U.S. forces routinely employ joint commands and do simply assuming that AC personnel and units should be not require units to be in the same service in order prioritized in all circumstances and RC units used only to employ them.4 Leaving current space-related units when AC capabilities are insufficient to meet needs or where they are—in the Air National Guard and the perform missions. Thus, DoD does not generally operate Army National Guard—could still allow them to under the assumption that AC units will be the preferred support the Space Force. response for every mission; for many missions, RC units, or a mix of AC and RC units, will be the preferred Costs of a Smaller Space National Guard response or perhaps the only possible response.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Military Forces in FY 2021 the Last Year of Growth?
    MARCH 2021 U.S. Military Forces in FY 2021 The Last Year of Growth? AUTHOR Mark F. Cancian A Report of the CSIS International Security Program MARCH 2021 U.S. Military Forces in FY 2021 The Last Year of Growth? AUTHOR Mark F. Cancian A Report of the CSIS International Security Program Lanham • Boulder • New York • London About CSIS The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world’s greatest challenges. Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 2015, succeeding former U.S. senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). Founded in 1962, CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, who has served as president and chief executive officer since 2000. CSIS’s purpose is to define the future of national security. We are guided by a distinct set of values— nonpartisanship, independent thought, innovative thinking, cross-disciplinary scholarship, integrity and professionalism, and talent development. CSIS’s values work in concert toward the goal of making real-world impact. CSIS scholars bring their policy expertise, judgment, and robust networks to their research, analysis, and recommendations. We organize conferences, publish, lecture, and make media appearances that aim to increase the knowledge, awareness, and salience of policy issues with relevant stakeholders and the interested public. CSIS has impact when our research helps to inform the decisionmaking of key policymakers and the thinking of key influencers. We work toward a vision of a safer and more prosperous world. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin 181101 (PDF Edition)
    RAO BULLETIN 1 November 2018 PDF Edition THIS RETIREE ACTIVITIES OFFICE BULLETIN CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES Pg Article Subject . * DOD * . 05 == Overseas Holiday Mail ---- (2018 Deadlines) 05 == DoD MSEP ---- (VA Joins Military Spouse Employment Partnership) 06 == DoD Budget 2020 ---- (First Cut Under Trump | Limited to $700B) 07 == Iraq War [01] ---- (Unvarnished History to be Published by Xmas) 08 == DoD GPS USE Policy ---- (Deployed Servicemember Apps Restrictied) 08 == INF Russian Treaty ---- (Post-INF landscape) 10 == DoD/VA Seamless Transition [37] ---- (Cerner’s EHR Will Be Standard) 13 == Military Base Access [02] ---- (Proposal to Use for U.S. Fuel Exports to Asia) 14 == Military Base Access [03] ---- (American Bases in Japan) 15 == DoD Fraud, Waste, & Abuse ---- (Reported 16 thru 31 OCT 2018) 17 == Agent Orange Forgotten Victims [01] ---- (U.S. Prepares for Biggest-Ever Cleanup) 18 == POW/MIA Recoveries & Burials ---- (Reported 16 thru 31 OCT 2018 | 21) 1 . * VA * . 21 == VA AED Cabinets ---- (Naloxone Addition to Reverse Opioid Overdoses) 22 == VA Pension Program [02] ---- (Entitlement Regulations Amended) 22 == VA Transplant Program [04] ---- (Vet Denied Lung Transplant | Too Old) 23 == Agent Orange | C-123 Aircraft [16] ---- (Exposure Presumption Now Official) 24 == Right to Die Program ---- (Denied to Vets Residing in California Veteran Homes) 25 == VA Essential Equipment ---- (Availability Delays) 26 == VA Pension Poachers ---- (Crooked Financial Planners Target Elderly Vets) 26 == VA Claims Processing [18] ---- (Significant
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Studies Quarterly Winter 2020 Vol 14, No. 4
    WINTER 2020 Vol. 14, No. 4 On the Future of Air and Space Power An Interview with Barbara M. Barrett Space: New Threats, New Service, New Frontier An Interview with Mir Sadat FEATURE ARTICLE Poison, Persistence, and Cascade Effects: AI and Cyber Conflict Christopher Whyte Nuclear- Armed Hypersonic Weapons and Nuclear Deterrence Col Stephen Reny, USAF Space Traffic Management in the New Space Age Brian G. Chow Missing: Legal Frameworks for Chemical Security Richard T. Cupitt Mary C. Vecellio Nuclear- Weapon- Free Zones and Contemporary Arms Control Elizabeth Mendenhall Strategic Studies SSQ Quarterly Chief of Staff, US Air Force Gen Charles Q. Brown, Jr., USAF Chief of Space Operations, US Space Force Gen John W. Raymond, USSF Commander, Air Education and Training Command Lt Gen Marshall B. Webb, USAF Commander and President, Air University Lt Gen James B. Hecker, USAF Director, Academic Services Mehmed Ali, PhD Director, Air University Press Maj Richard T. Harrison, USAF Editor Col W. Michael Guillot, USAF, Retired Managing Editor Print Specialist Illustrator Jeanne K. Shamburger Megan N. Hoehn Daniel M. Armstrong Advisers Contributing Editors Gen Michael P. C. Carns, USAF, Retired David C. Benson, PhD James W. Forsyth, PhD Mark J. Conversino, PhD Christina Goulter, PhD Kelly A. Grieco, PhD Robert P. Haffa, PhD Michael R. Kraig, PhD Jay P. Kesan, PhD Dawn C. Murphy, PhD Charlotte Ku, PhD David D. Palkki, PhD Martin C. Libicki, PhD Nicholas M. Sambaluk, PhD Wendy Whitman Cobb, PhD https://www.af.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.aetc.af.mil/ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/ Strategic Studies Quarterly An Air Force–Sponsored Strategic Forum on National and International Security WINTER 2020 VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • AT&L Workforce—Key Leadership Changes
    AT&L Workforce—Key Leadership Changes General Officer Assignments a Master of Science degree in Operations Research from the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS (April 9, 2020) Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey, California. At sea, The chief of staff, Air Force announces the assignment of the he served as commanding officer and executive officer ofUSS following general officers: Barry (DDG 52); weapons officer, combat systems officer and executive officer aboard USS Cape St. George (CG 71); naviga- Brig. Gen. John J. Allen, director of civil engineers, Deputy tor aboard the USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20); and division of- Chief of Staff, Logistics, Installations and Force Protection, ficer aboard the USS Defender (MCM 2). Ashore, Byrne served Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Pentagon, Washington, District at NAVSEA as the Aegis Ashore Fleet Introduction program of Columbia, to commander, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, manager in Program Executive Office, Integrated Warfare Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center, Air Force Systems, as an analyst for the director of Program Analysis Materiel Command, Joint Base San Antonio – Lackland, Texas. and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and as an action officer and flag aide for Commander, NAVSEA. Brig. Gen. (select) William H. Kale, chief, House Liaison Divi- sion, Office of the Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of Byrne’s awards include the Defense Meritorious Service the Air Force, Pentagon, Washington, District of Columbia, to Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy and Marine director of civil engineers, Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics, In- Corps Commendation Medal (five awards), and the Navy and stallations and Force Protection, Headquarters U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
    1 116TH CONGRESS " ! REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 116–120 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 2500 together with ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] JUNE 19, 2019.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed VerDate Sep 11 2014 13:22 Jun 20, 2019 Jkt 036763 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\HR\OC\HR120.XXX HR120 rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING E:\Seals\Congress.#13 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 VerDate Sep 11 2014 13:22 Jun 20, 2019 Jkt 036763 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 E:\HR\OC\HR120.XXX HR120 rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING with DSKBCBPHB2PROD on rfrederick 1 116TH CONGRESS " ! REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 116–120 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 2500 together with ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] JUNE 19, 2019.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 36–763 WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Sep 11 2014 13:22 Jun 20, 2019 Jkt 036763 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HR120.XXX HR120 rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING E:\Seals\Congress.#13 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman SUSAN A.
    [Show full text]
  • National Defense Authorization Act
    FISCAL YEAR 2022 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT Senate Armed Services Committee U.S. Senator Jack Reed, Chairman U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, Ranking Member PREFACE Each year, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes funding levels and provides authorities for the U.S. military and other critical defense priorities, ensuring our troops have the training, equipment, and resources they need to carry out their missions. On July 21, 2021, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in bipartisan fashion, 23-3, to advance the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 to the Senate floor. The United States is engaged in a strategic competition with China and Russia, near-peer rivals that do not accept U.S. global leadership or the international norms that have helped keep the peace for the better part of a century. This strategic competition is likely to intensify due to shifts in the military balance of power and diverging visions of governance models between China and Russia and the West. This competition is now unfolding amidst a global pandemic, natural disasters, and the introduction of disruptive technologies. The interconnected nature of these threats will drive how the United States resources and transforms its tools of national power to respond to these complex security challenges. The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 is an important step in achieving that objective. FY 2022 DEFENSE FUNDING LEVELS The 61st annual NDAA supports a total of $777.9 billion in fiscal year 2022 funding for national defense. Within this topline, the legislation authorizes $740.3 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) and $27.7 billion for national security programs within the Department of Energy (DOE).
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Transcript
    GUARD-2020/07/02 1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION WEBINAR THE NATIONAL GUARD IN THE ERA OF COVID-19 Washington, D.C. Thursday, July 2, 2020 PARTICIPANTS: Conversation: MODERATOR: MICHAEL O’HANLON Senior Fellow and Director of Research, Foreign Policy The Brookings Institution GENERAL JOSEPH LENGYEL Chief National Guard Bureau * * * * * ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 500 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 GUARD-2020/07/02 2 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. O'HANLON: Good afternoon, everyone, or good day, wherever you may be on this planet, or in this country. I'm Mike O'Hanlon with the Foreign Policy program at Brookings. And I have the distinct honor and privilege of welcoming General Joseph Lengyel to join with us today in conversation. He is the chief of the National Guard Bureau, which means he is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the nation's top officer for overseeing the Army and the Air Force National Guard, combined, a total strength of nearly half-a-million airmen and soldiers under his supervision and command. And he is a distinguished airman himself, a fighter pilot, a Texan, formerly of the Active Duty Air Force but then in the early-1990s switched to the National Guard and did a number of stints in various positions in the United States and around the world, sometimes in more of a Guard capacity, or part-time capacity, sometimes full-time, and for the last eight years has been at the leadership of the National Guard Bureau here in Washington, first as its vice chief and now as its top officer.
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester and Spencer Vol
    Mailed free to requesting homes in East Brookfield, West Brookfield, North Brookfield, Brookfield, Leicester and Spencer Vol. XXXVIII, No. #35 COMPLIMENTARY HOME DELIVERY ONLINE: WWW.STONEBRIDGEPRESS.COM Friday, August 31, 2018 The wheels on the bus Plans for dog and how they work… park scrapped BY KEVIN FLANDERS when concerns NEWS STAFF WRITER EAST BROOKFIELD – Even before school start- ed this year, students unanswered were already getting plen- ty of important lessons. On Aug. 22, kinder- BY KEVIN FLANDERS Officials were also soured garteners and their fam- NEWS STAFF WRITER by a number of unanswered ilies stopped by the AA SPENCER – The proposal questions surrounding the Transportation facili- for a dog park in town ran out proposal, including the costs ty to learn about school of leash this month, derailed of pet waste removal, sanita- bus safety. The event is by a Parks and Recreation tion processes, general main- held annually to intro- Commission vote to not pur- tenance, and police coverage duce kids to important sue construction at Luther of incidents between dogs. rules when riding the Hill Park. Residents and officials had bus and waiting for it For a few months, the pro- also expressed concerns over to arrive. Because AA posal appeared to be on track the potential for pet waste Transportation serves to go before fall town meet- runoff to seep into the nearby several school districts, ing voters, but a deeper anal- lake, where swimming takes students from Leicester, ysis into grant requirements place throughout the summer North Brookfield, Spencer for the park made officials at the beach.
    [Show full text]
  • Aerospace and Related Technologies Update – Spring 2020
    May 19, 2020 AEROSPACE AND RELATED TECHNOLOGIES UPDATE – SPRING 2020 To Our Clients and Friends: This May 2020 edition of Gibson Dunn’s Aerospace and Related Technologies Update discusses newsworthy developments, trends, and key decisions from 2019 and early 2020, including the impact of COVID-19, that are of interest to companies in the aerospace, defense, satellite, and drone sectors as well as the financial, technological, and other institutions that support them. This update addresses the following subjects: (1) commercial unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”), or drones; (2) the commercial space sector; and (3) recent government contracts decisions involving companies in the aerospace and defense industry. _____________________ Table of Contents I. Unmanned Aircraft Systems A. Expanding Drone Applications During a Global Pandemic B. UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP) and Advancements in Drone Delivery C. FAA Proposes Remote Identification Requirement for Drones D. Continued Uncertainty Surrounding Low-Altitude Airspace E. Proposed Rules for Operations at Night and Over People F. New Regulations for Hobbyists II. Space A. Space Agencies Around the World Seek Major Milestones B. NASA Embraces Partnerships with the Commercial Market C. Creation of Space Force D. Internet Satellites E. A Year of Serious Investment in Space III. Government Contracts A. Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Cases B. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Cases C. Court of Federal Claims Cases D. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Cases _____________________ I. Unmanned Aircraft Systems A. Expanding Drone Applications During a Global Pandemic As discussed below, and in prior yearly updates, many corporations have been exploring the use of drones to perform delivery services.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Minutes Were Approved
    MINUTES Final Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Florida Defense Support Task Force Minutes for the Florida Defense Support Task Force Meeting #80 on Thursday, January 16, 2020 The Florida Defense Support Task Force held a publicly noticed meeting at the Four Points by Sheraton Tallahassee Downtown at 09:02 AM EST – 11:51 AM EST. For Agenda: See Page 2 Task Force Members Present: Tom Neubauer, Bay Defense Alliance, Vice Chairman Representative Thad Altman Brigadier General Chip Diehl, USAF, (Ret) Major General James Eifert, USAF, The Adjutant General (TAG) of Florida Major General Richard Haddad, USAF, (Ret) Colonel Jim Heald, InDyne, Inc. Captain Keith Hoskins, USN, (Ret) Representative Holly Raschein Task Force Members on the Phone: Rear Admiral Stan Bozin, USN, (Ret) Amy Gowder, Vice President, Lockheed Martin Rotary and Missions Systems Company Task Force Members Absent: Senator Doug Broxson, Chairman Lieutenant Colonel William Dudley, USAF, (Ret) Representative Mel Ponder Speakers Present: Dr. Julia Nesheiwat, State of Florida’s Chief Resilience Officer Kellie Jo Kilberg, Florida Defense Alliance (FDA) Chair Matt Schwalb, Matrix Design Group Steve Murray, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs (FDVA) Joe Marino, Veterans Florida Others Present: Jim Breitenfeld, The Principi Group Greg Britton, DEFENSEWERX Danny Burgess, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs (FDVA) George Cheros, National Center for Simulation Callie DeHaven, Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Chuck Faircloth, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs/GILAW
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Minutes – 2021
    MINUTES Final Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Florida Defense Support Task Force Minutes for the Florida Defense Support Task Force Meeting #90 on Thursday, January 21, 2021 The Florida Defense Support Task Force held a publicly noticed meeting at the Holiday Inn Panama City at 9:45 AM CST – 12:18 PM CST. For Agenda: See Page 3 Task Force Members Present: Representative Thad Altman, Chairman Tom Neubauer, Bay Defense Alliance, Vice Chairman Major General Richard Haddad, USAF, (Ret) Colonel Jim Heald, InDyne, Inc. Task Force Members Present via ZOOM: Rear Admiral Stan Bozin, USN, (Ret) Brigadier General Chip Diehl, USAF, (Ret) Representative Wyman Duggan Captain Keith Hoskins, USN, (Ret) Senator Tom Wright Task Force Members Absent: Major General James Eifert, USAF, The Adjutant General (TAG) of Florida Speakers Present: Chris Moore, Bay Defense Alliance Dr. Peter Adair, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City via ZOOM LTC Jason Hunt, FLNG, on behalf of MG James Eifert, The Adjutant General (TAG) of Florida via ZOOM Colonel Greg Moseley, Tyndall AFB via ZOOM Major Jordan Criss, Tyndall AFB via ZOOM Kellie Jo Kilberg, Florida Defense Alliance (FDA) Chair via ZOOM Others Present in Person: Matt Chesnut, Space Florida Jim Damato, Simple Sense Debi Graham, Greater Pensacola Chamber/West Florida Defense Alliance Tim Jones, FDA Vice Chair Chris Middleton, West Florida Defense Alliance Sal Nodjomian, Matrix Design Group Carol Roberts, Bay County Chamber of Commerce Andrew Rowell, Bay County Chamber of Commerce/MAC David Tubridy, Bay Defense
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation | Coronavirus 28-29 May 2020 As of 1600
    COMPILATION | CORONAVIRUS 28-29 MAY 2020 AS OF 1600 Overview: Leading coverage today was Pres. Trump’s announcement that he has terminated the U.S. relationship with the WHO, citing China’s “total control” over the organization. With a crowded media environment, defense-related coverage was light and predominantly limited to defense and Hill outlets. DoD-related news: • Politico reported that a federal judge is considering whether to move a prisoner from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. over concerns he cannot correspond with his lawyers due to the disruptions and restrictions caused by the pandemic. The article also highlighted yesterday’s news that several Democratic senators are concerned about conditions in the prison and the prisoners’ vulnerability to the virus. • Inside Defense reported that DoD “clashed” with Senate Democrats after a group of senators sent a letter to Sec. Esper this week expressing concern that the department has “only” used 23% of the funds allocated to it in the CARES Act. The article included statements from Mr. Hoffman that the Pentagon is being transparent and will be providing an update to Congress today. • The Atlantic Council’s blog, New Atlanticist, published highlights of National Guard chief Gen. Lengyel’s participation in a virtual event yesterday, where he discussed the Guard’s “Swiss Army knife” abilities to assist Americans during the pandemic. • NPR reported on Army Chief of Staff Gen. McConville’s visit to Fort Irwin, where he highlighted the testing and social distancing measures to protect soldiers while they are training at the base. • Inside Defense also reported that the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence raised concerns that during the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, DoD has “circled the wagons” around the traditional defense industrial base, but has not done the same for venture-backed startups working on “dual-use” technologies which can apply to both commercial and national security purposes.
    [Show full text]