NAVY NEWS WEEK 5-1

29 January 2017

NORFOLK (Jan. 21, 2017) The USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) departs from Naval Station Norfolk. George H.W. Bush and its deployed in support of maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of operation. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Christopher Gaines/Released)

Royal Navy ships prepare for carrier strike group operations warships have been preparing for carrier strike group operations that will begin once the UK‘s first Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier arrives this year. The UK Carrier Strike Group (COMUKCSG) battle staff has been conducting transatlantic exercises ahead of the arrival in later this year of HMS Queen Elizabeth. RN personnel have been taking part in Fleet Synthetic Training exercises used to put US Navy carrier strike groups through their paces. Working from the Maritime Composite Training System site at HMS Collingwood, US carrier strike groups, including the USS Harry S Truman, have worked with ops room personnel from HMS Dragon and HMS Richmond, both of which played the protection role for the carrier. Regular and reserve personnel from across the naval service, as well as colleagues from the RAF and defence experts from the US have also been involved in the role-playing. The latest exercise saw COMUKCSG tested in warfighting techniques involving HMS Queen Elizabeth and 36 F-35B strike fighter jets. Leading Writer Natalie Brady, of CSG, said: ―The exercise allowed me to experience at firsthand how impressive carrier strike will be with all the cutting-edge technology in the ships and aircraft.” Previous exercises have seen command and warfare teams from HMS St Albans, Richmond and Diamond take on the role of principal anti-, anti-surface and air missile defence commanders working for CSG‘s Information Warfare Commander Lieutenant Colonel Oli Coryton and Strike Warfare Commander Lieutenant Colonel Phil Kelly, both of whom were based in HMS Queen Elizabeth alongside Commodore Andrew Betton, Commander CSG. ―Training in this way offers enormous benefit, not only in being more efficient and less expensive than live training, but also in allowing a highly-tailored training package, delivered in a short space of time, focused on the specific training needs of the team,‖ said Commodore Betton. The next major step for CSG will be exercise Saxon Warrior this summer when Royal Navy battle staff will embark in the USS George HW Bush for a multinational exercise around Britain. Source: http://cimsec.org

US Navy sticks with AAG as recovery system of choice for USS John F. Kennedy

Computer-generated design of a complete one-wire Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system schematic. Photo: U.S. Navy

Despite considering revert to the legacy recovery system, Mk-7, a U.S. Navy review board decided to continue AAG as the aircraft recovery system of choice for the future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). The Advanced Arresting Gear‘s test program marked the completion of the 350th trap of an F/A-18E Super Hornet in December, 2016. To remind, the costs have more than doubled the troubled AAG system which fell years behind other next generation components developed for the Ford-class. The determination to continue with AAG was the outcome of a review by an AAG resource requirements review board (R3B) in November 2016. ―AAG works,‖ said Capt. Steve Tedford, Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (PMA 251) program manager, whose team manages the recovery system program. ―The progress of AAG testing this past year has been significant and has demonstrated the system’s ability to meet Navy requirements. The team overcame many challenges to get the system to this point and ensure its readiness to support CVN 78 and future Ford-class ships.‖ ―It has been a difficult challenge, but getting the system into test to verify its readiness to meet Navy requirements has been the team’s focus this past year,‖ said Rear Adm. Mike Moran, Program Executive Officer for Tactical Aircraft Programs (PEO(T)), who oversees PMA-251 program office. AAG has been the focus of much scrutiny in recent years, after encountering delays in developmental testing and subsequent redesign efforts of the water twister, one of the system‘s major components. With the upgraded hardware in place, the program has forged forward with a land-based test program. According to the U.S. Navy, more than 1,400 dead-load arrestments and 351 test arrestments of the Super Hornet, the first aircraft type/model/series to undergo test on the system, have been completed as of December 2016. Upon completion of AAG performance testing with the Super Hornet, the team began generating the first Aircraft Recovery Bulletin (ARB) to support pending Aircraft Compatibility Testing on board CVN 78, where a number of aircraft launch and recovery equipment systems, including the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), will be used. The U.S. Naval Air Systems Command said the AAG team continues multisite test operations with the next type/model/series, the E-2/C-2 platform, and PMA-251 proceeds with the necessary acquisition activities to ready the system for installation aboard CVN 79 and the future USS Enterprise (CVN 80). Source: Naval Today

ATLANTIC OCEAN (Jan. 20, 2017) U.S. Navy Sailors aboard the amphibious dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) send a shot line to USNS Joshua Humphreys (T- AO 188) during a replenishment-at-sea. Carter Hall is underway with the Bataan Amphibious Readiness Group participating in Composite Training Unit Exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Darren M. Moore/Released)

SANDF member arrested for ammunition possession Written by defenceWeb, Monday, 23 January 2017 The South African Police Service (SAPS) has arrested a member of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) for having in his possession 600 rounds of ammunition. The SAPS said that on 14 January police in Phalaborwa together with the National intervention Unit (NIU) arrested a 44 year old man, who is an unemployed Senegalese national and his partner, a 40 year old South African man who is a soldier in the SANDF, for illegal possession of ammunition.

The soldier was seen carrying a bag on Spekboom Street in Phalaborwa on 14 January at around 17:30. Police officers asked to search him and during the search found 663 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition. His partner was nabbed on the same date at around 19:00 at his place of residence, where 17 rounds of ammunition for a 9 mm pistol was found in his possession. The soldier, Santos Leon Congo, was granted bail of R1 000 and his case remanded to 10 March while his accomplice Sambo Boye was remanded in custody until 23 January for bail application. The SAPS said in a statement last week that investigations into the matter are continuing. SANDF weapons and ammunition regularly goes missing – for example, the SANDF had just on 33 000 rounds of ammunition lost or stolen in the financial years 2013/14 and 2014/15 and 18 firearms (ten 9 mm pistols, a pair of .303 hunting rifles and six R4 assault rifles) went missing in the same period. This was revealed by Defence and Military Veterans Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula in answer to a question posed by FF+ defence and security spokesman Pieter Groenewald in late 2015. 32 400 rounds of 5.56 mm ammunition was allegedly stolen from the Lenz military base south of Johannesburg in April 2013. One of the most recent and serious incidents occurred in July 2016 when ammunition, weapons and explosives was stolen out of the armoury at Naval Base Simon‘s Town. Reports have it that four Uzi submachineguns, four R1 assault rifles, an M1, 16 ship‘s cannon munitions, 72 hand grenades and two mine detonators were taken. However, the stolen items were later recovered on a smallholding outside Eersterivier in the Western Cape and three suspects arrested. All three had family members serving in the South African Navy. Lost and stolen weapons and ammunition are a concern as they are often used in cash-in-transit robberies, shopping mall hold-ups and in farm attacks. Source: www.defenceweb.co.za

Trump White House Vows to Stop China Taking South China Sea Islands January 23, 2017 by Reuters

An aerial photo taken through a glass window of a Philippine military plane shows the alleged on-going land reclamation by China on mischief reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, west of Palawan, Philippines, in this May 11, 2015 file photo. REUTERS/Ritchie B. Tongo/Pool/Files

By David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) – The new U.S. administration of President Donald Trump vowed on Monday that the United States would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea, something Chinese state media has warned would require Washington to ―wage war.‖ The comments at a briefing from White House spokesman Sean Spicer signaled a sharp departure from years of cautious U.S. handling of China‘s assertive pursuit of territory claims in Asia, just days after Trump took office on Friday. ―The U.S. is going to make sure that we protect our interests there,‖ Spicer said when asked if Trump agreed with comments by his Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, on Jan. 11 that China should not be allowed access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea. ―It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he said. Tillerson‘s remarks at his Senate confirmation hearing prompted Chinese state media to say the United States would need to ―wage war‖ to bar China‘s access to the islands where it has built military-length air strips and installed weapons systems. Tillerson, who was expected to be confirmed as secretary of State on Monday, was asked at the hearing whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China and said: ―We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.‖ The former Exxon Mobil Corp chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands. But analysts said his comments, like those of Spicer, suggested the possibility of U.S. military action, or even a naval blockade, that would risk armed confrontation with China, an increasingly formidable nuclear-armed military power. It is also the world‘s second- largest economy and the target of accusations by Trump that it is stealing American jobs. Spicer declined to elaborate when asked how the United States could enforce such a move against China, except to say: ―I think, as we develop further, we’ll have more information on it.‖ Risk of dangerous escalation Military experts said that while the U.S. Navy has extensive capabilities in Asia to stage blockading operations with ships, and planes, any such move against China‘s growing naval fleets would risk dangerous escalation. Aides have said that Trump plans a major naval build-up in East Asia to counter China‘s rise. China‘s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the White House remarks. China‘s Foreign Ministry said earlier this month it could not guess what Tillerson meant by his remarks, which came after Trump questioned Washington‘s longstanding and highly sensitive ―one-China‖ policy over Taiwan. Washington-based South China Sea expert Mira Rapp- Hooper at the Center for a New American Security called the threats to bar China‘s access in the South China Sea ―incredible‖ and said it had no basis in international law. ―A blockade – which is what would be required to actually bar access – is an act of war,‖ she added. ―The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilizing to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner.‖ Bonnie Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank called Spicer‘s remarks ―worrisome‖ and said the new administration was ―sending confusing and conflicting messages.‖ Dean Cheng, a China expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Spicer‘s remarks showed the South China Sea was an important issue for the Trump administration. He said it was significant that neither Spicer nor Tillerson had been specific as to what actions would be taken and this left open the possibility that economic measures – instead of military steps – could be used against China and firms that carry out island building. (Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Andrew Hay) Source: http://gcaptain.com

The U.S.-Philippines Alliance in Context January 24, 2017 Guest Author

President Rodrigo R. Duterte meets with U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry during a courtesy call at Malacañan Palace on July 27, 2016. (Philippines Presidential Communications Operations Office)

By Usman Javed ―Alliance does not mean love, any more than war means hate.‖ The words of Francis Parker Yockey accurately suggest that states build relationships with other states to advance mutual interests. The U.S.-Philippines alliance is no exception. Though the very close relationship between the two countries has experienced some hiccups recently, this article suggests that the mutual interests of both states are substantial enough to sustain cooperation between the two countries. Forging Alliances For the majority of American history, the lawmakers of the country were apt in following George Washington‘s advice on foreign affairs: ―It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.‖ As a result, for the first 165 years of its existence, the U.S. did not form any alliances with the exception of France during the revolutionary war. However, a completely different course has been taken since WWII, when the U.S. became heavily involved in global affairs. With the preeminence of transnational organizations and multi-party international treaties such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Washington made numerous alliances. To this end, Washington‘s isolationist policy was replaced by a highly inclusive and internationalist one. However, there has been another noticeable episode in the United States‘ relationships with its allies. From Europe to the and the Asia-Pacific, relationships with countries that at one point seemed politically untouchable have increasingly become vulnerable. The past few years have seen some uneasy episodes with Saudi Arabia, , Turkey, the UK, and Japan. In that sense, the Philippines is only the latest chapter in the recent history of weakening partnerships. Friend of the Philippines The U.S.-Philippines relationship has been historically strong and is often categorized as a special relationship. It has seen its evolution from conflict to partnership to friction to re-emergence. Yet despite its unsettling history, the relationship between the two countries has been on the rise in recent years. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the Philippines and the United States signed on April 28, 2014 not only gave U.S. access to select Philippines bases, but also allowed the Philippines access to American ships and planes. In addition, the Philippines was set to gain invaluable training and assistance lessons to defend its sovereignty, which included more than $41 million – or almost 85 percent of the $49.72 million total amount this year of the Maritime Security Initiative funding for capacity-building initiatives in Southeast Asian states near the South China Sea. Philippines is also the largest recipient of U.S. assistance in Asia. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has facilitated more than $5 billion in infrastructure investments since 2013. Though the relationship has been very close over the past few years, the election of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in June 2016 has instilled doubt in the future of the U.S.-Philippine alliance. In October 2016, Duterte announced a Philippines separation from the U.S. in favor of a closer relationship with China. The State Department, baffled by Duterte‘s suggestion, said that it would seek an explanation of what the Philippines leader meant. This initial exchange was only the beginning of what became a series of episodes leading to an uneasy relationship between the two countries.

President Xi Jinping (left) pictured with Rodrigo Duterte as they inspect an honor guard in Beijing. (Photo: Simon Song) However, despite heavy rhetoric and passionate speeches, it is unlikely that the world has seen an end to the decades-old alliance. The reason is simply that the practical advantage of such an arrangement is beneficial to both the U.S. and the Philippines, and both countries are better off in cooperation than in discord. Enduring Interests and Ties Though the President of the Philippines wants to exercise an ―independent foreign policy,‖ the reality is that the country is still heavily dependent on the U.S., especially in the matter of defense. As one of the region‘s weakest militaries, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) rely significantly on the U.S. to address its security challenges, including tension in the South China Sea, terrorism, and natural disasters. Even domestically, the AFP will not look too favorably upon an isolationist policy towards Washington. The military plays an instrumental role in the security of the country and is vital for peace processes with communist rebels and insurgent groups. Duterte would not go far in achieving his objectives unless the basic security condition is met. For that, he is much better off having the U.S. on his side. A fundamental question remains unanswered by Duterte or his aides: which country would the Philippines turn to for help if it chooses to end its bond with Washington? Granted, there have been some talks with China and Russia, but it is unlikely either of the two countries will be able to fill a void as big as the U.S. Dependence on China would be problematic for the Philippines due to the disputed territorial claims, especially when China‘s ambitions over the South China Sea have been described as the biggest threat to Philippines sovereignty. Moreover, the early proposals of buying equipment from China and Russia have already seen some pushback in the defense circles both privately and publicly. Practically speaking, even if there is a genuine desire to escape any relations with the U.S., the wise policy would be to incrementally remove its dependence on Washington instead of revolutionary-style revisionism. This would allow the Philippines some time to become more self-sustaining as well as to forge alliances with other countries. However, such an arrangement may take several years for Manila and can certainly not be achieved in the six-year term of Duterte. There is already elite and bureaucratic resistance to Duterte. For instance, the Defense secretary, Delfin Lorenzana, has voiced clear support for the U.S. mutual defense treaty. Moreover, separation from the U.S. is also going against the local public, which has long been heavily in favor of the U.S. According to the Pew Research Center, 92 percent of respondents in the Philippines said they had a favorable view of the United States. In comparison, only 54 percent said they regarded China favorably.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Anthony Chavez, a native of San Bernardino, Calif., works with a soldier from the Armed forces of the Philippines to move relief supplies to a school on the Panay Island in the wake of Typhoon Fengshen. (U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Mass Communication Specialist Spike Call)

Economically, Japan, a strong American ally, is the largest trading partner of Philippines followed by China, the U.S., and Singapore. The Philippines exports 42.7 percent of all its exports to the U.S., Japan, and Singapore, compared to only 10.5 percent to China. The Philippines imports 16.1 percent of its total imports from China, while almost all the remaining imports are from the U.S. and its allies. These realities have at least in part been recognized by Duterte. For instance, though he initially called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the nation‘s south, he later conceded that the country would need U.S. presence for the South China Sea. His aides have also accepted that the existing treaties would also remain enact. Conclusion The Philippines, Southeast Asia‘s oldest democracy, is an important trade and security partner for the U.S. The Philippines has grown to become one of Southeast Asia‘s strongest growing economies with GDP growth of about six percent a year and trade with the U.S. at $18 billion last year. If the Philippines aligns itself with China, Washington will struggle to hold the ―first island chain‖ in the Western Pacific that encompasses ―the Japanese archipelago, the Ryukyus, Taiwan, and the Philippine archipelago.‖ Defending the first island chain has been an important U.S. foreign policy objective since the Cold War and Washington is unlikely to change that policy given its significance for deterrence. Freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is a contentious issue where $5.3 trillion in goods is estimated to pass through the South China sea annually, including $1.2 trillion in U.S. trade. With the Philippines no longer on its side, the U.S. Navy would find it much harder to protect important sea lanes and sustain military operations. The U.S.-Philippines alliance may have suffered but it is certainly not dead. Both countries gain a strategic advantage by being in such a relationship. Ups and downs are a natural course for alliances and the U.S.-Philippines relationship is no exception to the rule. It is possible that some change may occur in the conduct of the relationship, but sooner or later both countries will realize it is better to remain in such an arrangement, even if they do not see eye to eye, than to stray to a path unknown. Usman Javed holds an MPhil from the Judge Business School from the University of Cambridge. As the author of several articles, editorials, reports and media publications, he has presented his research at a number of conferences. His work experience includes working for the World Bank, consulting for a number of start-ups in the UK, Asia-Pacific, and North America and co-founding an Ed-Tech start-up. Source: http://cimsec.org

The strange case of Lt. Cmdr. Edward Lin By: David B. Larter, January 22, 2017 When Navy Lt. Cmdr. Edward Lin was first arrested at the Honolulu airport in 2015 on a flight to China, military investigators thought they had uncovered an espionage case of epic proportions – a Mandarin-speaking Asian-American military officer accused of leaking highly sensitive U.S. military secrets to Chinese and Taiwanese officials. After two days of intense interrogation, Lin confessed to telling a recently retired Taiwanese naval officer and others some highly classified details about the U.S. Navy‘s weapons programs, including the Long Range Anti-ship Missile under development, the high-speed rail gun and the Laser Weapon System being tested in the , according to statements made at a recent motion hearing in a courtroom in Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. So military investigators likely thought they had a key witness when they sat down to depose that retired Taiwanese naval officer, Justin Kao, who is also a Virginia Military Institute and Penn State grad and who worked at the unofficial Taiwanese embassy in Washington. However, according to a copy of Kao‘s Aug. 2 deposition transcript that was obtained by Navy Times, Kao told investigators very little that would help convict the U.S. Navy officer. Did Lin ever share information about the Navy‘s laser weapon? Kao said no. Did Lin say anything about the anti-ship missile program? Kao said he‘d never heard of it. Did Lin disclose information about the rail gun? Kao said Lin mentioned it once, at a barbecue at Lin‘s house, when Lin casually recalled a visit to the Navy research test lab when one of the technicians gave Lin a fragment from a test target as a souvenir. Lin seemed to be showing off to a friend rather than disclosing military secrets, Kao said, according to the deposition‘s transcript. As Lin‘s trial date in March approaches, Navy lawyers have a problem: There‘s very little evidence of any espionage by Lin and there is growing doubt that the government can prove that Lin was a spy, according to a trove of documents obtained by Navy Times and a series of interviews with officials inside and outside the military. At a court hearing here in November, government attorneys conceded that, despite Lin‘s initial confession, they had no direct evidence corroborating much of what Lin supposedly confessed to. Furthermore, there is little or no evidence he transferred classified information to Taiwanese officials aside from two emails that were classified ―secret‖ after the fact. A copy of the report from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, obtained by Navy Times, found no evidence that Lin was receiving any kind of payment for the alleged spying. The redacted NCIS report obtained by Navy Times appears to reveal a wide gap between the most damning crimes Lin was originally accused of and the evidence prosecutors have in hand now. Lt. Cmdr. Edward Lin is facing charges of espionage and attempted espionage, but a Navy Times investigation found scant evidence that Lin was a spy.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the family of Edward Lin

Lin, a Taiwanese-American who has been an U.S. citizen for less than a decade, remains locked up in the Chesapeake Brig, charged with espionage and attempted espionage, charges that could result in a life sentence. For now, the government‘s spy case against Lin appears to boil down to two emails sent to a Taiwanese political lobbyist named Janice Chen — a representative of Taiwan‘s pro-U.S. and pro- independence Democratic Progressive Party — that U.S. Pacific Command deemed classified after the fact. Lin‘s attorneys will likely question whether those emails should have been classified at all. Another pillar of the case against Lin involves his series of encounters with the undercover FBI agent Katherine Wu, according to statements made at the hearing and interviews with several people familiar with the case who declined to speak on the record fearing government retribution. Given the lack of evidence corroborating some of the things Lin is said to have confessed to, Lin‘s defense team could focus on a claim that the incriminating statements he himself made were false and coerced, said Tim Parlatore, a former surface warfare officer and New defense attorney who handles military cases pro bono. ―There is a lot of information out there about false confessions and there are expert witnesses who can explain the psychology of why someone would confess to something that they didn’t do,‖ said Parlatore, who is not directly involved in the Lin case but reviewed documents from the case at the request of Navy Times. A confession is a powerful piece of evidence, but most people don‘t understand the circumstances under which people confess to crimes they didn‘t do, often under intense interrogation by law enforcement, Parlatore said. And military members are uniquely susceptible to confessing crimes they did not commit, he added. ―We are indoctrinated into the idea that when you are confronted for a mistake, you take responsibility, you fall on the sword and you ask for mercy,‖ Parlatore said. Lin’s relationship with NCIS Lin had a security clearance higher than Top Secret and had access to some of the Navy‘s most sensitive secrets. At the time of his arrest, he was working for an airborne signals exploitation squadron called Special Projects Squadron 2. Lin is also a former enlisted sailor who started his career in the nuclear force. There is no doubt that the investigation of Lin revealed some highly unusual activities. Lin had many contacts with high-ranking Taiwanese officials that he should have — but failed to — disclose to the U.S. Navy. Yet, his story is complicated by evidence that Lin had a prior and undisclosed relationship with NCIS and the FBI years before the spying allegations. The nature of that relationship is unclear, but it could have involved Lin and his rare Mandarin language skills in a shadowy intelligence or counter-intelligence operation. According to an investigation report obtained by Navy Times, part of Lin‘s official duties with the FBI and NCIS included maintaining contact with Taiwanese officials at the Taiwanese diplomatic outpost in Honolulu and Taiwan. Lin was stationed in Hawaii with U.S. Pacific Fleet between 2007 and 2009, according to his official bio. The investigation shows clearly that Lin did not cease contact with Taiwanese officials after he left the program. In fact, during his time as a congressional liaison in 2012 and 2013 while working in the Navy‘s Pentagon budget shop, the investigation documents nearly 50 emails to and from Taiwanese officials. Most of the email exchanges are with Kao, and the contents are hardly earth-shattering. Kao asks Lin about U.S. Navy customs and uniform items. In one exchange, Kao asked Lin about the U.S. military‘s transition to an all-volunteer force after Vietnam, and Lin forwarded him a Congressional Budget Office report on the subject. Lin’s failure to disclose contacts Lin‘s friendship and repeated contacts with Taiwanese officials raised questions because he did not report them to his security clearance managers — a major misstep for an officer with his level of access, experts say. Investigators found evidence that Lin repeatedly left the country despite routinely putting his home address in northern Virginia down on his leave chit — including a trip to Taiwan with his wife when he met with the Taiwanese Chief of Naval Operation, Vice Adm. Richard Chen. Lin knew the Taiwanese CNO from Lin‘s time working at the U.S. Pacific Fleet headquarters in Hawaii, according to Kao‘s deposition. Also raising red flags with the government, however, was Lin‘s request that Kao not tell American diplomats in Taiwan about his meeting with Chen. ―The problem is that he had these foreign contacts he was communicating with and he didn’t report them‖ said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer who has at various points in his career acted as the security officer in charge of managing security clearances for commands. ―And not reporting the contact opens you up to all sorts of criticisms.‖ According to the 65-page transcript of Kao‘s deposition, Kao and Lin met from time to time for lunch, visited each other‘s houses. According to the investigation the most damning evidence appears to be an email about a Navy weapons program — specifically about submarine-launched torpedo test results. But the government found no evidence that Lin shared the information and, in fact, Lin seemed to suggest Kao to go through official channels for the information because it was classified, according to the investigation. Kao described a cordial relationship between himself and Lin: They‘d meet for barbecues and occasionally emailed Lin about open-source information he was having trouble locating online. Kao said his job at the unofficial Taiwanese embassy was to glean open-source information and pass it to Taiwan‘s military intelligence division — most of what he‘d do is translate press clippings into Chinese. Kao‘s job also frequently required that he interact with the U.S. Navy‘s office of International Engagement — N-52. If Kao had trouble getting something from N-52, he‘d email his friend Lin who‘d occasionally find stuff buried on the Navy‘s unclassified websites and pass it along. “Move on to real crimes” Legal experts who reviewed the documents for Navy Times disagreed on the strength of the government‘s case against Lin. David Sheldon, a Washington-based attorney with experience in military law said the contacts Lin maintained and didn‘t report, as well as his sharing information with his contacts, did raise a lot of red flags. ―The fact is, you have a senior Naval officer providing significant information to representatives of the Taiwanese military establishment and government (both here and abroad), socializing with these individuals, traveling to Taiwan on multiple occasions, failing to disclose multiple contacts with foreign nationals and travel to Taiwan, as well as ostensibly providing classified information.‖ Sheldon said. But another military attorney was more skeptical. Jeffrey Addicott, a retired Army lawyer who now teaches at St. Mary‘s University School of Law in Texas, said that it seemed the prosecution was far more aggressive than the evidence warranted. ―Even though the initial suspicions of the investigators turned up nothing of great significance that would warrant a criminal trial, the system is unwilling to admit this — particularly after expending two years of investigation efforts — and chooses instead to press forward,‖ Addicott wrote in an email. ―I have seen this pattern manifest itself many times in my experiences. If they would only sit back, take a deep breath, and pursue justice, they would be able to move on to real crimes.‖ What is clear is that last year‘s sensational headlines were far from accurate. Unnamed government officials told reporters that Lin was suspected of spying for China and Taiwan, despite there being no evidence in the NCIS investigation that Lin ever exchanged sensitive information with anyone from China. Other accusations of misconduct attributed to unnamed officials included an April 11 article in the Daily Beast with the headline ― Did an Accused Navy Spy Trade Secrets for Sex?‖ which cited defense officials speculating that Lin was paid in sex for government secrets. The Navy later dropped Lin‘s initial charges of prostitution and adultery. In a statement to Navy Times, Lin‘s civilian attorney maintained his client‘s innocence. ―Lt. Cmdr. Lin’s trial was never about ‘sex for secrets’ or ‘spying for China’ as inaccurately described by unnamed Navy and government officials last year,‖ Larry Youngner said. ―Lt. Cmdr. Lin’s case is about a patriotic U.S. sailor who would never harm his country. Eddy loves the USA. That is why Lt. Cmdr. Eddy Lin pleaded not guilty. His Defense team looks forward to confronting the remaining government case against him.‖ When asked to describe what evidence the government had that tied Lin to the espionage charges, a Navy spokesperson declined to comment. ―We cannot disclose the elements of the case that you are requesting – the facts of the case will be presented during the trial, not before through the press, in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, to ensure LCDR Lin’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, and to protect the interest of the US Government,‖ said Fleet Forces Command spokesperson Lt. Cmdr. Stephanie Turo. Source: https://www.navytimes.com Froim the above inforemation it seems as if this Naval officer can only be charged with extreme stupidity.

US Navy introduces new flame resistant coveralls

Photo: US Navy

U.S. Navy sailors will be receiving new flame resistant uniforms as the U.S. Fleet Forces commander announced on January 19 that an improved variant of the flame resistant coverall was approved for use. The approval came after a review of the results from recently completed afloat wear tests conducted aboard three deploying ships and involving more than 700 sailors. The IFRV coveralls are intended to replace the flame resistant variant (FRV) coveralls currently in use throughout the fleet. ―The IFRV was designed not only with the safety of our sailors in mind, but also comfort and durability,‖ said Adm. Phil Davidson, commander, USFF. ―We will always make safety a priority, but if we can also improve quality of life for our Sailors in doing so, then everyone wins.‖ The original FRVs were introduced in response to widespread reports in which sailors afloat were at risk because most of their required uniforms were not flame resistant. Given the potential safety concerns, USFF endeavored to develop and distribute the FRV as quickly as possible. In early 2015, recognizing the significant dissatisfaction with the original FRV, USFF partnered with Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) and the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility (NCTRF) to develop an improved version which is more comfortable, durable, and as safe or safer than the original. The result was an IFRV coverall made from a flame resistant, tri-fiber blend. The navy says it weighs less than the current FRV fabrics and provides improved moisture management by allowing the fiber to breathe more efficiently. This IFRV coverall also offers arc flash protection, a notable upgrade in safety from the current FRV. ―Shipboard wearability and functionality was of extreme importance with the development of the IFRV,‖ said Davidson. ―We weren’t going to introduce something new without thorough testing afloat to ensure it meets the needs of our Sailors and was indeed an improvement over the original FRV.‖ USFF conducted coverall wear tests aboard three ships, amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), guided-missile USS Carney (DDG 64), and fast-attack submarine USS Newport News (SSN 750) during their recent deployments. Both a flight suit and traditional version were tested, with surveys taken both mid- and post-deployment. The results were overwhelmingly positive for the IFRV and favorable toward the traditional version of the coverall. In summary, 89 percent of respondents thought the IFRV looked better than the FRV; 86 percent thought it was more durable; 91 percent said it was more comfortable; and 85 percent thought it was cooler in hot climates. Source: Naval Today At least this change is effective and to the advantage of the sailors. A vast improvement on the politically motivated uniform changes on offer before, as well as the changing of titles.

How Female Officers Forced the Navy to Back Down On Uniform Changes The bucket cover and other items have been saved by an act of Congress, and the Navy won’t easily be able to force future changes. Congress has ordered the Navy to halt unpopular, costly and pointless changes to women‘s uniforms, thanks to the overwhelming effort of large group of female officers. When the Navy didn‘t listen, women affected by the uniform change ensured that Congress did. Women officers spoke up and Congress heard them. In 2015, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, one of the most progressive service secretaries ever, decided that ―gender equality‖ meant ―looking the same.‖ He ordered the development of unisex uniform items. In the process, he disregarded numerous studies, including one of female personnel asking for better-fitting versions of existing items. Perhaps the least popular change, aesthetically speaking, was replacement of the ―bucket‖ with the dixie cup for enlisted sailors, and a unisex ―alternate combination cover‖ for officers. At best, the reasoning behind the changes appeared to be a misguided attempt to strive for gender equality by making everyone look the same. At worst, some perceived the changes as a ploy to line the pockets of uniform manufacturers at service members‘ expense. Female Navy officers now had to foot the bill to buy a uniform item they loathed to replace a uniform item they loved. Women in the Navy were generally happy with progressive changes that Mabus pushed for, including integrating women on submarines, advocating for women in combat arms, and tripling the length of maternity leave. This particular change left many women feeling powerless, ignored, and frustrated. Financial inequality was at the heart of most women officers‘ anger over the issue. Critics told women officers to stop ―whining‖ about the matter, citing that uniform changes happen all the time. Female enlisted personnel also had to wear new covers, and received a stipend to purchase them. When most uniform changes occur — such as the upcoming phase-out of blue camouflage — all enlisted personnel get a stipend, and all officers pay out of pocket. In this case, only the approximately 10,000 female Navy officers were stuck with the bill. It was unprecedented and discriminatory. When normal avenues of dissent were exhausted, including asking questions at all hands calls and writing criticisms routed via the chain of command, female Navy officers took matters into their own hands. Still writing under the pseudonym of Anna Granville, I compiled opinions expressed on social media, in conversations with fellow officers, and incorporated my own thoughts into a Task & Purpose article. Female Navy officers serving on Capitol Hill incorporated the article into a template distributed via social media that was used to write members of Congress. The same officers who worked on the Hill also worked to make sure the letters were properly responded to, the right questions asked of the right people. While the Navy required the cover change on Oct. 31, 2016, many women refused to buy it, instead waiting for passing of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Their advocacy and hard work paid off. When President Barack Obama signed the NDAA in December 2016, it superseded the requirement to go out and purchased the ―unisex‖ cover. The law changed the mandatory wear date of the unisex cover to October 2018. It also required the Secretary of the Navy to be transparent about the composition of wear test groups and their results, stipulated that wear test groups be representative of female personnel, and identify costs as a fraction of service members‘ pay. The law furthermore required ―an identification of the operational need‖ of the cover, forcing the Secretary of the Navy to explain why the changes are being put forth at all. Despite the change in the law, Navy has still not released a new message announcing the delay. Perhaps Navy leadership hopes that women won‘t know better and will go out and buy the mannish unisex cover that cost millions to develop. Nonetheless, female Navy officers now get to keep their covers, and by law have a say in a decision that affects them. This victory is proof that service members can have a say in legislation that affects them. Female Navy officers come from different intersectional identities, ethnicities, backgrounds, and political beliefs, and banded together on this issue. They took their grievances from internet forums and wardroom conversations to Capitol Hill, and won. Source: Task & Purpose

Companies request warship fleet project be delayed in wake of vice-admiral’s removal Two companies looking to bid on the multibillion-dollar project to build a new warship fleet for Canada have asked that the process be delayed as controversy swirls around the removal of a top military commander. And at least another two companies are also preparing to make similar requests to the Canadian government and its prime contractor, Irving Shipbuilding, industry sources have told the Ottawa Citizen. While the removal of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman from his command for allegedly leaking sensitive shipbuilding information has sent shock waves through the maritime industry, the main reason for the requested delay is because the Canadian Surface Combatant project is poorly structured and allows little time for firms to properly prepare bids, sources say. But some industry representatives say the removal of Norman has only contributed to their worries that the warship project, worth more than $26 billion, is in trouble. Norman, the former head of the Royal Canadian Navy, was the vice-chief of the defence staff until Jan. 13, at which point he was removed from command. Chief of the Defence Gen. Jon Vance, who originally selected Norman for the VCDS position, made the decision to remove him. Vance has refused to provide any details about the situation and his office claims all aspects of the case — including whether taxpayers are still paying Norman — are covered under federal privacy provisions. The mystery surrounding Norman‘s removal, and allegations from sources that it was linked to the unauthorized leak of information about the Canadian Surface Combatant program, has only further raised questions about the project, company representatives contend. The Liberal government announced Oct. 27, 2016, that Irving Shipbuilding had issued a request for proposals from companies on the design of the new warships. The firms have until April 27 to provide those bids, which must not only include the design but details of teaming arrangements with Canadian firms. Allowing only six months to compile bids for one of the largest procurements in Canadian history doesn‘t make sense, say representatives of some of the companies. The extent of the technical data and other information the Canadian government requires is overwhelming, they added. Jean-François Létourneau, a spokesman for Public Services and Procurement Canada, confirmed Thursday that Irving has received two requests for an extension to the closing date for the bids. He did not provide the names of the firms requesting the extension. ―Irving Shipyards and the Government of Canada are considering these requests,‖ Létourneau noted. ―Responses to these requests will be provided to all bidders.‖ Twelve firms have been pre-approved to bid on the surface combatant program. Over the past several months, various firms have highlighted to the Liberal government their serious concerns about the project and are frustrated Procurement Minister Judy Foote has not acted to deal with those issues, industry sources added. The project will provide a future warship fleet for the Royal Canadian Navy. Norman has not commented on his removal from command. But the senior officer has been vocal in his concerns that the federal government seriously misjudged on the amount of money needed to build the Canadian Surface Combatants. In addition, he has privately raised concerns that the Royal Canadian Navy might not get enough ships in the future because of how the shipbuilding plan is devised. Norman‘s concerns are well known inside the Liberal government. In December 2015, he told CBC journalist James Cudmore that the Canadian public had not been given accurate information about the growing price of the surface combatants. He said just the warships alone will likely cost $30 billion. With added costs, that price tag could climb to $42 billion. Cudmore is now a procurement advisor for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. Public Services and Procurement Canada declined to comment on whether Norman‗s removal will have any impact on the Canadian Surface Combatant program. It referred that question to the Department of National Defence. DND refused to comment. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has refused to provide any additional details about Norman‘s removal. But he and Sajjan said they supported Vance in his decision to remove Norman. Source: Ottawa Citizen (per kind courtesy of RUSI (NS))

DARPA Develops "Smart Bullet" For Deck Guns

EXACTO smart round (file image)

If Lockheed Martin and Raytheon succeed in an evolving research effort for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Navy could soon have a new guided munition: the smart bullet. Last February, DARPA awarded Lockheed and Raytheon a combined $25 million for continued work on MAD-FIRES (the Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System), a munition that is intended to defend warships from swarms of small attack craft. Each MAD- FIRES round would be able to alter its flight path in real time to target, track and engage multiple fast-moving targets. On Tuesday, DARPA provided Raytheon a contract modification of an additional $8 million to extend the project into Phase II development, which will include risk reduction demonstrations and additional design work. The contract extends through 2018. As DARPA puts it, the goal of MAD-FIRES is to develop enabling technologies for a medium-calibre guided projectile that would combine the guidance, precision, and accuracy of missiles with the speed, rapid-fire capability, and large ammunition capacity of bullets. A medium-calibre Mk38 autocannon has a large magazine capacity, offering more sustained fire than precision guided missile systems, and it can reliably fire off two hundred rounds per minute at a single target. The same autocannon equipped with MAD-FIRES would be able to direct this firepower at dozens of targets simultaneously. This is not the first time that DARPA has experimented with smart rounds. Its EXACTO program (Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance) developed a .50 calibre bullet that was capable of accurately tracking a moving target, even when fired by a novice rifleman. EXACTO uses a photodiode in the tip of each round to track a laser designator beam, much like a ―smart bomb,‖ and small fins on the bullet alter its direction in mid-air. It is fired out of a smooth-bore gun and does not spin in flight. "Fitting EXACTO’s guidance capabilities into a small .50-caliber size is a major breakthrough and opens the door to what could be possible in future guided projectiles across all calibres," said program director Jerome Dunn in 2015. DARPA did not mention the anticipated cost per round of its new guided ammunition. The Navy recently had to scuttle its plans for a sophisticated cannon round, the Zumwalt-class destroyer's Long Range Land Attack Projectile, due to cost overruns: In a limited production run to supply the three ultra-modern ships, the LRLAP's cost would have approached $800,000 per shot. Source: Maritime Executive