Category: Military Intelligence

  • MIL-OSI Global: Meet the forgotten enslaved and working-class labourers behind British exploration in Africa, Asia and Antarctica

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Edward Armston-Sheret, IHR Fellow, School of Advanced Study, University of London

    By July 1858, the English explorer John Hanning Speke had been in Africa for 18 months. His eyes and body were weakened by fever, and he still hadn’t found what he set out to discover – the source of the River Nile.

    Squinting through the heat on July 30, however, he spotted a body of water, about four miles away, surrounded by grass and jungle. At first, he could see only a small creek, flanked by lush fertile land used for growing crops and grazing by local people. But he pressed onward, dragging a reluctant donkey through jungle and over dried-up streams.

    It wasn’t until August 3 that he could comprehend the full size of the lake. After winding up a gradual hill near Mwanza, located in the north of modern-day Tanzania, Speke was finally able to see a “vast expanse” of “pale-blue” water. He gazed on the lake’s islands and could see the outline of hills in the distance. Speke was arrested by the “peaceful beauty” of the scene. At the same time he was excited – he was convinced that this lake was what he’d been looking for. He was right. The Nile is the lake’s only outlet, and the huge body of water – now known as Lake Victoria – is the world’s second-largest freshwater lake.

    Lack of time and money prevented Speke from travelling any further, so he came to understand the lake’s size by speaking to local people. As he didn’t speak any African languages, such conversations had to be translated multiple times. Thankfully, he had Sidi Mubarak Bombay to help him, a key figure in the expedition, who spoke both Hindi (which Speke could understand) and Swahili.

    Despite another multi-year expedition from Zanzibar travelling inland to the area, in his own lifetime, Speke struggled to prove his claims. That’s because he only saw part of the lake and was unable to follow the river that flowed out of it the whole way to the coast. He died in 1864 from self-inflicted wounds sustained during a strange shooting incident, shortly before speaking at a debate about the source of the Nile.

    But at least he is remembered by history. Bombay and the hundreds of African men and women who made his journey possible have since been largely forgotten. Such people did most of the hard work of exploration, building camps, navigating, cooking food and caring for Speke when he was sick.


    The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.


    They are not the only ones. As a researcher specialising in the history of geography, I’ve spent almost eight years examining Victorian and Edwardian exploration and learned about the lives and experiences of African and Asian explorers, including Bombay. They included men and women who were formerly enslaved and were either forced into the work, or paid a pittance. Some of the women were forced into sexual relationships and marriages. Many were killed or badly injured in floggings at the hands of their brutal “masters” keen to administer punishment for perceived transgressions.

    Their names should be in the pantheon of exploration, but all too often they are either ignored or misrepresented within the historical record. These are just some of their stories.

    Speke and Bombay

    The portrait of Speke, circa 1893.
    Royal Museums Greenwich

    The illness and suffering Speke endured left a lasting mark on his body. Though he claimed to have fully recovered, his fellow British explorer on the expedition, the eccentric Richard F. Burton, argued in his book The Lake Regions of Central Africa (1860) that Speke had sustained brain damage from sun stroke. In reality, he might have been showing the after effects of malaria and hearing loss. At one stage, a beetle had crawled into his ear, leaving him deaf for a month.

    Even so, Speke led a further expedition to Africa to try to prove once and for all that he had “discovered” the source of the Nile.

    He also published two books on his journeys. In the front of one, he used an etching of himself (based on a painting) standing before Lake Victoria. A copy of this painting still hangs in the headquarters of the Royal Geographical Society in South Kensington, London.

    The image depicts Speke as a heroic and masculine figure. What we don’t see are the men and women who did the hard work of bringing Speke to the lake in the first place.

    Sidi Mubarak Bombay was one of the most important figures within Speke’s expeditions. From Speke’s book about the expedition, which included a short biography of Bombay, we know he was born in 1820 near the modern border of Tanzania and Mozambique. His mother died when he was young, yet he remembered life in his village as one of “happy contentment” until, at the age of 12, when he was captured and enslaved by Swahili-speaking merchants.

    He was then marched to the coast in chains before being sold at a slave market in Zanzibar. The man who bought him then transported him to India. Eventually, his owner died, and Bombay was freed. He returned to East Africa and enlisted in the Sultan of Zanzibar’s army. There, he met Speke and joined the East African Expedition in February 1857 and was paid five silver dollars a month.

    The appointment changed Bombay’s life. The expedition was led by Burton, who had become famous for travelling to Mecca and Medina disguised as a Muslim pilgrim. Bombay became a key member of the expeditionary party.

    Not only did he translate both Burton and Speke’s orders, but he also negotiated with local leaders for food, shelter and safe passage through their territory and cared for the explorers when they were sick. Bombay developed an active interest in the expedition’s work. In his book, Speke wrote that “by long practice, he has become a great geographer”.

    When Speke returned to Zanzibar in 1860 for his next expedition, Bombay was one of the first men he recruited. He stayed with the expedition on its multi-year journey from Zanzibar to Cairo. Bombay went on to work for other European explorers, including Henry Morton Stanley who searched for the “lost” explorer David Livingstone, and Verney Lovett Cameron, who sought to investigate the lakes and rivers of Africa.

    With Lovett Cameron, Bombay crossed equatorial Africa from coast to coast, completing much of the journey on foot. Even Victorian geographers recognised Bombay’s contribution, and he eventually received an award and pension from the Royal Geographical Society.

    Anonymous labour and explorers’ violence

    Bombay was a remarkable man. But Speke’s explorations also depended on many people we know far less about.

    Both of Speke’s journeys to Lake Victoria were huge undertakings, involving hundreds of people. Much of the hard work was carried out by Nyamwezi porters from the central region of modern-day Tanzania. These men often worked on the pre-existing trade routes that connected the lake regions to the east African coast.

    They carried the explorers’ supplies, basic equipment, trade goods and food. Explorers’ accounts often describe these people in racially offensive ways. Even so, their private letters also show their reliance on them.

    An image from Speke’s book Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile, illustrated by James Grant, showing ‘Speke’s faithfuls’.
    Wiki Commons

    On his journey to Lake Victoria, Speke struggled to recruit enough porters and complained: “I cannot move independently of the natives, and now the natives are not to be got for love or money [sic]. This alone has detained me here four whole months doing nothing.”

    Alongside the porters, Speke also employed Swahili-speaking men from Zanzibar. These men often had their origins in East Africa and had often been enslaved in childhood. In his published account, Speke portrayed them in terms that drew on colonial tropes about childlike Africans.

    In one letter to the British consul in Zanzibar, sent on December 12 1860, he was more positive, saying that such men do “all the work and do it as an enlightened and disciplined people”. These contrasting assessments perhaps reflect Speke’s varying mood. However, the different way he wrote in public might also be part of an effort to emphasise the difficulty of the journey and his leadership qualities.

    Yet explorers sometimes struggled to maintain control over the parties they led. One problem was the fact that, once away from the coast and the power of the Zanazibari state, expedition members could easily slip away. Understandably, porters were more likely to leave an expedition when conditions became bad and food scarce.

    Violent punishments were also a common feature of expeditions in this region. The explorers did not invent them – such punishments were also used by Arabic or Swahili-speaking merchants travelling in the area – but they showed little hesitation in using them. In his book on their 1856-59 expedition, Burton boasted that the expedition’s porters referred to him as “the wicked white man”.

    Porters referred to Richard F. Burton as ‘the wicked white man’.
    Hulton Archive

    On Speke’s second expedition to Lake Victoria, his Scottish companion Grant described how one man “roared for mercy” when he was flogged 150 times after stealing cloth to buy food. In a letter to the Royal Geographical Society on February 17 1861, Speke wrote that this was the maximum number of lashes he would give out “for fear of mortal consequences”.

    Later expeditions, such as those led by the Welsh-American explorer Henry Morton Stanley were even more violent.

    During the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition (1887-89), Stanley decided to divide the party, leaving a “rear column” behind. Conditions in this group soon deteriorated, due to food shortages and disease. The column’s leader, the explorer Major Edmund Bartlott, carried out a string of violent punishments. One Sudanese porter was executed, while a Zanzibari man was flogged so many times that he died of the injuries.

    Bartlott was only stopped from carrying out further acts of violence when he was killed by an African man fearful that he was about to attack his wife.

    Women and girls on African expeditions

    When Speke’s final expedition arrived in Cairo in 1863, having travelled from Zanzibar, the party also contained four young women who were photographed there. Their presence shows that African women often formed part of explorers’ expeditionary parties.

    Sometimes the women joined voluntarily, often as the partners of porters. Others were enslaved women and girls purchased by other expedition members. One of the girls photographed in Cairo was named Kahala. Along with an older girl named Meri, she had been “given” to Speke by the queen mother of the African Kingdom of Buganda during Speke’s extended stay in the country.

    Women and girls in Speke’s party in Cairo, from his Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile, 1863.
    CC BY-SA

    Speke’s relationship with Meri took a remarkable turn. In an unpublished draft of his book, now held at the National Library of Scotland, he described her as “18 years or so” and “in the prime of youth and beauty”.

    The manuscript also implies that their relationship had a sexual dimension, although it’s unclear if this was consensual. On April 12 1862, Speke claimed that he spent the night “taming the silent shrew” – alluding to a play by William Shakespeare in which a husband torments his strong-willed wife into submission. Even in his highly edited published account, Speke described himself as a “henpecked husband”.

    His account then described the breakdown of their relationship in early May 1862. The breakup, Speke wrote in the unpublished draft of his book, “nearly drove my judgement from me” and left him with a “nearly broken … heart.” After this, Meri apparently showed “neither love, nor attachment for me”, suggesting she had shown some before this.

    Speke eventually “gave” the younger girl, Kahala, to Bomaby because “she preferred playing with dirty little children to behaving like a young lady”. At first, Kahala was unhappy about this transfer and tried to run away. But she was soon found and returned to the party. She then stayed with the expedition to Cairo and travelled with Bombay when he returned to Zanzibar.

    It was not unusual for women to try to join expeditionary parties. Explorers often had concerns about the presence of unmarried women within their ranks. For instance, in his book To The Central African Lakes and Back (1881) Joseph Thomson, who led an expedition to the Lake Regions of central Africa between 1878 and 1880, reported finding a woman in the expedition’s camp who was trying to reach the coast.

    On the advice of the expedition’s experienced African headman James Chuma (who, like Bombay, became involved in multiple expeditions), Thomson forced the woman to marry one of the expedition’s porters. The woman does not seem to have been happy with this arrangement. While she stayed with the expedition for a while, she slipped away when they neared the coast.

    James Chuma (left) with his colleague Abdullah Susi.
    USC Digital Library

    We only know the names of a small fraction of the women involved in such expeditions. Grant wrote a book on their journey that gives further details about women in the party.

    In it he noted that several of the porters travelled alongside female partners who were “generally carrying a child each on their backs, a small stool … on their heads, and inveterately smoking during the march. They would prepare some savoury dish of herbs for their men on getting into camp, where they lived in bell-shaped erections made with boughs of trees”.

    Such passages give us only a tantalising glimpse of these women. We’re left without a detailed knowledge of their names or lives. But we do know that they contributed to these expeditions in important ways.

    Isabella Bird and Ito

    More well known are the stories of the growing number of British women who became explorers in the Victorian era. Foremost among them was Isabella Bird.

    Isabella Bird wearing Manchurian clothing from a journey through China.
    New York Public Library

    Born in 1831 to an upper-middle class family and less than 5ft tall, Bird did not begin her career as an explorer until middle age. She was also disabled. At the age of 18, Bird had a “fibrous tumour” removed from the base of her spine and afterwards lived with chronic back pain. She travelled, often on horseback, to every continent of the world except Antarctica. Bird was also one of the first women admitted to the then all-male Royal Geographical Society in 1892.

    Bird’s gender and disability shaped how she travelled. Unable to walk for long distances, she often rode cross-saddle, rather than the more traditionally feminine side-saddle, which she found painful. In some places, she faced specific hostility because she was a woman.

    Yet, in other ways, Bird’s journeys had shared similarities with those made by men. Like them, she often depended on local people during her journeys. When she travelled through Japan in 1878, she relied on the services of an 18-year-old Japanese man named Itō Tsurukichi. He played a vital role in her journey across the country, arranging much of her travel, translating conversation with local people and explaining what she was looking at.

    In Bird’s published accounts, her descriptions of Tsurukichi are often laced with racial prejudice. She often referred to him as a “boy” and was disparaging about his physical appearance. Her perspective on him did soften a little, however, as their journey continued. She was impressed by his qualities as a translator and the fact that he was continually trying to improve his linguistic skills.

    Tsurukichi’s essential role was also illustrated when Bird attended a Japanese wedding to which he was not invited. She complained that it was like being “deprived of the use of one of her senses”.

    Bird’s account also raises questions of who the leader of their journey through Japan was. “I am trying to manage him, because I saw that he meant to manage me,” she wrote in her book Unbeaten Tracks in Japan (1880). Bird also reported an incident where a Japanese boy thought “that Ito was a monkey-player, ie. the keeper of a monkey theatre, I a big ape, and the poles of my bed the scaffolding of the stage!”

    Itō Tsurukichi.
    National Diet Library

    Bird viewed the child’s misunderstanding as amusing, but it does suggest that some outsiders thought Tsurukichi was leading the party. He was clearly a skilled guide and translator, and he went on to become one of the foremost tour guides in Japan, taking numerous western travellers around the country.

    Like Burton and Speke, Bird often depended on guides on her journeys. Sometimes, she led much larger groups. In such situations, others cooked her food, packed her tent, and translated conversations with local people.

    When she travelled in China in the 1890s, Bird was carried across much of the country in an open chair on the shoulders of three separate groups of chair-bearers. She often didn’t record the names of the men who did such work and only described their labour in quite general terms – though she did photograph some of them and her chair.

    However little men like Bombay and Tsurukichi are remembered, it is at least possible to recover their names.

    Scott and Antarctica – exploration in an unpopulated land

    In the early 20th century, the exploration of Antarctica was a thoroughly masculine affair. Some women did apply to join Antarctic expeditions, such as those led by Ernest Shackleton, but their applications were turned down. Antarctic expeditions were also less ethnically diverse than those in the Arctic. In the north, explorers often relied on the skills and labour of Indigenous people. There were also Black explorers, including Matthew Henson, an African-American man who claimed to be one of the first men to stand on the North Pole.

    Antarctica presented a unique challenge: it is unpopulated, and when British explorers made their first attempts to explore its interior in the early 20th century, they had no idea what to expect.

    In contrast to diverse expeditions elsewhere in the world, Antarctic expeditions were comparatively homogenous undertakings. British expeditions, led by Robert Falcon Scott and Shackleton, mostly employed white men from within the British empire. Sledging journeys in Antarctica were quite egalitarian compared with expeditions in Africa and Asia. Sledging often required upper and middle-class officers and scientists to work collaboratively with working class sailors, who often pulled sledges forward by sheer force of muscle.

    Shackleton, Scott and Edward Wilson before their march south during the Discovery expedition in 1902. Sledges visible in the background.
    National Library of New Zealand

    On the British National Antarctic Expedition, Scott completed a long sledge journey to the Polar Plateau with stoker William Lashly and petty officer Edgar Evans. The men cooked, ate, slept and laboured together. Scott, an officer, found the experience revealing, learning much about the working-class men’s experiences in the Royal Navy. Antarctic explorers were more willing to acknowledge the manual labour that made their expeditions possible than Burton, Speke or Bird, partly because this work was done by white men.

    Some working-class sailors – such as Edgar Evans, Tom Crean, or William Lashly – did achieve a certain degree of celebrity. But others figures are overlooked. On Scott’s expedition he employed two men from within the Russian empire to help care for and train the expedition’s ponies and huskies: Dmitrii Girev and Anton Omelchenko. Apsley Cherry-Garrard, the expedition’s assistant zoologist, noted that they “were brought originally to look after the ponies and dogs on their way from Siberia to New Zealand. But they proved such good fellows and so useful that we were very glad to take them on the strength of the landing party”.

    Girev, from the far east of Russia specialised in looking after the expedition’s Siberian huskies, while Omelchenko, born in Ukraine, specialised in caring for the ponies who would haul Scott’s supplies towards the South Pole. They therefore played a vital role in the expedition. In their accounts, Scott and Cherry-Garrard referred to these adult men using the infantilising term “boys” – thereby stripping them of their status as full and equal members of the expeditionary party.

    Even among the British expedition members, there were still significant disparities in how labour on polar expeditions was rewarded or reported. Working-class men, mostly sailors drawn from the Royal Navy, did much of the hard, unglamorous work. They were also paid much less than officers and scientists.

    On Scott’s two Antarctic expeditions, much of the day-to-day work at base camp – such as cooking, cleaning, and collecting ice to melt into drinking water – was carried out by working-class sailors.

    On his final expedition, the explorers spent the winter in a small hut on Ross Island. One man, Thomas Clissold, worked as the expedition’s cook. Frederick Hooper, a steward who joined the shore party, swept the floor in the morning, set the table, washed crockery and generally tidied things. “I think it is a good thing that in these matters the officers need not wait on themselves,” Scott commented in his diary. “It gives long unbroken days of scientific work and must, therefore, be an economy of brain in the long run.”

    Thomas Clissold making bread during the the British Antarctic expedition of 1911-1913.
    National Library of New Zealand, CC BY-NC

    He had adopted a similar approach on his first expedition, which left some sailors frustrated. “We don’t have any idea of what has been done in the scientific work, as they don’t give us any information,” James Duncan, a Scottish shipwright on the British National Antarctic Expedition (1901-1904) complained in his diary. “It’s rather hard on the lower deck hands.”

    Even memorials to Antarctic explorers perpetuate many of the heroic myths of exploration. If you walk around London today, you might stumble on the statue of Scott in Waterloo Place or one of Shackleton outside the headquarters of the Royal Geographical Society in South Kensington. Such statues embody much of what we often get wrong about exploration, depicting explorers as solitary. Expeditions were collective projects, and many of the people involved haven’t had their contributions fully recognised.

    In many parts of the world, expeditions were large, diverse undertakings. Yet many of the people who did most of the work have been forgotten. My research seeks to put them in the spotlight and recover something of their lives and experiences.

    Expeditions are extreme situations in which human bodies are pushed to (and sometimes beyond) their limits. Because of this, they vividly illustrate the various ways humans depend on each other – for care, food, shelter, transport and companionship. Today, human societies are more complex and interdependent than ever. Though often in less extreme or dramatic ways, like explorers, we all depend on other people for survival.


    For you: more from our Insights series:

    To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

    Edward Armston-Sheret has received funding from the Institute of Historical Research (via the Alan Pearsall Fellowship in Naval and Maritime History), the Royal Historical Society, The Royal Geographical Society, and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (via the Techne Doctoral Training Partnership).

    ref. Meet the forgotten enslaved and working-class labourers behind British exploration in Africa, Asia and Antarctica – https://theconversation.com/meet-the-forgotten-enslaved-and-working-class-labourers-behind-british-exploration-in-africa-asia-and-antarctica-252771

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ezell, Carbajal Introduce Bill to Modernize Coast Guard’s Merchant Mariner Credentialing Exam 

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mike Ezell (Mississippi 4th District)

    This week, U.S. Representatives Mike Ezell (R-MS-4) and Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) introduced H.R. 3331, the Mariner Exam Modernization Act, which directs the U.S. Coast Guard to develop and implement a plan to modernize the Merchant Mariner Credentialing exam, aiming to eliminate redundancies and improve efficiency within 270 days of receiving recommendations from a dedicated working group.

    “Our mariners deserve a credentialing system that reflects the realities of today’s maritime industry—not outdated exams and unnecessary hurdles. I’m proud to co-lead the Mariner Modernization Act to bring transparency, accountability, and real-world input to the process. This is about building up America’s maritime workforce and supporting the professionals who keep America’s maritime commerce moving safely and efficiently,” Ezell said.

    “The men and women pursuing careers in the maritime industry shouldn’t be held back by an antiquated credentialing system,” Carbajal said. “The Mariner Exam Modernization Act is a commonsense step to ensure our licensing process reflects the skills mariners actually need on the job—eliminating redundancy, updating outdated requirements, and making the path to certification more efficient. This legislation is about strengthening our maritime workforce and ensuring the Coast Guard’s processes keep pace with the needs of the 21st century.”

    “USA Maritime supports the effort to modernize the licensing exam for merchant marine officers through the Mariner Exam Modernization Act. The maritime industry continues to evolve and change, but the Coast Guard’s licensing exam hasn’t.  The MarinerExam Modernization Act will remove redundancies, ensure testing isn’t duplicative with other licensing requirements, and align testing with the realities of serving in the 21st century merchant marine. We look forward to working with Congress to pass this bill and remove one more impediment to creating new Merchant Marine officers,” Brian Schoeneman, Chairman, USA Maritime said.

    “Transportation Institute supports the Mariner Exam Modernization Act and applauds Congressman Carbajal for his leadership in solving the mariner workforce crisis.  His dedication to the American mariner is remarkable, and we are grateful to have his support as we address this challenge together,” Sara Fuentes, Vice President, Government Affairs, Transportation Institute said.

    “The Navy League of the United States has long championed the importance of the American mariner to our national and economic security.  We are proud to support Congressman Carbajal’s Mariner Exam Modernization Act as part of the effort to grow our maritime workforce,” Mike Stevens, Navy League CEO and 13th Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy said.

    “The Consortium of State Maritime Academies strongly supports the “Mariner Exam Modernization Act”. This legislation will reduce the redundancy between The STCW Code and the National Exam. It will also eliminate the requirement for the Academies to dedicate time in the academic program on subjects that are outdated, and not currently used by professional mariners.  Additionally, it will substantially increase the value of the exam review teams (working groups).  Collectively, these efforts will allow us to assist with the goal of alleviating the current mariner shortage,” G. P. Achenbach, Ed. Rear Admiral, U.S. Maritime Service, President, Consortium of State Maritime Academies said.

    The current Coast Guard licensing exam process for Merchant Mariner Credentials is outdated, redundant, and unnecessarily burdensome for aspiring mariners. Candidates must repeatedly demonstrate the same competencies, first through years of hands-on assessments and then again on a seven-part written exam—discouraging new entrants and diverting time from more relevant modern training like cybersecurity. 

    Additionally, the exam includes obsolete content and lacks a modern review system, leaving graduates underprepared for the realities of today’s maritime industry.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • Akashteer: the invisible shield behind India’s new-generation air defence

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    In a defining moment for India’s defence preparedness, the indigenous Akashteer system played a pivotal role in neutralising Pakistan’s most intense coordinated air assault in recent times. During the night of May 9 and 10, when multiple drones and missiles targeted Indian military and civilian installations, it was Akashteer—the country’s automated Air Defence Control and Reporting System—that intercepted and eliminated every incoming threat.
     
    Unlike traditional air defence responses, this was not about visible firepower or headline-making strikes. Akashteer worked silently and decisively. Designed and developed under the Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative, the system proved its mettle in real-time warfare, offering automated detection, tracking and engagement capabilities. It delivered a rapid response, integrating multiple radar and sensor platforms to assess threats and neutralise them without delay or error.
     
    This advanced air defence solution stands in sharp contrast to Pakistan’s imported HQ-9 and HQ-16 systems, which reportedly failed to counter Indian offensives during Operation Sindoor. In that operation, Indian forces demonstrated an unprecedented level of coordination and speed, largely enabled by Akashteer’s battlefield intelligence and real-time decision-making ability.
     
    Akashteer is more than just a defence system—it is the embodiment of a strategic shift in India’s military doctrine. From passive defence models to proactive, technology-driven retaliation, India has entered a new phase of warfare preparedness. The system provides a shared, real-time air picture to all units involved, from command centres to ground-based defence units. It allows precise engagement with hostile targets while ensuring complete safety for friendly forces operating in contested airspace.
     
    What distinguishes Akashteer is its integration into India’s larger defence command infrastructure. As part of the C4ISR framework—Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance—Akashteer functions in synergy with the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force. Its vehicle-mounted design ensures high mobility, allowing deployment even in the most active and volatile war zones.
     
    The system links seamlessly with the Indian Air Force’s IACCS and the Navy’s TRIGUN network, creating a unified and coordinated defence front. This tri-service integration not only improves situational awareness but also significantly reduces the risk of friendly fire, ensuring fast and accurate retaliation.
     
    Akashteer is a product of India’s growing defence manufacturing ecosystem. Under the Make in India programme, the country is rapidly moving towards self-reliance in defence production. India has set a target of ₹3 lakh crore in defence production by 2029. Currently, 65% of defence equipment is manufactured domestically—a reversal from earlier trends where imports dominated the sector. This transformation is powered by contributions from 16 Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs), over 430 licensed companies, and nearly 16,000 MSMEs, alongside private sector participation accounting for 21% of the output.
     
    The indigenous defence portfolio now includes critical platforms such as the Dhanush and ATAGS artillery systems, Arjun Main Battle Tank, LCA Tejas, ALH, LUH, and a range of naval vessels including destroyers, corvettes and aircraft carriers. Akashteer stands tall among these as a symbol of India’s advanced technological capabilities and strategic clarity.
     
    Global defence analysts have described Akashteer as a “seismic shift” in India’s approach to modern warfare. By developing and operationalising a fully indigenous and automated air defence network, India has joined an elite group of nations capable of real-time air threat assessment and response. Akashteer’s successful deployment during Operation Sindoor is seen as proof that India is not only capable of defending itself but also prepared to lead with innovation in future conflicts.
  • MIL-OSI USA: King, Colleagues Demand Information on $400 Million Qatari Plane Bribe

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) is joining his colleagues today in demanding the Department of Defense be transparent with them about the substantial national security risks of the $400 million Air Force One bribe from the Qatari royal family. Just days after Senator King told Scripps News that the jet transfer “poses a serious national security risk,” he signed a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, seeking answers about the unnecessary danger that an unsecure and unprotected Air Force One would present to the President.
    The Air Force has been working with Boeing to deliver two brand new 747 jets to be used as Air Force One. However, with the delivery date of the new aircraft not expected until 2027, the White House has proposed accepting the Qatari plane as a short-term alternative. Nevertheless, Article I of the Constitution, specifically the emoluments clause, bars anyone holding government office from accepting any gift or bribe from any “King, Prince, or foreign State,” without congressional consent.
    “[We] write today with alarm over the dangers to operational and national security presented by President Trump’s desire to execute an unconstitutional and unseemly acceptance of a $400 million gift from the Qatari royal family in the form of a luxury Boeing 747-8 aircraft. To serve as Air Force One during his administration, the U.S. Department of Defense would be required to accelerate a comprehensive upgrade to the aircraft, with the direct cost to the American taxpayer likely exceeding $1 billion. We are especially concerned about the operational security and counterintelligence risks of potentially using this aircraft for sensitive Presidential travel— and the massive cost to American taxpayers to identify and close critical vulnerabilities,” the lawmakers said.
    The Senators continued, “Having the President travel without the necessary security precautions or secure communications renders the aircraft an easy target for adversaries to gain access to sensitive Presidential-level discussions or classified information, impeding the success of ongoing military operations and endangering our servicemembers… President Trump is claiming that this ‘gift’ of an aircraft worth $400 million is saving taxpayers money, but in reality, his decision will force taxpayers to foot an unnecessary bill – potentially more than $1 billion—to convert a foreign-provided aircraft into the fortress necessary to protect him and his communications—all while taxpayers are already paying at least $3.9 billion for the contract for two aircraft currently being built by Boeing to add to the Air Force One fleet.”
      
    In addition to King, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
    The full text of the letter can be found here and below.
    +++
    Dear Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Meink:
    We write today with alarm over the dangers to operational and national security presented by President Trump’s desire to execute an unconstitutional and unseemly acceptance of a $400 million gift from the Qatari royal family in the form of a luxury Boeing 747-8 aircraft. To serve as Air Force One during his administration, the U.S. Department of Defense would be required to accelerate a comprehensive upgrade to the aircraft, with the direct cost to the American taxpayer likely exceeding $1 billion. We are especially concerned about the operational security and counterintelligence risks of potentially using this aircraft for sensitive Presidential travel— and the massive cost to American taxpayers to identify and close critical vulnerabilities.
    This announcement alone could pose a threat to Presidential protection now and in the future. President Trump’s public statement on May 12 that the U.S. would accept the Qatari aircraft— before the aircraft was in our Nation’s custody—provides a dangerous opportunity to exploit for foreign intelligence agencies and adversaries seeking to do harm to the United States, who have a great incentive to gain access to the aircraft and individuals with sensitive knowledge and understanding of the Qatar royal family’s “Palace in the Sky.”
    Importantly, protecting Air Force One from compromise, attack or disruption is a critical mission of the Air Force and the entire U.S. Department of Defense. A threat to an Air Force One aircraft would not only endanger the President, but also the Air Force pilots and servicemembers in the 89th Airlift Wing who serve on or maintain the aircraft.
    We know that the Air Force One fleet has extensive technical requirements each aircraft must meet in order to protect the President from any threats during travel, ensure the aircraft can continue to operate at the ranges necessary (such as through refueling capabilities) and guarantee that the President can communicate continuously and securely, a capability that would prove essential in an unforeseen foreign or domestic crisis. One of the most consequential aspects of this mission is to ensure nuclear command and control remains intact even while the President travels—a cornerstone of our deterrent.
    It is unclear whether and how, if President Trump proceeds with this plan to accept this aircraft, the Department plans to ensure the aircraft can meet the necessary high standards for operational security, counterintelligence and Presidential protection under the hastened timeframe arbitrarily set by President Trump to use it for travel before the end of his term in 2029.
    An unsecure and unprotected Air Force One presents clear dangers to our national security. Having the President travel without the necessary security precautions or secure communications renders the aircraft an easy target for adversaries to gain access to sensitive Presidential-level discussions or classified information, impeding the success of ongoing military operations and endangering our servicemembers.
    This potential move also presents concerning indications of waste, fraud and abuse. Experts estimate that upgrading this unvetted aircraft to meet essential security specifications could cost upwards of $1 billion. President Trump is claiming that this “gift” of an aircraft worth $400 million is saving taxpayers money, but in reality, his decision will force taxpayers to foot an unnecessary bill – potentially more than $1 billion—to convert a foreign-provided aircraft into the fortress necessary to protect him and his communications—all while taxpayers are already paying at least $3.9 billion for the contract for two aircraft currently being built by Boeing to add to the Air Force One fleet.
    One expert speaking to Defense News said that, to achieve all the features of Air Force One with this unvetted plane, this option would “be a step backward.” Instead of accelerating delivery of a secure plane for Presidential travel, as the administration contends, “they’d have to start over again with what they’ve been working on with the other 747-8” under the existing Boeing program. “Starting over again with the same plane would take a lot longer.”
    This administration has been vocal about its commitment to efficiency and cost-savings in the federal government. But spending taxpayer money on efforts to upgrade this Qatari jet – when the President currently travels securely – is unnecessary and wasteful. We require answers to the following questions regarding the operational risks surrounding the President’s possible acceptance of this aircraft, either in writing or in a briefing to us no later than June 1, 2025. Please provide answers at whatever classification level necessary.
    Please detail the mitigation steps and counterintelligence countermeasures that the U.S. Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community would take to prevent foreign intelligence services from exploiting the aircraft before it is safely in U.S. custody.
    Which agencies will perform counterintelligence and technical surveillance countermeasures?
    What resources will be required for these agencies to perform these countermeasures?
    Please detail the certification procedures and standard technical requirements for Presidential protection, operational security, counterintelligence and secure communications required of Air Force One.
    Please provide a detailed plan for how the Air Force will retrofit this aircraft to certify that it meets these standard requirements.
    Which agencies will be responsible for certifying that there are no physical or cyber vulnerabilities?
    What resources will be required for these agencies to perform these certifications?
    Please provide a cost estimate and required timeline for retrofitting this aircraft, including certifying against vulnerabilities, installing secure communications and installing other protective or other equipment necessary to meet the security and counterintelligence requirements for the Air Force One fleet.
    What timeline has been directed for clearing the aircraft for Presidential use, and can the required certifications and preparations be conducted in such timeline?
    What risks have you been directed to accept?
    What vulnerabilities will remain as a result?
    What mitigation steps will you take to address these remaining vulnerabilities?
    How will these vulnerabilities impact the operations of the 89th Airlift Wing?
    How will these vulnerabilities impact other core missions of the Department of Defense, such Presidential command and control during crises and contingencies?
    Please provide a risk assessment, in coordination with the Intelligence Community, regarding if and how increased public scrutiny of Air Force One capabilities has affected threats to our Presidential protection procedures and capabilities.
    Please provide details and documentation of what analysis of alternative aircraft or options the U.S. Department of Defense undertook before settling on the proposal for the Qatari aircraft.
    Please provide copies of any communications between the Department of Defense and the Qatari government or its representatives regarding this proposal.
    Reports indicate that the U.S. Department of Defense may be considering “loosening” requirements of the contract with Boeing to deliver 747-8 aircraft to serve in the Air Force One fleet in order to accelerate delivery from 2029 to 2027. Please provide details 3 of any proposed or decided changes to these requirements and documentation of the Department of Defense’s analysis of tradeoffs of this desired acceleration.
    Please provide the assessed impacts of the Department’s plans vis a vis this aircraft on the planned delivery timelines for the existing contract for the other Boeing 747-8 aircraft currently in development, including the potential diversion of specialized DoD personnel to conduct or oversee these upgrades as opposed to work on the existing contract.
    The American people deserve to understand this administration’s plans for securing this aircraft, the vulnerabilities its use will present to our national security and the price tag they will be asked to pay for President Trump’s decision to integrate this aircraft into our most sensitive fleet.
    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner, Coons, Shaheen, Reed, Kelly, Himes, Krishnamoorthi on Trump’s Middle East AI Giveaway

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), as well as Congressmen Jim Himes (D-CT) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s artificial intelligence deals that were announced with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia this week:
    “Democrats and Republicans have long agreed that American companies must remain the undisputed leader in AI, a rapidly developing technology critical to the future of everything from our national security to manufacturing, finance to health care. We have worked hard to ensure the most powerful AI systems are built here, and we have fought to restrict the most sophisticated chips from reaching China – or those who would grant remote access to China – given Beijing’s use of AI to strengthen its military, crack down on domestic dissent, and compete with the U.S.
    “President Trump announced deals to export very large volumes of advanced AI chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia without credible security assurances to prevent U.S. adversaries from accessing those chips. These deals pose a significant threat to U.S. national security and fundamentally undermine bipartisan efforts to ensure the United States remains the global leader in AI. Rather than putting America first, this deal puts the Gulf first.
    “The volume of AI chips Trump is offering for export would deprive American AI developers of highly sought-after chips needed here and slow the U.S. AI buildout. Under this deal, data centers and AI systems that would otherwise be built in America will be built in the Middle East – at the exact time that President Trump says he wants to bring jobs and key industries back home. This deal would incentivize U.S. firms to build the factories of the future overseas, creating significant vulnerabilities in our AI supply chain. If our leading AI firms offshore their frontier computing infrastructure to the Middle East, we could become as reliant on the Middle East for AI as we are on Taiwan for advanced semiconductors – and as we used to be on the Middle East for oil. We should not foster new dependencies on foreign countries for this premier technology.
    “Additionally, these deals will provide our highest end chips to G42, a company with a well-documented history of cooperation with the People’s Republic of China. We applaud the administration’s efforts to limit exports of advanced AI chips to China, including recent actions to further restrict exports of Nvidia chips. However, these efforts will be for nothing if G42 or other companies with ties to China are given large quantities of our most advanced chips. 
    “Proponents of the deal argue that China will fill the gap if we do not sell substantial quantities of advanced chips to these countries. This is false. China cannot and will not because China makes fewer chips as a nation than these deals offer, and each is inferior to their U.S.-designed equivalent. This is thanks to the bipartisan efforts under both the Trump and Biden administrations to cut off China’s access to advanced chip manufacturing equipment. These efforts have worked, and we should double down on this success rather than squander the leverage we have won.
    “If this deal succeeds, the offshoring of frontier American AI will be recorded as an historic American blunder. People around the world deserve to enjoy the benefits we will reap from AI. However, AI chips must only be exported to trusted companies, in reasonable numbers, and in concert with credible security standards and assurances. We welcome the opportunity to work with the administration to meet these objectives and urge our colleagues in Congress to do the same.”
    Senator Warner is Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Coons is Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Senator Shaheen is Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Reed is Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Kelly is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Congressman Himes is Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Krishnamoorthi is Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Boozman, Cotton, Westerman Push Back on Army Plans with Possible Impact on Pine Bluff Arsenal

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas – John Boozman
    WASHINGTON––U.S. Senators John Boozman (R-AR), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AR-04) sent a letter to Army Secretary Dan Driscoll expressing opposition to plans to potentially downsize the Pine Bluff Arsenal that run contrary to the goal of accelerating munitions manufacturing in America. Closing the Pine Bluff Arsenal would not only circumvent current law, the lawmakers explained, but would ultimately result in a waste of taxpayer dollars and deepen America’s dependence on foreign countries to meet our military’s needs.
    “We appreciate your efforts through the Army Transformation Initiative to make the Army more lethal and more efficient, but the directive to potentially downsize Pine Bluff Arsenal—which is based on old, hidebound, bureaucratic recommendations—misses the mark and sets those goals back,” the Arkansas legislators wrote in part.
    Full text of the letter may be found here and below.
    The Honorable Dan P. Driscoll
    Secretary of the Army
    101 Army Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20310-0101
     
    Secretary Driscoll,
    We write to express our opposition to and disappointment with your directive to potentially downsize Pine Bluff Arsenal. As you may know, current law prohibits the Army from closing the arsenal, but your directive in effect evades this prohibition. Perhaps worse, the directive would undercut President Trump’s goal of accelerating munitions manufacturing in America, which we strongly support and foresee in Pine Bluff Arsenal’s future. As longtime supporters of the Army who would prefer to continue to work cooperatively with the Army on its priorities, we urge you to reverse immediately this ill-advised decision based on stale, years-old, bureaucratic plans—the exact kind of thinking President Trump was elected to upend.
    Though we agree with the Army Transformation Initiative’s broad goals to make the Army more efficient and more lethal, a downsizing at Pine Bluff Arsenal wouldn’t advance these goals. Secretary Hegseth directed the Army “to generate the ammunition stockpiles necessary to sustain national defense.” Unfortunately, the defense industrial base—including the Army’s arsenals—is too small, riddled with supply-chain issues, and often dependent on foreign sources for key materials. Neither the Army’s arsenals nor the larger defense industrial base can meet the munitions needs of our forces and allies. As we’ve explained for years—well before your appointment as secretary—the Army needs to use fully the resources it already owns, like Pine Bluff Arsenal, to meet these needs.
    Pine Bluff Arsenal is a solution for these challenges, not some redundant or outdated relic. While it’s true that the arsenal is under-used, that’s because the Army bureaucracy has repeatedly resisted our proposals to expand its operations. Pine Bluff Arsenal is the only site in America that produces vital white-phosphorous ammunition. Further, we have long advocated that the Army use Pine Bluff Arsenal to produce materials like, for instance, nitrocellulose and RDX—both key components of our munitions, but also chokepoints in the supply chain. The arsenal already has access to critical utilities, a significant transportation network, and proximity to raw materials and loading facilities to supply the Army’s needs. 
    The Army has never offered persuasive explanations for its bureaucratic hostility to expanding operations at Pine Bluff Arsenal. We’ve heard from the Army that commercial facilities or building new facilities are a less expensive, more efficient alternative to using the current arsenals for its munition needs. But this argument is far-fetched. Though commercial industry plays a role, recent experience has proven the extreme difficulty of acquiring sufficient quantities of 155mm rounds because commercial production lines have little to no room for expansion. Likewise, building a new ammunition plant from scratch is an expensive, time-consuming endeavor—at least four years and around a half a billion dollars. For instance, the necessary and overly complicated environmental permits alone can take years.
    By contrast, Pine Bluff Arsenal offers inherent advantages over any commercial site—advantages that likely cut in half the timeline for munitions production. The arsenal not only has the type and amount of land necessary to handle dangerous explosives, but also has the existing workforce with deep and irreplaceable expertise. Further, Pine Bluff Arsenal has operated in this space for decades and successfully navigated the burdensome environmental requirements. As we have before, we continue to insist that abandoning these advantages in favor of a speculative new commercial production line or, even worse, to buy ammunition from foreign sources is reckless and a waste of taxpayer money.
    We’ve also heard from the Army that its plan results in cost savings, but this argument doesn’t hold water either. Army Materiel Command may appear to save a little money up front by downsizing Pine Bluff from its current capacity or even closing it, but those costs will have to shift to another site to produce white phosphorus. The Army answers that those costs might decrease because of unspecified, magical “efficiencies”—a strange claim since no other site in America produces white-phosphorus ammunition. But any supposed savings from “efficiencies” would likely be dwarfed by the long-term costs of shutting down arsenal operations, safely disposing of explosive materials, conducting environmental remediation, and maintaining perpetual site security. While not gaining much on the munitions front, the Army would add needless costs to operate a virtual ghost town. To be frank, it appears that Army Materiel Command bureaucrats want to shift the costs off their books and onto other Army commands. But that doesn’t result in savings for the Army or the taxpayer, nor does it improve the Army’s munitions crisis.
    We appreciate your efforts through the Army Transformation Initiative to make the Army more lethal and more efficient, but the directive to potentially downsize Pine Bluff Arsenal—which is based on old, hidebound, bureaucratic recommendations—misses the mark and sets those goals back. We request an in-person briefing no later than May 22 from you and General George about this matter and how we can collaboratively ensure that Pine Bluff Arsenal will advance President Trump’s munitions goals and continue to contribute to our national security for years to come. 
    As we noted, we’ve long worked with the Army to support its priorities in the NDAA and the appropriations process, and lately to advance promptly its civilian nominees toward confirmation. We hope this cooperation can continue and grow, rather than be impaired by an unwise decision about the future of Pine Bluff Arsenal.
    Sincerely,
      
    Cc: Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Video: Born in Conflict

    Source: US Marines (video statements)

    U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Peter D. Huntley, Commander, Marine Forces Special Operations Command, gives his remarks during the Shaping and Preparing the Environment with Stand-In Forces panel at the Modern Day Marine event.

    Modern Day Marine is the largest military equipment, systems, and technology exposition exclusively focusing on the needs of the Marine Corps.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rYlGpe-HY0

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pfluger, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Unleash Military on Enemy Drones in U.S.

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11)

    WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11), alongside Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06) in the House, and Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) in the Senate, introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to unleash the U.S. military on enemy drones within the U.S. The Comprehensive Operations for Unmanned-System Neutralization and Threat Elimination Response (COUNTER) Act would allow more military bases to become a “covered facility” to gain the authority to shoot down unauthorized drones that hover in their airspace.

    Read more about this legislation in Fox News here.

    “Unauthorized drone activity near and over U.S. military installations has become a persistent and growing national security concern. In the past year alone, there were more than 350 drone detections at 100 different military installations,” said Rep. Pfluger. “This is why I am proud to help lead the bipartisan COUNTER Act, which gives our armed forces the clear authority they need to take down hostile drones and defend our most sensitive installations. As a fighter pilot with hundreds of hours in combat experience, I know firsthand how critical airspace security is — and how urgent this action has become.”

    “In recent years, there has been a disturbing increase in threats posed to U.S. military bases by unmanned aircraft systems, including from systems controlled by foreign adversaries. Despite this, our armed forces continue to tell us that they lack the authority to protect the skies over some of our most sensitive military installations,” said Rep. Houlahan. “Today’s introduction of the bipartisan COUNTER Act marks the next step towards delivering the expanded authorities our military needs to address the threats of unmanned aircraft systems and keep these facilities safe.”

    “Leaving American military facilities vulnerable to drone incursions puts our service members, the general public, and our national security at risk. Our bill will expand the Department of Defense’s authority to neutralize unauthorized drones,” said Senator Cotton. 

    “As commercial drones become more commonplace, we must ensure that they are not being used to share sensitive information with our adversaries, to conduct attacks against our service members, or otherwise pose a threat to our national security. This legislation will enable DoD to more effectively mitigate threats from drones and allow for better interagency cooperation to keep Americans safe. I am proud to be introducing this important piece of bipartisan legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it passed,” said Senator Gillibrand. 

    Read the full text of the legislation here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Upcoming Belarusian-Russian military exercises “West-2025” are defensive in nature – President of Belarus

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    MINSK, May 16 /Xinhua/ — The upcoming joint Belarusian-Russian military exercises “Zapad-2025” are defensive in nature. This was stated on Friday by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko at a meeting with Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov in Minsk. The corresponding information was published by the press service of the Belarusian head of state.

    “I want to say that we are ready for the exercises. We are not hiding anything from anyone. We are truly demonstrating openness, that these exercises are ours and are defensive in nature. And we are not going to attack anyone, as some people think. We have made a decision at the presidential level to conduct the exercises,” A. Lukashenko noted.

    During the meeting, the President of Belarus also thanked Russia for training the Belarusian military on par with the Russians. “This is very important, we value it very much. Because this is the highest level of trust. After all, this is security, defense. And here Russia does not protect itself from Belarus. Russia does not have such interaction with anyone. We value this very much,” A. Lukashenko summed up.

    Joint Belarusian-Russian military exercises “West-2025” are planned to be held in mid-September of this year. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoeven, Transportation Secretary Discuss North Dakota’s Role in Meeting the Nation’s Aviation Needs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for North Dakota John Hoeven
    05.16.25
    Senator Invites Secretary Duffy to North Dakota to See Grand Sky, Learn about Counter-Drone Efforts Firsthand
    WASHINGTON – Senator John Hoeven this week discussed with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, North Dakota’s role in meeting key priorities to ensure safe and efficient air travel in the U.S. airspace. Hoeven outlined the work of the University of North Dakota (UND) and his efforts to leverage the school’s expertise in order to:
    Help meet the nation’s need for air traffic controllers (ATC).
    Hoeven worked with UND and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to secure the school’s role in the Enhanced Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) program.
    Under this initiative, UND graduates are immediately eligible for hire and to begin localized training at an air traffic facility, bypassing the FAA Academy in Oklahoma.
    Now, Hoeven is sponsoring the ATC Workforce Development Act to strengthen the Enhanced AT-CTI program and further improve controller recruitment and retention.
    Secretary Duffy agreed to work with Hoeven on expanding capacity for ATC training and expressed support for the bill.

    Ensure the U.S. has enough qualified pilots to meet future demand.
    Hoeven highlighted UND’s Vets2Wings program, which expands flight training for veterans and helps cover costs not included under the GI Bill or the Department of Defense’s Federal Tuition Assistance Program.
    Hoeven initially secured $2.5 million to establish the program and then passed his American Aviator Act to authorize the program at the FAA through Fiscal Year (FY) 2028.
    The senator stated that initiatives like this help address the need for commercial airline pilots and requested that the secretary work with him on making the program permanent.

    In addition, Hoeven invited Secretary Duffy to visit North Dakota and learn firsthand about the state’s counter-drone efforts at Grand Sky and the Northern Plains Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Test Site. Hoeven stressed the need to finish linking the FAA’s unfiltered radar data feed with the test site to empower this work, which is needed to protect against the malicious use of UAS.
    “North Dakota is home to the largest flight school in the country and plays a growing role in ATC training with the Enhanced AT-CTI Program at UND. Considering the challenges faced by our aviation industry, it is critical that we work to remove bottlenecks in training for air traffic controllers. That’s exactly what we’ve worked to do at UND, and our ATC Workforce Development Act will take these efforts even further,” said Hoeven. “Our state is also leading the way in developing counter-drone technologies, an increasingly important national security priority. The FAA’s radar data feed will enhance our test site’s ability to identify potentially threatening systems, a critical part of keeping the national airspace secure from dangerous UAS. I appreciate Secretary Duffy’s willingness to help complete the process of sharing the unfiltered radar data, as well as his agreement to visit North Dakota and learn more about the important work we’re doing at UND, Grand Sky and the test site.”
    Advancing Counter-Drone Technologies
                Hoeven is working to realize new opportunities in the Grand Forks region for developing counter-drone technologies to protect against emerging threats resulting from the misuse of UAS. To this end, Hoeven continues his efforts to:
    Increase the size and scope of Project ULTRA to support counter-UAS technology development.
    By increasing the project’s contract ceiling, it can serve as a bridge between an existing DoD contracting vehicle and new counter-UAS capabilities being developed in the private sector.

    Secure access for the Northern Plains UAS Test Site to the FAA unfiltered radar data feed, which is currently in process.
    Once completed, it will use the feed to enhance efforts to detect, identify and track malicious UAS.
    Between Project ULTRA and the FAA radar data, Grand Forks will be uniquely positioned to develop methods for protecting domestic U.S. military bases against potential UAS threats.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Coons, Shaheen, Reed, Warner, Kelly, Himes, Krishnamoorthi statement on Trump’s Middle East AI giveaway

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), as well as Congressmen Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s artificial intelligence deals that were announced with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia this week:
    “Democrats and Republicans have long agreed that American companies must remain the undisputed leader in AI, a rapidly developing technology critical to the future of everything from our national security to manufacturing, finance to health care. We have worked hard to ensure the most powerful AI systems are built here, and we have fought to restrict the most sophisticated chips from reaching China – or those who would grant remote access to China – given Beijing’s use of AI to strengthen its military, crack down on domestic dissent, and compete with the U.S.
    “President Trump announced deals to export very large volumes of advanced AI chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia without credible security assurances to prevent U.S. adversaries from accessing those chips. These deals pose a significant threat to U.S. national security and fundamentally undermine bipartisan efforts to ensure the United States remains the global leader in AI. Rather than putting America first, this deal puts the Gulf first.
    “The volume of AI chips Trump is offering for export would deprive American AI developers of highly sought-after chips needed here and slow the U.S. AI buildout. Under this deal, data centers and AI systems that would otherwise be built in America will be built in the Middle East – at the exact time that President Trump says he wants to bring jobs and key industries back home. This deal would incentivize U.S. firms to build the factories of the future overseas, creating significant vulnerabilities in our AI supply chain. If our leading AI firms offshore their frontier computing infrastructure to the Middle East, we could become as reliant on the Middle East for AI as we are on Taiwan for advanced semiconductors – and as we used to be on the Middle East for oil. We should not foster new dependencies on foreign countries for this premier technology.
    “Additionally, these deals will provide our highest end chips to G42, a company with a well-documented history of cooperation with the People’s Republic of China. We applaud the administration’s efforts to limit exports of advanced AI chips to China, including recent actions to further restrict exports of Nvidia chips. However, these efforts will be for nothing if G42 or other companies with ties to China are given large quantities of our most advanced chips. 
    “Proponents of the deal argue that China will fill the gap if we do not sell substantial quantities of advanced chips to these countries. This is false. China cannot and will not because China makes fewer chips as a nation than these deals offer, and each is inferior to their U.S.-designed equivalent. This is thanks to the bipartisan efforts under both the Trump and Biden administrations to cut off China’s access to advanced chip manufacturing equipment. These efforts have worked, and we should double down on this success rather than squander the leverage we have won.
    “If this deal succeeds, the offshoring of frontier American AI will be recorded as an historic American blunder. People around the world deserve to enjoy the benefits we will reap from AI. However, AI chips must only be exported to trusted companies, in reasonable numbers, and in concert with credible security standards and assurances. We welcome the opportunity to work with the administration to meet these objectives and urge our colleagues in Congress to do the same.”
    Senator Coons is Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Senator Shaheen is Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Reed is Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Warner is Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Kelly is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Congressman Himes is Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Krishnamoorthi is Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: H.R. 1578, Veterans Claims Education Act of 2025

    Source: US Congressional Budget Office

    Bill Summary

    H.R. 1578 would require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to inform veterans and their survivors about accredited individuals and organizations that may be able to help them with claims for VA benefits. The bill also would extend the reduction of pension payments for veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes.

    Estimated Federal Cost

    The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 1578 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall within budget functions 550 (health) and 700 (veterans benefits and services).

    Table 1.

    Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 1578

     

    By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars

       
     

    2025

    2026

    2027

    2028

    2029

    2030

    2031

    2032

    2033

    2034

    2035

    2025-2030

    2025-2035

     

    Increases or Decreases (-) in Direct Spending

       

    Estimated Budget Authority

    *

    1

    *

    1

    *

    *

    1

    -16

    *

    *

    1

    2

    -12

    Estimated Outlays

    *

    1

    *

    1

    *

    *

    1

    -16

    *

    *

    1

    2

    -12

     

    Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation

       

    Estimated Authorization

    1

    4

    1

    *

    1

    1

    *

    1

    1

    1

    *

    8

    11

    Estimated Outlays

    *

    3

    3

    *

    1

    1

    *

    1

    1

    1

    *

    8

    11

    Basis of Estimate

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1578 will be enacted in fiscal year 2025 and that outlays will follow historical spending patterns for affected programs.

    Provisions that Affect Spending Subject to Appropriation and Direct Spending

    Section 2 would require VA to provide additional information about VA-accredited individuals and organizations. Specifically, VA must:

    • Maintain an online tool that allows people claiming VA benefits to search for accredited representatives that may assist with those claims;
    • Notify applicants for VA benefits about VA-accredited representation if the claimant’s initial application does not indicate they have such representation; and
    • On each web page of the department through which an individual may file a benefits claim, provide information about limitations on fees that potential representatives may charge applicants.

    The department maintains a web portal through which claimants can search for accredited representation for benefit claims. Thus, that requirement would have no budgetary effect. Using information from the department, CBO estimates that VA would require additional information technology (IT) resources to notify claimants of available representation and to update each affected website with information on fee limitations. On the basis of that information, CBO estimates that upgrades and maintenance to the IT system would cost $15 million over the 2025-2035 period.

    CBO expects that some of the costs of implementing the bill would be paid from the Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF) established by Public Law 117-168, the Honoring our PACT Act. The TEF is a mandatory appropriation that VA uses to pay for health care, disability claims processing, medical research, and IT modernization that benefit veterans who were exposed to environmental hazards. Additional spending from the TEF would occur if legislation increases the costs of similar activities that benefit veterans with such exposure. Thus, in addition to increasing spending subject to appropriation, enacting section 2 would increase amounts paid from the TEF, which are classified as direct spending.

    CBO projects that the proportion of costs paid by the TEF will grow over time based on the amount of formerly discretionary appropriations that CBO expects will be provided through the mandatory appropriation as specified in the Honoring our PACT Act. CBO estimates that over the 2025-2035 period, implementing section 2 would increase spending subject to appropriation by $11 million and direct spending by $4 million.

    Direct Spending

    In addition to expanding benefits that would partly be covered by the TEF, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would affect direct spending by reducing pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes. In total, the bill would decrease net direct spending by $12 million over the 2025‑2035 period

    Under current law, VA reduces pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes to $90 per month. That required reduction expires November 30, 2031. Section 3 would extend that reduction for four months, through March 31, 2032. CBO estimates that extending that requirement would reduce VA benefits by $10 million per month. (Those benefits are paid from mandatory appropriations and are therefore considered direct spending.) As a result of that reduction in beneficiaries’ income, Medicaid would pay more of the cost of their care, increasing spending for that program by $6 million per month. Thus, enacting section 3 would reduce net direct spending by $16 million over the 2025-2035 period.

    Pay-As-You-Go Considerations

    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 1.

    Increase in Long-Term Net Direct Spending and Deficits

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1578 would not increase net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1578 would not increase on‑budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.

    Mandates

    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    Estimate Reviewed By

    David Newman
    Chief, Defense, International Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs Cost Estimates Unit

    Christina Hawley Anthony
    Deputy Director of Budget Analysis

    Phillip L. Swagel

    Director, Congressional Budget Office

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: H.R. 1969, No Wrong Door for Veterans Act

    Source: US Congressional Budget Office

    Bill Summary

    H.R. 1969 would extend the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through fiscal year 2026 and authorize appropriations for that purpose. The bill also would clarify that VA may provide adaptive prosthetic devices for sports and recreational activities as a medical service. Finally, the bill would extend a temporary limitation on certain pension payments through January 2033.

    Estimated Federal Cost

    The estimated budgetary effects of H.R. 1969 are shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall within budget functions 550 (health) and 700 (veterans benefits and services).

    Table 1.

    Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R.1969

     

    By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars

       
     

    2025

    2026

    2027

    2028

    2029

    2030

    2031

    2032

    2033

    2034

    2035

    2025-2030

    2025-2035

     

    Increases or Decreases (-) in Direct Spending

       

    Estimated Budget Authority

    0

    10

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    -40

    -16

    0

    0

    10

    -46

    Estimated Outlays

    0

    9

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    -40

    -16

    0

    0

    10

    -46

     

    Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation

       

    Estimated Authorization

    0

    43

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    43

    43

    Estimated Outlays

    0

    39

    4

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    43

    43

    Basis of Estimate

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1969 will be enacted in fiscal year 2025 and that outlays will follow historical spending patterns for affected programs.

    Provisions that Affect Spending Subject to Appropriation and Direct Spending

    Section 2 of the bill would reauthorize the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program through fiscal year 2026 and authorize the appropriation of $53 million for that year. The program makes grants to community organizations that provide suicide prevention services to at-risk veterans.

    CBO expects that some of the costs of implementing the bill would be paid from the Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF) established by Public Law 117-168, the Honoring our PACT Act. The TEF is a mandatory appropriation that VA uses to pay for health care, disability claims processing, medical research, and IT modernization that benefit veterans who were exposed to environmental hazards.

    Additional spending from the TEF would occur if legislation increases the costs of similar activities that benefit veterans with such exposure. CBO estimates that 19 percent of such additional funding would come from the TEF in 2026. That percentage is based on the amount of formerly discretionary appropriations that CBO projects will be provided through the mandatory appropriation as specified in the Honoring our PACT Act. CBO estimates that over the 2025-2035 period, implementing section 2 would increase spending subject to appropriation by $43 million and direct spending by $10 million.

    Direct Spending

    In addition to expanding benefits that would partly be covered by the TEF, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would affect direct spending by reducing pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes. In total, the bill would decrease net direct spending by $46 million over the 2025‑2035 period

    Under current law, VA reduces pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in Medicaid nursing homes to $90 per month. That required reduction expires November 30, 2031. Section 4 would extend that reduction for 14 months, through January 31, 2033. CBO estimates that extending that requirement would reduce VA benefits by $10 million per month. (Those benefits are paid from mandatory appropriations and are therefore considered direct spending.) As a result of that reduction in beneficiaries’ income, Medicaid would pay more of the cost of their care, increasing spending for that program by $6 million per month. Thus, enacting section 4 would reduce net direct spending by $56 million over the 2025-2035 period.

    Spending Subject to Appropriation

    The discussion above in “Provisions That Affect Spending Subject to Appropriation and Direct Spending” describes the authorization of appropriations for suicide prevention grants. That authorization would increase spending subject to appropriation by $43 million over the 2025‑2035 period.

    Section 3 would clarify that adaptive prostheses and terminal devices for sports and other recreational activities are included in the definition of medical services furnished to veterans. VA currently provides those types of adaptive devices; thus, CBO estimates that implementing section 3 would not affect the federal budget.

    Pay-As-You-Go Considerations

    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 1.

    Increase in Long-Term Net Direct Spending and Deficits

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1969 would not increase net direct spending or on‑budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.

    Mandates

    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    Estimate Prepared By

    Federal Costs:

    Noah Callahan (for veterans health care) 
    Logan Smith (for pensions)

    Mandates: Brandon Lever

    Estimate Reviewed By

    David Newman
    Chief, Defense, International Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs Cost Estimates Unit

    Kathleen FitzGerald 
    Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit

    Christina Hawley Anthony
    Deputy Director of Budget Analysis

    Phillip L. Swagel

    Director, Congressional Budget Office

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Video: LIVE: USPS unveils commemorative stamps honoring the 250th anniversaries of the Army, Navy, USMC.

    Source: United States Department of Defense (video statements)

    These stamps honor the enduring legacy and unwavering commitment of the men and women who have served and continue to serve. Each branch is crucial in safeguarding American interests, standing as symbols of strength and resilience, and upholding core values such as duty, honor and courage.
    —————
    Your military is an all-volunteer force that serves to protect our security and way of life, but Service members are more than a fighting force. They are leaders, humanitarians and your fellow Americans. Get to know more about the men and women who serve, who they are, what they do, and why they do it.

    For more on the Department of Defense, visit: http://www.defense.gov
    —————
    Keep up with the Department of Defense on social media!

    Like the DoD on Facebook: http://facebook.com/DeptofDefense
    Follow the DoD on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DeptofDefense
    Follow the DoD on Instagram: http://instagram.com/DeptofDefense
    Follow the DoD on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/DeptofDefense

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsUSt_hu3_c

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Stein Announces Director of Charlotte Office

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Stein Announces Director of Charlotte Office

    Governor Stein Announces Director of Charlotte Office
    lsaito

    Raleigh, NC

    Today Governor Stein announced that Walter L. Bowers, Jr., will join his team as Director of the Governor’s Charlotte Office.  

    “Pastor Bowers has a broad and rich understanding of our state’s largest city, and I look forward to his service connecting people with the support they need from their state government and making the region safer and stronger,” said Governor Josh Stein. 

    Walter L. Bowers, Jr., is the Senior Pastor of Chosen City Church in Charlotte. Bowers is a former United States Army officer and a partner at Wooden Bowers Law PLLC. Prior to practicing law, Bowers served with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department as a patrol officer and an attorney within its legal division. Pastor Bowers holds a B.S. in Computer Information Systems from Miles College, a M.A. in Biblical Studies from New Life Theological Seminary, and a J.D. from Charlotte School of Law. Pastor Bowers will serve in the Governor’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.  

    May 16, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Pat Fallon Leads Introduction of the Federal Cyber Workforce Training Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Pat Fallon (TX-04)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Representative Pat Fallon (TX-04), along with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) introduced the Federal Cyber Workforce Training Act of 2025, a bill which would require the National Cyber Director to submit to Congress a plan to establish an institute within the Federal Government to serve as a centralized resource and training center for Federal cyber workforce development.

    “This legislation modernizes our approach to building a robust cyber workforce by streamlining onboarding with hands-on, role-specific training and sets high standards via DHS and DOD collaboration,” said Rep. Fallon. “By fostering sustainable career paths and bolstering recruitment with specialized talent management modules, we are taking necessary steps to fortify our defenses against escalating cyber threats.”

    “The cyber threats against our nation are serious. This bipartisan legislation will help us to mount a defense against malign actors by bolstering, and enhancing cyber training,” said Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09). “This bipartisan legislation developed with Congressman Fallon seeks to modernize cyber workforce development through streamlined onboarding training — raising the bar for the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. Our objective is to develop a framework to foster the highest levels of excellence in cybersecurity for professionals serving on the frontlines to safeguard our nation.”

    Specifically, this legislation aims to:

    1.     ENSURE BETTER ONBOARDING:  Provides modularized work role-specific training, including hands-on learning and skill-based assessments, to prepare personnel from a wide variety of academic and professional backgrounds to perform effectively in federal cyber work roles.

    2.     SET STANDARDS: Coordinate with the DHS/DOD /Others to develop work role-specific curriculum for the training required above.

    3.    MAINTAIN SUSTAINABLE CAREER TRACK: Prioritize entry-level positions in the provision of curriculum and training but should also include curriculum development and training for federal cyber workers seeking transition to mid-career positions and may include upskilling and reskilling efforts.

    4.     BOLSTER RECRUITING:  Consider developing a specific module to familiarize and train appropriate federal government talent management personnel in the unique challenges in recruiting and hiring personnel for federal cyber workforce roles.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cotton, Boozman, and Westerman to Driscoll: Bureaucratic Hostility Towards Pine Bluff Arsenal Will Undercut President Trump’s Agenda

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353May 16, 2025
    Cotton, Boozman, and Westerman to Driscoll: Bureaucratic Hostility Towards Pine Bluff Arsenal Will Undercut President Trump’s Agenda
    Washington, D.C. — Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), and Congressman Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-04) today sent a letter to Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, expressing opposition to plans to potentially downsize the Pine Bluff Arsenal that run contrary to President Trump’s agenda of accelerating munitions manufacturing in America. Closing the Pine Bluff Arsenal would not only circumvent current law, it would ultimately result in a waste of taxpayer dollars and deepen America’s dependence on foreign countries to meet our military’s needs.
    In part, the lawmakers wrote:
    “We appreciate your efforts through the Army Transformation Initiative to make the Army more lethal and more efficient, but the directive to potentially downsize Pine Bluff Arsenal—which is based on old, hidebound, bureaucratic recommendations—misses the mark and sets those goals back.”Full text of the letter may be found here and below.
    The Honorable Daniel DriscollSecretary of the Army101 Army PentagonWashington, DC 20310-0101
    Secretary Driscoll,
    We write to express our opposition to and disappointment with your directive to potentially downsize Pine Bluff Arsenal. As you may know, current law prohibits the Army from closing the arsenal, but your directive in effect evades this prohibition. Perhaps worse, the directive would undercut President Trump’s goal of accelerating munitions manufacturing in America, which we strongly support and foresee in Pine Bluff Arsenal’s future. As longtime supporters of the Army who would prefer to continue to work cooperatively with the Army on its priorities, we urge you to reverse immediately this ill-advised decision based on stale, years-old, bureaucratic plans—the exact kind of thinking President Trump was elected to upend.
    Though we agree with the Army Transformation Initiative’s broad goals to make the Army more efficient and more lethal, a downsizing at Pine Bluff Arsenal wouldn’t advance these goals. Secretary Hegseth directed the Army “to generate the ammunition stockpiles necessary to sustain national defense.” Unfortunately, the defense industrial base—including the Army’s arsenals—is too small, riddled with supply-chain issues, and often dependent on foreign sources for key materials. Neither the Army’s arsenals nor the larger defense industrial base can meet the munitions needs of our forces and allies. As we’ve explained for years—well before your appointment as secretary—the Army needs to use fully the resources it already owns, like Pine Bluff Arsenal, to meet these needs.
    Pine Bluff Arsenal is a solution for these challenges, not some redundant or outdated relic. While it’s true that the arsenal is under-used, that’s because the Army bureaucracy has repeatedly resisted our proposals to expand its operations. Pine Bluff Arsenal is the only site in America that produces vital white-phosphorous ammunition. Further, we have long advocated that the Army use Pine Bluff Arsenal to produce materials like, for instance, nitrocellulose and RDX—both key components of our munitions, but also chokepoints in the supply chain. The arsenal already has access to critical utilities, a significant transportation network, and proximity to raw materials and loading facilities to supply the Army’s needs. 
    The Army has never offered persuasive explanations for its bureaucratic hostility to expanding operations at Pine Bluff Arsenal. We’ve heard from the Army that commercial facilities or building new facilities are a less expensive, more efficient alternative to using the current arsenals for its munition needs. But this argument is far-fetched. Though commercial industry plays a role, recent experience has proven the extreme difficulty of acquiring sufficient quantities of 155mm rounds because commercial production lines have little to no room for expansion. Likewise, building a new ammunition plant from scratch is an expensive, time-consuming endeavor—at least four years and around a half a billion dollars. For instance, the necessary and overly complicated environmental permits alone can take years.
    By contrast, Pine Bluff Arsenal offers inherent advantages over any commercial site—advantages that likely cut in half the timeline for munitions production. The arsenal not only has the type and amount of land necessary to handle dangerous explosives, but also has the existing workforce with deep and irreplaceable expertise. Further, Pine Bluff Arsenal has operated in this space for decades and successfully navigated the burdensome environmental requirements. As we have before, we continue to insist that abandoning these advantages in favor of a speculative new commercial production line or, even worse, to buy ammunition from foreign sources is reckless and a waste of taxpayer money.
    We’ve also heard from the Army that its plan results in cost savings, but this argument doesn’t hold water either. Army Materiel Command may appear to save a little money up front by downsizing Pine Bluff from its current capacity or even closing it, but those costs will have to shift to another site to produce white phosphorus. The Army answers that those costs might decrease because of unspecified, magical “efficiencies”—a strange claim since no other site in America produces white-phosphorus ammunition. But any supposed savings from “efficiencies” would likely be dwarfed by the long-term costs of shutting down arsenal operations, safely disposing of explosive materials, conducting environmental remediation, and maintaining perpetual site security. While not gaining much on the munitions front, the Army would add needless costs to operate a virtual ghost town. To be frank, it appears that Army Materiel Command bureaucrats want to shift the costs off their books and onto other Army commands. But that doesn’t result in savings for the Army or the taxpayer, nor does it improve the Army’s munitions crisis.
    We appreciate your efforts through the Army Transformation Initiative to make the Army more lethal and more efficient, but the directive to potentially downsize Pine Bluff Arsenal—which is based on old, hidebound, bureaucratic recommendations—misses the mark and sets those goals back. We request an in-person briefing no later than May 22 from you and General George about this matter and how we can collaboratively ensure that Pine Bluff Arsenal will advance President Trump’s munitions goals and continue to contribute to our national security for years to come.
    As we noted, we’ve long worked with the Army to support its priorities in the NDAA and the appropriations process, and lately to advance promptly its civilian nominees toward confirmation. We hope this cooperation can continue and grow, rather than be impaired by an unwise decision about the future of Pine Bluff Arsenal.
    Sincerely,
    Cc: Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army   

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kaptur and Fallon Lead Introduction of the Bipartisan Federal Cyber Workforce Training Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

    Washington, DC – Today, Representatives Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), and Pat Fallon (TX-04) introduced the Federal Cyber Workforce Training Act of 2025, a bipartisan bill which would require the National Cyber Director to submit to Congress a plan to establish an institute within the Federal Government to serve as a centralized resource and training center for Federal cyber workforce development.

    “The cyber threats against our nation are serious. This bipartisan legislation will help us to mount a defense against malign actors by bolstering, and enhancing cyber training,” said Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09). “This bipartisan legislation developed with Congressman Fallon seeks to modernize cyber workforce development through streamlined onboarding training — raising the bar for the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. Our objective is to develop a framework to foster the highest levels of excellence in cybersecurity for professionals serving on the frontlines to safeguard our nation.”

    “This legislation modernizes our approach to building a robust cyber workforce by streamlining onboarding with hands-on, role-specific training and sets high standards via DHS and DOD collaboration,” said Congressman Pat Fallon (TX-04). “By fostering sustainable career paths and bolstering recruitment with specialized talent management modules, we are taking necessary steps to fortify our defenses against escalating cyber threats.”

    Specifically, this legislation aims to:

    1.     ENSURE BETTER ONBOARDING:  Provides modularized work role-specific training, including hands-on learning and skill-based assessments, to prepare personnel from a wide variety of academic and professional backgrounds to perform effectively in federal cyber work roles.

    2.     SET STANDARDS: Coordinate with the DHS/DOD /Others to develop work role-specific curriculum for the training required above.

    3.    MAINTAIN SUSTAINABLE CAREER TRACK: Prioritize entry-level positions in the provision of curriculum and training but should also include curriculum development and training for federal cyber workers seeking transition to mid-career positions and may include upskilling and reskilling efforts.

    4.     BOLSTER RECRUITING:  Consider developing a specific module to familiarize and train appropriate federal government talent management personnel in the unique challenges in recruiting and hiring personnel for federal cyber workforce roles.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News: Building Security Through Cooperation: Exercise Obangame Express 2025 concludes in Cabo Verde

    Source: United States Navy

    Thirty African nations have wrapped up two-weeks of intense training during Exercise Obangame Express 2025 (OE25), strengthening regional collaboration and reaffirming their commitment to maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea and the Atlantic Ocean off Africa’s western coast. This year’s exercise focused on enhancing regional coordination, expanding maritime awareness, and enhancing operational readiness.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Leads Democratic Colleagues in Demanding Answers about the National Security Risks Posed by Trump’s Acceptance of $400 Million Plane-Shaped Qatari Bribe

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    May 15, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) led Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and nine other Democratic colleagues across U.S. Senate Armed Services, Appropriations and Intelligence Committees in demanding that the Department of Defense be transparent with them about the substantial national security and operational risks posed by President Trump’s plan to accept a $400 million aircraft “gift” from the Qatari royal family. In a letter sent to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink last night, the Senators called for answers from the Department of Defense about how it would prevent these national security risks if Donald Trump accepts this gift, and how much taxpayers will have to pay for the extensive upgrades that would need to be made on this unvetted aircraft in order to protect the President, servicemembers and sensitive information from nefarious espionage, attack or disruption.

    “[We] write today with alarm over the dangers to operational and national security presented by President Trump’s desire to execute an unconstitutional and unseemly acceptance of a $400 million gift from the Qatari royal family in the form of a luxury Boeing 747-8 aircraft. To serve as Air Force One during his administration, the U.S. Department of Defense would be required to accelerate a comprehensive upgrade to the aircraft, with the direct cost to the American taxpayer likely exceeding $1 billion. We are especially concerned about the operational security and counterintelligence risks of potentially using this aircraft for sensitive Presidential travel— and the massive cost to American taxpayers to identify and close critical vulnerabilities,” the lawmakers said.

    The Senators continued: “Having the President travel without the necessary security precautions or secure communications renders the aircraft an easy target for adversaries to gain access to sensitive Presidential-level discussions or classified information, impeding the success of ongoing military operations and endangering our servicemembers… President Trump is claiming that this ‘gift’ of an aircraft worth $400 million is saving taxpayers money, but in reality, his decision will force taxpayers to foot an unnecessary bill—potentially more than $1 billion—to convert a foreign-provided aircraft into the fortress necessary to protect him and his communications—all while taxpayers are already paying at least $3.9 billion for the contract for two aircraft currently being built by Boeing to add to the Air Force One fleet.” 

    In addition to Duckworth, Schumer and Durbin, the letter was co-signed by U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Angus King (I-ME), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

    The full text of the letter follows and is available on Senator Duckworth’s website.

    -30-



    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Our Health, Or Economy, Our Nation, Our Future

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    For more than 80 years, colleges and universities across the country have collaborated with the federal government on research and innovation that has changed the world. UConn is proud of its longstanding relationships with agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, the departments of Energy and Defense, and multitudes of other funders who have enabled the discoveries that define our society.

    Connecticut’s workforce and economy, public health, and technological ingenuity are intertwined with the research that takes place in Storrs, at UConn Health in Farmington, and campuses across the state. UConn, like other universities across the nation, carries out critical research in facilities and with the expertise required to move America forward.

    This report and website illustrate the impact of UConn’s research enterprise. It outlines the University’s influence on Connecticut, the breakthroughs made in fields from healthcare to national security, and the importance of continued federal financial support.

    For more information, please visit research.uconn.edu.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News: Navy, Pearl Harbor National Memorial take next step in USS Arizona preservation, removal of mooring platforms 

    Source: United States Navy

    After a year of focused planning and analysis, the installation of this mooring system is a necessary precaution to ensure environmental protection ahead of removing the platforms later this year.   Additionally, this action supports the platform removal emergency response plan.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: At Hearing, Warren Stresses Importance of Right-to-Repair, Highlights How Restrictions Limit International Cooperation

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    May 16, 2025

    Repair restrictions limit service members’ abilities to fix their weapons even in the middle of life-and-death missions

    Warren successfully pushed the Army to get rid of right-to-repair restrictions, urges the rest of the military to follow

    Video of Exchange (YouTube)

    Washington, D.C. – At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) uplifted how right-to-repair can help the U.S. military and allied forces promote innovation and reduce costs. 

    As Senator Warren explained, the Department of Defense (DoD) spends billions of dollars buying equipment, but contractors impose repair restrictions preventing servicemembers from fixing their weapons, even in the middle of dangerous missions, and often at the expense of innovation. She highlighted how important innovation has been in Ukraine’s ability to continue to defend itself against Russia. 

    Dr. Lisa Saum-Manning, Associate Director, International Security and Defense Policy Program for RAND, testified to the importance of servicemembers’ ability to repair their own weapons without unnecessary contractor interference, stating, “When it comes to life and death decisions, I think you sort of overlook policy… that’s what I would do if I were on the battlefield.”

    This month, Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll announced that the Army will ensure right-to-repair provisions are included in future Army contracts and will identify and propose contract modifications for right-to-repair provisions in current contracts.

    “Army Secretary Driscoll has taken a necessary and overdue step, but we need all of the services and DOD to prioritize lethality. And that means commanders in the field should never have to beg a contractor to come repair a plane that the Air Force owns or that soldiers could fix themselves,” said Senator Warren

    Senator Warren argued that right-to-repair can help strengthen American allied forces and enhance their capabilities, allowing them to work better with our troops, take missions off the military’s plate, and support U.S. jobs. If U.S. contractors limit our allies and partners’ ability to sustain equipment, that can hurt the ability of those companies to win contracts. Dr. Saum-Manning expressed support for adopting a right-to-repair policy across the military, stating that RAND researchers agreed on a need for change. 

    Senator Warren has been a leader on right-to-repair, including in the military. In January 2025, Senator Warren secured a commitment from Secretary Driscoll during his nomination hearing about enhancing the Army’s right to repair its own equipment. Senator Warren also pushed for commitments from the Navy Secretary and Military Transportation Command Chief on allowing servicemembers to repair their own equipment. 

    “I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to make sure that we aren’t letting bad contracting practices limit our soldiers’ ability to win on the battlefield,” concluded Senator Warren

    Transcript: Hearings to examine the Department of Defense responsibilities related to Foreign Military Sales system and international armaments cooperation
    Senate Armed Services Committee
    May 15, 2025

    Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, being lethal on the battlefield means being scrappy. And when Russia first invaded Ukraine, we sat in the briefings when we were told by experts that Ukraine would only be able to hold out for a few weeks maximum. But over the past three years, Ukrainians have been incredibly innovative, especially in the deployment of drones to keep Russian forces at bay. 

    The U.S. military may not be nearly as agile. One problem: soldiers are not allowed to repair many of their own weapons. DoD spends billions of dollars buying all sorts of equipment, but then contractors impose restrictions on who can maintain systems and who can produce spare parts. Contractors rake in billions, but service members are not allowed to fix their own weapons when they break, even in the middle of life-and-death missions. That is the opposite of scrappy. 

    Dr. Saum-Manning, you are an expert on building military capacity. How important is it for readiness for service members just to be able to repair their own weapons?

    Dr. Lisa Saum-Manning: I mean, they are on the front lines and critical. When it comes to life and death decisions, I think you sort of overlook policy. That would—, that’s what I would do if I were on the battlefield. Again, this is my personal opinion, not an opinion of RAND.

    Senator Elizabeth Warren: But I take it. You think the right to repair is important to being able to do your job?

    Dr. Saum-Manning: I do think it’s important, that said, you have to know how to do it. And so I would want to make sure that they actually knew what they were doing.

    Senator Elizabeth Warren: Okay. The problem we’ve got is that too often, when the U.S. military goes to contractors, they are told when something is broken, they’re going to have to wait months for critical parts. In just one case that we have, the Army discovered that instead of waiting months, they could actually just use a 3D printer to print the safety clip they needed in less than an hour and for 1/100th of the cost that was being charged by the contractor. 

    So, this month, the Trump administration took an important step toward making sure that U.S. soldiers can be just as scrappy as the Ukrainians. The Army’s new transformation initiative requires new contracts to include a right to repair their own equipment, and they’re also going back to review old contracts to add similar protections. I want to give a shout-out to the new Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, for pushing this initiative. 

    So, Dr. Saum-Manning, would adopting this policy across the military services enhance innovation and help reduce costs?

    Dr. Saum-Manning: Well, as all RAND researchers say, we have to study that. This is very new. It’s very exciting to see, when we were doing our study, the Army was in the midst of their sort of transformation, and there was a consensus of opinion that it needed to change. And so it’s exciting that they’re innovating. We’re watching it. It’s definitely a great experiment to see if it happens and to see if we can apply these lessons elsewhere.  

    Senator Warren: Well, you know, I would argue here on right-to-repair that it can also be used to help strengthen American allied forces as well. When our closest allies buy U.S. weapons, it can help enhance their capabilities, help them work better with our troops. We really like all of that. They can take missions off our plate, and they can support U.S. jobs. But our allies and partners have a lot of other companies that they can choose from, and they are willing to drive a harder bargain than we are. For example, a Canadian task force found that failing to acquire data rights hurt their ability to independently support their own equipment— right to repair—and they recommended prioritizing sustainability and competition. The bottom line? Lockheed Martin’s higher repair costs meant that Lockheed Martin just wasn’t competitive for the contract. 

    So Dr. Saum-Manning isn’t the best outcome for us, is not only if we can repair our own equipment, but also if our allies, who are buying from us contractors, can repair their weapons in the field and have those weapons made in America?

    Dr. Saum-Manning: Well, we have not studied that, but I would say that if we are, sort of, part of that process and can help train, help equip, help be there to help sustain—our partners need to actually be able to sustain the equipment that we give them. Those are priority decisions that need to be made prior to them actually getting on the battlefield.

    Senator Warren: Yeah, well, Army Secretary Driscoll has taken a necessary and overdue step, but we need all of the services and DOD to prioritize lethality. And that means commanders in the field should never have to beg a contractor to come repair a plane that the Air Force owns or/and that soldiers could fix themselves. Our Navy should never have to wonder if an ally won’t show up because they’re waiting months for a contractor to fix a fuel gauge. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to make sure that we aren’t letting bad contracting practices limit our soldiers’ ability to win on the battlefield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Governments continue losing efforts to gain backdoor access to secure communications

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Richard Forno, Teaching Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, and Assistant Director, UMBC Cybersecurity Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

    Signal is the poster child for strong encryption apps. AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato

    Reports that prominent American national security officials used a freely available encrypted messaging app, coupled with the rise of authoritarian policies around the world, have led to a surge in interest in encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp. These apps prevent anyone, including the government and the app companies themselves, from reading messages they intercept.

    The spotlight on encrypted apps is also a reminder of the complex debate pitting government interests against individual liberties. Governments desire to monitor everyday communications for law enforcement, national security and sometimes darker purposes. On the other hand, citizens and businesses claim the right to enjoy private digital discussions in today’s online world.

    The positions governments take often are framed as a “war on encryption” by technology policy experts and civil liberties advocates. As a cybersecurity researcher, I’ve followed the debate for nearly 30 years and remain convinced that this is not a fight that governments can easily win.

    Understanding the ‘golden key’

    Traditionally, strong encryption capabilities were considered military technologies crucial to national security and not available to the public. However, in 1991, computer scientist Phil Zimmermann released a new type of encryption software called Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). It was free, open-source software available on the internet that anyone could download. PGP allowed people to exchange email and files securely, accessible only to those with the shared decryption key, in ways similar to highly secured government systems.

    Following an investigation into Zimmermann, the U.S. government came to realize that technology develops faster than law and began to explore remedies. It also began to understand that once something is placed on the internet, neither laws nor policy can control its global availability.

    Fearing that terrorists or criminals might use such technology to plan attacks, arrange financing or recruit members, the Clinton administration advocated a system called the Clipper Chip, based on a concept of key escrow. The idea was to give a trusted third party access to the encryption system and the government could use that access when it demonstrated a law enforcement or national security need.

    End-to-end encryption and backdoor access explained.

    Clipper was based on the idea of a “golden key,” namely, a way for those with good intentions – intelligence services, police – to access encrypted data, while keeping people with bad intentions – criminals, terrorists – out.

    Clipper Chip devices never gained traction outside the U.S. government, in part because its encryption algorithm was classified and couldn’t be publicly peer-reviewed. However, in the years since, governments around the world have continued to embrace the golden key concept as they grapple with the constant stream of technology developments reshaping how people access and share information.

    Following Edward Snowden’s disclosures about global surveillance of digital communications in 2013, Google and Apple took steps to make it virtually impossible for anyone but an authorized user to access data on a smartphone. Even a court order was ineffective, much to the chagrin of law enforcement. In Apple’s case, the company’s approach to privacy and security was tested in 2016 when the company refused to build a mechanism to help the FBI break into an encrypted iPhone owned by a suspect in the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

    At its core, encryption is, fundamentally, very complicated math. And while the golden key concept continues to hold allure for governments, it is mathematically difficult to achieve with an acceptable degree of trust. And even if it was viable, implementing it in practice makes the internet less safe. Security experts agree that any backdoor access, even if hidden or controlled by a trusted entity, is vulnerable to hacking.

    Competing justifications and tech realities

    Governments around the world continue to wrestle with the proliferation of strong encryption in messaging tools, social media and virtual private networks.

    For example, rather than embrace a technical golden key, a recent proposal in France would have provided the government the ability to add a hidden “ghost” participant to any encrypted chat for surveillance purposes. However, legislators removed this from the final proposal after civil liberties and cybersecurity experts warned that such an approach would undermine basic cybersecurity practices and trust in secure systems.

    In 2025, the U.K. government secretly ordered Apple to add a backdoor to its encryption services worldwide. Rather than comply, Apple removed the ability for its iPhone and iCloud customers in the U.K. to use its Advanced Data Protection encryption features. In this case, Apple chose to defend its users’ security in the face of government mandates, which ironically now means that users in the U.K. may be less secure.

    Apple pulled its advanced encryption service from the U.K. market rather than grant the U.K. government backdoor access.

    In the United States, provisions removed from the 2020 EARN IT bill would have forced companies to scan online messages and photos to guard against child exploitation by creating a golden-key-type hidden backdoor. Opponents viewed this as a stealth way of bypassing end-to-end encryption. The bill did not advance to a full vote when it was last reintroduced in the 2023-2024 legislative session.

    Opposing scanning for child sexual abuse material is a controversial concern when encryption is involved: Although Apple received significant public backlash over its plans to scan user devices for such material in ways that users claimed violated Apple’s privacy stance, victims of child abuse have sued the company for not better protecting children.

    Even privacy-centric Switzerland and the European Union are exploring ways of dealing with digital surveillance and privacy in an encrypted world.

    The laws of math and physics, not politics

    Governments usually claim that weakening encryption is necessary to fight crime and protect the nation – and there is a valid concern there. However, when that argument fails to win the day, they often turn to claiming to need backdoors to protect children from exploitation.

    From a cybersecurity perspective, it is nearly impossible to create a backdoor to a communications product that is only accessible for certain purposes or under certain conditions. If a passageway exists, it’s only a matter of time before it is exploited for nefarious purposes. In other words, creating what is essentially a software vulnerability to help the good guys will inevitably end up helping the bad guys, too.

    Often overlooked in this debate is that if encryption is weakened to improve surveillance for governmental purposes, it will drive criminals and terrorists further underground. Using different or homegrown technologies, they will still be able to exchange information in ways that governments can’t readily access. But everyone else’s digital security will be needlessly diminished.

    This lack of online privacy and security is especially dangerous for journalists, activists, domestic violence survivors and other at-risk communities around the world.

    Encryption obeys the laws of math and physics, not politics. Once invented, it can’t be un-invented, even if it frustrates governments. Along those lines, if governments are struggling with strong encryption now, how will they contend with a world when everyone is using significantly more complex techniques like quantum cryptography?

    Governments remain in an unenviable position regarding strong encryption. Ironically, one of the countermeasures the government recommended in response to China’s hacking of global telephone systems in the Salt Typhoon attacks was to use strong encryption in messaging apps such as Signal or iMessage.

    Reconciling that with their ongoing quest to weaken or restrict strong encryption for their own surveillance interests will be a difficult challenge to overcome.

    Richard Forno has received research funding related to cybersecurity from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the US Army during his academic career since 2010.

    ref. Governments continue losing efforts to gain backdoor access to secure communications – https://theconversation.com/governments-continue-losing-efforts-to-gain-backdoor-access-to-secure-communications-253016

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Around the Air Force: SECAF Confirmation, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, Aerial Wildfire Suppression

    Source: United States Air Force

    Headline: Around the Air Force: SECAF Confirmation, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, Aerial Wildfire Suppression

    In this week’s look Around the Air Force, Dr. Troy Meink is confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, a milestone for integrating automated aircraft systems, and Air Guard units and civilian flight crews join forces for aerial wildfire suppression training.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Florida Pharmacy Pleads Guilty to Health Care Fraud and Agrees to Pay More Than $1 Million Settlement

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    BOSTON – On May 13, 2025, a Florida-based pharmacy, OHM Pharmacy Services, aka “Benzer,” aka “Auburndale,” pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud and was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to pay restitution of $82,000. As part of the global resolution, Benzer also agreed to pay $1,018,000 to resolve False Claims Act violations.

    According to OHM’s admissions in the global resolution of criminal charges and civil claims, the pharmacy dispensed Evzio, one of several naloxone products on the market indicated for use on an emergent basis in the case of opioid overdose. Due to Evzio’s high price, insurers (including Medicare Part D plans) frequently required that health care providers submit prior authorization requests before they approved coverage. OHM completed prior authorization forms in place of prescribing physicians, and in some instances OHM personnel signed the prior authorization forms without the physician’s authorization and submitted information to insurers that made it appear as though a physician, and not OHM, was submitting the information. Moreover, OHM also submitted prior authorization requests to insurers, including Medicare Part D plans, that contained false information. For example, OHM staff filled out and submitted dozens of Evzio prior authorization request forms that falsely asserted that patients had previously tried and failed to successfully use Narcan or naloxone.  

    In connection with the resolution, Benzer entered into an integrity agreement (IA) with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The IA requires, among other things, that Benzer implement measures to ensure that its submission of claims for pharmaceutical products complies with applicable law relating to prior authorizations.  

    The civil settlement concludes the government’s resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by a former employee of kaleo Inc., Evzio’s manufacturer. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Socol v. Benzer Pharmacy Holding, LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-10050-RGS (D. Mass.). As part of the civil resolution, the whistleblower will receive $285,040 of the civil settlement amount.  

    In 2021, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced settlements with kaléo Inc. for $12.7 million and with other pharmacies for $1 million relating to their submission of false claims for Evzio. In 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced a $1.31 million deferred prosecution agreement and civil settlement with another pharmacy.

    United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Kim Milka, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division; Roberto Coviello, Special Agent in Charge, Health and Human Services-Office of Inspector General; the Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Service; Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General; and the U.S. Postal Service Office of the Inspector General made the announcement.

    The matter was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Abraham R. George, Chief of the Civil Division, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mackenzie A. Queenin, Chief of the Health Care Fraud Unit and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lauren A. Graber, Deputy Chief of the Narcotics and Money Laundering Unit.
     

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Around the Air Force: SECAF Confirmation, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, Aerial Wildfire Suppression

    Source: United States Air Force

    In this week’s look Around the Air Force, Dr. Troy Meink is confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, a milestone for integrating automated aircraft systems, and Air Guard units and civilian flight crews join forces for aerial wildfire suppression training.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s vision for Air Force One will turn it from the ‘Flying White House’ to a ‘palace in the sky’

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Janet Bednarek, Professor of History, University of Dayton

    Former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy helped design Air Force One’s color scheme, which has been used since her husband’s presidency. Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images

    Since President Donald Trump excitedly announced that he would be accepting a US$400 million plane from the Qatari government to serve as the next Air Force One, even members of his own party have expressed alarm.

    There’s the price tag of refurbishing the plane with top-secret systems – upward of $1 billion, according to some estimates. Then there are the conflicts of interest from accepting such a large present from a foreign nation – what some say would be the most valuable gift ever given to the U.S.

    But it would also mark a striking departure from tradition.

    While they’re often variants of commercial planes, presidential planes have almost always been U.S. military aircraft, flown and maintained by the Air Force.

    The first White Houses in the sky

    I’m an aviation historian who once worked in the United States Air Force’s history program for three years, so I’m well-acquainted with the history of presidential aircraft.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to fly while in office. In January 1943, he boarded the Navy-owned, civilian-operated Boeing Dixie Clipper – a sea plane – for a trip to Casablanca to meet with Allied leaders.

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the first presidential flight on a Dixie Clipper, a sea plane built by Boeing.
    Hulton Archive/Getty Images

    The security measures needed to safely transport the president – especially during wartime – spurred the creation of the first custom-built aircraft for presidential use, a heavily modified VC-54 Skymaster. Though officially named “The Flying White House,” the new presidential aircraft became better known by its nickname, the “Sacred Cow.”

    President Harry Truman used the Sacred Cow as his presidential aircraft through much of his first term in office.

    In late 1947, the U.S. Air Force ordered a second custom-built presidential aircraft, a modified DC-6, which Truman named the Independence.

    While in office, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman flew on a modified Douglas C-54, nicknamed the Sacred Cow.
    Museum of Flight/Corbis via Getty Images

    During Dwight D. Eisenhower’s two terms, the president flew on two different planes operated by the Air Force: the Columbine II, which was a customized, military version of Lockheed’s commercial airliner the Constellation, and the Columbine III, which was a Super Constellation.

    Embracing the jet age

    In the 1960s, the use of jet engine technology in U.S. commercial aircraft revolutionized air travel, allowing planes to fly higher, farther and faster. Jet travel became associated with the glamorous and the elegant lifestyles of the “jet set” crowd.

    So it’s fitting that President John F. Kennedy – who was sometimes called the “the first celebrity president” – was the first White House occupant to fly in a jet, the Boeing 707.

    Kennedy’s aircraft was also the first painted in the distinctive light blue-and-white scheme that’s still used today. First lady Jacqueline Kennedy developed it with the help of industrial designer Raymond Loewy.

    It would go on to serve eight presidents before leaving the presidential fleet in 1990, when Boeing delivered the first of two modified Boeing 747s.

    These are the aircraft that continue to serve as the president’s primary plane. Boeing signed a contract to provide two new aircraft in 2017, during Trump’s last term. In 2020, the company decided to refurbish two existing aircraft that were originally built for another customer.

    The refurbishment has been more cumbersome and expensive than building a new aircraft from scratch. But it’s the only option because Boeing closed its 747 assembly line in late 2022.

    A nickname sticks

    On a trip to Florida, the crew of Columbine II first used “Air Force One” as the plane’s call sign to clearly distinguish the plane from other air traffic.

    While the public has associated the name Air Force One with the modified Boeing 707s and 747s and their distinctive colors, any plane with the president aboard will carry that call sign.

    They include several smaller aircraft, also operated by the Air Force, such as the North American T-39 Sabreliner used to transport Lyndon B. Johnson to his ranch in Texas and the Lockheed VC-140B JetStars, the fleet of backup planes used by several presidents, which Johnson jokingly called “Air Force One Half.”

    A cultural and political symbol

    Air Force One has long served as a symbol of the power and prestige of the presidency.

    It became an indelible part of U.S. history in November 1963, when Johnson took his oath of office from Air Force One’s cabin while Kennedy’s body lay in rest in the back of the aircraft.

    Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn in as president aboard Air Force One following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
    Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    Air Force One carried President Richard M. Nixon to China and the Soviet Union for historic diplomatic missions. But it also famously flew him from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to his home state, California, after he resigned from office. On that day, the plane took off as Air Force One. But it landed as SAM 27000, the plane’s call sign used when the president wasn’t on board.

    Trump has been compared to Nixon in more ways than one.

    And Trump’s complaint that Arab leaders have bigger and more impressive airplanes than the current Air Force One is reminiscent of Nixon’s own concerns of being outclassed on the world stage.

    The Nixon family boards Air Force One to fly to California on Aug. 9, 1974, following President Richard Nixon’s resignation.
    Wally McNamee/Corbis via Getty Images

    When president, Nixon strongly advocated for American supersonic transport – a 270-passenger plane designed to be faster than the speed of sound – that he hoped could be modified to serve as a new Air Force One. He feared the failure to develop an SST would relegate the U.S. to second-tier status, as other world leaders – particularly those from England, France and the USSR – traversed the globe in sleeker, better performing aircraft.

    Trump’s concerns about Air Force One seem less focused on safety and security and more on size and opulence. His longing for a “palace in the sky” is befitting for a president drawn to soaring skyscrapers, lavish parades and gold ornamentation.

    Janet Bednarek does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump’s vision for Air Force One will turn it from the ‘Flying White House’ to a ‘palace in the sky’ – https://theconversation.com/trumps-vision-for-air-force-one-will-turn-it-from-the-flying-white-house-to-a-palace-in-the-sky-256745

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Video: THIS is how the Army marksmanship team trains!

    Source: US Army (video statements)

    About the U.S. Army:

    The Army Mission – our purpose – remains constant: To deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt & sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force.

    Interested in joining the U.S. Army?
    Visit: spr.ly/6001igl5L

    Connect with the U.S. Army online:
    Web: https://www.army.mil
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/USarmy/
    X: https://www.twitter.com/USArmy
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/usarmy/
    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/us-army
    #USArmy #Soldiers #Military #Army #shorts

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcZ7Mr9i1T0

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Russia: US, Ukrainian and Turkish delegations meet in Istanbul ahead of Russia-Ukraine peace talks

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    ISTANBUL, May 16 (Xinhua) — Delegations from the United States, Ukraine and Turkey held their first trilateral meeting at the Dolmabahce Presidential Office here on Friday ahead of the Russia-Ukraine peace talks.

    The American delegation included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ambassador to Turkey Thomas Barrack and Special Representative for Ukraine Keith Kellogg.

    The Ukrainian side was represented by the head of the presidential office Andriy Yermak, Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov and Minister of Foreign Affairs Andriy Sybiha.

    The meeting was held behind closed doors. A published photo shows Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan chairing the meeting, accompanied by the head of the National Intelligence Organization, Ibrahim Kalin.

    Following this meeting, negotiations will be held between delegations of the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Turkey. The Russian delegation will be headed by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky.

    Ukrainian and Russian officials will speak directly for the first time since a meeting in Istanbul in March 2022 that ended without a ceasefire agreement. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News