Friday, 30 March 2012

Stop 'harassing' Army Chief, BJP tells govt.

New Delhi,

The BJP on Friday cast aspersions on the government on the Army Chief controversy, saying there seems to be something “fishy” and demanded that the Centre should stop “harassing” General V.K. Singh and instead look into the issues raised by him.


“There is something fishy in the manner, in which this government is giving explanations on the whole controversy. We do not want security matters to become an issue..... But instead of harassing Gen. V.K. Singh, this government should look into the issues he has raised,” BJP vice-president Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi told reporters outside Parliament House.

The BJP has expressed concern over the leakage of the letter written by Gen. Singh to the Prime Minister.

It has also asked Defence Minister A.K. Antony to look into all the issues raised by Gen. Singh, including the Rs 14 crore bribe offer on which a CBI inquiry has been ordered, and has criticised his “inaction and indecisiveness”.

Tatra trucks for Army: CBI registers case of cheating


NDTV Correspondent, Updated: March 30, 2012 16:02 IST




New Delhi: The army chief's revelation that he was offered a bribe six months after he took office in 2010 has led to renewed attention to how equipment is bought for the army. The sale of 7000 trucks to the army by a company named Vectra is being formally investigated by the CBI. Here are 10 big developments in the case:

1) The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered an FIR today. The case names Ravi Rishi, a London-based businessman who owns the Vectra Group and has majority stake in the Tatra trucks, a Czech manufacturer. Public sector unit BEML buys Tatra parts from Vectra and assembles trucks in Bangalore that were then sold to the army. The FIR also refers to unknown defense officials and authorities at BEML.

2) The case is based on the fact that equipment for the army is meant to be bought directly from the manufacturer and not via a middleman. Vectra allegedly owns a company that has functioned as its agent in its dealing with BEML.

3) Ravi Rishi was interrogated today by the CBI. Since 1986, army has bought 7000 Tatra trucks to transport troops and artillery. An army press release earlier this month said retired officer Lt General Tejinder Singh was offering bribes on behalf of Tatra-Vectra. Charges denied by both Tejinder Singh and Vectra chairman.

3) Newspaper report today claims that Defence Minister AK Antony was told in 2009 that Tatra trucks were being purchased in violation of guidelines. Then Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad had forwarded a complaint to Defence Minister that said Vectra in London was serving as a middleman.

4) Vectra chairman Ravi Rishi told NDTV yesterday that Tatra does not have any agents in India. Said he has never met Tejinder Singh and the retired officer does not represent his company.

5) BJP's Prakash Javadekar says Defence Minister must resign for not taking action after receiving complaint about the Tatra deal.

6) Tejinder Singh sued army chief yesterday for defamation. Today, he has in the Delhi High Court asked the government to explain if it sanctioned a press release issued by the army, that he describes as defamatory.

7) The press release, issued on March 5, said Tejinder Singh had offered bribes on behalf of Tatra-Vectra. It also suggested that as former Director General of Defence Intelligence Agency (DGDIA), he had not taken the required clearances to buy off-the-air monitoring equipment. The press release was issued amid reports that the army had been spying on the Defence Ministry. Army denied these reports.

8) Army chief attends an industry event in Delhi today, refuses to comment on the controversy around his disclosure of the offer of a bribe. Also does not comment on the leak of his confidential letter to the PM, warning that the army is saddled with obsolete equipment.


9) Army chief has described leak of letter as "treason" and has said he rejects allegations that he was responsible for the leak. Defence Minister has not blamed anyone, has said Intelligence Bureau will identify the mole and severest punishment according to Indian law will follow.


10) Mr Antony has rejected request from within and outside his party, sources say, to remove the army chief.

Tatra trucks for Army: Defence Minister was alerted to violation of rules, claims report

Reported by Nitin Gokhale, Updated: March 30, 2012 18:03 IST



New Delhi: Since army chief General VK Singh said that he had been offered a bribe of 14 crores to clear "sub-standard" trucks, the army's purchase of 7000 Tatra trucks has provoked new scrutiny. General Singh did not name the lobbyist who offered him the kickback, or the company that he represented. But a few weeks ago, an army press release accused a retired officer, Lt General; Tejinder Singh, of offering bribes on behalf of Tatra-Vectra.

Since 1986, the army has bought the Czech-manufactured trucks via a London company - a violation of defense guidelines, which state that all equipment has to be bought directly from the original manufacturer and middlemen cannot be involved. But for years, BEML, a defense public sector unit, has bought parts from the London company and then assembled them in Bangalore before selling them to the army.

A report in a Mumbai newspaper, DNA, says that in 2009, Defence Minister AK Antony was alerted to the fact that BEML was using a middleman in its Tatra truck procurement. The paper says that in October 2009, senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, who was then Health Minister wrote to Mr Antony on behalf of their party president Sonia Gandhi and asked him to investigate the allegations.

Mrs Gandhi had received a complaint from a Karnataka union that said BEML, which is based in Bangalore, was using a UK agent. The defence ministry responded to say it would look into the matter. Since then, the ministry has not offered any explanation.

The controversy surrounding Tatra trucks is not entirely new.
Military experts have complained repeatedly that the all-weather all-terrain trucks, used to transport troops and artillery, are tough to service. Some allegedly arrived with defective tyres in the army. Spare parts are tough to find. A Right to Information appeal accessed by NDTV shows that the trucks were sold to the army at 80 lakhs each, nearly twice their price in Europe, and three times what other manufacturers like Ashok Leland and Tata have offered for similar vehicles. In 2010, the defence ministry said that it was introducing an open bidding system for the supply of trucks. Tatra's lengthy monopoly ended. Four manufacturers including Tata, Ashok Leland and Tatra are now competing for the contract.

IAF To Take Delivery Of All 10 Boeing C-17 By Aug 2014

Friday, March 30, 2012
http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1113

The Indian Air Force will have all the 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III airlifters by August 2014, Patrick Druez who is in charge of Business Development Global Mobility Systems Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said.

India will take delivery of the first C-17 in June 2013.


"The C-17 met all Indian Air Force requirements in high altitude and hot environment where other airlifters can't," he said at a media briefing on the sidelines of the Defence Expo here Thursday.


The airlifters can also land and take off in a narrow and short airfields, he said.


The C-17 Globemaster III is the newest and most flexible cargo aircraft to enter the airlift force. It is capable of rapid strategic delivery of troops and all types of cargo to main operating bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment area.

The aircraft can perform tactical airlift and airdrop missions and can transport litters and ambulatory patients during aeromedical evacuations when required.

In June 2011, India's Ministry of Defence signed an agreement with the United States government to acquire 10 C-17. The deal was the largest defense contract to have been signed by the Indian government with the US.

The C-17 is generally priced at around US$250 million per aircraft including four Pratt & Whitney F117 engines.

Russian Task force for anti piracy mission off the Somali coast

By RIA Novosti on Wednesday, March 28th, 2012


A task force from Russia’s Northern Fleet, led by the Udaloy class destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov, will soon depart on an new anti-piracy mission off the Somali coast, the fleet’s spokesman Capt. 1st Rank Vadim Serga said on Tuesday.

The destroyer is currently on a training mission in the Barents Sea as part of the preparations for the upcoming tour-of-duty in the Gulf of Aden.

“It will be the first anti-piracy mission for the Vice Admiral Kulakov destroyer,” Serga said.

The new task force will replace the Russian Pacific Fleet’s task force headed by the Admiral Tributs destroyer, which completed its anti-piracy mission off the Somali coast on Monday and set sail for its home base in Vladivostok.

The Admiral Tributs, the Pechenega tanker and a rescue tugboat arrived in the Gulf of Aden on January 12 and escorted five convoys of commercial ships since then.

Task forces from the Russian Navy, usually led by Udaloy class destroyers, operate in the area on a rotating basis.

Russian warships have successfully escorted more than 130 commercial vessels from various countries through pirate-infested waters off the Somali coast since 2008, when Russia joined the international anti-piracy mission in the region.

DoD Adds $17B to Total Cost Estimate for F-35

Mar. 29, 2012 - 08:42PM |
By MARCUS WEISGERBER


The U.S. Defense Department projects a nearly $17 billion increase in the total cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program from prior estimates, according to a new Pentagon report.

DoD now says the entire program will cost $396 billion, according to Pentagon’s selected acquisition report, which was sent to Congress on March 29. Defense News obtained a copy of the document.

The price tag, which includes procurement and development costs, uses “then-year” dollar estimates, which accounts for inflation over the life of the program.

DoD still plans to buy 2,443 of the Lockheed Martin-built aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. Production of U.S. jets is expected to go until the late 2030s.

Slowing down procurement of the F-35 in the near term, as laid out in DoD’s 2013 budget request, will add nearly $6.2 billion in procurement and development costs. DoD removed 179 F-35s from planned purchases between 2013 and 2017.

DoD officials have said that slowdown is necessary to finish development, thus avoiding even greater costs of having to modify production jets to meet the final configuration.

The overall sustainment cost for the program is estimated at $1.1 trillion, according to the document. The Pentagon is conducting a two-year “should cost” assessment of operation and sustainment costs that will continue in 2012.

DoD now plans to fully ramp up production of Marine Corps and Navy versions at a pace of 50 jets per year in 2018, according to the document. Last year’s report projected 50-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.
Air Force production is expected to hit 60 jets in 2018 and peak at 80 jets in 2021. Last year’s report projected 80-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.

China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities

By USGovernment on Friday, March 30th, 2012

The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, has emerged as a key issue in U.S. defense planning. The question is of particular importance to the U.S. Navy, because many U.S. military programs for countering improved Chinese military forces would fall within the Navy’s budget.

Two DOD strategy and budget documents released in January 2012 state that U.S. military strategy will place a renewed increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, and that as a result, there will be a renewed emphasis on air and naval forces in DOD plans. Administration officials have stated that notwithstanding reductions in planned levels of U.S. defense spending, the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region will be maintained and strengthened.

Decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military capabilities could affect the likelihood or possible outcome of a potential U.S.-Chinese military conflict in the Pacific over Taiwan or some other issue. Some observers consider such a conflict to be very unlikely, in part because of significant U.S.-Chinese economic linkages and the tremendous damage that such a conflict could cause on both sides.

In the absence of such a conflict, however, the U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific could nevertheless influence day-to-day choices made by other Pacific countries, including choices on whether to align their policies more closely with China or the United States.

In this sense, decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military forces could influence the political evolution of the Pacific, which in turn could affect the ability of the United States to pursue goals relating to various policy issues, both in the Pacific and elsewhere.

China’s naval modernization effort, which began in the 1990s, encompasses a broad array of weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), submarines, and surface ships. China’s naval modernization effort also includes reforms and improvements in maintenance and logistics, naval doctrine, personnel quality, education, training, and exercises.

Observers believe that the near-term focus of China’s military modernization effort has been to develop military options for addressing the situation with Taiwan. Consistent with this goal, observers believe that China wants its military to be capable of acting as a so-called anti-access force—a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict involving Taiwan, or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. naval and air forces.

Observers believe that China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is increasingly oriented toward pursuing additional goals, such as asserting or defending China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea; enforcing China’s view—a minority but growing view among world nations—that it has the right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ); protecting China’s sea lines of communications; protecting and evacuating Chinese nationals in foreign countries; displacing U.S. influence in the Pacific; and asserting China’s status as a major world power.

Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following: whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime anti-access forces while also adequately performing other missions of interest to U.S. policymakers around the world; the Navy’s ability to counter Chinese ASBMs and submarines; and whether the Navy, in response to China’s maritime anti-access capabilities, should shift over time to a more distributed fleet architecture.

Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

By DefenceTalk on Friday, March 30th, 2012


Several published reports indicate that top Israeli decision-makers now are seriously considering whether to order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and if so, when. Twice in Israel’s history, it has conducted air strikes aimed at halting or delaying what Israeli policymakers believed to be efforts to acquire nuclear weapons by a Middle Eastern state—destroying Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and a facility the Israelis identified as a reactor under construction in Syria in 2007.

Today, Israeli officials generally view the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as an unacceptable threat to Israeli security—with some viewing it as an existential threat.

This report analyzes key factors that may influence current Israeli political decisions relating to a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. These include, but are not limited to, the views of and relationships among Israeli leaders; the views of the Israeli public; U.S., regional, and international stances and responses as perceived and anticipated by Israel; Israeli estimates of the potential effectiveness and risks of a possible strike; and responses Israeli leaders anticipate from Iran and Iranian-allied actors—including Hezbollah and Hamas—regionally and internationally.

For Congress, the potential impact—short- and long-term—of an Israeli decision regarding Iran and its implementation is a critical issue of concern. By all accounts, such an attack could have considerable regional and global security, political, and economic repercussions, not least for the United States, Israel, and their bilateral relationship. It is unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be on the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The current Israeli government, President Barack Obama, and many Members of Congress have shared concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. They appear to have a range of views on how best to address those shared concerns. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful, civilian energy purposes, and U.S. intelligence assessments say that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. However, Iran continues to enrich uranium in militarily hardened sites and questions remain about its nuclear weapons capabilities and intentions.

Short- and long-term questions for Members of Congress to consider regarding a possible Israeli decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities militarily might include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • How might an Israeli strike affect options and debate regarding short-term and long-term U.S. relations and security cooperation with, and foreign assistance to, Israel and other regional countries?
  • Would an Israeli strike be considered self-defense? Why or why not? What would be the legal and policy implications either way?
  • How might a strike affect the implementation of existing sanctions legislation on Iran or options and debate over new legislation on the subject?
  • How might Congress consult with the Obama Administration on and provide oversight with respect to various political and military options?

This report has many aspects that are the subject of vigorous debate and remain fully or partially outside public knowledge. CRS does not claim to independently confirm any sources cited within this report that attribute specific positions or views to various U.S. and Israeli officials.

Fleet Size Hovers Around 300 Ships in New U.S. Navy Plan

Mar. 28, 2012 - 07:15PM |
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

The U.S. Navy’s new 30-year shipbuilding plan for 2013 shows few unexpected changes, projecting a slightly smaller average fleet size and slightly reduced shipbuilding rate.

The plan, sent this week to Congress, projects an average fleet size through 2042 of 298 ships, a drop of seven ships from last year’s 306-ship standard. The force is projected to rise from today’s 282-ship level to 300 ships by 2019.

Ten fewer ships are scheduled to be bought over the three-decade time span, reducing last year’s 276-ship 30-year total to 268, a drop from 9.2 ships per year to 8.9.

Many of the force reductions already have been announced, particularly new orders to decommission seven Aegis cruisers more than a decade before previously scheduled, a slowing in the rate of ballistic missile defense destroyer conversions and cancellation of plans to buy more than 10 small and cheap Joint High Speed Vessels. The amphibious fleet also is being reduced by one ship.

Other changes already announced were shifts in the aircraft carrier and littoral combat ship construction rates, and a decision to push back new ballistic missile submarine construction by two years.

The new plan covers the years 2013 to 2042, while last year’s documents covered 2012 to 2041.

The 30-year plan is broken roughly into three major sections. Near term reflects the coming decade, defined by the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) of 2013-2017 and a second FYDP from 2018 to 2022.

The mid-term planning period covers 2023 to 2032, while far-term planning begins in 2033.

For the near term, the service projects an annual shipbuilding budget of $15.1 billion in 2012 constant dollars, a baseline used throughout the plan.

The rate of spending rises to $19.5 billion a year in the mid-term, due largely to the SSBN(X) Ohio Replacement Program, the effort to replace existing Trident ballistic missile submarines.

Average yearly expenditures fall to $15.9 billion per year for the far-term period.

Over the entire 30-year plan, the annual ship construction budget is projected at $16.8 billion per year, including Navy and National Defense Sealift Fund ships.

For the most part, the annual shipbuilding rate drops across the plan, but a number of ships are simply delayed, or shifted to the right, rather than eliminated. Construction rates tend to pick up in the 2020s, then again fall below last year’s projections in the 2030s.

Destroyer construction shows a jump, and from 2023 on out two or three ships a year are procured. Last year’s plan showed one or two ships a year, with three ships only in 2036.

Construction of attack submarines jumps to three in 2020, falling to one per year in 2026, whereas last year the plan showed one per year for every year beginning in 2023.

Force level projections reflect the Navy’s decision to stretch the build time of new aircraft carriers from five to seven years, avoiding situations where the force, set by law at 11 ships, would temporarily rise to 12 flattops. Now, the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), funded in 2013, will be delivered in 2022 rather than 2020, and the yet-to-be-named CVN 80, funded in 2018, will deliver in 2027.

Overall, the carrier force drops to 10 ships beginning in 2040, where last year’s plan showed 11 into that decade.

The attack submarine force, projected last year to reach a low of 39 boats in 2030, now bottoms out at 43 subs in 2028. The level begins to rise again in 2032 and reaches 50 hulls in 2037. Last year’s plan projected only 45 submarines in service for most of the late 2030s.

The number of SSBN ballistic missile submarines drops from 14 boats to 13 boats in 2027. But whereas last year’s plan never fell below 12 ships for any given year, the new plan shows a force of 11 ships in 2029 and 10 in 2032, holding there until the number starts to rise in the early 2040s.

The plan for SSGN guided-missile submarines remains the same. Two ships are decommissioned in 2026, and the last two are gone by 2028. The Navy plans to replace the ships with a stretched version of SSN 774 Virginia-class attack submarines.

The number of large surface combatants — cruisers and destroyers — drops in the near term but surpasses earlier projections starting in the late 2020s. The force drops in 2014 to 78 ships, down from last year’s 85. The revised numbers remain from two to 10 ships below the old numbers until 2027, when the new plan begins to show more ships in service than under the old plan. The growth in the number of destroyers in service is sustained through the remainder of the plan, with an increase of as many as 11 ships a year.

The small surface combatant category, including littoral combat ships (LCS), frigates and minesweepers, now shows an all-LCS force in 2029, six years sooner than previously forecast.

The annual amphibious ship force level is one or two ships below last year’s, returning to parity in the 2030s.

The plan provides few, if any, new details on construction plans in the current FYDP, as those are included in the Navy’s 2013 budget request submitted in February.

But the second FYDP, for the years 2018 to 2022, includes the most ambitious, complex and expensive new start of the plan, the SSBN(X) submarine. The Navy plans for 12 new ships to replace 14 existing submarines, with detail design to begin in 2017 and the lead ship to be funded in 2021 — a change already announced and two years later than last year’s schedule. The price tag for the first SSBNX is projected at $11.7 billion, including $4.5 billion in non-recurring engineering costs and $7.2 billion for the ship’s construction.

The second FYDP also will feature the start of the LSD(X) dock landing ship replacement program. The new ships will be delivered sooner than when the older LSDs are to be retired, a move the Navy says is “ahead of need,” but necessary to preserve the shipbuilding industrial base and reduce the risk associated with the decision to operate an amphibious force of only 32 ships, rather than the 38-ship force the Marines say they need.

At the lower end of the scale, the first two of five planned T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship replacements and the first two of four planned T-ARS(X) salvage ship replacements also are to be purchased in the second FYDP.

Other details listed in the new plan include:

Up to 33 Flight III DDG-51-class destroyers will be bought featuring the new Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), a replacement for the Aegis system’s SPY-1 series of phased-array sensors. Twenty of the ships will come in during the mid-term planning period, the last in 2030. Procurement of an “affordable follow-on, multi-mission” destroyer is to begin in 2031.

• Both versions of the littoral combat ship (LCS) will continue to be purchased through 2026, completing the initial, 55-ship inventory. The first follow-on LCS(X) replacement is to be bought beginning in 2030.

• Procurement of a Virginia-class replacement submarine design, tentatively designated SSN 774(X), is aiming for a 2033 start.

• Construction of Flight I LHA(R) amphibious assault ship replacements is to continue, with one ship being built every four years starting in 2024.

• The LSD(X) dock landing ship replacement program remains at a total of 10 ships, the last coming in 2032.

• Plans remain to build two replacement submarine tenders, with one each in 2023 and 2025.

• The two long-serving LCC command ships, in service since 1970 and 1971, will be replaced with new construction starting in 2032.

India Will Not Raise Foreign Investment Limit: Antony

Mar. 29, 2012 - 11:11AM |
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI


NEW DELHI — India will maintain a 26 percent limit on foreign direct investment (FDI) in local defense companies, Defence Minister A.K. Antony said at Defexpo 2012 here March 29.

A senior executive of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industries, the lobbying agency for Indian industry that has been pushing for an increase in the FDI limit to more than 49 percent, said they were hoping Antony would propose raising the limit in his Defexpo speech.

Earlier, Antony opened Defexpo 2012, showcasing systems from the land, naval and security sectors. More than 335 Indian exhibitors and 232 foreign companies, mainly from France, Germany, Israel, Russia, the U.K. and U.S., and 58 official delegations will participate in the four-day show, which has been held biannually since 1998.

“Our quest for self-reliance in defense underlines the growing importance of private sector participation on the one hand and revitalizing the public sector on the other,” Antony said in his inaugural speech. “Our emphasis is on public-private sector partnership in the defense industry. Enabling policy framework has been put in place to develop indigenous capabilities through harnessing the potential and utilizing resources available, both in the public and the private sector.”

India continues to import nearly 70 percent of its weapons as the domestic production base has not taken off the way defense planners had hoped.

“The introduction of the ‘Buy and Make [Indian]’ category in defense procurement procedures is aimed at encouraging proactive participation of the Indian industry by way of forming joint ventures with any foreign manufacturer,” Antony said.

Defexpo 2012 opens against the backdrop of a major controversy involving the Indian Army chief, Gen. V.K. Singh, who has alleged that he was offered a bribe to clear the purchase of substandard trucks. At the heart of the controversy is Tatra Vectra Motors, a U.K.-based company that has supplied Tatra trucks to the Indian Army since 1986 through state-owned Bharat Earth Movers. The controversy has rocked the Indian parliament, which is in session.

Defense procurement in India has been fraught with charges of misdeeds, said Nitin Mehta, a defense analyst here. In the last 10 years, a number of defense programs were canceled and rebid because of allegations of corruption leveled against the competing companies. Singapore Technologies, Israel Military Industries and Rheinmetall Air Defence were banned earlier this month from doing business in India for a decade following charges of corruption.

Regarding transparency in procurement, Antony said, “If we find anything wrong, we will not hesitate to cancel the contract at any stage. There will be zero tolerance to corruption. We have canceled many major contracts following corruption charges. We have very strong safeguards on integrity. For any contract beyond $20 million, integrity is a must. In the integrity pact, the strongest action will be taken against anybody found to be involved in malpractice. We will protect our interests and money.”

Critics claim that the transparency Antony emphasizes has delayed procurement. The Indian Army has not bought a single Howitzer gun since 1987 because of delays in defense production

Huntington Ingalls Industries

Defence industry daily
MAR 29, 2012
Huntington Ingalls Industries reported revenue down 2.2% to $6.58B in 2011, and $5.6B of new contract awards. Total backlog at the end of December 2011 was $16.3B.




Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) designs, builds and maintains nuclear and non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard and provides after-market services for military ships around the globe. For more than a century, HII has built more ships in more ship classes than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. Employing nearly 38,000 in Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana and California, its primary business divisions are Newport News Shipbuilding and Ingalls Shipbuilding. For more information, please visit www.huntingtoningalls.com.

UPDATE 1-Hawker Beechcraft readies bankruptcy filing – sources

Wed Mar 28, 2012

By Soyoung Kim and Andrea Shalal-Esa

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/hawkerbeechcraft-idUSL2E8ESXII20120328



NEW YORK/WASHINGTON D.C., March 28 (Reuters) - Hawker Beechcraft Inc, the aircraft manufacturer owned by Goldman Sachs Group Inc's private equity arm and Onex Corp, is preparing to file for bankruptcy protection, according to people familiar with the matter.

Hawker, which was bought in 2007 for $3.3 billion by the private equity firms, is negotiating a prearranged bankruptcy with its largest lenders, which include Centerbridge Partners, Angelo Gordon and Capital Research & Management, the sources said.

Centerbridge, a New York-based investment firm focused on leveraged buyouts and distressed investments, is the biggest lender, the sources said.

Hawker and Onex declined to comment. Goldman Sachs and the lenders were not immediately available for comment.

These lenders would also likely provide debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing to allow Hawker to continue to operate in bankruptcy, the sources said. One of the sources said the DIP financing is currently expected to be less than $500 million, but cautioned the number has not been finalized and could change.

Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, the bank's private equity fund, and Canada's largest buyout firm, Onex, bought Raytheon Aircraft Co from Raytheon Co in early 2007, at the height of the buyout boom, and renamed it Hawker Beechcraft.

Hawker said on Tuesday it reached a deal with lenders that will provide a $120 million loan and defer the company's obligations to make certain interest payments.

This forbearance agreement, scheduled to expire at the end of June, would provide Hawker with more time to finalize the details of a pre-arranged bankruptcy with the main lenders, the sources said.

The company, which has been seeking to restructure debt as a soft economy and competition hurt demand for its business aircraft, hired turnaround specialist Steve Miller as chief executive officer earlier this year.

Perella Weinberg Partners and law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP are the financial and legal advisers for Hawker.

Hawker Beechcraft's small and mid-sized business jets compete against models from rivals such as General Dynamics Corp's Gulfstream and Textron Inc's Cessna.

The Future of Irregular Warfare 2


The RAND Corporation

The Future of Irregular Warfare 2
Before the Committee on Armed Services
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
United States House of Representatives

March 27, 2012

Over the past decade, the United States has faced considerable irregular warfare challenges. Take Afghanistan. By early 2012, there were approximately 432,000 counterinsurgency forces in Afghanistan – approximately 90,000 U.S. soldiers, 30,000 NATO soldiers, 300,000 Afghan National Security Forces, and 12,000 Afghan Local Police.3 In addition, the United States spent over $100 billion per year and deployed a range of sophisticated platforms and systems.

The Taliban, on the other hand, deployed between 20,000 and 40,000 forces (a ratio of nearly 11 to 1 in favor of counterinsurgents) and had revenues of $100-$200 million per year (a ratio of 500 to 1 in favor of counterinsurgents). In addition, Afghan insurgent groups focused on a range of asymmetric strategies and tactics, from tribal engagement to the use of improvised explosive devices and the Internet. Yet the Taliban’s ability to utilize limited resources and sustain a prolonged insurgency highlight some of America’s irregular warfare challenges.