The Insider

By John Liang
March 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates just announced his recommendations to nominate three senior military officers to their next posts:

Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan, Gates' senior military assistant, has been recommended to become the deputy chief of U.S. Southern Command, the secretary said during a Pentagon briefing this afternoon.

Navy Vice Adm. William McRaven, the head of Joint Special Operations Command, has been recommended for nomination to become chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, according to Gates.

Thirdly, the secretary has recommended the president nominate Army Gen. James Thurman, who heads the service's Forces Command, to become chief of U.S. Forces Korea.

By John Liang
March 1, 2011 at 6:39 PM

The Army is asking the defense industry to provide ideas on the potential development of a datalink for small unmanned aerial systems, according to a notice published today on Federal Business Opportunities.

"This solicitation is issued for the purpose of obtaining information to serve as a market survey to aid in research associated with the potential development of a Small Digital Data Link (SDDL) for small unmanned aerial systems and munitions," the Army's request for information reads.

"The Government does not presently intend to award a contract, but desires information on risk, capability, price, innovative research and development methodology and other information in planning the development of a[n] SDDL," the notice states. The Army Research, Development and Engineering Command's Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center at Redstone Arsenal, AL, posted the request.

The service is seeking information from industry "to serve as a market survey to aid in research associated with the development of a[n] SDDL designed to provide a secure data link for control and sensor data for small unmanned aerial systems and munitions over the operating temperatures ranges from -40 degrees Fahrenheit to +140 degrees Fahrenheit and withstand storage from -40 degrees Fahrenheit to +140 degrees Fahrenheit. High humidity shall not degrade operations."

Consequently, "the Government expects to receive technical data describing the proposed concept and innovative methodology information to assist in the following: (1) Determine the ability of current and near term emerging technology to support an SDDL, (2) Identify feasible alternatives that meet the objectives stated below, (3) Determine the approximate research and development cost and schedule, and end-item cost information for each alternative, and (4) Determine the estimated performance characteristics and risks associated with each alternative," the notice states, adding: "Interested and capable sources are asked to submit a white paper containing a description of the above areas of interest. Information on available, emerging, or required technologies and how these technologies could be applied to this project should also be included."

The Army wants interested contractors to submit a white paper "containing a description of the above areas of interest," according to the notice. "Submissions should focus on information concerning available, emerging, or required SDDL technologies, circuit miniaturization technology and information assurance technologies for which proof-of-concept has been demonstrated at least at the subsystem/component level, and for which an implementation roadmap for a form-factored system solution has been identified and is clearly communicated.

"The white paper responses shall be written from a system solution perspective showing how the technologies identified above would be integrated into an SDDL materiel solution, tested, and qualified for military application in a typical military operating environment," the notice continues. Furthermore:

Interested and capable sources may respond to one or all of the following technical areas.

1. Complete SDDL system solution including all technical aspects.

2. Circuit miniaturization. - Respond with technologies for reducing size and weight of the device.

3. Information Assurance (IA) - Respond only with algorithms, methods and device solutions for implementing cryptographic requirements.

Technical objectives: This section enumerates the high-level functional capabilities for SDDL. The contemplated SDDL would provide the ground combatant Soldier a NLOS day/night all weather capable secure data link for control and sensor data for small unmanned aerial systems and munitions. SDDL provide secure uplink and downlink real time full motion downlink video between the GCS and munitions by means of digital data link.

SDDL will provide at least two frequency bands that will be used to transmit and receive data from a ground control station. Transmit and receive circuitry should be modular to allow for future frequency bands. Power requirements for the system must be less than 5W while transmitting. Transmit and receive range will be greater than 5KM including environmental effects.

A significant reduction in circuit size and weight beyond current fielded units shall be achieved. Advanced materials and processes may be used to achieve the desired size and weight. Total volume of all components must be less than 2 cubic inches. Total weight of SDDL shall be less than 2 oz.

The IA portion of the SDDL solution requires the link to include a method to prevent unauthorized parties from gaining control of the SDDL platform and ensures that uplink commands and downlink video in the channel is secure. The IA solution includes NSA Certified Type 1 encryption for all control and video traffic, encryption keying scheme, and node authentication system.

By Thomas Duffy
March 1, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn and Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale are testifying before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee today on the trouble the Defense Department will face if Congress approves a full-year continuing resolution or, in the worst case, completely shuts down government operations.

The current continuing resolution ends at midnight Friday.

Lynn told the subcommittee that a yearlong continuing resolution "is not a workable approach." The continuing resolution funds the government at fiscal year 2010 levels. For DOD, that would $23 billion less than the $549 billion base budget the department asked for in FY-11, he said.

The department would have to play "a shell game" by moving money around in various accounts and by paring back on training and operations, Lynn said. The Army would have to cut the three Brigade Combat Teams that coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy would cut back on flying hours and steaming days, and the Air Force would have to cut its flying hours by 10 percent.

Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) asked Lynn what would happen if the government were shut down. Lynn said the department has a plan for that possibility, noting that the most immediate problem would be how to pay both military and civilian personnel. The first payday looming would be in mid-March, he said.

Hale told the subcommittee that the department would have to pull off "a brutal reprogramming" if the government were shut down and paychecks had to be cut. "We'd have to look at acquisition programs," Hale said -- and those programs would end being cut or canceled outright.

Today marks the start of the sixth month the Pentagon has been operating under a continuing resolution. "We can hold our breath so long and we are starting to turn blue," Hale said.

By John Liang
March 1, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Senior Navy and Marine Corps officials are testifying before the House Armed Services Committee this morning on the services' fiscal year 2012 budget request. While committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) is encouraged by the capabilities the services have gained through the Pentagon's overall efficiencies initiative, "many of the efficiencies identified by your department are cost-avoidance initiatives and not clear-cut savings," he said in his opening statement, warning: "As such, they may not materialize." Specifically:

Furthermore, over the 5-year period that this budget request covers, your Department harvested over $42 billion in so-called 'efficiencies,' yet had to sacrifice approximately $16 billion of that amount, or 38 percent, back to the Treasury.  In order to generate much of this savings, you have been compelled to make significant force structure cuts -- but your requirements haven’t changed.  For example, the amphibious assault mission remains valid, but you cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

Likewise, the strike fighter inventory requirement to support the current National Defense Strategy is 10 aircraft carrier air wings containing 50 strike fighter aircraft each. We do not currently meet this requirement, but the budget request puts the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter on a two-year probation and you have shuttered an aircraft carrier air-wing.  Similarly, the budget request assumes savings as a result of a decrease in Marine Corps end-strength of 20,000 personnel -- before the Marine Corps could even complete its Force Structure Review.  Now the Marine Corps suggests it cannot live with that number and can only reduce end-strength by 15,000.  Finally, you propose to design the OHIO-class replacement ballistic submarine with fewer missile tubes than envisioned by the New START Treaty or STRATCOM.

Adding to my concern is that the current battle-force inventory is at least 25 ships below your stated 313-ship floor.  Although we have not seen the results of the Force Structure Assessment you indicated was underway last year, one can only imagine that the requirements for ships will grow as missions such as anti-piracy and sea-based missile defense expand.  'Just-in-time' replacements for legacy force structure, such as the Ford-class aircraft carrier program and the Joint Strike Fighter program, are currently behind schedule and over cost, causing even more resources to be required to sustain legacy platforms.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) had this to say:

I am encouraged to see what looks like positive efforts by the Department of the Navy to spend money more effectively. However there remain areas concern, such as the future of the Marine Corps F-35B and the decision to reduce the number of Carrier Air Wings from 10 to 9 to support an 11 carrier force. I am curious to hear the Navy leadership's thoughts on the process for how those decisions were made.

As the other services begin to draw down their deployment cycles over the next several years, the Navy will continue to operate at the same deployment cycle or at a potentially increased rate due to continued unrest in the Middles East, piracy and the 1.7 carrier requirement in the CENTCOM AOR. I would be interested to hear how the Navy plans to ensure their Navy families are not adversely affected by current or increased deployment rates, especially as budget resources continue to decline.

I understand that the current continuing resolution and the potential for a yearlong continuing resolution could seriously affect the Department of the Navy’s ability to function. I am hopeful that we will be able to pass an FY11 defense appropriations bill, but would be interested in hearing in greater detail from our witnesses today how a continuing resolution affects the Navy's ability to operate.

While the Navy provides assets and personnel to the current conflicts, the United Sates also depends on the Navy to provide worldwide force projection, rapid crisis response and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. As the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan draw down, the burden will increasingly shift to the Navy and Marine Corps to confront growing threats such as the military buildup of the Chinese, ballistic missile defense, and the disruption of maritime commerce by piracy. It is critical that during this time of constrained budgets, the Department of the Navy carefully analyzes how they plan to resource themselves in order to effectively meet their broad range of responsibilities.

By Cid Standifer
February 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Despite expectations that the request for proposals for the Ship-to-Shore Connector would be posted by the end of February, there was still no solicitation posted by the end of business on the last day of the month.

"They're working through the administrative steps to get it up," Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Chris Johnson assured Inside the Navy today.

The program has been slow to get out a solicitation, though officials have said there is nothing seriously wrong with it. In December, a post on Federal Business Opportunities said an RFP would be released in January. At the very end of January, a new FedBizOpps post pushed that deadline back into February, citing "unforeseen events."

Initial operational capability for the SSC is slated for FY-19, and the Navy plans to completely replace the LCAC by 2030.

By John Liang
February 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM

A senior German military official penned an essay for the most recent issue of the National Defense University's Prism magazine, offering lessons learned from Germany's experiences as part of the NATO force patrolling Afghanistan.

Lt. Gen. Rainer Glatz, head of Bundeswehr Operations Command based in in Potsdam, writes that an effective counterinsurgency effort "requires comprehensive measures and adherence to fundamental guidelines advancing legitimacy and unity of effort, taking into account political factors, establishing rule of law, and isolating insurgents. NATO must strengthen its intelligence capacity, promote unity of effort, and prepare for a long-term commitment."

Here's an excerpt from the essay:

From today's perspective, the international community failed to develop the necessary benchmarks for the measurement of success when debating the endstate. Currently, we are trying to make up this default by defining benchmarks to evaluate the transition process.

The international community would perhaps have enjoyed greater success in Afghanistan had it ensured sufficient integration of the whole population and a better degree of institutional coordination and unity of effort together with a clear vision of what to achieve with increased effort on security at the start of the mission. To summarize my thoughts on the strategic-level lessons learned, I would like to ask some maybe provocative questions.

With regard to the start of the mission, was it right to exclude some Afghan key players in the Petersberg process? Would it not have been better if we had integrated the Taliban at the outset instead of starting today -- nearly 10 years later -- in the attempt to foster reconciliation at the strategic and the reintegration process at the tactical level?

If we agree that success in Afghanistan cannot rely on the use of military means only, then we have to ask: Was the Comprehensive Approach -- unity of effort -- really established in the early stages of the ISAF mission?

Talking about the availability of intelligence at the strategic level, we can see that there is a large amount of information available. Nevertheless, we failed to develop efficient mechanisms to exchange this information among the different organizations dealing with the Afghanistan challenge.

And finally, regarding the ongoing discussion about transition in Afghanistan, I would suggest that it is crucial to develop an endstate and benchmarks as soon as possible before proceeding to timelines for withdrawal.

By John Liang
February 28, 2011 at 4:24 PM

The Pentagon has tweaked the way it does critical design reviews for weapon system acquisition programs. According to a Feb. 24 memo from Frank Kendall, the principal deputy under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics:

Consistent with the Department of Defense's (DoD) intent to obtain greater efficiency and productivity in defense acquisition, I am eliminating the Program Manager's (PM) reporting responsibility for the Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Report currently required by DoD Instruction 5000.02, Enclosure 2, para 6.c.(6)(c)(l). The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Engineering) (DASD(SE)) will participate in program CDRs and prepare a brief assessment of the program's design maturity and technical risks which may require Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) attention. Consequently, PMs of Major Defense Acquisition Programs shall be required to invite DASD(SE) engineers to their system-level CDRs and make available CDR artifacts. The draft CDR assessments will be coordinated with the PM prior to forwarding to the MDA. PMs shall continue to document CDRs in accordance with component best practices.

This procedural change is effective immediately and constitutes expected business practice. It will be documented in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook and institutionalized in the next update to DoDI 5000.02. I encourage Component MDAs to consider similar assignment of CDR reporting responsibilities for acquisition programs under their cognizance.

By John Liang
February 25, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point's Corps of Cadets today. One of the points he touched on in his speech was retaining qualified officers after their tours of duty are over. Some excerpts:

There have been a variety of suggestions and ideas put on the table in various venues and publications to give officers – after their initial platoon, company or battalion-level tours – greater voice in their assignments and flexibility to develop themselves personally and professionally in a way that enhances their career and promotion prospects.  For example, instead of being assigned to new positions every two or three years, officers would be able to apply for job openings in a competitive system more akin to what happens in large organizations in the private sector.  The former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Barno, class of '76, has written that, "in a smaller professional force competing for talent with the Googles of the world," reforming this system is a "must do" for the Army to keep its best and brightest leaders.

Having said that, when all is said and done, this is the United States Army.  It’s not Apple.  It’s not General Electric. And it’s not the Red Cross.  Taking that oath and accepting that commission means doing what you are told and going where you are needed.  And as practical matter, one cannot manage tens of thousands of officers based on “What color is your parachute?”  But just as the Army has reset and reformed itself when it comes to doctrine, equipment, and training, it must use the eventual slackening of overseas deployments as an opportunity to attack the institutional and bureaucratic constipation of Big Army, and re-think the way it deals with the outstanding young leaders in its lower- and middle-ranks.

. . . And on top of the repeat deployments, there is the garrison mindset and personnel bureaucracy that awaits them back home – often cited as primary factors causing promising officers to leave the Army just as they are best positioned to have a positive impact on the institution.

Consider that, in theater, junior leaders are given extraordinary opportunities to be innovative, take risks, and be responsible and recognized for the consequences.  The opposite is too often true in the rear-echelon headquarters and stateside bureaucracies in which so many of our mid-level officers are warehoused.  Men and women in the prime of their professional lives, who may have been responsible for the lives of scores or hundreds of troops, or millions of dollars in assistance, or engaging in reconciling warring tribes, they may find themselves in a cube all day re-formatting power point slides, preparing quarterly training briefs, or assigned an ever expanding array of clerical duties.  The consequences of this terrify me.

By John Liang
February 25, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Here's a brief analysis of yesterday's multibillion-dollar KC-X tanker contract award to Boeing written by the folks at Credit Suisse:

We See 3 Possible Outcomes: 1) The competition stands as is with Boeing as the winner; 2) EADS protests the win (has 10 calendar days to protest which could trigger the U.S. government to issue a stop-work order while GAO evaluates the award, or EADS can request an orderly debriefing after which it has 5 calendar days to protest); or 3) An adjustment is made and there is a dual-award to both Boeing and EADS which could eventually be facilitated by awarding a future contract for eventual replacement of the Air Force’s other (larger) tanker variant, the KC-10, to Airbus.

Expect Minimal Profitability…at Least Initially: We believe BA and EADS submitted very aggressive pricing proposals as DoD noted both proposed a/c were capable of winning the competition. As such, we do not expect particularly high profitability from the initial award for 18 a/c. We also note DoD committed to a fixed-price contract structure that would provide the USAF with a capable a/c at the most competitive price. Therefore, we see limited room for error and/or cost overruns early in the process. If the development program goes on to replace the full tanker fleet (179 a/c valued at >$30B), we see it as incrementally profitable for BA in the long term.

DoD Evaluated “Price, Lifecycle Costs, & Warfighter Capabilities”: DoD’s source selection process determined if the proposals demonstrated the ability to deliver on 372 mandatory requirements, and both offers were considered awardable. It took into account fleet mission effectiveness, price, lifecycle costs, warfighter capabilities, fuel efficiency, and military construction costs.

By John Liang
February 24, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Here's a statement from Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA):

Today's long-awaited decision by the Pentagon is the right one for our military, our taxpayers and our nation’s aerospace workers.

At a time when our economy is hurting and good-paying aerospace jobs are critical to our recovery, this decision is great news for the skilled workers of Everett and the thousands of suppliers across the country who will help build this critical tanker for our Air Force.

This decision is a major victory for the American workers, the American aerospace industry and America’s military. And it is consistent with the President's own call to 'out-innovate' and 'out-build' the rest of the world.

Even when competing against an illegally subsidized foreign competitor, Boeing's skilled workforce proved that they have the know-how and the product that can best serve our military.  And it is finally time to get this Boeing tanker into the hands of our men and women in uniform.

It has been a long and hard-fought competition, but I have been proud to stand side-by-side with our state's aerospace workers and I look forward to being there when the first new tanker rolls off the line.

Boeing's proposal calls for building its tanker in Washington and conducting air refueling modifications in Wichita, KS.

By John Liang
February 24, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Here is EADS North America's statement on the tanker contract:

EADS North America officials today expressed disappointment and concern over the announcement by the U.S. Air Force that it had selected a high-risk, concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45 for the nation’s next aerial refueling tanker.

“This is certainly a disappointing turn of events, and we look forward to discussing with the Air Force how it arrived at this conclusion,” said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. “For seven years our goal has been to provide the greatest capability to our men and women in uniform, and to create American jobs by building the KC-45 here in the U.S. We remain committed to those objectives.”

If selected, EADS North America had committed to build the KC-45 at a new production facility in Mobile, Alabama, with a U.S. supplier base of nearly a thousand American companies.

“With a program of such complexity, our review of today’s decision will take some time,” Crosby said. “There are more than 48,000 Americans who are eager to build the KC-45 here in the U.S., and we owe it to them to conduct a thorough analysis.”

“Though we had hoped for a different outcome, it’s important to remember that this is one business opportunity among many for EADS in the United States,” said Sean O’Keefe, CEO of EADS North America. “We have exceptional technology and highly capable platforms that will be invaluable to U.S. military forces, now and in the future. We have learned much through this process, developed a world-class organization in the U.S. and have earned the respect of the Department of Defense. Our commitment to our U.S. customers is stronger than ever.”

By
February 24, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Just issued by the top lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee and seapower and projection forces subcommittee:

Today’s announcement moves us closer to providing the world's premier aerial fighting forces with a new and much-needed aerial refueling capability. Our primary goal on the Armed Services Committee is to provide our military’s men and women with the resources they need in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Moving forward, the committee will continue the necessary oversight to ensure the evaluation was transparent and fair to each competitor. We look forward to receiving more information from the Air Force as we review their decision-making processes. The Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee will hold a hearing on this issue as soon as enough information is publicly available.

By
February 24, 2011 at 10:09 PM

The official announcement:

The Boeing Co. of Seattle, Washington, was awarded a fixed price incentive firm contract valued at over $3.5 billion for the KC-X Engineering and Manufacturing Development which will deliver 18 aircraft by 2017. Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC/WKK), Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8625-11-C600).

UPDATE:

Donley: All offerors were aware from the start how competition would be conducted. Source-selection team was massive and qualified. Multiple internal reviews throughout the process.

Carefully developed a comprehensive record of their work.

Both offererors acquitted themselves well.

DOD to share what it can about source selection, but: "Today's statement will be the extent" of what DOD will say about decision.

Both offerors deemed to have met mandatory requirements "and were considered awardable."

Difference in prices was greater than one percent.

Aircraft to be named the KC-XA.

No comments until briefing to offerors.

Timing of today's announcement "simply event-driven."

Basing: Decisions made in separate process. That process will take place over next couple of years.

UPDATE II:

Lynn: "Boeing was a clear winner."

Does not believe decision will yield grounds for protest, though that is EADS' right.

 

By Christopher J. Castelli
February 24, 2011 at 5:47 PM

It’s official: Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz will announce the KC-X tanker contract award today at 5:10 p.m., in the Pentagon Briefing Room, according to a noticed issued today by the Defense Department. Boeing and EADS North America are vying for the lucrative contract.

Watch live at the Pentagon Channel.

Carter repeatedly declined to discuss the tanker competition Tuesday night when asked about it following a speech in Washington.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) told KWCH 12 Eyewitness News that he and other Kansas lawmakers have a tanker-related conference call scheduled with the Pentagon today at 3:50 p.m. CST, shortly before the DOD press conference.

By Tony Bertuca
February 24, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Ft. Lauderdale, FL -- In one of his first public speaking engagements since being nominated to become the Army's next chief of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey said today that he feels "daunted" given the challenges he will face if confirmed for the job.

"Nothing they ask me in confirmation is going to make me feel any more about the burden I'm being asked to carry," he said in a speech here at an Association of the U.S. Army conference. "By the way, I'm absolutely honored to be asked to carry that burden. But you know how hard it's going to be to get this right going forward. There are challenges facing the country."

Should Dempsey, currently the chief of Training and Doctrine command, be confirmed by the Senate, he will be stepping to the helm of an Army dealing with an ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, a changing role in Iraq, tightening budgets at home and an acquisition process leaders say badly needs reform.

Dempsey said a recipe for success was in knowing that assumptions are usually wrong and he emphasized putting mechanisms in place to adapt to change and develop strong leaders.

"It's never exactly right," he said. "We don't ever get the future right in general, and try as we may, we're not going to get the organization, the equipment and the guidance right. Who pulls that together? It's the leaders we develop."

Creating true adaptability means becoming faster, flatter, more collaborative and resource-sensitive, he said. "Throughout the next four [program objective memorandum] submissions, we will build the Army that will be employed in 2020," he said. "We're building it in full knowledge that that Army will not be the Army we need in 2030. That means adaptation must be our institutional imperative.

"We have to revise our concepts every two years," he added. "It means we should expect significant organization redesign every five years. It means incremental modernization with five-to-seven-year procurement objectives synchronized to [Army Force Generation]. It means revisiting of doctrine and training methodologies and leader development programs every one to two years."

Dempsey, who is awaiting confirmation, did not delve into specifics but was upbeat about the future. "I think Henry Ford was right -- if you think you can, you can; if you think you can't, you probably can't," he said. "I think we can."