The Insider

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has plenty of advice for the Army when it comes to the restructured Future Combat Systems program.

In a recent report, CSBA president Andrew Krepinevich and research fellow Evan Braden Montgomery called on the Army to develop a modernization strategy that would "avoid repeating the mistakes of the past."

And today, in a new report, Montgomery warns the service against rushing ahead on the ground combat vehicle effort only to prepare platforms that are outdated by the time they are built.

Montgomery predicts the new GCVs "will almost certainly be larger, more heavily armored, and have V-shaped hulls for better protection against improvised explosive devices."

However, he says "sunk costs and time constraints" might keep the Army from coming up with designs that significantly improve on the previous MGV plans.

He particularly stresses the need to ensure a strong link between the new vehicles and the network. To address this challenge, Montgomery recommends the Army "prioritize developing and testing the components of the network and making sure they work together before any new vehicle designs are completed and production begins."

Yet, he warns that the Army's time line of five to seven years for production poses challenges.

According to the backgrounder, "rushing to judgment on a new generation of ground vehicles makes little sense, because it sharply increases the risk that the Army will not adequately resolve the many problems which led to the FCS program's cancellation."

Montgomery argues the Army may be racing ahead for budgetary reasons -- to ensure it can hold onto its funding -- more than strategic ones.

"Because its advantage in conventional warfare is likely to persist for some time, the Army should prioritize developing a modernization plan correctly rather than quickly," he concludes. "At the same time, ((Defense)) Secretary ((Robert)) Gates should maintain his pledge that funding previously earmarked for the FCS program's manned ground vehicles over the next several years will be reserved for the Army's new vehicle modernization program, while also providing the Army with additional time to develop and refine that program -- especially if the results of its soon-to-be-concluded assessment fall short of expectations."

The Defense Department has gone viral.

The Joint Staff released a YouTube video today, calling for questions to be submitted via video to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. According to a Pentagon statement:

The chairman intends to use social media to expand the two-way conversation with service members and the public. Mullen expects this conversation to be interactive, similar to the all-hands meetings he conducts in person at bases all over the world.

Those with questions for the Chairman are encouraged to submit videos by visiting http://www.youtube.com/dodvclips. The deadline for video submission is midnight EDT, Aug. 31, 2009. The chairman will answer selected video questions after Sept.1, 2009, through a video podcast posted on YouTube and an interview which will air on the Pentagon Channel.

White House officials yesterday kicked off the annual data collection effort mandated under Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.

While the reporting requirements for federal agencies haven't changed much, the mechanisms of submitting data are new this year, according to a memo from U.S. Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra and Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Jeffrey Zients.

"This year, rather than using spreadsheets, the annual FISMA report data collection will occur via an automated reporting tool," they wrote.

In addition to reporting on the status of their information security programs, agencies must also submit updated plans for eliminating "unneccessary use" of social security numbers and reducing the "holdings" of personally identifiable information, the memo states.

Looking for the data about the factions involved in the Angolan civil war of 1975 to 1988? The Center for Army Analysis can probably help out. As we learned recently, the organization has built a database with detailed descriptions of 100-some irregular conflicts since World War II, designed to help defense officials understand the nature of this type of warfare.

Researchers, using data from open sources, have grouped the information about these wars in nine categories: Basic country data, conflict characteristics, force fighting patterns, force availability and force peaks, annualized data, conflict outcomes, incident and casualty totals, narratives and chronology, and list of factions.

Of course, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Israel-Hezbollah conflict of 2006, are included in the database.

"The U.S. forces were strong enough to rout the Iraqi army but could not occupy all of the territory they had liberated," reads the narrative of the Iraq war. "Armed groups quickly formed and attacked the occupiers. The U.S. leadership wrote off the early insurgents as 'dead-enders,'" it adds.

The text credits the George W. Bush administration's 2007 troop "surge" with helping to reduce violence. It also acknowledges that “aggressive negotiations" with tribal leaders and local factions helped pacify Sunni areas.

As of May 2008, when the last change was apparently made to the Iraq war data records, the conflict's outcome is listed with “No definitive winner.”

(The same applies to the Afghanistan war.)

The database identifies Hezbollah the "binary winner" of the 2006 Lebanon War, although whoever made the entry acknowledges this assumption as "arguable."

"Unlike the negotiated end of the previous major Israeli incursion in Lebanon, which resulted in Fatah evacuating Lebanon, Hezbollah is still intact and operational in Lebanon, holds seats in the Lebanese legislature and is still a viable threat to Israel. Further, Hezbollah was able to put up a credible defense against the Israeli attack and were never really threatened with destruction, as was Fatah, so achieved something of a propaganda victory as well, the Hezbollah 'David' versus the Israeli 'Goliath'. On the other hand, Israel agreed to withdraw without achieving its end."

International opinion played a big role in the conflict, according to the narrative in the database.

"The large number of civilian casualties (30% children), the use of cluster bombs and the targeting of the civilian infrastructure quickly drew international condemnation against Israel," it reads. "Although some Hezbollah attacks resulted in civilian casualties, the percent of civilian deaths caused by Hezbollah was much lower than Israel’s, drawing less criticism from abroad."

The Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser program this week fired the megawatt-class, Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) in flight for the first time, except for one little detail: The laser beam never left the Boeing 747.

That was on purpose, as lead contractor Boeing said in a statement:

During the test, the modified Boeing 747-400F aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base and fired its high-energy laser while flying over the California High Desert. The laser was fired into an onboard calorimeter, which captured the beam and measured its power.

"This was a significant test of the Airborne Laser's capabilities, demonstrating that the system has truly moved from the drawing board to reality," said Greg Hyslop, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. "We have seen that the Airborne Laser's high-energy laser is functioning aboard the aircraft and that ABL is ready for more flight tests to further validate its viability as a mobile missile defense system."

Michael Rinn, Boeing vice president and ABL program director, said, "This test shows that ABL is on track to shoot down a boosting ballistic missile later this year. After years of development, the team is excited to be so close to delivering this transformational and unique directed-energy weapon system. We think ABL will be a game-changer for weapon systems the same way stealth technology transformed aerial combat."

Before the upcoming missile shoot-down demonstration, ABL's high-energy laser will undergo a series of additional flight tests, building toward lethal capabilities. It will advance from being fired into the onboard calorimeter to being sent through the beam control/fire control system, exiting the aircraft through a nose-mounted turret. This will represent a major achievement in directed-energy technology because it will be the first time a megawatt-class laser has been coupled with precise pointing and atmospheric correction in an airborne environment. The team will follow this milestone with the firing of the high-energy laser against a variety of increasingly challenging targets, culminating with an airborne intercept test against a ballistic missile in the boost phase of flight.

The ABL aircraft is a modified Boeing 747-400F whose back half holds the high-energy laser. The front section of the aircraft contains the beam control/fire control system, developed by Lockheed Martin, and the battle management system, provided by Boeing. Northrop Grumman developed and built the COIL.

According to a Northrop statement:

Maintaining the precise alignment of optical components within the laser while in flight ranks among the program's notable accomplishments, according to Steve Hixson, vice president of Advanced Concepts - Space and Directed Energy Systems for Northrop Grumman's Aerospace Systems sector.

"ABL has to keep all of the powerful laser's optical components perfectly positioned as the aircraft vibrates and flexes during flight," Hixson said. "Since we were unable to fly the kind of large concrete pads used to hold a ground-based laser's optics in place, we had to isolate the COIL's optics from the structure but also maintain alignment. So the team developed an optical bench isolation system that isolates disturbances caused by normal aircraft operations while maintaining alignment to the gain medium, or the source of a laser's optical power. It's like an automobile's 'smart suspension' that keeps the car riding smoothly at the same level over a bumpy road."

The ABL is scheduled to attempt an intercept of a boosting ballistic missile sometime this fall, after years of delay and billions of dollars spent on the effort. In June, House and Senate authorizers approved Defense Secretary Robert Gates' $1.2 billion cut to MDA's fiscal year 2010 budget request, which included the cancellation of the second planned ABL aircraft.

Instead, Gates directed MDA to look at technologies beyond intercepting in the boost-phase and into the "ascent" phase of a ballistic missile's flight.

Inside Missile Defense reported in June that MDA would give the ABL program three chances to intercept a boosting target missile before deciding whether to cancel the effort entirely:

"What we’ve set up in our budget is, we're giving it a chance for three strikes," Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly said at a conference sponsored by the National Defense University. "It's going to fly in September/October, that time frame, and if it is not successful there, we’re going to fly it again in the middle of the ((fiscal)) year, and if it's not successful, we’ll fly it again next spring, and after that third one, I am committed to come back to the . . . under secretary of defense for acquisition and make a recommendation: Should we continue with this project?"

According to MDA's latest budget justification summary, the agency is requesting $187 million for fiscal year 2010 for the ABL program, down from the $401 million appropriated in FY-09.

"This scaling back of the ABL program retains funding for the lethal shoot-down later this year with the Tail #1 aircraft; retention of critical skills needed for optics and fire control; and continued test flights and de-commissioning of the aircraft if the flight tests are unsuccessful," the summary reads. The agency also -- under the direction of Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- is canceling the design and purchase of a second ABL aircraft.

On the day before national elections take place in Afghanistan, country experts emphasized the uncertainty surrounding tomorrow's results as well as their inability to predict what those results -- whatever they may be -- will mean for Afghanistan's security.

J. Alexander Thier, senior rule of law adviser at the United States Institute for Peace, said today that risk and instability would likely follow the election due to the high perception of fraud and corruption. These perceptions have been exacerbated by the recent controversial election in Iran, he said, adding that many Afghans also believe that the United States will have a hand in who wins.

Thier spoke, along with retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, at the Center for National Policy.

Both men agreed that all outcomes would invariably be accompanied by a level of risk and turbulence in the country.

"I expect tomorrow is going to be a violent day in Afghanistan," said Barno.

The speakers also said it would take time for the security situation to improve and for the Obama administration's multipronged strategy to produce results.

By next summer, Barno said all arrows currently pointing down would have bottomed out and start to turn upward, particularly the security indicators. But, he predicted a lot of violence between now and then.

Paul McHale, former assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and the discussion's moderator, said he believed it would take longer -- three to five years -- for real improvement to show. McHale said he agrees with David Kilcullen's recent assessment of two years of fighting left, followed by three years of transitioning operations to the Afghan security forces.