The Insider

Deadline Rush
By John Liang
August 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

The White House is racing against time to implement the first elements of its export control reform initiative before the presidential election this year, which will require the administration to notify Congress of the intended changes, Inside U.S. Trade reports this morning. Further:

Standing in the way is the lack of an agreement with the committees of jurisdiction on how detailed the notifications should be and the considerable substantive work that remains to be done on the required regulations, which also need to be cleared interagency, according to informed sources.

The administration is targeting September for the first notification of changes to export control rules for aircraft and engines, but in light of the current obstacles, that could slip to the lame-duck session of Congress, sources said. This may raise additional obstacles for any notification, particularly if President Obama is not reelected, according to these sources. The administration has been working on the export control reform initiative for about two years after it was announced by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in April 2010.

Under the best of circumstances, sources said the administration would be able to notify the transfer of items in the aircraft and engine categories from the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to the Commerce Control List (CCL) before the election.

Traditionally, such notifications under Section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act have been made while Congress is in session, though it is not required by law, sources said. That puts the administration on a tight schedule because there are eight legislative days in September and five in October.

Notification of the aircraft and engine category revisions would only represent a fraction of the technical work that has been done on the overall USML rewrite. A number of categories, such as Category VII covering military vehicles, have been published in proposed form. But seven of the 21 USML categories are still to be published as proposed rules and are still moving through the interagency review process, administration officials have said.

Given that it is unlikely the administration and Congress will reach agreement in the next few weeks on how to present the notifications, the administration will likely face a political decision on whether to force the issue by making them formally without such a consensus, sources said. At this point, the administration has not made any final decisions internally on how to proceed beyond working intensively on the final rules that need to be part of the notification, a senior administration official said this week.

Previously, Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Eric Hirschhorn implied that the administration would proceed to formal notifications quickly instead of engaging in a long pre-notification dialogue.

But proceeding with a formal notification without at least congressional acquiescence will require the administration to weigh the potential political fallout from such a step. Congressional staff has hinted that this could involve legislation stopping the export control initiative, or denying the administration the funds in the appropriations process to implement the initiative.

At this point, the discussions have largely been with congressional staff, which has demanded more detail in the notifications than the administration has said it can practically provide. Some sources said the staff does not appear to have much political guidance from its principals, but others said the House staff stance reflects the skepticism that House members on both sides of the aisle have displayed to the export control reform initiative.

In response to congressional staff concerns, the administration has scaled back some of the reform provisions in subsequent proposed rules. For example, in a June 19 proposed rule further explaining how items will transition from the USML to the CCL, the administration placed congressional notification requirements on the export of items beyond a certain dollar threshold that are located in a special 600 series of export control classification numbers where former USML items will be placed on the CCL.

Sources said that the administration will ultimately have to develop a strategy for elevating this issue to members of Congress, but they said there has been no decision on such an end game. The administration official said it is premature to talk about how this will be handled "until we've actually come to a final opinion internally on all of this."

Private-sector sources said that legislation to block or hinder the reform effort is highly unlikely given that it would be hard to get an agreement between the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction and secure a legislative vehicle to move it in the limited number of days left in the session.

One source noted that in the Senate, Republican critics of the export control initiative have so far failed to find a member willing to champion language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would limit the administration's flexibility in how to notify the transfers from the USML to the CCL. Such language is included in the NDAA version approved by the House earlier this year but the Senate has not yet acted on its version of the bill. It is expected to do so before Congress leaves this year, and by that time, it is possible that export control reform critics will have found a member to offer this language as a floor amendment, one source speculated.

If that language passed before the first notification is submitted, it would further complicate the process, one source said. The House language is unacceptable to the administration because it obligates the administration to provide an "enumeration" of the transferred items to the extent practicable. But another source said the administration could simply claim it has met that requirement with what it has submitted.

In addition to spelling out the category changes, the first congressional notification under Section 38(f) will be accompanied by three final rules. One of them governs the transition of items from the USML to CCL, a second defines items that are "specially designed" for military applications and thereby subject to tighter controls than other items, and a third sets the framework rule that will create the categories for the transferred items on the CCL. All these rules spell out the elements of how these transferred items will be controlled once they leave the USML and are therefore required for the notification.

"We're working aggressively in August to do all that and we still hope, expect and plan to be able to sometime in late summer, early fall, to be able to have all of that ready [as final rules] because that is necessary . . . to attach to the [Section] 38(f) notice" made under the Arms Export Control Act, the official said.

"We are hoping to get all this done in August and September and sometime soon thereafter we'll start talking to Hill staff," the official said. The official implied that a draft final version of these rules will be the basis for initial congressional discussions.

The public comment periods for the "specially designed" rule and the transition rule ended in early August and the incoming comments still need to be considered in developing a final rule.

Some sources familiar with the process say it is impossible to develop the required a final rule and get it cleared interagency in the timetable laid out by the administration official, but others said it may still be possible.

The skeptics note that export control work at the State Department has been lagging since Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher left her job for health reasons. They said Tauscher had the export control knowledge and the political stature to advance export control reform issues within State and that the same combination does not exist in her successor, Acting Undersecretary Rose Gottemoeller, nor in the Assistant Secretary for Political and Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro and his deputy Beth McCormick.

If the notification process slips into the lame-duck session and President Obama is not re-elected, it is likely that the new administration would take its time to review the work done up to that point and then decide how to proceed. This could take at least a year since export controls are not likely to be a priority issue for the new administration, a private-sector source speculated.

EELV Redux
By John Liang
August 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Inside the Air Force's top story this morning reports that the new baseline for the service's Evolved Expanded Launch Vehicle program has more than doubled from its original 2004 cost estimate, jumping to $69.6 billion as part of the process to re-certify EELV under Nunn-McCurdy statutes -- and the Defense Department says costs for the program could continue to rise. Further:

In a Nunn-McCurdy certification document obtained Aug. 13 by Inside the Air Force, DOD's acquisition chief Frank Kendall writes that the baseline increase is driven largely by rising unit costs, fewer launches and idle resources.

"The critical breaches of unit cost growth thresholds that triggered the review were the result of a reduction in the total number of launches due to unstable demand for launch services, turbulence in the international civil-commercial launch market and its associated supply base, and a business relationship with the supplier that has not been conducive to controlling costs," Kendall states.

Congress in April was notified of a Nunn-McCurdy breach on the EELV program. A March 31 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) estimated the program's cost at about $35 billion and cited a 58 percent increase in procurement unit costs over both the 2004 and 2007 baselines. But DOD was required to report the cost breach not because of the jump in unit costs, but because the program had been re-designated as a major defense acquisition program. These programs demand reports to congress on cost, schedule and performance as well as periodic SARs.

DOD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office established the new $69.6 billion baseline after reviewing the program and developing its own estimate of research, development, test and evaluation (RTD&E) and procurement costs. These estimates are based on the Air Force's own EELV programmatic forecast completed June 13, 2012 and an EELV Sustainment Plan the Secretary of the Air Force sent to Congress July 1, 2011. CAPE's report includes RDT&E funding for new EELV enhancements, including Global Positioning System dual launch capability, EELV standard payload adapter and RL-10C development and line start as well as other unspecified developments. . . .

View the Nunn-McCurdy certification document.

. . . And check out Inside the Air Force's recent EELV coverage:

Air Force To Leverage Commercial Sales For EELV Starting In FY-13 (July 27)

Air Force To Submit New EELV Baseline To Congress By End Of October (July 20)

Air Force May Settle EELV Legal Spat Over $385M Via Dispute Resolution (July 20)

Change In EELV Program Classification Triggers Nunn-McCurdy Breach (June 8)

Air Force Delays Decision On Number Of EELV Booster Cores To Buy (June 1)

House Armed Services Committee Wants EELV Space Launch Study (May 10)

Panel Pushes Back On ORS Closure, Suggests Limit On EELV Spending (April 27)

USAF Study On EELV Engine Alternatives Set To Begin Soon (April 20)

Energy Report
By John Liang
August 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Pentagon yesterday issued a report certifying "that the Defense Department's proposed 2013 budget adequately funds the operational energy strategy, highlighting $9 billion in planned investments to improve energy use in military operations between fiscal years 2013-2017," according to a statement, which adds: "This includes $1.6 billion in fiscal 2013."

The press release further states:

"The innovative approach the Defense Department is taking to achieving greater operational efficiency and boosting combat effectiveness is exactly in line with our new defense strategy," Secretary Leon E. Panetta said. "These investments in new energy technologies, more than 90 percent of which are for energy efficiency or energy performance upgrades, will enable our forces to operate longer and at greater distance while enhancing our energy security at home and, in many cases, reducing costs."

The Operational Energy Strategy, released in June 2011, stated three ways DoD will increase energy security in military operations -- by reducing the demand for fuel, diversifying energy supplies and incorporating these considerations into building the future force.

For the report, Sharon E. Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs and her team examined the Defense Department budget to see how well energy investment matched these three elements.

"Our first priority with these investments is to improve combat capabilities for our warfighters," said Burke. "From tactical solar technologies to reduce the need to transport and protect fuel in combat to more efficient aircraft, ship, and combat vehicle engines that let our forces fly, sail, and drive further, the Defense Department is tackling energy use to improve military capability."

View the full report.

Adrift
By Gabe Starosta
August 15, 2012 at 7:04 PM

The Air Force's X-51A Waverider hypersonic vehicle failed yesterday in its attempt to fly at Mach 6 for five minutes, as service officials announced today that the vehicle lasted less than one minute in flight before being lost.

The X-51A was successfully dropped from a B-52 bomber over California's Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range yesterday at approximately 11:36 a.m. Pacific time, according to a statement issued today by an Air Force Research Laboratory spokesman. The vehicle separated properly from the B-52, but a fault with one of the cruiser control fins was identified 16 seconds after the drop.

“Once the X-51 separated from the rocket booster, approximately 15 seconds later, the cruiser was not able to maintain control due to the faulty control fin and was lost,” the statement reads.

The Air Force has now launched three of its four Boeing-produced X-51A vehicles. No decision has been made on when or even if the fourth will be tested.

“It is unfortunate that a problem with this subsystem caused a termination before we could light the Scramjet engine,” said Charlie Brink, the Air Force Research Laboratory's X-51A program manager. “All our data showed we had created the right conditions for engine ignition and we were very hopeful to meet our test objectives.”

In its statement, AFRL noted that the control subsystem on this X-51A had “proven reliable”in the Air Force's most successful hypersonic flight to date, a May 2010 test during which the Waverider flew for more than three minutes.

Navy Lasers
By John Liang
August 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

An updated Congressional Research Office report issued last Friday looks at the Navy's development of shipboard lasers for surface, air and missile defense.

The updated report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News -- includes language from the Senate Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2013 defense spending bill, which "recommends increasing by $10 million the Navy's FY2013 funding request for PE 0602114N, Power Projection Applied Research, with the additional $10 million being for 'program increase.'"

Further, CRS quotes from the committee's report accompanying the bill:

Directed Energy. -- The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $44,560,000 [in the defense-wide research and development account] for a new Directed Energy Research program following the termination of the Airborne Laser Test Bed [ALTB]. The Committee notes that there are currently no less than five separate directed energy science and technology programs ongoing in the Department of Defense, none of which have clearly defined and funded transition plans into programs of record. In addition, the Committee understands that the Missile Defense Agency intends to award a noncompetitive, sole-source contract for integration of the yet-to-be-developed directed energy capability onto a high altitude long endurance platform that itself is currently under development. The Committee questions both the operational relevance of this scientific program, as well as the overall acquisition strategy during times of fiscal constraint. Therefore, the Committee recommends no funding for the Directed Energy program. (Page 220; material in brackets as in original; see also page 217, line 64)

Inside the Navy last month reported on the June 29 version of the CRS report:

The Navy is taking a "measured approach toward the development and implementation of lasers" as weapons aboard ships, but Congress may consider whether a program of record is needed to more clearly dictate how to proceed, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

The report, written by naval analyst Ronald O'Rourke, states Congress will need to consider whether to approve or modify the Navy's funding request to support these research programs, as well as whether to direct that a program of record or a roadmap be developed to guide the service's efforts.

The Navy has yet to conduct an analysis of alternatives to compare directed energy weapons with kinetic weapons, instead "continually analyzing its defensive capabilities for effectiveness against current and potential future threats." Without an AOA supporting a business case to develop laser weapons, some are skeptical about adopting a program of record for procuring a shipboard laser or developing a roadmap that calls for installing laser weapons on certain ships by a certain time, according to the CRS report.

There are also still many questions to be answered about the technology, including how much the power can be scaled up, how to improve beam quality, how the weapon would perform in a variety of environmental conditions and more, so the report states some fear a "rush to failure."

On the other hand, the report states, developing a roadmap or program of record to quickly get an initial version of a laser weapon on a ship would speed up the process of better understanding the weapon's utility and developing follow-on versions that are more effective and less expensive. And if directed energy weapons are the way of the future, the fleet can only get used to working with them if the lasers are on ships instead of contained in the research and development community.

CRS On LCS
By John Liang
August 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Inside the Navy reports this week that a service official is countering reports that the Littoral Combat Ship is failing to meet requirements as it nears its deployment date. Here's an excerpt from the story:

Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander of Naval Surface Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet, told reporters in an Aug. 7 phone conference that LCS had been pushed hard in recent tests and studies, but the ship and its mission packages were still meeting all the goals for the program and for Freedom's (LCS-1) spring deployment to Singapore.

War games, exercises and more have been conducted throughout the year "to make sure that we have all things associated with LCS correct, including, do we have the right number of people? Do they have the right skill set? Does the shore training infrastructure support our concept of how we're going to man them and operate them in the future?" Copeman said.

Reports that the ship was not performing up to standards are misleading, he said. "If the ship and the mission packages and the people that are assigned to the mission packages are in the same port at the same time and the port's able to support the movement of them, then we can meet the requirement of shipping a mission package out in 96 hours," he said.

But a war game earlier this year "took some excursions from that" and, for example, looked at what might happen if the ship needed to switch mission packages at a port other than the one to which it is forward-deployed, Copeman said. Not having the new mission module pieces waiting in their shipping containers on land meant that that mission package swap took longer than the 96-hour limit.

"We've been fairly critical because this is an important program for us," he added.

There are also ongoing questions about the size of the ship's core crew, but Copeman said the Navy was sticking with its original plan for now and would monitor performance during the Singapore deployment.

A Congressional Research Service report issued last Friday and obtained by Secrecy News quotes from an Aug. 2 Navy information paper submitted to CRS that provides further details on LCS's deployment readiness:

1. ASSERTION: The Mission Package quick-swap concept is dead.

RESPONSE: Each LCS will deploy with the Mission Package (MP) required to accomplish the Combatant Commander (COCOM)-directed missions. As expected, if COCOMs direct a MP swap, materiel staging and personnel movement will need to be planned and coordinated in advance. The physical swap of MP equipment can occur in less than 96 hours, as the requirement dictates.

2. ASSERTION: Planners originally envisaged LCS as a replacement for Frigates, Minesweepers, and Patrol Boats, but new assessments conclude that the ships are not equal to the legacy ships.

RESPONSE: While LCS will provide the capabilities and conduct the missions currently performed by the FFG, MCM and PC type ships, LCS is not a direct class replacement for any of these. It is a new ship type with distinct capabilities. LCS with its mission packages will provide equal or greater capability than the legacy platforms whose missions it is assuming.

3. ASSERTION: LCS vessels cannot successfully perform three other core missions envisioned for them-forward presence, sea control or power projection.

RESPONSE: LCS will be able to perform all of the missions for which she was built. As the ships transition from research and development assets to operational Fleet units, the ongoing efforts to determine the infrastructure requirements and sustainment processes will be implemented and provide the requisite support to enable the successful execution of these missions.

4. ASSERTION: Key failure is inability to effectively defend against ASCMs.

RESPONSE: LCS, with its 3-D air search radar and highly effective Rolling Airframe Missile, is at least as capable against the cruise missile threat as the CIWS-equipped FFG 7 and significantly more capable that the Avenger class MCM and Cyclone Class PC, which have no self-defense anti-cruise missile capability. LCS capability against ASCMs has been demonstrated with two live firings of RAM from LCS against cruise missile targets, as well as multiple tracking exercises and simulated ASCM engagements within the developmental test window.

5. ASSERTION: CONOPS dictates ships operate at sea for 21 days but ship can only store food for 14 days.

RESPONSE: The LCS CDD gives a 14-day threshold and a 30-day objective for replenishment, which supports the expected 21-day underway cycles referenced in the CONOPS. The CDD, not the CONOPS, is the governing document for all LCS requirements. And as noted earlier, when operating within its normal speed range profile (<15 knots), LCS has comparable endurance to an FFG 7.

6. ASSERTION: Navy is looking at ways to increase ship’s weaponry and lethality.

RESPONSE: Every Navy weapon, sensor, ship and aircraft system is continually being reviewed and evaluated against current and future operations and threats to determine the best mix of total combat power that can be brought to the fight. LCS is no exception to this ongoing process.

7. ASSERTION: Major gap is the replacement of the Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS).

RESPONSE: While the cancellation of NLOS was indeed a setback in bringing the surface-to-surface missile to LCS, the modular design of LCS allows the Navy to select another missile, without costly redesign. As an interim solution, the Griffin missile has already been selected for incorporation until an extended range missile can be competitively awarded.

Based on that, CRS raises these potential issues for lawmakers:

* The Navy initiated LCS program in November 2001 because the Navy concluded that a ship like the LCS would be the most cost-effective way to fill Navy capability gaps for countering mines, small boats, and diesel-electric submarines in littoral waters. In light of subsequent growth in the cost of the LCS sea frame, the Navy's reported intention to increase the LCS crew size (which will increase LCS life cycle operation and support [O&S] costs), and the Navy's assessments of the LCS in recent exercises and war games, is the Navy still confident that the LCS program represents the most cost-effective way for the Navy to counter mines, small boats, and diesel-electric submarines in littoral waters?

* When does the Navy believe the LCS will be fully capable of performing its originally stated primary missions of countering mines, small boats, and diesel electric submarines in littoral waters?

* How, if at all, will LCS procurement and life-cycle O&S costs be affected by Navy actions to address issues identified in recent Navy assessments of the LCS program?

* What missions other than countering mines, small boats, and diesel-electric submarines in littoral waters does the Navy now envisage as being significant missions for the LCS?

* Taking various factors into account -- including but not limited to LCS sea frame procurement costs as they are now understood, LCS life-cycle O&S costs with an enlarged crew, the LCS's originally stated primary missions, other potentially significant missions for the LCS, recent Navy assessments of the LCS program, and the costs (if any) of addressing issues identified in those assessments -- is the Navy still confident that the LCS program is more cost-effective than potential alternative courses of action?

View the full, 98-page CRS report.

Joint Task Force HQ
By John Liang
August 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

The Pentagon recently released an updated doctrine document on how to run a Joint Task Force Headquarters. Here's a summary of the changes:

* Reduces redundancies and improves continuity between joint publication (JP) 3-33, Joint Task Force Headquarters, and JP 3-0, Joint Operations, and JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning.

* Reorganizes chapters into a logical flow for ease of reading and understanding the organization and development of a joint task force (JTF) headquarters (HQ).

* Expands on the discussion of individual augmentation and the joint manning document when developing the JTF HQ.

* Adds detailed discussion on different types of JTF HQ to provide an in-depth understanding on how and why JTFs are stood up and organized.

* Eliminates discussions on subordinate component commands in Chapter III, "Joint Task Force Subordinate Commands," to reduce redundancy with other JPs and bring this publication in-line with current approved and emerging joint doctrine.

* Adds major discussion and an appendix on joint task force-state to provide guidance on command and control relationships and responsibility differences between federal and state troops in a domestic response situation.

* Incorporates appropriate changes with the disestablishment of US Joint Forces Command and the reorganization of the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command under United States Transportation Command.

* Adds an appendix on JTF-Capable HQ that provides a framework and considerations for forming and sustaining the readiness of a JTF HQ within the Department of Defense.

* Removes the appendix for contract support and contractor management planning since JP 4-10, Operational Contract Support, provides this information more extensively.

To view the document, click here.

Moving On Up
By Maggie Ybarra
August 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

In a ceremony today at Joint Base Andrews, MD, Gen. Mark Welsh became the next Air Force chief of staff, taking the reins of the service's air, space and cyber platforms.

Welsh pledged to strengthen the Air Force by focusing on readiness, training and shaping the future.

"We have to shape the future and that will require innovative thinking . . . and that will require modernization," he said.

Welsh, formerly the commander of U. S. Air Forces in Europe, is the service's 20th chief of staff, succeeding Gen. Norton Schwartz. Schwartz has been chief of staff for the past four years.

Welsh noted that air, space and cyber were the platforms of the future and that, in order to be successful in crafting that future, the service would need to focus on its joint and coalition operations.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who spoke at the ceremony, said Welsh would help the service maintain "unquestioned dominance of the sky, dominance of space and dominance of cyberspace."

"I know the Air Force will be in good hands as Mark Welsh takes the controls from Norty. Mark is a straight-shooter, much like John Wayne, whose life-size cutout he has kept in his office for more than 25 years," Panetta said. "I'm depending on Mark to call it like he sees it."

Schwartz, whom Panetta credited with helping the service prepare for a future rife with new security challenges amid fiscal constraints, said Welsh was known for his ironclad credibility as an operator and trainer and will provide the leadership the service needs.

New York State Of Mind
By John Liang
August 10, 2012 at 4:13 PM

During a visit yesterday to Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station in New York, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made sure to emphasize the administration's commitment to "maintaining this base for the future," according to a Pentagon transcript of his speech. Further:

We're counting on this base. It's important geographically, it's important to the mission that we need to forward to. One of the things we're going to be doing is making investments here. We're going to upgrade eight C-130s and replace them over five years with the C-130H3s. We're going invest 6.1 million dollars, in order to create a C-130 flight simulator here.

Our goal is to maintain, obviously, a -- strong reserve force here. Our goal is to work with Niagara Falls and the community to do everything possible to try to support this base, including lowering energy usage facility costs and investing in infrastructure and education. You have kept strong retention and recruiting numbers high and that’s important, and you want to continue to do that.

And as I discussed in a meeting I had before coming here, I also want to look to the future, look at some of the missions that you're going to have to have for the future, whether it's ISR, whether it's intelligence, whether it's working with new technologies. And I’m committed to exploring those new missions for this base for the future.

View Panetta's entire speech.

Seasparrows To Thailand
By John Liang
August 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced yesterday that it had notified Congress of a proposed $18 million sale of nine Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSM) and associated equipment to the Southeast Asian country.

According to the DSCA statement:

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by increasing the ability of Thailand to contribute to regional security and improving interoperability with the U.S. Military in operational and exercise scenarios. It is consistent with U.S. national interests to assist Thailand in developing and maintaining a strong and ready ship self-defense capability which will contribute to the military balance in the area.

ESSM provides ship self-defense capability. The proposed sale will add to Thailand's capability to meet current and future threats from anti-ship weapons.

The proposed [Foreign Military Sale] case includes support equipment, training and technical assistance required for the [Royal Thai Navy] to effectively incorporate the ESSM into its fleet. With this support, RTN will have no difficulty absorbing the ESSM into its frigates and being fully operational.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

Tucson, AZ-based Raytheon Missile Systems and Aberdeen, SD-based BAE Systems would be the prime contractors, according to DSCA.

DOD-State Cooperation
By John Liang
August 8, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro said today that cooperation between his department and the Pentagon has never been better.

In a speech this morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Shapiro noted that despite the increased cooperation, there is still room for improvement:

Going forward, we will need to lock in the progress we have made and constantly work to develop and institutionalize our cooperation. While the State Department's involvement in planning has significantly expanded, there is still room to grow and regularize our involvement. In the years ahead, we will also need to work to preserve and maintain State Department authority over security assistance, which is a critical foreign policy tool.

Additionally, responding to new transnational challenges will require us to work closer than ever before. We are seeing this in the multi-agency response to Somali piracy and through the Merida Initiative to support Mexico's efforts to combat narco-trafficking. Our responses to new transnational threats will need to become less ad hoc and more regularized, as these are all security threats that lack pure military solutions.

One of the biggest challenges for State-DoD collaboration is the sheer difference in size and resources between our two respective departments. It can be as obvious as when we host a simple meeting and find ourselves vastly outnumbered by our DoD colleagues. This asymmetry in the relationship can even become counterproductive when our respective activities in the field fall out of proportion -- which is part of the reason that the QDDR stressed the importance of Chief of Mission authority. Our ambassadors in the field -- the Chiefs of the U.S. mission -- are responsible for overseeing U.S. activities and personnel in a given country and ensuring that all of the elements of national power are working in sync. After all, we're all on the same team, working hard to advance our economic prosperity and our national security.

Unfortunately, there remains a lingering misperception out there that funding for the State Department isn't as essential to strengthening our country's national security. Of course, our defense colleagues know better, just ask Secretary Panetta or General Dempsey. They understand that investments in development and diplomacy today will make it less likely that we ask our troops to deploy tomorrow. It’s important that elected officials, too, understand that the State Department and USAID -- with just one percent of the federal budget -- make an outsized contribution to keeping America safe. And it's important that we fund them accordingly -- it will save us both blood and treasure.

In this era of complex and integrated challenges, it is more important than ever that we continue to improve State-DoD relations. I believe that the tangible progress we have made under Secretaries Clinton, Gates, and Panetta, is durable and will have a lasting impact. But ultimately strengthening the State-Defense relationship is just like strengthening any relationship -- it requires constant tending and constant effort.

View the full text of the speech.

MRAP Money
By Tony Bertuca
August 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

The Pentagon recently announced a $90 million funding shift from the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund to pay for the transportation, upgrade and maintenance of the vehicles in Afghanistan.

Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale signed the internal reprogramming on July 23.

Several days later, a pair of economists published an essay in Foreign Affairs arguing that MRAPs were not worth the $40 billion spent to rapidly acquire and field them. Money has been flowing steadily to MRAPs since they were first sent to Iraq in 2006, and DOD's most recent reprogramming from the specially configured MRAP fund is only one in a long line of spending measures.

“For infantry units, one life was saved for every seven medium vehicles purchased, at a total cost of around $1 million to $2 million per life saved,” the authors wrote in the July 26 essay. “However, tactical wheeled vehicles with 'heavy' amounts of protection, such as the MRAP (which has higher quality armor and a V-shaped hull designed to improve resistance to IEDs), did not save more lives than medium armored vehicles did, despite their cost of $600,000 apiece -- roughly three times as much as the medium-protected vehicles.”

As reported this week by Inside the Army, which obtained the authors' original research paper, the assertions made by Chris Rohlfs, an assistant professor at Syracuse University, and Ryan Sullivan, an assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, have drawn sharp reactions from the MRAP joint program office.

“The data cited was neither researched nor developed by the JPO,” Barb Hamby, a spokeswoman for the MRAP program, wrote in an Aug. 2 statement to ITA. "Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to comment. What we can say is that the authors of that data are not privy to the hundreds of extensive test-event classified data, or that collected in the theater of operations. We developed internal data and analyzed it to ensure we delivered the optimal solution to our warfighters in the form of lifesaving MRAPs and [MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles].”

Dakota Wood, a former fellow for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments who has closely studied about MRAP procurement, hopes the economists' research will drive further discussion on the subject, and sources have since disclosed to ITA that the authors' research is being looked into by the Government Accountability Office and Capitol Hill.

Chiefly Speaking
By Sebastian Sprenger
August 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

“The Army has global responsibilities that require large technological advantages to prevail decisively in combat -- 'technological overmatch,' if you will.” That's the message Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno is sending in a blog post today.

Odierno drives homes his point shortly after the Senate Appropriations Committee made note of the Army's networking initiatives -- not altogether positive news -- mentioned by the four-star, as reported by Inside the Army this week.

“As I reflect upon the pace of technological change in today’s modern world and the impact of rapid, global information exchange upon our overall security environment, I am both inspired and encouraged by the Army’s approach to building a network able to connect our forces at all echelons. This remains our number one modernization priority,” Odierno writes.

Senate SBX Saviors?
By John Liang
August 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Senate appropriators aren't quite ready to quit on the Sea-Based X-Band Radar, even though the Pentagon plans to downgrade SBX's operational status beginning in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013.

As the report accompanying the Senate Appropriations Committee's FY-13 defense spending bill -- approved by the panel last week -- states:

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes no funds to develop and sustain the software necessary to maintain SBX operational capability for ballistic missile defense. The Committee has been informed by the Missile Defense Agency that while SBX will be placed in a limited test support status in fiscal year 2013, SBX remains a critical element of ballistic missile defense and is intended for recall to active operational status as needed, as was demonstrated when North Korea attempted to launch a satellite earlier this year. Therefore, the Committee does not believe it is prudent to neglect software development sustainment and recommends an additional $20,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide only for SBX software development and sustainment.

Here's some background from a Feb. 14 InsideDefense.com story:

Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall called SBX "a large X-band research development radar, primarily." He told reporters during a press briefing yesterday afternoon that the radar system is "very expensive to keep and operate," and officials thought other systems could get similar results for less money. "It's largely an affordability issue where we have other sensors that can fill in the gap," he added.

Accordingly, MDA has recommended subtracting nearly $163 million from the program for FY-13, budgeting instead $9.7 million, according to the agency's justification document. That reduction "reflects a realignment of Department of Defense priorities," the document reads. Additionally, the agency has renamed the SBX project number from "MD46" to "MX46."

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, "by maintaining the SBX radar as a test asset rather than terminating it, the administration saves at least $500 million over five years while also retaining the ability to recall it to an active, operational status if and when it is needed."

Late last year, MDA awarded a $15 million sole-source contract modification to Boeing to continue providing operations and maintenance services for SBX, according to a Pentagon statement.

The contract for SBX "operations and sustainment services" will be performed in Huntsville, AL, and the period of performance is for the first six months of calendar year 2012, according to the Dec. 13 Defense Department statement.

Nuke Personnel
By John Liang
August 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

The Defense Department recently updated its policy for the management of the Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program.

The July 16 instruction memo calls for the following:

a. Reissues DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5210.42 (Reference (b)) and updates established policy and assigned responsibilities for the management of the DoD Nuclear Weapons PRP.

b. Implements the provisions in DoDD 3150.2 (Reference (c)) that personnel involved in nuclear operations shall receive appropriate training and will be continuously evaluated as required under a PRP.

c. Identifies the standards of individual reliability for personnel performing specific duties associated with nuclear weapons, nuclear command and control (NC2) systems and equipment, or specified quantities of special nuclear material (SNM).

d. Requires the selection and retention of only those personnel who are emotionally stable and physically capable and who have demonstrated reliability and professional competence. Individuals who do not meet or maintain program standards shall not be selected for or retained in the PRP.

View the memo here.

Inside the Air Force reported on Friday that DOD's inspector general had recently issued a fairly positive review of Air Force Global Strike Command's first three years in operation, commending many efficiencies in command relationships and noting additional opportunities to make more effective use of resources. Further:

The command was created in 2009 and charged with strengthening the Air Force's nuclear programs after two notable nuclear-related missteps -- in 2007, a transfer of nuclear weapons by a B-52 aircraft, and in 2008, a shipment of nuclear weapon component parts to Taiwan. The command -- which oversees 8th Air Force and 20th Air Force missions -- presides over three intercontinental ballistic missile wings, two B-52 wings and one B-2 wing.

Since its formation, AFGSC has been working to build up the nuclear enterprise and has taken over personnel and intelligence functions. Personnel specialists at both Numbered Air Forces (NAFs) have improved their processes for filling important nuclear billets both in an immediate and long-term context, the report states.

"We determined the AFGSC took a proactive role with regard to enhancing the Air Force's nuclear enterprise focus prior to initiation of our assessment," the report states. "Resultantly, the Air Force has reduced manning at the NAFs while increasing their relevance. . . . Our assessment team determined that both 20 AF and 8 AF have matured significantly since 2007."