The Insider

Inside the Air Force reports this morning that NASA officials who conducted an independent analysis of the F-22 Raptor's life support systems this summer have concluded that the Air Force's proposed corrective actions to a series of hypoxia-like incidents are positive and worthwhile improvements to the aircraft, but have warned the service against continuing to accept a "normalization of deviance" in the F-22's performance. Further:

NASA's Engineering Safety Center (NESC) performed an independent assessment of the F-22 beginning in late April, and that group's final report was submitted to Air Combat Command (ACC) on Aug. 31, according to Clinton Cragg, the center's principal engineer and the lead on the study group. The NESC final report agreed with the Air Force on the likely causes of breathing problems in the Raptor cockpit -- namely a flaw with the F-22's upper pressure garment and several contributors related to high concentrations of oxygen at low altitudes -- but urged the Air Force to consider a number of more wide-ranging, systemic issues with the F-22 program.

Cragg, along with ACC Director of Operations Maj. Gen. Charlie Lyon and Gregory Martin, a retired Air Force general and the chair of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board's aircraft oxygen generation study, testified before the House Armed Services tactical air and land subcommittee on Sept. 13.

In his prepared testimony, Cragg wrote that the Air Force, like many organizations before it, has come to accept a handful of mild irritants associated with the F-22 as "normal," when in fact they should have been addressed early on. He cited an issue with a particular part on the space shuttle as an example of NASA going through the same process, and the NESC expressed satisfaction that as part of its oxygen generation study, the Air Force is now paying more attention to these issues.

"The F-22 pilot community has come to expect a number of physiological phenomena as a 'normal' part of flying the Raptor," Cragg wrote. "These include the difficulty in breathing, the 'Raptor cough,' excessive fatigue, headaches, and delayed ear block. Differences in pilot breathing in the F-22 from other platforms was widely known and accepted as a normal part of flying the advanced aircraft. The acceptance of these phenomena as 'normal' could be seen as 'normalization of deviance.'"

One member of Congress who has a good understanding of science is committee member Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who chairs the tactical air and land forces subcommittee. In his prepared statement yesterday, he said:

I know from personal experience as a scientist working these issues before I came to Congress that the Air Force faced a difficult problem in determining the root cause of these F-22 pilot hypoxia-like events because in either the case of insufficient oxygen quantity or poor oxygen quality, the symptoms to the pilot are largely the same. Hypoxia, or lack of oxygen, produces the same symptoms in humans that would result from toxic exposure, or hypocapnia, also known as hyperventilation.

Click here to read the full ITAF story, and here to view the testimony from the hearing.

A Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile intercepted and destroyed an aerodynamic tactical ballistic missile target at White Sands Missile Range, NM, today, according to a Lockheed Martin statement.

Lockheed Martin's test involved a ripple fire engagement using two PAC-3 Cost-Reduction Initiative missiles against a "Juno target" -- a long-range missile -- that was fired from Ft. Wingate, NM, Richard McDaniel, vice president of PAC-3 missile programs within Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Fire Control business, said in a statement sent through a spokesman today. Ft. Wingate is about 300 miles from White Sands.

"The first interceptor destroyed the target and the second PAC-3 missile self-destructed as planned," the statement reads.

PAC-3 is designed to defeat tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, according to the statement. PAC-3 increases the Patriot system's firepower as 16 PAC-3 missiles can be loaded in place of four legacy Patriot PAC-2 missiles on a single launcher, the statement notes.

This test follows an Aug. 29 Army Test and Evaluation Command operational test of both Raytheon's Patriot and Lockheed's PAC-3 interceptors against ballistic missile targets. The August limited user test was performed at White Sands; the goal was to "validate the Patriot System Post-Development Build to meet design requirements," Army spokesman Dan O'Boyle said in an Aug. 30 statement.

Lockheed Martin expects three more flight tests involving PAC-3 by the end of the year, McDaniel said in his statement. The first is the large, integrated Missile Defense Agency test that will also include the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense weapon system and Aegis. The second involves the Medium Extended Air Defense system; that test will employ use the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhanced  system. The third is another PAC-3 MSE flight test, he added.

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) is worried the federal government isn't doing enough to ensure U.S. unmanned systems technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

Tierney, the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform national security, homeland defense and foreign operations subcommittee, says in a statement issued today that a July Government Accountability Office report "has found that a lack of information sharing among federal agencies has hindered our ability to keep drone technology out of the hands of our enemies." Further:

"The fact that the U.S. Government has allowed drone technology to fall into the hands of our enemies is extremely troubling for our country and our military. The Administration must take immediate steps to increase efforts to curb the spread of drones and reduce this threat to our national security," Congressman Tierney said. "I call on the Departments of Defense and State to take swift action on the recommendations in this report."

Most notably, the GAO report released today finds that countries with drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) nearly doubled in seven years and many of the countries that have acquired UAVs could put U.S. military assets at risk. Due to inadequate information sharing, U.S. drone technology has made its way into the hands of so-called "countries of concern" and terrorist organizations.

According to the GAO report itself:

GAO recommends that [the] State [Department] improve its export licensing database to better identify authorized UAV exports, that relevant agencies improve mechanisms for sharing information relevant to the export licensing process, and that State and DOD harmonize their UAV end-use monitoring approaches. The agencies generally agreed with the recommendations.

View the GAO report.

EADS today released a statement confirming speculation that talks about a possible merger with BAE Systems are under way:

This potential combination would be implemented through the creation of a dual listed company structure, under which both companies would operate as one group by means of equalisation and other agreements but would be separately listed on their existing exchanges.

The discussions between the parties envisage that BAE Systems shareholders would own 40% and EADS shareholders 60% respectively of the enlarged group. It is contemplated that there would be a unified board and management structure with identical boards and executive committees at each of BAE Systems and EADS.

BAE Systems and EADS have a long history of collaboration and are currently partners in a number of important projects, including the Eurofighter and MBDA joint ventures. The potential combination would create a world class international aerospace, defence and security group with substantial centres of manufacturing and technology excellence in France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the USA.

View the full statement.

The "advisory and assistance services" contracts for the Precision Tracking Space System have been extended by three months, the Missile Defense Agency announced in a Federal Business Opportunities notice issued today.

The notice states:

This provides notification of the Missile Defense Agency's intent to extend contracts HQ0006-10-C-0004 and HQ0006-10-C-0005, Advisory and Assistance services for the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) for a period of three (3) months. These contracts were previously extended under J&As No. 12-0016 and 12-0017. Due to unanticipated delays in the re-procurement process, the new Task Order under the Missile Defense Agency Engineering and Support Services (MiDAESS) program will not be awarded in time. The three-month contract extensions will bridge the gap and allow completion of the procurement process under the MiDAESS contract. Additionally, the contract extensions will incorporate an option period of three (3) months. Dependent upon the timing of the award of the new MiDAESS Task Order, the Government may or may not exercise the three-month option.

The extensions will be performed by the incumbent contractors, Vanguard Research, Inc., 1235 S Clark St STE 501, Arlington, VA 22202 and Winter, Donald C., Sole Proprietor, McLean, VA 22102, respectively. The period of performance extensions on these contracts are needed to avoid a break in service until the follow-on procurement efforts for these services are completed.

PTSS was one of five MDA programs cited by the Government Accountability Office in a July report that run the risk of incurring delays and inefficiencies because their schedules do not meet best practices. As InsideDefense.com reported:

"These results are significant because a reliable schedule is one key factor that indicates a program is likely to achieve its planned outcomes," the GAO report, addressed to MDA Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, stated. "Our analysis suggests that estimated time frames and costs of these programs are either not reliable or the program is missing information that could make it more efficient. The MDA schedule results are similar to those of other agencies that GAO has analyzed. We are recommending actions that would better ensure compliance with schedule best practices for the five programs reviewed as well as for the long-term MDA program."

In addition to the PTSS effort, GAO looked at the Standard Missile Block IIA, Aegis Ashore, Ground-based Midcourse Defense and the Extended Medium-Range Ballistic Missile Target programs, according to the July 19 report.

"Overall, none of the five programs had an integrated master schedule for the entire length of acquisition as called for by the first best practice, meaning the programs are at risk for unreliable completion estimates and delays," the report states.

The defense industry is struggling to determine the impact of sequestration because of a dearth of guidance from the Obama administration, according to recent letters industry leaders sent to lawmakers that deride the potential defense cuts but in many cases are short on requested details.

Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) released the letters from industry today. He and six colleagues requested details in June from 15 companies on how sequestration cuts would impact their employees, partners and suppliers; when the firms expected to issue layoff notices; and whether they have experienced a slowdown in new contract awards due to funding uncertainty. Two letters, from ATK and CSC, are still pending.

In several of the letters, defense industry officials note that they expect a reduction in contracts that corresponds with the across-the-board percentage cut expected by the Pentagon.

L-3 for example said that it anticipates the loss of about $1.1 billion in annual sales, based on the approximate 12 percent across the board annual reduction to contracts and subcontracts supporting DOD if sequestration is enacted. But the company doesn't anticipate any full contract terminations as a result of sequestration, although "partial contract terminations are possible and perhaps likely," states the Aug. 21 letter from Chairman, President and CEO Michael Strianese.

The companies were asked what the impact would be of terminating or restructuring contracts as a result of sequestration. EADS North America Chairman and CEO Sean O'Keefe states in his July 18 letter that a 15 percent reduction in revenues may "eliminate the business case for continuing the contract" and lead to termination. In comparison, a 10 percent reduction could require "redefining the business case" so the company could continue to execute the contract. He anticipates that every one of its nearly 20 DOD or Homeland Security contracts could potentially require restructuring.

O'Keefe specifically noted that EADS has made "significant, self-funded investments" to compete for the Armed Aerial Scout program. If sequestration leads to this program's cancellation, the company would have "invested tens of millions of precious research and development dollars in AAS that could have been spent creating jobs in other market sectors," he writes.

Many of the letters noted sequestration would have a detrimental impact on national security, expressing concern about how the cuts would affect the supply chain. Several of the companies noted contract awards are being delayed because of uncertainty and lack of guidance regarding sequestration implementation. Raytheon's Chairman and CEO William Swanson stated that the "consequences of sequestration are already beginning to manifest themselves."

The defense leaders urge Congress to find a solution to prevent sequestration from taking effect

Honeywell Aerospace President and CEO Timothy Mahoney writes in his July 19 letter that the company would like to see a "more thoughtful decision-making process, which prioritizes the must-have systems for the Department of Defense with deeper cuts in less critical programs, informed by the mid- and long-range defense strategy and changing threat landscape."

Lawmakers are waiting on a congressionally mandated report from the White House detailing how it would implement the cuts in fiscal year 2013.

The Obama administration is preparing a report to Congress "on the effect of existing foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations," according to a Federal Register notice published this morning.

Consequently, the Commerce Department's Industry and Security Bureau "is requesting public comments to conduct consultations with U.S. industries," the notice reads. Further:

Section 6 of the Export Administration Act (EAA) requires BIS to consult with industry on the effect of such controls and to report the results of the consultations to Congress. Comments from all interested persons are welcome. All comments will be made available for public inspection and copying and included in a report to be submitted to Congress.

Commerce has set the following criteria to determine whether to extend U.S. foreign policy-based export controls, according to the notice:

1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve their intended foreign policy purposes, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology proposed for such controls;

2. Whether the foreign policy objective of such controls can be achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;

3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United States and with overall U.S. policy toward the country subject to the controls;

4. Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy interests;

5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and

6. The ability of the United States to effectively enforce the controls.

In particular, the Industry and Security Bureau wants industry to comment on "the economic impact of proliferation controls," as well as information on:

1. Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (i.e., those countries not targeted by sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospective customers regarding U.S. foreign policy-based export controls.

2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners. For example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?

3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy based export controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, and requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).

4. Suggestions for bringing foreign policy-based export controls more into line with multilateral practice.

5. Comments or suggestions to make multilateral controls more effective.

6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the controls.

7. Data or other information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on overall trade at the level of individual industrial sectors.

8. Suggestions for measuring the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade.

9. Information on the use of foreign policy-based export controls on targeted countries, entities, or individuals. BIS is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy-based export controls.