The Insider

By John Liang
July 25, 2012 at 9:49 PM

The Missile Defense Agency has awarded a $925 million sole-source contract to Raytheon Missile Systems Co. to continue work on the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA system.

According to a Pentagon statement issued late this afternoon:

Under this modification, the contractor will perform Standard Missile-3 Block IIA all up round development and integration through critical design review and flight test support.  The work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz.  The performance period is from July 27, 2012, through Feb. 28, 2017.  Fiscal 2012 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Missile Defense Agency, Dahlgren, Va., is the contracting activity.

The Block IIA missile is a co-development effort between the United States and Japan, a Raytheon statement issued not long after the Defense Department's announcement reads, adding:

"As the threat continues to evolve, so does our ability to counter that threat," said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems. "We're honored to work with our Japanese allies to bring this next-generation defensive capability to the world."

Used by the U.S. and Japanese navies to destroy short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, the SM-3 is the only defensive weapon of its kind. The SM-3 Block IIA will have a 21-inch 2nd and 3rd stage rocket motor and a larger, more capable kinetic warhead.

On track for a 2018 deployment date, the missile is the third evolution of the SM-3 family of missiles and builds on the successful legacy of the first two variants: SM-3 Block IA and SM-3 Block IB. The SM-3 program has achieved 21 successful intercepts.

"The SM-3 IIA's larger rocket motors will allow for a greater defended area, which is an important factor when it comes to protecting both the U.S. and our NATO allies," said Wes Kremer, vice president of the Air and Missile Defense Systems product line for Raytheon Missile Systems.

SM-3 Block IA missiles are currently employed on Japan's Kongo-class ships.

By John Liang
July 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

The Senate Intelligence Committee today approved the fiscal year 2013 intelligence authorization bill by a 14-1 vote, according to a panel statement.

According to the committee statement:

The legislation authorizes intelligence funding to counter terrorist threats, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, enhance counterintelligence, conduct covert actions and collect and analyze intelligence around the globe.

Consistent with the Administration's budget request, the Intelligence Committee reduced spending from fiscal year 2012 without harming national security.

By John Liang
July 25, 2012 at 3:54 PM

A senior Commerce Department official has publicly acknowledged that the continued use of the catch-all phrase "specially designed" for military use to control items on the Commerce Control List (CCL) and the U.S. Munitions List (USML), albeit with a new definition, falls short of a key goal of the export control reform initiative. As Inside U.S. Trade reports:

That goal has been to create a "positive" control list that identifies items by their technical performance capabilities and their characteristics.

"The use of 'specially designed' is . . . not in keeping with our ultimate goal of creating truly positive, objective lists of controlled items," Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration Kevin Wolf said in his July 17 opening speech to the export control Update Conference hosted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). "We want to control items of concern, not intentions."

But the term is by its nature a catch-all control and the new definition of "specially designed" proposed in June does to some extent still rely on design intent in two out of five elements of the proposed rule. The rule is structured to capture items as "specially designed" in a broad definition and then creates five carve-outs that release them.

The first carve-out to rely on design intent would allow someone to prove through documentation that a part or component that was or is being developed for both a commercial and military purpose should be exempt even if it is being used exclusively in a military end item. The second carve-out would provide an exemption if it can be proven that an item has been originally developed for a general, commercial purpose even though it is used almost exclusively in a military application.

Wolf said it has been difficult to come up with a good definition for specially designed because the term is used in so many different ways throughout the export control system. For example, it is used as a control and a decontrol parameter, he said.

It also applies to parts and components with particular characteristics but also to parts and components designed for another item regardless of performance characteristics. It is a term that is applied to end items, raw materials, systems and software, Wolf said.

On top of that, the term is used in four different multilateral export control regimes with different applications, including the Wassenaar Arrangement This makes it difficult to completely eliminate the undesirable term even in the midst of a major overhaul of the export control system, he said.

But Wolf emphasized that BIS is taking a further step toward its ultimate goal of doing away with the term "specially designed" for military use. He pointed to the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking BIS issued last month to collect comments on the feasibility of enumerating components on the CCL that are now captured by the "specially designed" term.

Comments on that notice are due by Sept. 17, and should address whether it would be possible to enumerate items subject to controls outside the new 600 series of Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) by their technical parameters or characteristics. The 600 series ECCNs are being created to hold most items that will be transferred from the revised USML categories as part of the reform effort.

By John Liang
July 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Inside the Army reports this week that German defense minister Thomas de Maizière again has asked U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to help save the Medium Extended Air Defense System from the congressional budget ax:

"With regard to future bi- and multilateral trans-Atlantic projects and the great importance of obligations under international agreements, I am counting on your continued support also toward Congress and Senate Appropriations Committee," de Maizière wrote in a July 9 letter to Panetta.

Senate appropriators have yet to mark up a fiscal year 2013 military spending bill. House appropriators, and authorizers from both chambers, have zeroed out funding for the program in their respective defense bills for the fiscal year beginning in October.

MEADS is a joint project involving the United States, Germany and Italy. The $4 billion development cost is split between the countries: 58 percent from the U.S. Defense Department, 25 percent from Germany, and 17 percent from Italy.

While the German defense chief's letter, peppered with allusions to German-American relations being on the line, takes an almost pleading tone, Panetta's options are limited. He and his top lieutenants already have asked key lawmakers to restore $400 million requested in the budget, arguing U.S. credibility in international projects would be jeopardized by walking away from the program prematurely.

We now have the letter, in both German and English. Click here to view it.

By John Liang
July 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Defense industry leaders met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday at the Pentagon, where the effects of sequestration was "the top item on the agenda," according to a readout released by the Defense Department.

"Panetta told industry representatives that his focus continues to be on preventing sequestration by urging Congress to achieve responsible deficit reduction," the Pentagon statement reads. "He emphasized the impossibility of planning for a sequester in a way that avoids its harmful impacts. There was agreement between the secretary and the CEOs that sequestration will do tremendous harm to domestic and national security programs across the board.

"Panetta further emphasized the department will remain focused on implementing the strategy-driven budget it has developed," the statement continues. "He said that maintaining a strong, vibrant and innovative defense industrial base is one of his top long-term strategic priorities as secretary of defense."

By John Liang
July 23, 2012 at 10:47 PM

During a visit to Japan over the weekend, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter fielded a number of questions about the deployment of V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft to that country. Here are some excerpts from his briefing with reporters:

Q:  In order to implement your new strategy, I believe that deployment of the Osprey, MV-22, are essential.  And as you know, the cargo ship carrying the Ospreys are now heading to Iwakuni.  And it's going to be unloaded on Monday, I guess.  And Osprey flight operations are expected to be in full swing in October.  My question is, can you confirm that you are still sticking to the deployment schedule, regardless of the growing concern among local people in Iwakuni and Okinawa about Osprey's safety?  Or do you have some flexibility on that?  Thank you.

DEP. SEC. CARTER:  Well, you're absolutely right that the Osprey is an important capability; it’s going to make an important new contribution to deterrence and to the deterrent capabilities of the Alliance.  And it's an aircraft that we are flying, and flying the world over.  However, safety is a very important issue, and I am the chief, as I said, the chief management officer of the Department of Defense.  The safety of aircraft is a great concern to me, and a great responsibility of mine.  I take it very seriously, and I think the Government of Japan and the people of Japan also take it very seriously.  I think that’s entirely appropriate.  And we are committed to providing your airworthiness experts with all of the data and all of the information about the entire flight history of the V-22, including the two recent incidents, and allowing them to analyze that data and take every step they need to make to reconfirm the airworthiness of that airplane.  And the two governments have agreed that flight operations will not begin until reconfirmation has taken place.

You asked about the landing of the airframes; that’s a technical step that does not address the safety issue.  That’s a technical step; the aircraft will land at Iwakuni.  But the plan, jointly agreed by the two governments, is to deal with the safety issue.  That will be dealt with.  And there's been no change in that plan at all.

Q:  Ospreys are expected to be fully operational in October.  Can we understand that?

DEP. SEC. CARTER:  Well, I think that that is the goal of the process.  But again, this is a process, a technical process of assessing airworthiness.  And I think you have to let the experts do their work, have their access to their data, and so forth.  So, that’s the current plan, but again, you have to allow people to do their technical work.

I should say, by the way, that this is not something novel.  Our two governments and our two militaries operate a large number of aircraft, and common types of aircraft.  So it’s not unusual to have Japanese experts address airworthiness issues in aircraft -- not just military aircraft, obviously, but commercial aircraft as well.  It’s a normal part of the process of confirming flight safety of aircraft of all types.  So it’s something that is totally understood by Japanese experts as it is by our experts, and let them sit around the data and do their work.

Q:  Yoichi Kato with Asahi Shimbun.  A follow-up on the Osprey issue:  I understand you had a meeting with Vice Defense Minister Watanabe yesterday, and according to his briefing, that he expressed his concern about the negative impact of this deployment, as it is planned already, on the Alliance itself.  And I wonder, whether having all those meetings with your Japanese counterparts, does it have any impact on your assessment of the impact of this deployment on the Alliance itself?  Do you see any negative impact, or even damage to the Alliance if you proceed with the plan as it’s been agreed-decided on the U.S. side?  Thank you.

DEP. SEC. CARTER:  No, I think safety concerns are not damaging to the Alliance.  That’s a very legitimate thing, and we need to address it, and we will address it, and we have a plan to address it.  You’re right; Mr. Watanabe expressed his concerns that if we don’t do what we need to do and plan to do, which is cooperatively address the safety issues, that would be harmful to the Alliance.

Denying ourselves a capability that’s important to the Alliance also would be harmful to the Alliance; that’s why it’s so important to resolve this safety issue.  And so, that’s what we’re going to do.  And that process is a reflection of the strength of the Alliance.

We’ve agreed on a path ahead.  And I absolutely understand the concerns of the Japanese people for flight safety, because I share their concerns for flight safety.  I don’t have any problem with that at all.  These are serious technical issues; they’ll be resolved.

Q:  Thank you very much, Hiro Akita from Nikkei newspaper.  Sorry for to keep asking about Osprey, but everybody is interested.  My question is that, according to the plan, the size of the Marines in Okinawa will be reduced, the combat troops will be reduced by about 50%.  So, people wonder why Marines in Okinawa still needs the same number of the helicopters, Osprey, which is about 24 or 26.  Will it be reduced in the future, when some of the Marines will be transferred from Okinawa to Guam?  Or, still 24 or 26 Osprey will be deployed?

DEP. SEC. CARTER:  That’s still the plan, because that’s the part that goes with a Marine Corps unit of that size.  You’re right that in other respects the number of Marines will come down on Okinawa; that’s one of the whole objectives of the two governments and the 2+2 agreement.  And that means that we will be returning land as part of that agreement to Okinawa; that’s spelled out in the 2+2 agreement.

When I referred earlier to making progress on the Okinawa issue, I spoke of each side doing its part.  One of the things that’s our part to do, to implement the 2+2 agreement, is the land returns.  And we understand that absolutely, and we’re completely committed to it as is spelled out in the 2+2 agreement.  And that’s a reflection of the lowered numbers.

Q:  Keiko Iizuka from the Yomiuri newspaper, and sorry to stick to the Osprey issue again.  I understand that the concerns of the Okinawan people, or Yamaguchi/Iwakuni people, is if there is any flexibility to deploying, fully-operationally, in Okinawa in October, no matter what result comes out of the investigation or review of the two recent incidents.  So I wonder, following up to Mr. Kawakita’s question, is there any flexibility in the room to review the schedule of deploying in October?  And maybe, let’s put the question in this way:  how important, or necessary, strategically, to deploy V-22 in Okinawa in October?  Could it be delayed?  I just would like to know how strategically important it is.

DEP. SEC. CARTER:  The schedule is not the main thing.  Airworthiness and safety is the main thing.  That is what we are trying to work through together.  And I think we both agreed that the Osprey won’t fly in Japan until its airworthiness has been investigated, analyzed, and reconfirmed.  So it’s the airworthiness, not the calendar, that matters.  And to your point about the importance:  yes, it is important.  That’s why we’re all working so hard on this issue, because it is an important capability for the Alliance and for deterrence.

Q:  Perhaps most Japanese people think this is important because this symbolizes how the U.S. government and the Japanese government care about, perhaps, the sentiment about safety -- or maybe bigger than that, about the Alliance, the importance of the Alliance.  And of the impact of the Alliance.  So, would it be absolutely important to deploy it in October?  Could it be delayed in December, just two months would make a big difference?

DEP. SEC. CARTER:  As I said, the calendar is not the important thing.  Safety is the important thing.  That’s what both governments care about; that’s what longstanding, trusting allies that are democracies -- this is how they work things through.  They work cooperatively on issues; they work in a way that’s respectful of the attitudes of their people.  That’s what it’s all about.  We’re used to that.  We’ve been doing this for decades together, Japan and the United States.  It’s not a new kind of thing.

InsideDefense.com's latest coverage of the Osprey program:

Official: V-22 Operates Off Carrier, Performs Simulated CASEVAC On SSBN
(Inside the Navy - 07/23/2012)

Seeking International Buyers, Navy Sends Four V-22s To Farnborough
(Inside the Navy - 07/23/2012)

DOD Plan Would Take Years To Equip V-22s With Needed Voice Recorders
(Inside the Pentagon - 07/19/2012)

By John Liang
July 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM

The Defense Science Board plans to meet in closed session next month to discuss interim findings from its study of "Technology and Innovation Enablers for Superiority in 2030," according to a Federal Register notice published this morning.

From Aug. 20-24, "the Board will discuss interim finding and recommendations resulting from ongoing Task Force activities. The Board will also discuss plans for future consideration of scientific and technical aspects of specific strategies, tactics, and policies as they may affect the U.S. national defense posture and homeland security," the notice states.

In March, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall commissioned the study, an effort that stems from the Obama administration's January revision of the Pentagon's strategic guidance. As InsideDefense.com reported at the time:

"Technologies that have the potential to significantly enhance or transform the nature of warfare in the air, sea, land, space and cyber regimes should be the focus on this study," Kendall wrote in a previously unreported March 15 memo to Paul Kaminski, the science board chairman and a former Pentagon acquisition executive.

The study is being led by Jim Tegnelia, a defense consultant and director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency from 2005 to 2009, and James Shields, president and chief executive officer of Draper Laboratory.

"The study should include surveying and assessing the potential for significant advances in technology outside DOD that could contribute to future military capabilities," Kendall wrote. Areas the task force should explore, according to Kendall's memo, include quantum computing, microelectronics, robotics, nanomaterial, genetics, alternative energy sources, advanced materials, "big data" and modeling and simulation.

"The 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance includes the tenet that technological superiority will continue to be a critical enabler for superior U.S. warfighting capability," Kendall wrote.

The Pentagon's research and development investments over the "next several years" will shape future capabilities, Kendall wrote, noting that the military will also likely rely on private-sector developments. Declining budgets, he wrote, will require the Defense Department to "be selective" with its research and development resources.

By Christopher J. Castelli
July 20, 2012 at 9:05 PM

National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon will travel to Beijing, China on July 22 for meetings with senior Chinese officials, including State Councilor Dai Bingguo, the White House announced Friday.

Donilon will discuss "the current and future state of U.S.-China relations and cooperation on regional and global challenges of mutual concern including nonproliferation, regional security in Asia and the Middle East, and global economic growth," according to the statement, which notes Donilon "will then travel to Tokyo for consultations with senior Japanese officials on U.S.-Japan security cooperation and other bilateral issues, as well as a range of regional and global challenges."

This week, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has been on a 10-day trip to the Asia-Pacific region, including a scheduled visit to Japan.

By John Liang
July 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday held a hearing to consider the nomination of Army National Guard Lt. Gen. Frank Grass for the position of National Guard Bureau chief.

In his answers to advance policy questions submitted prior to the hearing, Grass was asked to provide his "broad priorities" for the National Guard. Here they are:

1) Develop and articulate a vision and strategy for the National Guard that effectively addresses the security needs of the nation;

2) Increase shared awareness and common purpose through more structured interactions between the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Adjutants Generals;

3) Take care of our soldiers and airmen by keeping faith with our all-volunteer force;

4) Review, analyze, outline, and implement tangible methods to make our organization more efficient and effective in all processes;

5) Ensure that the National Guard Bureau operates as a highly effective joint organization and that a realigned National Guard Bureau staff provides the support necessary to enable the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to fully participate as a valued member of the JCS team;

6) Ensure that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau always has full situational awareness so as to provide our nation’s leaders with accurate and timely military advice related to National Guard capabilities;

7) Improve stewardship of the DoD resources entrusted to the National Guard.

The committee also considered the nominations of Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh to become the service's chief of staff and Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Kelly to become the head of U.S. Southern Command. Click here for their answers to advance policy questions, and here to read Inside the Air Force's coverage of Welsh's testimony.

By John Liang
July 19, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey tweeted today that he had issued a "Joint Education White Paper" that sets goals for educating the Joint Force. According to the document's introduction:

As we reflect on the conduct of Joint operations since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, the lessons of the last decade of war, and on the future it is clear that joint education is essential to the development of our military capabilities. Today's Joint Force is a highly experienced, battle-tested body of men and women, with a decade of practical, focused warfighting knowledge.Our colleagues and schools have not had so many seasoned combat leaders in their classrooms for at least two decades. Our education efforts provide a force multiplier in our effort to develop and advance the shared values, standards and attributes that define our Profession of Arms. However, much is changing in the security environment as well as the experience of our leaders that will challenge us to deliver high-quality Joint education as never before. The explosion of information technologies that provides global and regional actors nearly instant access to information means that the United States no longer enjoys clear operational and technological advantages in the competition to "observe, orient, decide and act" more effectively than adversaries. We must learn and properly place in context the key lessons of the last decade of war and in doing so, we will prepare our leaders for what is ahead -- not just what is behind us. This is why we must review our joint education objectives and institutions to ensure that we are developing agile and adaptive leaders with the requisite values, strategic vision and critical thinking skills necessary to keep pace with the changing strategic environment. If we get this right, and get it right now, we will excel well beyond 2020.

Some recent, military-education-related stories from InsideDefense.com:

Marine Corps Urged To Better Support Increasingly Key Small-Unit Leaders
(Inside the Pentagon - 06/21/2012)

OMB Memo: FY-14 S&T Priorities Include Manufacturing, Green Tech
(Inside the Pentagon - 06/14/2012)

Draft Pentagon Report Lays Out Key Lessons From 'Decade Of War'
(Inside the Navy - 06/11/2012)

By Christopher J. Castelli
July 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

The Defense Department's Rapid Innovation Fund -- the subject of new guidance from DOD acquisition chief Frank Kendall -- sparked debate on the House floor Wednesday as Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) sought unsuccessfully to cut $250 million for the effort from House's fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations bill. Pompeo's amendment failed by vote of 137 to 282.

"I urge my colleagues to reject this effort," Pompeo said of the proposed $250 million appropriation. "First of all, the Pentagon . . . never asked for this money. Four DOD agencies declined an invitation to even participate in the fund. There is clearly no one in the military clamoring for what is essentially a slush fund. With sequestration looming, now is the time to make tough choices, not to add $250 million of wasteful spending." Pompeo argued the fund is neither rapid, nor innovative. It was created by Congress because Congress ended earmarks, and some have wanted a way to have earmark-type projects continue to receive government money, he said.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, defended the account. "The Rapid Innovation Fund was authorized and appropriated by Congress in 2011 to allow innovative small businesses to compete for funding within the Department of Defense," he said. "It is a competitive, merit-based program designed to accelerate the fielding of innovative technologies into military systems." The account was created because small businesses have a lot to offer DOD, Dicks argued.

"Not all of the innovations come from Lockheed and Boeing and General Dynamics," Dicks added. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) also defended account, arguing it enables small businesses to provide better, more affordable technology that can be incorporated into major weapons systems.

Inside the Pentagon has more on the fund in today's issue:

Kendall Issues Guidance On $200 Million Rapid Innovation Fund

Emphasizing energy security, materials and microelectronics, the Pentagon this month issued internal guidance to defense officials on how the department plans to use the Rapid Innovation Fund to spur investment and followed up with a related solicitation to industry.

The fund, which DOD did not request funding for in fiscal year 2013, is supposed to support small, urgent projects to be developed by industry. The FY-12 funding for the program is $200 million.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall's new guidance lays out detailed plans for the selection of proposals, the evaluation of the proposals, how the awards will be given and how the technology developed will be transitioned into other programs. The memo also says the effort will focus on enhancing energy security and independence, developing advanced materials and advancing microelectronics.

By John Liang
July 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter yesterday spoke about the administration's strategic shift in focus to East Asia, now that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.

In a speech aboard the battleship Missouri in Pearl Harbor, HI, Carter said:

Iraq we have brought to an end, and in Afghanistan, we have a plan that is shared with all our coalition partners, to bring that down -- our activity in Afghanistan -- to an enduring presence starting in 2015. What the President and Secretary of Defense have told us is that they understand that as this era -- the era of Iraq and Afghanistan -- ends, we need to lift our heads up out of the foxhole we've been in, look up, look around, and see what the problems are, and the security opportunities there are, that will define our future -- your future. And those issues, those challenges and those opportunities are, very importantly, in the Asia-Pacific region, which you now serve. So this is where our future lies, and you, right here, right now, are a very important part of that transition, that great transition that this great military is embarked upon.

Secretary Panetta was out here not long ago, the President was out here, the Secretary of State was out here. And I'm out here in their wake, to show that when they talked about rebalancing our security effort to the Asia-Pacific theater, that we aren't just talking the talk, we're walking the walk. And so in all of the allies and partnerships where we have forces deployed or forces rotating and acting in partnership, I want to check on their status -- our own people. I want to check on the health of our alliances and relationships; make sure that we're doing all the things that we can do, all the things that we said we would do, all the things that we're planning to do, to rebalance our effort to this region.

We do this at a time of great strategic transition, as I've already said. We also do it at a time when the country is trying to rebalance its own fiscal situation. And the other thing I'd tell you is that we understand that, and we can do what we need to do here within the constraints of the amount of money that the country is able to give us -- in important measure because much of the capacity that we have been using in Iraq and Afghanistan we can now apply to this region. So we're going to do it, we can do it even within the budgetary circumstances that we find ourselves. And so, as I go on from here to Guam, and then to Japan, and then to Thailand, and then to India and finally to Korea, I'll be looking at our relationships with those countries and implicitly with all of the other countries in this area, and saying, "What is it that I need to go back to Washington and make sure we're doing on our end to hold up our bargain with you, out here, who are at the point of the spear on this effort?"

There are a number of different aspects to the rebalancing here. I'll just say that it really starts with the principles that we stand up for, that we uphold, and that we have stood for in this part of the world for 70 years now, since World War II ended aboard this vessel. I always try to summarize it in the following way: I say that this region of the world has enjoyed peace and prosperity for 70 years now.  It's a remarkable achievement. In that environment of peace and security, first Japan was able to rise; then Korea was able to rise; and now, yes, China, able to rise to develop their own people, to develop economically. And that's only possible in an environment of peace and security.

And that doesn't come automatically out here. It was the United States and our presence -- constant and strong -- in this region over a period of 70 years, that created that environment of peace and security. We think that's been a good thing.  It's been good for us, and it's been good for every other country in this region. We aim to keep that going. We aim to continue to be the pivotal factor for peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.

See below for some of InsideDefense.com's recent coverage of the administration's new focus on Asia:

Forbes: Asia-Pacific Strategy Needs To Be Backed By Resources, Analysis
(Inside the Navy -- 07/02/2012)

Army Eyes Network Evaluation To Help Establish Relevance In Asia-Pacific Strategy
(DefenseAlert -- Thursday, 21 June 2012)

Locklear: Despite Shifting Focus In Pacific, Northeast Asia A 'Cornerstone'
(Inside the Navy -- 06/18/2012)

By John Liang
July 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM

The Congressional Research Service this week issued a report on the Unified Command Plan and the combatant commands.

The July 17 report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News -- lists several topics for congressional introspection:

Potential issues for Congress include the implications of a strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific region. Another issue is whether there is a need for greater interagency involvement in the UCP development process. A possible area for congressional concern is if Geographical COCOMs have made U.S. foreign policy "too militarized." Some have also suggested there might be a need for separate COCOMs apart from the current nine to better address emerging regional and ethnic alignments as well as emerging threats such as cyber warfare. Finally, if Congress believes the current COCOM construct does not meet contemporary or future security requirements, there are proposals for alternative organizational structures that might prove more effective.

Here is some of InsideDefense.com's recent coverage of the COCOMS and the UCP:

Proposal To Elevate SOCOM's Clout Among COCOMs Still Under Review
(Inside the Army - 04/16/2012)

DOD To Review Unified Command Plan In Light Of New Defense Strategy
(Inside the Army - 01/16/2012)

By John Liang
July 18, 2012 at 8:10 PM

The House Homeland Security oversight, investigations and management subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow on using unmanned systems within the United States. According to the subcommittee's website, witnesses include:

Panel I

Mr. Todd E. Humphreys, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Cockrell School of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin

Panel II

Mr. Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D.

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office

Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel

Montgomery County (TX) Sheriff’s Office

Ms. Amie Stepanovich

Litigation Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center

Even though he isn't on the witness list, Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, released prepared testimony for tomorrow's hearing, which in part states:

In addition to safe operations, the industry is committed to building safeguards into UAS technology, such as "sense and avoid" systems and other innovations, which will enable a safe and orderly integration. For example, the U.S. Army recently completed a two-week evaluation of a Ground Based Sense and Avoid (GBSAA) system at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. The system uses 3-D radar and software algorithms to detect other aircraft flying in the vicinity of UAS, and safely steer UAS away from other aircraft. In both live and simulated tests, the system successfully recognized conflicts and navigated UAS away from other aircraft.

The GBSAA system provides a window into the type of "sense and avoid" technologies available for the U.S. domestic airspace. Meanwhile, the development of this particular system is ahead of schedule. The Army has said the GBSAA could be deployed as early as March 2014, one full year ahead of the Army's initial estimate of 2015.

Here's some related coverage from InsideDefense.com:

Successful Demo Could Enable More Drone Flights In U.S. Airspace
(Inside the Pentagon - 06/28/2012)

Forbes: Process Used To Fly Drones In U.S. Airspace Too Burdensome
(Inside the Pentagon - 06/21/2012)

DOD To Demo New Airborne Sense-And-Avoid Requirements For Drones
(Inside the Pentagon - 06/14/2012)

Kendall: Air Force Needs Greater Airspace Access For Unmanned Aircraft
(Inside the Pentagon - 06/14/2012)

Senate Panel Wants Annual Reports On UAS Airspace Integration Efforts
(Inside the Pentagon - 06/07/2012)

Report Details Integration Of UAS Into the National Airspace System
(Inside the Air Force - 06/01/2012)

And for InsideDefense.com's complete coverage of unmanned issues, click here.

By John Liang
July 18, 2012 at 3:41 PM

The House Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing today to solicit defense industry perspectives on the effects of sequestration. Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens, EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe, Pratt & Whitney CEO David Hess and Williams-Pyro CEO Della Williams are testifying.

In his opening statement, committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) said:

Barring a new agreement between Congress and the White House on deficit reduction, over a trillion dollars in automatic cuts -- known as sequestration -- will take effect. Although the House has passed a measure that would achieve the necessary deficit reduction to avoid sequestration for a year -- the Senate has yet to consider legislation. And the President's Budget submission, which sought $1.2 trillion in alternative deficit reduction through increased tax revenue, was defeated in a bi-partisan, bi-cameral manner.

This impasse, and lack of a clear way forward, has created a chaotic and uncertain budget environment for industry and defense planners. While the cuts are scheduled for implementation January 2nd, companies are required to assess and plan according to the law -- and sequestration is the law right now.

. . . And here's an excerpt from the opening statement of Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA):

I voted against the Budget Control Act, which put us on the excruciating path to sequestration.  We need a long-term plan for curbing our debt and for getting our deficits under control, but I disagreed with the BCA’s approach.  Deficit-reduction goals cannot be achieved through spending cuts alone, especially if those cuts are exclusive to non-defense programs.  Everything needs to be carefully considered in devising a balanced approach.  Revenues need to be increased, mandatory programs need to be brought in line with what we can afford over the long term, and domestic spending should be carefully examined to find real and substantial savings over time.  Unfortunately, instead of working seriously to find such a balanced solution, the majority in Congress has refused to consider revenue increases and focused instead on measures to kick the threat of sequester slightly down the road.  That is just not good enough.

With national security, the economy, and our future at stake, it is my hope that reason will prevail.  The solution to this problem is simple. Let’s put realistic revenue options on the table and find the $1.2 trillion in savings mandated by the Budget Control Act.  I stand ready to work with each of my colleagues in reaching a timely and sensible compromise.

Click here to view the CEOs' prepared testimony.