The Insider

No Plans
By Jordana Mishory
June 21, 2012 at 8:46 PM

The Pentagon is not planning for potential sequestration cuts because it does not want to end up having to face the effects of its plans, a senior defense official said.

During a Bloomberg Government defense conference in Washington today, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Zachary Lemnios said the department is not planning for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts from sequestration “because if you do, you sort of end up on that slope. And the secretary has made that point and we’re absolutely clear on that.”

Lemnios said the two chambers of Congress and the administration have to work together to solve the crisis. “It has to happen in that fashion rather than in this glide slope that ends up being a precipice that no body wants to be in,” Lemnios said.

He argued that it would be much more productive to spend the administration’s energy on proposing a solution rather than planning for a set of options that could possibly not happen.

During the session, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he was completely puzzled by the Pentagon’s refusal to plan, contending that it was more political in nature than substantive. He said he and his colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee have pressed officials on the issue of what happens when sequestration gets triggered in January. Brooks said the administration responded that the Defense Department was going to start terminating contracts for the convenience of the government or renegotiating them.

“I would encourage the White House to start planning and the Pentagon to be freed from this restraint so that they can start planning, and most importantly so that they will be in a position where they can describe to the public the adverse affects of sequestration, so the public can make perhaps some informed decisions on the election day in November,” Brooks said.

He anticipated seeing massive numbers of industry layoffs due to these cuts.

Brooks laid out some scenarios that could occur to meet the sequestration funding levels: mothballing one or two carrier battle groups; mothballing one or two submarines; or mothballing a significant percentage of the fighter and bomber capabilities.

Lemnios did note that the Pentagon is planning for a future research and engineering portfolio that is more tightly coupled with academia and with industry.

V-22 Briefing
By Christopher J. Castelli
June 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM

The Defense Department will brief Japanese defense officials tomorrow on the status of investigations concerning recent V-22 Osprey crashes, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters today. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Mark Lippert will participate in the briefing, Little said.

The Marine Corps' plans to base MV-22 Ospreys in Japan are facing potential delays amid increasing concern there about the safety of the aircraft. An Air Force CV-22 Osprey crashed June 13 during a routine training mission at Hurlburt Field's Eglin Range, north of Navarre, FL. InsideDefense.com reported last night that the Air Force has removed the commander of the 8th Special Operations Squadron, citing a lack of confidence in his leadership following that crash. The Marine Corps, meanwhile, has been investigating a fatal MV-22 Osprey crash in Morocco on April 11.

Negative Behavior
By Jordana Mishory
June 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM

The threat of sequestration introduces a huge amount of uncertainty for the defense industry, which could lead to negative behaviors, Brett Lambert, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for manufacturing and industrial base policy, said today.

Speaking at a Bloomberg Government defense conference in Washington, Lambert said the industrial base needs certainty to be able to make plans six months, 12 months or 18 months down the road to provide goods and services to the warfighter.

Sequestration, which would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Pentagon over the next decade, is slated to begin in January 2013 if lawmakers do not act.

"In the absence of certainty, people will tend to gravitate to the most negative behaviors," Lambert said. He noted that the Budget Control Act of 2011, which set up sequestration as a trigger if Congress failed to create a plan to cut the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, was pretty clear about how these cuts would affect the Defense Department. Defense officials state they are not creating plans to deal with these cuts.

Marion Blakey, the president and chief executive officer of the Aerospace Industries Association, said these negative, or conservative, behaviors that industry is engaged in consist of holding back on investments or not deploying capital in a way to help the economy. Industry is also not training or hiring, she said.

She noted that observers are beginning to see the "withering" away of both companies and vital capabilities. "You’re also loosing vital capabilities in terms of technology and our ability to advance in ways that will spur our economy," Blakey said.

She said time is running out for Congress to solve the sequestration threat. She said the rational approach would be to directly repeal the law.

Sequestration Blues
By Jordana Mishory
June 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Alarm bells continue to ring over the hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon cuts that could result from sequestration as several members of Congress today called for the Obama administration to take a larger role in solving the problem and encouraged fellow lawmakers to put everything -- including taxes and entitlements -- on the table.

During a Bloomberg Government defense conference, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said the White House must take a larger role.

“The idea the administration can sit back and not do anything about this is unacceptable as far as I am concerned,” said Dicks, the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee.

Forbes, who chairs the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, said he was shocked by reports that the Pentagon was not planning for the cuts. McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the president needs to take the lead, and called on the president to start a dialogue with Republican leaders in Congress.

McCain added that he could be open to revenue increases.

Dicks concurred, and said House leaders should set up a bipartisan staff panel to find a way to resolve the sequestration issue before the election, rather than waiting for a lame-duck session afterwards.

Forbes called for the Senate to pass a bill to enable the two houses to deal with sequestration in the conference process. He also said the idea of sequestration should be debated during congressional campaigns this year, as well as the presidential race. He said he hopes it galvanizes the public to demand action.

During the session, former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim said that if lawmakers were able to cut a deal they would have done so already. Zakheim said he does not understand why the White House has been sitting on its hands. He said the lame-duck Congress does not have the incentive to fix the problem of sequestration.

Zakheim recommended lawmakers pass a one-year continuing resolution and force the new Congress to solve the problem next year.

Washington Declaration
By John Liang
June 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and New Zealand Minister of Defence Jonathan Coleman yesterday signed a declaration at the Pentagon to expand the defense relationship between the two countries.

The "Washington Declaration," according to a Pentagon statement, "provides a framework for cooperation to focus, strengthen and expand the bilateral defense relationship. It promotes a common vision for defense cooperation in order to strengthen and expand practical bilateral cooperation." The statement continues:

The "Washington Declaration" opens up defense dialogues that include the exchange of information and strategic perspectives and increase understanding of defense policies. It reflects a shared commitment to a stable and peaceful Asia-Pacific region and common approaches to address the region's defense and security issues, including contemporary non-traditional security challenges.

The partnership will include security cooperation in areas such as maritime security cooperation, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and peacekeeping support operations.

The "Washington Declaration" was signed a week after commemorative events took place in cities across New Zealand celebrating the 70th Anniversary of U.S. forces coming to the aid of New Zealand in World War II.

Gulf Cooperation
By John Liang
June 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) this morning released a staff report examining the evolving security framework in the Persian Gulf.  "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership with the Gulf Cooperation Council" identifies challenges and opportunities associated with promoting U.S. interests and a stable security environment in the Gulf region, according to a committee statement, which further reads:

Home to more than half of the world's oil reserves and over a third of its natural gas, the stability of the Gulf is critical to the global economy. A confluence of events in the Middle East -- the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, the Arab Revolutions, and the ongoing concerns over Iran's nuclear program -- have raised questions about the Gulf region and U.S. relations with the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

"The Gulf Region is strategically important to the United States economically, politically, and for security reasons," said Sen. Kerry. "This is a period of historic, but turbulent change in the Middle East. We need to be clear-eyed about what these interests are and how best to promote them. This report provides a thoughtful set of recommendations designed to do exactly that."

Committee staffers traveled to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Iraq "to examine the future multilateral relationship, which is the basis for the report," according to the statement.

The report includes seven recommendations:

* The United States should leverage its strategic position to be a steady force for moderation, stability, and non-sectarianism, through patient and persistent engagement in support of human rights. The United States should not be quick to rescind security assurances or assistance in response to human rights abuses, but should evaluate each case on its own merits. U.S. government officials should use these tools to advance human rights through careful diplomacy. Consistency is a hallmark of a successful security partnership. Nonetheless, there should be redlines associated with the U.S. security agreements in the Gulf, like elsewhere. The United States should make clear that states must not use arms procured from the United States against their own people engaged in peaceful assembly or exploit the U.S. security umbrella as protection for belligerent action against their neighbors.

* The United States should seek to remain a central part of the Gulf security framework. The Administration should encourage the development of institutions like the GCC and Arab League, while seeking to strengthen bilateral ties. However, the GCC is not a monolith, and a multilateral architecture must accommodate the significant differences among the Gulf states. The United States has a unique diplomatic and security role to play in the GCC. To protect its regional security interests, the United States should seek to reinforce its position as a core interlocutor around which intra-GCC security is organized, through robust diplomatic and economic engagement, military-to-military cooperation, and security assistance. However, there is some concern in various GCC capitals that the United States has not been forthcoming enough in communicating its vision of how it would like this cooperation to evolve amidst the political turmoil of the Arab Awakening. American officials should seek to ameliorate these concerns by more clearly articulating to its GCC partners the United States' vision for a Gulf security framework, as well as its strategic priorities for the broader region.

* The United States should work with GCC states to promote economic reform and diversification, as well as increased trade relations. The Gulf states have recognized this dilemma and to varying degrees have sought to diversify their economies and better prepare their workforces for the global marketplace. To help the GCC countries tackle their structural unemployment and underemployment, the United States should focus on educational and labor reforms, as well as the promotion of entrepreneurship.

* The United States should preserve the model of "lily pad" bases throughout the Gulf, which permits the rapid escalation of military force in case of emergency. The Obama Administration has adopted this architecture by retaining only essential personnel in the region while ensuring access to critical hubs such as Camp Arifjan, Al Udeid, Al Dhafra, Jebel Ali, and Naval Support Activity Bahrain. An agile footprint enables the United States to quickly deploy its superior conventional force should conflict arise, without maintaining a costly and unsustainable presence. Sustaining physical infrastructure and enabling functions such as intelligence, surveillance, and logistics, while keeping certain war reserve materiel forward positioned, is more important than deploying large numbers of U.S. forces.

* The U.S. government should continue to cultivate the capabilities of GCC partners in select defensive missions, such as missile defense, combat air patrol, and maritime security, while building capacity through deployments in other theaters such as Libya and Afghanistan. Burden-sharing does not imply that the United States is abandoning the region or relinquishing its role as a security guarantor. Rather, it is intended to deepen strategic ties with the Gulf by improving the competencies of the GCC states through joint exercises, security assistance, and training. Over time, these partnerships can improve the effectiveness of Gulf militaries, promote trust, and instill professional military values such as respect for civilian authority, human rights, and the rule-of-law. However, the Obama Administration should carefully consider what missions it expects the Gulf states to execute effectively.

* The United States should continue to supply Gulf partners with security assistance that supports a comprehensive strategy for regional arms sales to ensure a stable security architecture. The United States derives a number of benefits from supplying the GCC states with defense materiel and training: interoperability, access, leverage, relationships, and regional balance. But the United States should be scrupulous in determining which weapons systems to sell in order to 1) ensure that sales contribute to regional security and do not weaken the position of Israel, 2) support the legitimate defense requirements of Gulf partners, 3) prevent a regional arms race, and 4) protect its technological superiority.

* The United States should promote the gradual political reintegration of Iraq into the Arab fold. Iraq's Arab League presidency in 2012 is an opportunity for the United States to promote a gradual rebalancing of the Gulf’s security architecture, improved counterterrorism cooperation between Iraq and the GCC, and a reduction in sectarian tensions. In particular, in light of reciprocal visits by Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, there may be opportunities for progress on the outstanding bilateral issues dating to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, including border demarcation, war reparations, and the disposition of missing Kuwaiti citizens.

Proposal Promulgated
By Maggie Ybarra
June 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Hawker Beechcraft has submitted a proposal for a contested contract that would deliver 20 aircraft to the Afghan military.

The company is offering its Beechcraft AT-6 aircraft for the Light Air Support contract and delivered a proposal for that contract to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, today, according to a company statement. Hawker Beechcraft was the losing competitor for the $355 million contract last year. The company sued the Air Force for information that would back up the service's decision to eliminate the company from the competition and, in response, the Air Force rescinded the contract, yanking it out of the coffers of Sierra Nevada Corp. and Brazil's Embraer, the contracting team which initially won the right to produce aircraft.

Last week, Sierra Nevada filed a lawsuit against the Air Force, seeking to have the contract reinstated.

Allegations have cropped up in recent months regarding the safety of the aircraft. Some of the safety issues include the ejection-seat requirements for the aircraft, which some sources claim to be sub-standard. Other safety issues hone in on the Air Force's decision to eliminate a flight-demonstration requirement that was in the initial request for proposals. The requirement was cut out of the request for proposals after the service revised the RFP.

Hawker, in its statement, assured the public that its aircraft met Air Force requirements.

"Our proposal clearly demonstrates that the AT-6 meets or exceeds all LAS requirements with an integrated solution of systems that combine an American-made production aircraft, worldwide logistics and USAF-standard training capabilities," the statement reads. "Both the U.S. Air Force and the Afghanistan Air Force will benefit from the AT-6's unmatched LAS capability. It is the best value solution for America's Building Partnership Capacity needs."

But those Air Force requirements are being questioned by several congressmen, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA), who is keeping an eye on the contract at the request of Reps. Rick Crawford (R-AR), Tim Griffin (R-AR), Mike Ross (D-AR), Steve Womack (R-AR), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Kevin Yoder (R-KS). The congressmen sent a letter to McKeon earlier this month voicing their concerns about the safety standards that the service drew up for the aircraft.

In a June 13 statement, the Air Force told Inside the Air Force that NATO Air Training Command was responsible for defining the aircraft requirements, not the service.

Unclassified Memo
By John Liang
June 18, 2012 at 4:03 PM

The Pentagon recently issued an instruction memo outlining the responsibilities of the chief information officer, head of acquisition and component leaders for handling unclassified information:

1. DoD CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (DoD CIO). The DoD CIO, in addition to the responsibilities in section 3 of this enclosure, shall:

a. Oversee implementation of this Instruction in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), as appropriate.

b. Oversee integration of this guidance into Defense Industrial Base (DIB) cyber security and information assurance activities in accordance with DoDI 5205.13 (Reference (e)).

c. Standardize the implementation of information protection best practices in the DIB.

d. In coordination with the USD(I), ensure that the security of unclassified DoD information on non-DoD information systems that has been identified as controlled unclassified information (CUI) meets the requirements of Executive Order 13556 (Reference (f)) and its implementing directives, consistent with the DoD implementation plan to be provided in accordance with Reference (f) requirements.

2. USD(AT&L). The USD(AT&L), in addition to the responsibilities in section 3 of this enclosure, shall:

a. Engage with the DIB to identify and validate approaches to improve protection of unclassified DoD information developed, used, and shared by non-DoD entities in support of defense acquisition programs.

b. Identify, develop, and implement in the DoD acquisition contracting process policy and procedures for improved protection of unclassified DoD information transiting or residing on non-DoD information systems and networks to include:

(1) Ensuring that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) (Reference (g)) requires DoD contractors and their subcontractors to provide adequate security of DoD information in their possession.

(2) Addressing National Institute of Standards and Technology standards and guidelines, as appropriate.

3. HEADS OF THE OSD AND DoD COMPONENTS. The Heads of the OSD and DoD Components shall:

a. Ensure that unclassified DoD information provided to or developed by non-DoD entities in support of DoD activities is minimally protected according to the information safeguards described in Enclosure 3 of this Instruction by including requirements implementing this policy in contracts, grants, and other legal agreements in accordance with guidance issued pursuant to this Instruction.

b. Ensure that any additional protection measures or reporting requirements regarding compromise, loss, or unauthorized disclosure required by DoD Manual 5200.01,Volume 4, DoD 5400.11-R, DoDD 5205.02, DoDI 5200.39, DoD 8580.02-R (References (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l)), and other established DoD information safeguarding policies (e.g., those relating to law enforcement, technical data, or export control) are implemented by the insertion of applicable requirements into contracts, grants, and other legal agreements.

c. Ensure that contracts include appropriate DFARS clauses for safeguarding unclassified DoD information on non-DoD information systems when such clauses are published in Reference (g).

View the instruction.

Mobile Device Strategy
By John Liang
June 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

The Pentagon has issued a strategy document "that identifies information technology goals and objectives to capitalize on the full potential of mobile devices," according to a Defense Department statement.

DOD's "Mobile Device Strategy" document "focuses on improving three areas critical to mobility:  wireless infrastructure, mobile devices, and mobile applications, and works to ensure these areas remain reliable, secure and flexible enough to keep up with fast-changing technology," the statement reads.

View the strategy.

Down Payment
By Maggie Ybarra
June 15, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Norway today ordered a pair of F-35 fighter jets, initiating a staggered plan to purchase the aircraft for its Norwegian Armed Forces in small increments over the coming years.

The announcement was made by Norwegian Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide, who noted that the purchase of the first two aircraft was a key milestone for Norway's F-35 program, according to a ministry statement. The country expects delivery of those jets by 2015 with the purchase of a second set of F-35s to follow, according to a ministry spokeswoman.

"We were supposed to have four test planes, as we call them, in 2016, but we decided we want two in 2015 and two in 2016 . . . so that we can be as prepared as possible," she said.

Norway will buy up to 48 aircraft after that, initiating additional aircraft purchases beginning in 2017, according to the statement.

The F-35 program to date has experienced numerous delays and cost increases. A recently released Government Accountability Office report shows that the Pentagon has deferred plans for near-term production of more than 400 aircraft over the past three years. GAO recommended that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta direct the office of cost assessment and program evaluation to examine the impact of lower annual resource levels in an effort to mitigate aircraft deferrals, risky funding assumptions and future budget constraints, InsideDefense.com reported yesterday.

Norway has been monitoring the progress of the program and has maintained an open dialogue with both Panetta and Lockheed Martin, prime contractor of the F-35, the spokeswoman said.

The F-35 procurement phase is estimated to cost Norway $10 billion.

Inside the Air Force reported last week that U.S. and Norwegian defense officials had formally awarded a study contract to Lockheed Martin to conduct risk-reduction activities on a munition for the F-35:

Norway is one of eight full international partners on the F-35 program, and the country's top defense contractor, Kongsberg, produces an anti-surface and anti-ship munition termed the Joint Strike Missile (JSM). Like many JSF program participants, Norway has insisted on some level of industrial participation, and working the missile into the F-35's future for use both by the Norwegian air force and other militaries has become a key goal for the country's MoD and defense industry.

On behalf of Norway's MoD, the Defense Department announced on May 31 that it has awarded F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin a nearly $20 million contract for the "Joint Strike Missile Risk Reduction Study." That study, paid for by the Norwegian government, will include wind tunnel tests, engineering analysis, physical fit checks and the design of an emulator to determine future activities in integrating the missile onto the F-35, according to the contract announcement

In a June 6 email provided to Inside the Air Force by JSF Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova, a Norwegian defense official said this study will help inform more advanced integration efforts in later years.

"This will include testing the fit of the JSM into the F-35, further wind-tunnel testing, emulator tests, and so forth," the official said. "The study was actually initiated in 2011 following the approval by the Norwegian Parliament of phase 2 of the JSM development process. This then merely follows as an extension of this process and marks another milestone in the work to ensure that the necessary preparations for any future integration into the F-35 have been made."

International Acquisition Cooperation
By John Liang
June 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM

The Pentagon last month released the seventh edition of its "International Cooperation in Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Handbook." As the document's foreword states:

International Cooperation in Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (IC in AT&L) is a complicated business. Acquisition personnel considering IC in AT&L for their technology projects and acquisition programs must take into account a series of complex national and international interrelationships. While the business is complex, the rewards are great. IC in AT&L has the potential to significantly improve interoperability for coalition warfare, to leverage scarce program resources, and to obtain the most advanced, state-of-the-art technology from the global technology and industrial base. The International Cooperation in Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (IC in AT&L) Handbook satisfies the need for a straightforward, explanatory "road map" through this complex business.

This handbook is not in itself a policy document, but is based almost entirely upon laws, directives, instructions, manuals and other policy documents. It is an informed view of the current practices and procedures in this complex area. It was developed from inputs from many informed sources, primarily the Office of the Secretary of Defense: OUSD (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)/International Cooperation and OUSD (Policy), Chief of Staff, Director, International Security Programs. A number of OUSD(AT&L) offices contributed: Defense Procurement & Acquisition Policy, Manufacturing & Industrial Base Policy, Research & Engineering, Logistics and Materiel Readiness and Nuclear & Chemical & Biological Programs. The Military Departments international program offices and the U.S. Mission NATO provided support for selected sections. Contract support with handbook integration, including checking and renewing links to the laws and policy documents referenced throughout, was provided by LMI – Government Consulting. This Handbook directs the reader to additional sources for assistance and information.

View the document.

Scandalous Comparison
By Jason Sherman
June 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) yesterday compared F-35 program cost growth with Solyndra, the bankrupt solar manufacturing firm that failed after receiving a $535 million government loan guarantee.

"I will tell you the cost overruns on the F-35 equal 12 Solyndras," Durbin said during a June 13 Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing.

Durbin's math would put the F-35's cost growth at $6.4 billion, a sum the Pentagon would no doubt gladly accept in light of actual schedule delays and cost increases.

GAO today issued a report that pegs F-35 cost growth at $162.7 billion, roughly equal to 304 Solyndras.

CV-22 Crash
By Christopher J. Castelli
June 14, 2012 at 1:02 PM

An Air Force CV-22 Osprey, assigned to the 1st Special Operations Wing, crashed at about 6:45 p.m. Wednesday evening during a routine training mission at Hulrburt Field’s Eglin Range, north of Navarre, FL, according to a statement released by the Air Force last night. The accident is under investigation. Five crew members aboard were taken to local area hospitals, according to the statement. Two crew members were taken by ambulance, while the other three were taken via air. An Air Force spokeswoman said the site of the crash is a pretty remote area. A Pentagon source told InsideDefense.com that the wreckage burned until midnight.

A fatal CV-22 mishap occurred in April 2010 when an Osprey crashed in Afghanistan. An investigation board could not pinpoint the crash's cause, but concluded that engine trouble, crew errors and weather were contributing factors. More recently, the Marine Corps has been investigating a fatal MV-22 Osprey crash that occurred in Morocco on April 11. The Marine Corps has ruled out mechanical failure as a cause of that crash. But the Associated Press reported Tuesday that concerns about the safety of the Osprey have prompted Japanese officials to put on hold plans to temporarily deploy the aircraft to the city of Iwakuni.

LAS Letter
By John Liang
June 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM

InsideDefense.com reported yesterday that Sierra Nevada Corp., which was awarded an Air Force contract to build aircraft for the Afghan military and then had the contract revoked, had filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking reinstatement of that contract. Further:

This is the second lawsuit filed against the Air Force over the contract. The first lawsuit was brought by Sierra Nevada's competitor, Hawker Beechcraft, after the Air Force eliminated it from the contract competition and then denied the company an explanation for that elimination. Hawker subsequently dropped the suit after the Air Force revoked Sierra Nevada's contract.

The $355 million contract that would supply 20 Light Air Support (LAS) aircraft to Afghanistan has also garnered the attention of the House Armed Services Committee chairman, who is now monitoring allegations that the contract lacks safeguards.

Taco Gilbert, one of Sierra Nevada's vice presidents, told Inside the Air Force today that his company filed the lawsuit only after it had exhausted every option to understand why the contract was withdrawn. Senior Air Force officials were notified of the impending litigation today and late yesterday, he said, adding that Sierra Nevada recently tried to legally obtain the preliminary details of the Air Force's investigation into the contract-awarding process but to no avail. The head of Air Force Materiel Command is overseeing that investigation.

"We were denied access to the commander-directed investigation," Gilbert said. "Had we seen it prior to this, we might not have had to go to this step."

The story also highlights a growing concern among lawmakers that the Air Force procurement process for this particular contract is marred by a lack of safeguards:

Eight congressmen from Arkansas and Kansas recently called on House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) to keep an eye on the Air Force contract, which they claimed lacks safeguards and could produce aircraft with the potential to endanger the pilots that use it. Reps. Rick Crawford (R-AR), Tim Griffin (R-AR), Mike Ross (D-AR), Steve Womack (R-AR), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Kevin Yoder (R-KS), sent a signed letter to McKeon on June 7.

"We ask you for your assistance in obtaining an explanation from the Air Force of the entire requirements development history for the Afghanistan LAS acquisition and to include the development of any applicable [Memorandum of Requirements]," the letter states. "This information may help restore needed confidence in this significant procurement effort. We appreciate your consideration of our request and look forward to working with the Armed Services Committee to gain clarification from the Air Force."

We now have that letter. Click here to view it.

And here is more of our coverage on the LAS issue:

Hawker: Ejection Seat Standards An Issue In Light Air Support RFP (April 13)

Sierra Nevada Sees Delay In LAS Effort After Contract Cancellation (Feb. 28)

Sticker Shock
By Sebastian Sprenger
June 13, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Defense officials are preparing an omnibus reprogramming request for fiscal year 2012 to cover unexpected costs, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee this morning. Among the bills that must be paid are almost $3 billion for fuel and extra funds for the U.S.-Israeli "Iron Dome" missile-defense program, the cost of which Panetta didn't specify.

Also driving up cost is the continuing closure of supply lines through Pakistan. Panetta, for the first time, put a price tag on having to use longer land transportation routes across Asia: $100 million per month.

Officials have been hesitant to disclose the financial fallout of the spat with Islamabad thus far, perhaps out of fear that disclosing a figure might weaken the U.S. negotiating position to reopen the Pakistani routes.

View Panetta's prepared testimony.