Friday, April 19, 2024
The Senate Armed Services Committee just announced a hearing to consider a pair of combatant commander nominations next week.
On Nov. 18, Air Force Gen. Claude Kehler will appear before the committee for his nomination to lead of U.S. Strategic Command, succeeding (if confirmed) Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton.
Army Gen. Carter Ham will appear before the panel regarding his nomination to take over U.S. Africa Command, replacing Gen. Kip Ward.
Major defense acquisition efforts like the now-defunct Army Future Combat Systems project and the Coast Guard's Deepwater program -- both of which were run by a single contractor performing the role of a lead systems integrator -- have been raked over the coals by lawmakers for incurring delays and cost overruns. With those lessons in mind, a recent Congressional Research Service report outlines potential options for how LSIs could be used in the future:
• Reduce the possible need for LSIs by pursuing separate procurement programs rather than SOS programs;
• Require that certain conditions be met before a private-sector LSI can be used on an acquisition program (analogous to conditions set for use of the multi-year procurement program);
• Require that LSI arrangements include features to ensure transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, prohibit self-certification, require independent assessments, and facilitate meaningful periodic competitions of the LSI role;
• Institute additional or stricter reporting requirements for programs being executed by LSIs;
• Require DOD and other federal agencies to share lessons learned regarding programs executed with private-sector LSIs;
• Prohibit the use of private-sector LSI’s in future acquisition programs;
• Reduce the possible need for private-sector LSIs by building back up the defense civilian and military acquisition workforces, and have DOD assume the role of the LSI, and require that DOD manage all SOS programs; and
• Implement the recommendations of the recent Gansler Commission on improving the acquisition workforce.
While the Army has identified lashing together its disparate communications network as its top modernization priority, it has lost one of the top generals charged with making it happen.
Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, the service's chief information officer, retired Nov. 5 after more than three years as the Army CIO/G-6 and 37-plus years with the Army, according to a statement from his office.
Sorenson helped develop the architecture for the Army's Land Warfare Network -- the service's component of the Defense Department's Global Information Grid. “We have come a long way to reshape the network enterprise strategy,” he was quoted saying in an Army statement. “And I believe the CIO/G-6 is on the cusp of delivering significant network capabilities to the warfighter through all our enterprise initiatives.”
Several months ago, Sorenson's office held the “Apps for the Army” contest in which civilian and service personnel competed to develop the best software applications. The competition drew 140 entrants and Sorenson said the effort would go a long way toward defining the business processes by which the Army would develop and certify future software Army enterprise programs.
More recently, Sorenson's office announced the formation of the Army's Common Operating Environment Architecture, which was established to bring the service's stovepiped network under one set of requirements.
Sorenson's retirement ceremony was presided over by Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli and attended by more than 400 people, according to the statement.
Until a new CIO/G-6 is announced, Mike Krieger, Sorenson's former deputy, will serve as the acting CIO/G-6. Maj. Gen. Mark Bowman is the acting deputy.
Richard Kidd has become the Army's top official solely devoted to energy issues -- moving over from a key energy management job in the Energy Department at a time when service leaders are emphasizing a focus on energy efficiencies and other energy initiatives, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning:
Speaking during an Oct. 27 press conference just two days after assuming his new position as the Army's deputy assistant secretary for energy and partnerships, Kidd said the Army has an opportunity to lead on energy issues. No other federal agency can drive the agenda like the Army, he said, referring to the large number of buildings the Army owns. With the Army owning half the buildings in the Defense Department, it is highly unlikely DOD will meet its energy goals without the Army on-board with those goals, he said at a press conference at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting in Washington, DC. Top Army officials including Army Under Secretary Joseph Westphal and Vice Chief of Staff Peter Chiarelli also spoke at the AUSA conference about energy security and energy goals of the service.
"With more buildings and more fuel burned in ground vehicles than any other federal entity, the Army has a tremendous opportunity to better use energy and expand operational flexibility through enhanced energy efficiency," Kidd said in an Oct. 27 press release on his appointment.
Kidd, who moved to the Army from his position as program manager of DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), is responsible for designing and implementing the Army's strategic and operational energy policy. Kidd reports to Army Assistant Secretary for Installations, Energy & Environment Katherine Hammack, who has a strong background in energy and green buildings. Hammack was confirmed in her position in August. FEMP is responsible for facilitating cost-effective energy management in the federal government and investment practices to further energy security and environmental stewardship, according to a DOE website.
Hammack praised Kidd's appointment, saying in the press release that with Kidd's experience, "the Army will continue laying the groundwork and advance energy security and sustainability efforts in a meaningful and measurable way. With energy and renewables at the forefront of national policy, the time is right to have someone with his expertise."
During the press conference, Kidd also reiterated remarks by Westphal about the need for collaboration among federal agencies and within departments. Kidd stressed the need to ensure the many different efforts on energy in the Army, services and at DOE are aligned and not redundant or wasteful.
His appointment comes as DOD and the services are emphasizing energy issues, pushing more alternative and renewable energy sources and greater energy efficiencies, framing them as a national security matter.
InsideDefense.com reported late last month that the Army had identified six critical areas in which it hopes to develop capabilities to support energy management required for combat operations, with service officials preparing to launch an Army-wide effort to refine its needs and reshape its investment plans to develop and acquire technologies designed to improve its efficiency in future missions:
The Army Capabilities Integration Center, part of the service's Training and Doctrine Command, has completed a draft of an initial capabilities document that fleshes out energy attributes and metrics, a first step toward realigning the service's materiel development efforts, science and technology investments and training in a bid to influence the Army's fiscal years 2014 to 2019 spending plan.
"Next, we plan to lay out an operational energy campaign plan," Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, head of the ARCIC, said Oct. 27 during a brief interview. The plan is being designed to both reassess current Army energy initiatives in light of the new requirements document as well as possibly launch new programs.
By harnessing new tools with potential to give commanders the ability to monitor energy status across the force, the Army hopes to convert its enormous need for fuel, water and electricity from a liability to an operational advantage, according to Vane. Through new methods of accounting for energy, the service aims to break with a long-standing practice of viewing it as an unconstrained resource that receives little attention in operational planning and adopt a holistic view of its requirements and utilization, Vane added.
To that end, the Army is about to circulate its draft operational energy initial capabilities document for comment to key leaders in the Pentagon and then "release it to the world," said Col. Paul Roege, special assistant to Vane for energy issues.
The U.S. official who headed the negotiations for the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty remains doggedly optimistic the pact can be ratified despite Republican gains in the Senate following last week's elections.
"This is the very same treaty that was there on Nov. 1 before the elections," Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation Rose Gottemoeller told attendees of an Arms Control Association forum earlier this afternoon. "It is in the national security interest of the United States after the elections the same way it was before the elections. Swift approval is the right and necessary thing to do."
Gottemoeller emphasized that "now is the time to finish the job. You heard last week President Obama explain, 'This is not a traditionally Democratic or a Republican issue, but rather an issue of American national security.' He noted that passage of the treaty will send a strong signal to Russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear arsenals and a signal to the world that we're serious about nonproliferation."
Gottemoeller's boss also spoke about the treaty today at a separate panel discussion co-sponsored by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Institute of Peace:
Ellen Tauscher, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, emphasized that having the Senate ratify the treaty, called New START, before newly elected senators take their seats is imperative because the Democrats still enjoy a substantial majority in the chamber.
Republicans picked up six seats in the Senate last week, though they remain the minority party. To ratify the treaty, two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, must approve it. Russia must also agree to the pact.
In September, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty by a 14-4 vote. It is awaiting a floor vote.
The New START, signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, would allow U.S. inspectors back into Russian nuclear sites, where they have not been since the original START treaty expired last December.
Tauscher said the administration has already answered all possible questions about the deal, noting that since the agreement was signed, there have been more than 25 hearings, and the administration has received nearly 1,000 questions for the record from senators.
"We have a cadre of national security advisers, statesmen, former secretaries of defense, state, that have testified and are supportive of this treaty," Tauscher said. "Virtually a who's who of everybody you can imagine. I can't tell you of anybody of importance and of pedigree that said, 'No, don't ratify this treaty.'"
Last week's elections have made the former chief negotiator of the START I Treaty much more pessimistic about the pact's chances for ratification, however. Amb. Richard Burt, the U.S. Chair of the international Global Zero movement, said at the ACA event this morning that "I think we are rapidly approaching a real crisis in the arms control process" that could "dramatically reverse the good news that happened over the past 18 months."
A recent maritime laser test focused on surface targets was halted mid-test because "an internal component required replacement," Rear Adm. Nevin P. Carr Jr., the chief of naval research, said today.
Speaking with reporters at the Office of Naval Research Naval S&T Partnership Conference in Crystal City, VA, Carr said the maritime laser test took place within "the last couple of weeks" but would not comment on where it took place or what -- if any -- contractors were involved.
"We've had a couple different solid-state laser tests over the last few months," said Carr. "One was focused on some very small [unmanned aerial vehicle]s, and was able to shoot some of those down."
Describing the recent laser test, Carr said: "We put a system on board the self-defense test ship and we're learning things about propagation of laser energy low over the water, which is the most challenging environment for it."
The testing was directed against low-level surface threats -- what Carr called high-speed swarm threats. "So we've got experiments that learned up high and down low, and the down-low part's hard because it's where all the humidity is in particular."
The "down-low" test was called off, Carr said, but that doesn't mean it failed. "It was progressing through the test and we were collecting data and an internal component required replacement. It's something that because this is so new, a decision was made to just stop, take it back, make sure it's prepared right. We're not in a hurry. Everything we do with these systems is new and we're learning more and more things about them. So we get some great data, we went partway down the list of things we want to do and we'll just pick it up again when we get that internal component."
And when will the next test take place? "I'd rather not talk about the specifics," Carr said.
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the Joint Strike Fighter, says “aircraft component reliability” continues to hamper test flights of the F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing variant, while the other two JSF variants -- the conventional take-off and landing and aircraft carrier variants -- are tracking “ahead” of the 2010 flight test plan.
The F-35 flight test team completed 52 flight tests in October, two more than planned for the month, the company said in a Nov. 4 statement, which also notes:
The CTOL aircraft logged 22 flights against a plan of 17; STOVL jets flew 27 times against a plan of 28; and the CV jet flew three times against a plan of five. Additionally, the STOVL jet flew supersonically, and at Mach 1.3 has flown faster than any other variant to date, and achieved 7 g’s, the highest load condition to date and maximum design g’s for the STOVL.
The conventional take-off and landing variant, the lowest risk of the three JSF types intended for the Air Force, is 66 flights ahead of the plan while the aircraft carrier variant is three flights ahead, according to the company statement.
The F-35B, meanwhile, was 41 test flights behind schedule at the end of last month.
F-35 program officials are pursuing a multi-faceted approach to improve tempo, including working to obtain higher levels of spare parts from suppliers to keep the aircraft in a flight-ready condition, while completing the analysis and corrective action planning to address the root cause of any issues.
The November goal is a total of 51 flights, according to Lockheed, with an eye toward 394 test flights through December.
Last month, InsideDefense.com reported that Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter had established new rules for developing and procuring space systems, issuing guidance that effectively concludes work started by his predecessor to pull purchases of unclassified military satellites -- which total approximately $11 billion annually -- under the umbrella of regulations that guide the acquisition of other major weapon systems.
We now have the memo the story was based on. Click here to view it.
From the story:
In an Oct. 18 memo, Carter announced new “space system acquisition procedures,” which include a new requirement that all satellite programs undergo a high-level review during the technology development phase to permit Defense Department decision makers an early opportunity to assess technical maturity and program progress.
That requirement is designed in part to encourage the use of mature technologies in order for programs to hew closely to original cost and schedule estimates, a development that would stand in contrast to DOD's difficulty over the years in delivering satellites on time and on cost.
“So this is a fundamental culture shift,” said Josh Hartman, head of the Center for Strategic Space Studies. Hartman said the new policy aims to discourage the previously common practice in space system acquisition of committing resources and time to mature technologies during system development, efforts more appropriate to focus in military laboratories.
The two-page memo and three-page attachment direct changes to acquisition policy of space systems that are effective immediately and by April will be incorporated into DOD Instruction 5000.02, the Pentagon's definitive set of rules for developing and buying weapon systems.
Carter's directive-type memorandum is the culmination of work begun two years ago when then-Pentagon acquisition executive John Young directed an internal DOD analysis team to examine both the organization and process for buying military satellites, which at that point were managed and acquired though a system that operated in parallel to other major DOD equipment purchases.
The Pentagon recently established a policy governing when, how and in what capacity Defense Department employees can work from home. According to an Oct. 21 memo signed by Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness:
It is DoD policy that telework shall be:
a. Actively promoted and implemented throughout the Department of Defense in support of the DoD commitment to workforce efficiency, emergency preparedness, and quality of life. Telework is not an entitlement, but its use can serve as an effective recruitment and retention strategy; enhance DoD efforts to employ and accommodate people with disabilities; and create cost savings by decreasing the need for office space and parking facilities, and by reducing transportation costs, including costs associated with payment of transit subsidies.
b. Authorized for the maximum number of positions to the extent that mission readiness is not jeopardized.
c. Accomplished on a regular and recurring or an ad hoc basis at an approved alternate worksite.
d. Periodically exercised to ensure its effectiveness in continuing operations in the event of a crisis or national emergency (e.g., pandemic influenza).
e. Used to help create employment and return-to-work opportunities for veterans, people with disabilities, and spouses of Service members and employees being relocated.
Executive departments and agencies have been using ad hoc, agency-specific policies, procedures and markings to safeguard and control so-called "controlled unclassified" information, but the White House is moving to change that.
"This inefficient, confusing patchwork has resulted in inconsistent marking and safeguarding of documents, led to unclear or unnecessarily restrictive dissemination policies, and created impediments to authorized information sharing. The fact that these agency-specific policies are often hidden from public view has only aggravated these issues," President Obama writes in a new executive order that establishes a program for managing "controlled unclassified information."
France and the United Kingdom signed a bilateral Defense and Security Cooperation Agreement this week. Analyst Jeffrey Lewis on his ArmsControlWonk blog notes the common stockpile stewardship portion of the pact:
7. We have decided:
[snip]
b) to collaborate in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, in full compliance with our international obligations, through unprecedented co-operation at a new joint facility at Valduc in France that will model performance of our nuclear warheads and materials to ensure long-term viability, security and safety – this will be supported by a joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston in the UK;
Lewis further notes:
The new facility at Valduc is apparently going to be called EPURE and will replace France’s current hydrodynamic test facility, AIRIX, and presumably obviate the planned Core Punch facility at Aldermaston.
The agreement also includes language concerning NATO and missile defense:
22. NATO remains the fundamental guarantor of Europe’s security. We share the same objectives for the forthcoming NATO Summit in Lisbon. In particular, we are looking for major decisions on reform to ensure NATO’s efficiency and effectiveness. We also want a new Strategic Concept that: makes clear NATO’s continuing commitment to collective territorial defence and to addressing threats to Allies’ security wherever they stem from; addresses new threats to Allies’ fundamental security interests; and underlines NATO’s desire to work with a wide range of partners. In this context, we will pursue closer co-operation across the board between NATO and the EU, and a lasting partnership between NATO and Russia based on practical co-operation and reciprocity.
23. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. British and French independent strategic nuclear forces, which have a deterrent value of their own, contribute to overall deterrence and therefore to Allies’ security. These national minimum nuclear deterrents are necessary to deter threats to our vital interests. We will support a decision in Lisbon on territorial missile defence, based on the expansion of the [Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence] system, which is financially realistic, coherent with the level of the threat arising from the Middle East, and allows for a partnership with Russia. Missile defence is a complement to deterrence, not a substitute.
Inside Missile Defense reported in September that NATO officials earlier this summer had inspected the architecture of the Medium Extended Air Defense System -- being developed by the United States, Germany and Italy -- for compatibility with the alliance's ALTBMD Program. That program's goal is the "upgrade, test and integration of NATO's command and control systems and underlying communication network to enable effective information exchanges between various NATO and national missile defence systems," according to a NATO website. Further:
As part of the Joint Project Optic Windmill 2010 exercise, officials "demonstrated the initial interoperability between the MEADS architecture and the ALTBMD architecture to ensure compatibility, interoperability and alignment in moving forward there," Kee told sister publication Inside the Army Sept. 8. "This was the first step of demonstrating that initial interoperability."
The test showed that MEADS and ALTBMD can pass data and "see" the missile tracks picked up by its sensors, Kee explained. NATO officials view the ALTBMD program as a key component in the eventual creation of a missile shield for all of Europe.
The Pentagon has updated its official doctrine for managing Defense Department public affairs activities.
The Aug. 25 Joint Publication 3-61 includes a summary of the changes made to the May 9, 2005, edition. The new version:
- Updates the mission of joint public affairs (PA) to better reflect its contribution to joint operations; Amends the responsibilities for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs;
- Adds an overview of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Joint Communication responsibilities;
- Incorporates an overview of the Defense Media Activity responsibilities;
- Adopts the term media operations center to represent any type of media support facility instead of joint information bureau or combined press information center;
- Adds a discussion of the Joint Public Affairs Support Element throughout the document;
- Discusses capabilities of “visual information” in support of the joint force commander's operational and planning requirements;
- Adds a discussion of joint PA in domestic operations;
- Introduces the term “community engagement” replacing the term "community relations";
- Addresses “strategic communication,” its principles, and how it relates to PA;
- Adds new appendix describing development and execution of the commander’s communications strategy;
- Establishes the new terms and definitions for inclusion in Joint Publication (JP) 1-02 for community engagement, joint PA support element, and media operations center;
- Modifies the terms and/or definitions in JP 1-02 for American Forces Radio and Television Service, combat camera, command information, external audience, internal audience, message, PA, public affairs guidance, public diplomacy, public information, security review, and visual information; [and]
- Removes the terms and definitions from JP 1-02 for combat visual information, community relations, community relations program, joint information bureau, and PA ground rules.
"Propaganda has no place in DOD PA programs," the doctrine document states. "Effective application of the PA tenets normally results in more effective and efficient execution of PA operations and relationships with the media. They complement the DOD principles of information and describe best practices. The tenets should be reviewed and appropriately applied during all stages of joint operation planning and execution."
The document also lists six tenets:
- Tell the Truth. JFC’s PA personnel will release only accurate information of officially released information.
- Provide Timely Information and Imagery. Commanders should be prepared to release timely, factual, coordinated, and approved information and imagery about military operations.
- Practice Security at the Source. All DOD personnel and DOD contractors are responsible for safeguarding sensitive information.
- Provide Consistent Information at All Levels. The public often receives simultaneous information from a variety of official DOD sources at various levels.
- Tell the DOD Story. Although commanders designate only military personnel or DOD civilian employees as official spokespersons, they should educate and encourage all their military, civilian employees, and contractors to tell the DOD story by providing them with timely information that is appropriate for public release.
Inside the Pentagon reported in August that the Defense Business Board in July had recommended merging Joint Staff and OSD functions for public affairs, legislative affairs, legal affairs, personnel oversight and cable services responsible for delivering messages. The board also advocated reducing duplication and overlap in the Joint Staff's J-8 force structure, resources, and assessment directorate and OSD's cost assessment and program evaluation (CAPE) shop as well as the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Pentagon's acquisition directorate.
A DOD source told ITP at the time that "back office" functions like public affairs and legal affairs could presumably be joined while preserving the independent advisory role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While congressional Republicans and Democrats scramble to find their way following yesterday's elections, the Obama administration is taking steps to try to make government programs work better and to be more open with the American public about how the government operates.
The White House budget office today issued a memo to the heads of all government departments that encourages the sharing of data among these departments. But this approach must be done with a recognition of privacy, according to the memo:
Sharing data in external public policy, scientific, and other areas of research is of value to the public and can promote savings. In cases where high-value data contain information that is protected under federal privacy laws, agencies are encouraged, to the extent permitted by law, to develop and implement arrangements that would permit access to these data for research purposes subject to the appropriate safeguards.
The Army today officially released guidance for a "common operating environment architecture" it will use to tie its stovepiped network together.
As reported in this week's issue of Inside the Army, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli announced the COE effort Oct. 26 during the Association of the U.S. Army's annual meeting.
"The network represents our number one modernization effort," he said. "One of the most significant challenges we face is interoperability. It's not enough to simply achieve a variety of separate capabilities working alongside each other independently -- or worse -- in conflict with one another. It must be symbiotic."
Chiarelli said the COE would be released later that day, but it was delayed until this morning. The announcement from the service's CIO-G6 states that the COE guidance was officially approved Oct. 20.
The announcement also states the Army will publish a complementary implementation plan in early 2011 that will describe the steps and schedule for bringing Army systems into compliance with the CEO."In order to obtain funding for developing and acquiring IT devices or systems, all programs under the Army Acquisition Executive will need to comply with the COE guidance and plan," according to the statement. "The COE Architecture and the Army's overarching 'End State' Architecture will drastically reduce the time it takes to deliver relevant applications to those who need them. The COE augments Army Software Transformation, an effort to standardize end-user environments and software development kits, establish streamlined enterprise software processes that rely on common pre-certified, reusable software components, and develop deployment strategies that allow users direct access to new capability."
The benefits of a COE architecture are lower costs, improved inter-interoperability and easier system maintenance, according to the Army.
For a sneak peek at how Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee may approach key issues like defense spending, missile defense, major weapons programs and building security by partnering with allies and friendly nations, look no further than the report accompanying the panel's FY-10 National Defense Authorization Bill.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), ranking member and now a frontrunner to take over as chairman, was one of two dozen GOP members on the committee last fall who collectively spelled out out issues they would handle differently if in control of the authorization committee.
Their perspective is spelled out in a six-page memo included in the “additional views” section of the report accompanying the FY-10 authorization bill (pages 669 to 674). That authorization bill largely endorsed major changes to DOD's modernization accounts -- including major weapon system terminations -- proposed by Defense Robert Gates in April 2009.
On topline defense spending:
We are concerned that the President’s Budget did not adequately increase defense spending. After taking into account the migration into the base budget of items previously funded in the supplemental the net effect is less than 2% real growth. As a result, the committee had limited headroom in which to address many of the programmatic cuts that accompanied Secretary Gates’ so-called ‘‘reform budget.’’ While the committee included a number of measures in the mark that redress some of the shortcomings found in the Administration’s request, including adopting an amendment which authorized much of the Army and Marine Corps Unfunded Requirements, we question some of the spending priorities of the committee.
Most notably, this committee provides for an additional $402.6 million above the President’s Budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA’s) defense nuclear nonproliferation program which was already increased from the previous year’s request. We are concerned that this funding was provided without a formal request by the Secretary of Energy or the Administrator of NNSA and without an integrated, interagency plan for securing nuclear materials. We will carefully monitor NNSA’s execution of these funds in the coming year.
On missile defense:
We believe that such additional funding could have been used to address other priorities such as missile defense. Congress, and particularly the Armed Services Committees in both chambers, has the unmistakable obligation to ensure that the Department of Defense develops and deploys defensive capabilities that protect the American people, our forward-deployed forces, and our allies. This includes promising programs in the area of missile defense.
On the same day in which President Obama acknowledged that a nuclear-armed North Korea posed a ‘‘grave threat’’ to the world, the committee chose to sustain the Administration’s $1.2 billion cut to missile defense. In a year where Iran and North Korea have demonstrated the capability and intent to pursue long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapon programs, and a track record for widespread proliferation—elements of a genuine national security threat—the committee endorsed reductions to capabilities that would provide a comprehensive missile defense system to protect the U.S. homeland, our forward-deployed troops, and allies.
The committee sustained the Administration’s 35% reduction to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program. This national missile defense system, located in Alaska and California, is designed to protect the U.S. homeland from long-range ballistic missiles fired either in anger or by accident. We are deeply disappointed that the committee rejected an amendment to restore funding to the program. The amendment provided a modest increase of funds to complete a partially constructed missile interceptor field in Alaska where all the equipment had already been purchased. It sought to pay for this program with funds set aside to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program. After witnessing Kim Jong Il walk away from the Six-Party talks, kick out U.S. and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and vow to be recognized as a nuclear weapons state, it is unrealistic to expect that there will be any dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program within the fiscal year. We believe that those resources could have been better spent on real, near-term capabilities to protect the United States. Should progress be made in negotiations with North Korea such that dismantling their nuclear complex becomes possible, funds could be reprogrammed at that time.
It is equally troubling that the committee did not enact amendments to reverse the Administration’s decision to reduce and terminate pioneering missile defense programs like the Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, Multiple Kill Vehicle, and Space Tracking and Surveillance System, or restore their funding. The Department of Defense has yet to deliver to the committee any analysis or new requirements to justify these sweeping decisions. Furthermore, we cannot reconcile the simple fact that as the missile threat is increasing --substantiated by our own intelligence agencies --funding for our missile defense capabilities is decreasing.
The committee supported increased funding for theater missile defenses, which are important capabilities in protecting our forward-deployed troops and allies from shorter-range missiles. However, with a net $1.2 billion cut, we have been forced to trade national missile defense for more theater missile defense. Setting up such a false choice between the defense of our homeland and defense of our forward-deployed troops and allies is neither smart nor sound policy. Both are necessary and both could have been adequately funded without such deep cuts.
On working with allies:
We commend the inclusion of provisions taken from the bipartisan NATO FIRST bill that was introduced earlier in the year by Representatives Turner and Marshall. A strong commitment to transatlantic security is necessary as the Administration engages in a reset policy with Russia. We regret that the committee did not adopt the Administration’s proposals relating to building the capacity of partners in order to increase coalition partner nation participation in Afghanistan. These proposals are necessary to be able to quickly implement the new Afghanistan policy. Without these authorities we miss an opportunity to reduce the burden on our deployed forces in Afghanistan.
We are pleased the committee endorsed an amendment that sought to increase support for a European missile defense system proposed to be located in the Czech Republic and Poland. As the amendment noted, ‘‘Missile defense promotes the collective security of the United States and NATO and improves linkages among member nations of NATO by defending all members of NATO against the full range of missile threats.’’ Though the committee rejected authorizing additional resources, it did support the creation of a framework to evaluate alternatives, should they be pursued by the Administration. However, we would note that based on independent analysis requested by the committee, we have seen no alternative that provides a more cost-effective and operationally available solution to protect the U.S. and Europe than the current proposal.
We appreciate the Chairman’s commitment to work with us to address an amendment that would establish binding legislation to ensure that any treaty or agreement with Russia that seeks bilateral reductions in our strategic nuclear forces does not include limitations on U.S. missile defenses, space, or advanced conventional weapons capabilities. These important conventional capabilities continue to remain vital to our military forces and the defense of the American people and our allies, and are not collateral for U.S. negotiators to trade away to persuade Russia to reduce its nuclear forces.
On the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship:
We had concerns about the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the relief that was being provided to the cost cap in the subcommittee mark. Current law caps LCS end costs at $460 million per vessel, beginning in fiscal year 2010, with the fifth and follow-on ships. The committee has now raised the cap or delayed implementation of the cap for three years in a row. This program was proposed to Congress on the basis of affordability, but the price tag of the latest ships is approximately 250% greater than the original price estimate.
We have increased congressional oversight of this program; but, particularly in light of the passage of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 in May, the first legislative act of this committee should not be approving a unilateral increase to the end cost of this program. This is especially true since the Navy has not officially requested a change to the current legislation. Therefore, we were pleased that the committee agreed to support an amendment to strengthen section 121, regarding the LCS cost cap. The bipartisan amendment imposes additional requirements before any changes to the cost cap may go into effect. This amendment is intended to send the signal that this committee is serious about controlling costs, does not adjust cost caps lightly, and is determined that the Navy make a knowledge-based decision prior to procuring additional Flight 0 LCS vessels.
On "transparency and defense oversight":
Finally, we believe that to carry out our constitutional mandate to raise and support the armed forces, the committee expects a transparent and open relationship with the Department of Defense where the independent views of the Service Chiefs are represented to the Congress by the civilian senior leadership in a timely manner.
That is why we are disappointed that the committee did not fully adopt an amendment that would have provided a statutory framework for the Service Chiefs to provide their independent view to the Congress.