The Insider

Oversight Chair
By John Liang
January 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) today completed the designation of the subcommittee chairs for the 113th Congress, naming Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) to head the oversight and investigations subpanel. In a statement, McKeon said:

I am honored that Congressman Roby has agreed to chair the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.  I know she will bring the energy and attention to this job that she has already brought to her work on the full committee.  O&I is a vital part of the Armed Services Committee's oversight mission; compelling the military to address difficult truths and informing our legislative approach as we help overcome tough issues.  I know that under Martha's leadership, O&I will continue to serve this important role well.

Roby will join the following subcommittee heads that were named last month:

Emerging Threats and Capabilities -- Rep. Mac Thornberry, Texas, Full Committee Vice Chair

Seapower and Projection Forces -- Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Virginia

Military Personnel -- Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina

Tactical Air and Land Forces -- Rep. Mike Turner, Ohio

Strategic Forces -- Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama

Readiness -- Rep. Rob Wittman, Virginia

No Nukes
By
January 22, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Countries with nuclear weapons have a "special responsibility" in promoting nonproliferation, according to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Speaking on Friday at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, the secretary general encouraged nuclear weapon states "to come up with a bold set of measures to promote transparency of their nuclear arsenals." Further:

They can do this next April at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference. Or they can start today by contributing data to the U.N.'s "Repository of Information Provided By Nuclear-Weapon States," as mandated at the Review Conference in 2010.

This should commence with in-depth consultations between the States with the largest nuclear arsenals -- the Russian Federation and the United States -- followed by deep and verified cuts in their arsenals and additional reductions by other States.

I urge all nuclear-armed States to reconsider their national nuclear posture.

Nuclear deterrence is not a solution to international peace and stability.  It is an obstacle.

Member States also need to reinvigorate the international disarmament machinery.

When I spoke to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva I said plainly that the very credibility of the body is at risk. The Conference's record of achievement is overshadowed by inertia that has now lasted for more than a decade.  That must change. Another year of stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament is simply unacceptable.

The U.N. chief also called on the Conference on Disarmament to begin "long-overdue negotiations on a fissile material treaty as a priority."

The conference "should also start deliberations on a nuclear weapons convention, a legal security assurance for non-nuclear weapon States against nuclear threats, and the prevention of an arms race in outer space," he said, adding: "Global nuclear disarmament requires global arrangements."

View his prepared remarks.

Conference Shot Down
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 18, 2013 at 7:41 PM

The 11th annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference -- hosted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) in cooperation with Lockheed Martin, and supported by the Missile Defense Agency -- has become a casualty of federal fiscal woes.

The event, slated to take place March 18-20 at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC, has been canceled. In recent days, AIAA had the event labeled "currently waiting DOD approval" on its website, noting registration would begin early this month. Even today, AIAA still had the conference listed on the site as an upcoming event. But those clicking on the event now see this message: "Due to the uncertain atmosphere surrounding the budget sequestration and the near term guidance received from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 11th U.S. Missile Defense Conference and Exhibit has been cancelled."

Gone is AIAA's previous statement that the event "aims to provide a world-class, secure environment for the U.S. missile defense community to meet and discuss the future of homeland and regional missile defense." According to the statement, the national missile defense community includes senior executive leaders, program managers, scientists, and staff in government, defense, and industry, as well as members of active duty, Reserve, and National Guard forces.

Space Systems
By John Liang
January 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM

The Pentagon this week issued a memo that updates Defense Department space systems acquisition policy.

Here's an excerpt outlining the technology development phase:

1. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PHASE

a. Technology Development Strategy (TDS) - Additional Considerations. In addition to the requirements in subparagraph 5.c.(7) of Enclosure 2 of Reference (c), the TDS for space systems shall detail the acquisition strategy and contracting approach to be employed for the development of pertinent technologies for each phase of the program lifecycle.

b. Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) - Additional Considerations. In addition to the requirements in subparagraph 5.d.(5) of Enclosure 2 of Reference (c), the SEP for space systems shall:

(1) Emphasize the space system's integration with other existing and approved future architectures and capabilities.

(2) Include mission assurance (MA) planning. MA is a description of those activities undertaken to ensure that space systems operate properly once launched into orbit, since retrieval for repair is impractical.

c. System Design Review (SDR). During the technology development phase, space system Program Managers shall conduct an SDR to ensure that the system's functional baseline is established and that the system has a reasonable expectation of satisfying the requirement of the initial capabilities document (ICD) within the currently allocated budget and schedule. It completes the process of defining the items or elements below system level. This review accesses the decomposition of the system specification to system functional specifications. The SDR determines whether the system's functional definition is fully decomposed and that the program is prepared to begin preliminary design.

d. Post-System Design Review Assessment (P-SDRA). The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following the SDR for space systems. The SDR provides an opportunity to assess satisfaction of user needs through functional decomposition and traceability of requirements from the ICD to the contractor’s functional baseline and system specification. An IPA shall be provided to support the P-SDRA.

(1) Space system program managers shall provide a post-SDR report to the MDA reflecting an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level SDR results. The post-SDR report shall include an independent vulnerability assessment and an orbital debris mitigation risk report. The orbital debris mitigation risk report will include an assessment of debris generation risk during launch, on-orbit operations, and end-of-life disposal, and shall assess compliance with the U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (Reference (d)).

(2) The MDA shall review the post-SDR report and the program manager’s resolution and/or mitigation plans, and determine whether additional action is necessary to achieve technology development phase objectives and satisfy the capability need specified in the ICD. The results of the MDA’s post-SDR assessment shall be documented in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum and include the MDA’s determination to proceed with technology development.

(3) Additional guidance and expectations will be provided in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (Reference (e)).

View the full memo.

View InsideDefense.com's coverage of space issues.

Inhofe On Sequestration
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 17, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the incoming ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today wrote Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to urge the Pentagon to provide detailed information on the impact of sequestration as soon as possible.

“The threat of sequestration has loomed for well over a year and I find it deeply troubling that despite these repeated requests from Congress, you are just now instructing Department Components to conduct this long-overdue assessment and implementation plan," the letter states. "Detailed information on the number of civilians impacted by hiring freezes; specifics on reductions in flying hours, steaming days, vehicles miles; plans for large programs; and essential reprogramming actions, would have led to a better understanding of the military risk posed by these cuts and should have been made privy to long before the original January 2, 2013 sequestration date.”

Here's the full text of the letter:

Dear Secretary Panetta:

I write concerning your January 10, 2013 press conference and Department-wide memo regarding budget uncertainty in Fiscal Year 2013. I agree with your assessment that, despite the range of serious threats and adversaries we face around the world, the most immediate threat to our national security is the Department’s inability to provide resources, readiness and training to carry out our national military strategy due to the fiscal uncertainty of drastic budget cuts. For the past four years, this Administration has pursued the systematic disarming of U.S. military power under the guise of defense budget cuts in order to maintain significantly higher levels of funding for non-security related domestic programs. Consistent with the President’s direction to the Secretary of Defense in April 2011, the Office of Management and Budget directed the Department of Defense to cut another $487 billion from defense budgets, resulting in a revised budget-driven military strategy that increases risk in our operational plans to protect national security objectives both at home and around the world. As you point out, the potential for lower defense budgets are now driving the need to further revise our national military strategy. This should not, and can not be the case. I fully agree that the fiscal uncertainty we face is unacceptable and, if left unaddressed, will result in serious and lasting harm to the capabilities and readiness of our military. While the possibility of a year-long Continuing Resolution has the potential to impact readiness accounts, the Department can mitigate the impact by transferring funds from other accounts with excess funds. The more serious threat is the real possibility of a sequestration of defense accounts.

Over the past fourteen months, the Senate Armed Services Committee has requested on multiple occasions detailed information from the Department on the impact of sequestration on the military in order to avoid these devastating cuts. The threat of sequestration has loomed for well over a year and I find it deeply troubling that despite these repeated requests from Congress, you are just now instructing Department Components to conduct this long-overdue assessment and implementation plan. Detailed information on the number of civilians impacted by hiring freezes; specifics on reductions in flying hours, steaming days, vehicles miles; plans for large programs; and essential reprogramming actions, would have led to a better understanding of the military risk posed by these cuts and should have been made privy to long before the original January 2, 2013 sequestration date. Moreover, I am deeply concerned that severe budget cuts could adversely impact defense health and family support programs, which would lower service members’ morale and negatively affect recruitment and retention. Budget cuts must not harm the medical and dental readiness of our active or reserve forces, and cuts must not limit, in any way, the superb care that we give our wounded warriors.

Given the importance of this information to our oversight responsibilities, I request that you provide the Committee, as soon as it’s available, with the responses of each of the Department Components tasked in the January 10, 2013 memo along with any additional information that may be necessary for the Committee to fully understand these anticipated impacts as soon as possible. I also request within 30 days, an assessment by the Joint Staff on the extent to which the cuts you direct will have an impact on military training and operations as well as the risk of a hollow force.

As you have stated on numerous occasions, the consequences of sequestration would be devastating. Given the other cuts the Defense Department has been asked to endure, I couldn’t agree more. Both Congress and the Administration have a shared responsibility and, rather than simply blaming Congress as you did repeatedly in your press conference, it is my hope that you and the President will work with Congress to ensure that an agreement can be reached to spare our military from further devastating cuts. I continue to stand ready and willing to work with you and the President and my colleagues in Congress on this vitally important matter.

USAF Cost-Saving Memo
By John Liang
January 17, 2013 at 1:00 PM

On Tuesday, InsideDefense.com reported that Air Force leaders had instructed the service's major commands to begin implementing small-scale cost-saving actions linked to sequestration, moves laid out by the secretary and chief of staff last week.

We now have their memo.

From the story:

To prepare for the possibility of sequestration taking effect on March 1, and in an effort to minimize the negative effects of a continuing resolution, Air Force Acting Under Secretary Jamie Morin and Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Larry Spencer have instructed the service's MAJCOMs to begin cutting cost immediately in a number of different ways. Morin, who spoke at an Air Force Association breakfast this morning, said he and Spencer issued that guidance yesterday.

Their new direction follows a memo from Secretary Michael Donley and Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force's chief of staff, dated Jan. 7 and addressed to Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. In the memo, Donley and Welsh outlined the short-term steps the Air Force will be taking to trim expenses, such as freezing civilian hiring; pausing many facility restoration projects; limiting non-critical travel and non-mission-related flying, such as appearances at air shows; and curtailing the purchase of non-essential equipment or services like software refreshes and furniture.

Morin said his and Spencer's guidance highlights those same kinds of cost-cutting measures and is "very much of a piece with what the secretary directed." The document formally gives the MAJCOMs the go-ahead to start limiting expenses because of the threat of sequestration, whereas Donley and Welsh's correspondence with Carter simply laid out likely courses of action, Morin said.

Belt Tightening
By John Liang
January 16, 2013 at 8:17 PM

One of the first casualties of the Pentagon's latest belt-tightening -- cutting back due to the uncertainty over what Congress will do over the next few months on the sequestration issue -- is a Navy information technology conference scheduled for the end of this month.

According to a notice posted on the Navy chief information officer website:

In response to DoD and DON guidance, the DON IT Conference, West Coast 2013 has been cancelled. The conference was scheduled for Jan. 28-30, 2013, at the San Diego Convention Center. Please cancel all travel and lodging reservations as soon as possible.

The AFCEA West Conference, scheduled for Jan. 29-31, 2013, at the San Diego Convention Center will still take place.

Several senior DoD and DON leaders are scheduled to appear as speakers and panel participants. Local commands are encouraged to attend when no travel costs will be incurred.

A number of sessions may still be offered via Defense Connect Online (DCO). Details on these sessions are forthcoming.

On Jan. 13, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus issued guidance on how the Navy and Marine Corps should operate under the current continuing resolution until Congress passes a final deficit-reduction plan. In that guidance, Mabus writes:

GIVEN THE GREAT UNCERTAINTY WE FACE, WE MUST ENACT PRUDENT, BUT STRINGENT BELT-TIGHTENING MEASURES NOW THAT WILL PERMIT US TO OPERATE THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS THROUGH THE REST OF THIS FISCAL YEAR IF THE CR IS EXTENDED.  EACH OF THESE STEPS ARE DESIGNED TO BE REVERSIBLE, AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT, SHOULD CONGRESS PASS AN FY-13 BUDGET.  ACCORDINGLY, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS LEADERSHIP HAS ADVISED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERING A SERIES OF ACTIONS, EACH SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS FOR MISSION-CRITICAL ACTIVITIES.  ACTIONS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:

- CURTAIL ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING SUPPORT SERVICES

- REDUCE TRAVEL

- DELAY ALL DECOMMISSIONINGS AND ANY DISPOSALS OR LAY-UPS

- REDUCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETS

- CURTAIL REMAINING FACILITY SUSTAINMENT RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS

- CUT FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, EXCEPT FOR SAFETY OF LIFE

- REDUCE SPENDING ON BASE OPERATING SUPPORT

- CANCEL ANY PLANNED FACILITIES DEMOLITION

- TERMINATE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT THOSE SUPPORTING MISSION-CRITICAL ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING THE WARFIGHTER

- IMPLEMENT A CIVILIAN HIRING FREEZE.

View the full Mabus memo.

In related news, the Army has issued its own sequestration-related guidance, as InsideDefense.com reports this afternoon:

Army Begins To 'Plan For the Worst' On Sequestration
The Army has issued guidance on how to reduce spending to mitigate "significant budgetary uncertainty in the coming months," according to a memo signed today by the Army secretary and chief of staff.

Here's the Army memo:

Army Memo On 'Risk Mitigation In The Face Of Fiscal Uncertainty'
In a Jan. 16, 2013, memo, Army Secretary John McHugh and Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno issue guidance on how to reduce spending to mitigate "significant budgetary uncertainty in the coming months."

And here's our reporting on what the Air Force is doing:

Air Force Tells Commands To Implement Sequestration-Related Cost Savers (Jan. 15)
Air Force leaders yesterday instructed the service's major commands to begin implementing small-scale cost-saving actions linked to sequestration, moves laid out by the secretary and chief of staff last week.

Donley, Welsh Predict 18 Percent Cut In Flying Hours Under Sequestration (Jan. 10)
The Air Force's secretary and chief of staff this week described in detail the cuts, reductions and delays the service would have to put in place to mitigate the negative impacts of sequestration, the most eye-popping of which is a possible flying stand-down this summer.

DOCUMENT: Air Force Memo On 'Near-Term Actions To Mitigate Sequestration Impacts'
In a Jan. 7, 2013, memo to Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh "identify near-term actions we are taking to accommodate possible reductions to the FY-13 budget."

Hagel Hearing
By John Liang
January 16, 2013 at 4:15 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee just announced the date of the confirmation hearing on the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to succeed Leon Panetta as defense secretary.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, Jan. 31 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, according to a committee statement.

Inhofe On Hagel
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the incoming ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, met yesterday with former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and said he would not support Hagel's nomination to succeed Leon Panetta as defense secretary. Inhofe released a statement on the nomination last evening. Earlier on Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he would support Hagel's nomination.

Here is Inhofe's prepared statement:

Chuck Hagel is a good person, and it was a pleasure to serve with him in the United States Senate. I am so very appreciative of the sacrifices he and his brother made to serve this country during the Vietnam War. We had a very cordial meeting today in which we discussed his nomination.

Unfortunately, as I told him during our meeting today, we are simply too philosophically opposed on the issues for me to support his nomination.

One of my biggest concerns is avoiding Obama’s sequestration that, as Secretary Panetta has said, would be devastating to our military. However, Senator Hagel’s comments have not demonstrated that same level of concern about the pending defense cuts.

Senator Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement. At a time when North Korea is threatening our allies with their nuclear capabilities and Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, the security of our own nation and that of our allies requires us to be vigilant with our own nuclear weapons and defense systems. This administration has already put us in a more vulnerable position by drastically cutting our nuclear defense budget and eliminating our Third Site missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

On Iran and Israel, Senator Hagel’s record concerns me as well. In 2000, he was one of just four senators who refused to sign a letter affirming U.S. solidarity with Israel. In 2001 he was one of just two Senators who voted against extending the sanctions against Iran. A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization. Given the current tension in the Middle East that is largely being instigated by the Iranian regime, I am concerned with Senator Hagel’s views.

Although we are opposed on issues, we are still friends. This is one of those rare times when policy differences don’t stand in the way of personal relationships.

House Rules
By John Liang
January 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM

House Armed Services Committee members new and old today adopted the rules that will govern the panel's activities during the 113th Congress.

The rules contain three changes, committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) said this morning. "First, the proposed rules include one change made by the new rules of the House, which now require the committee to submit two activity reports per Congress instead of four," he said.

The new rules also update the jurisdiction of certain subcommittees, according to McKeon, who said:

For three subcommittees, the proposed rules would add jurisdiction over sustainment accounts associated with weapons systems for which each subcommittee already oversees procurement. This change would apply to the subcommittees on tactical air and land forces, seapower and projection forces and strategic forces. Readiness jurisdiction remains unchanged from the previous Congress and retains jurisdiction of overall readiness to include weapon sustainment.

The last subcommittee modification would be to the subcommittee on intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities, which was formerly known as the subcommittee on emergent threats and capabilities. The jurisdiction of the subcommittee remains relatively unchanged except for the addition of intelligence policy, including coordination of military intelligence programs, national intelligence programs excluding the national intelligence space programs and DOD elements that are part of the intelligence community.

View the full text of the committee's new rules.

Deep Storage
By John Liang
January 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is looking for ideas from industry for a new concept that would allow remotely piloted vehicles to be placed in pressure-proof containers at the bottom of the sea near potential future flashpoints. Those vehicles -- with their intelligence-gathering payloads -- would then be deployed if a crisis took place in a particular region where regular assets would take longer to arrive on station, according to the Jan. 11 Federal Business Opportunities notice.

To that end, DARPA plans to host a "Proposers' Day Conference" for what the agency has labeled the "Upward Falling Payload" program on Friday, Jan. 25. The event will take place at DARPA's conference center in Arlington, VA, the notice states, adding: "The purpose of this conference is to provide information on the UFP program; promote additional discussion on this topic; and to address questions from potential proposers."

The notice further states:

Cost and complexity limit the number of ships and weapon systems the Navy can support in forward operating areas. This concentration of force structure is magnified as areas of contested environments grow. A natural response is to develop lower-cost unmanned and distributed systems that can deliver effects and situation awareness at a distance. However, power and logistics to deliver these systems over vast ocean areas limit their utility. The Upward Falling Payload (UFP) program intends to overcome these barriers. The objective of the UFP program is to realize a new approach for enabling forward deployed unmanned distributed systems that can provide non-lethal effects or situation awareness over large maritime areas. The approach centers on pre-deploying deep-ocean nodes years in advance in forward areas which can be commanded from standoff to launch to the surface. The UFP system is envisioned to consist of three key subsystems: (1) The ‘payload' which executes waterborne or airborne applications after being deployed to the surface, (2) The UFP ‘riser' which provides pressure tolerant encapsulation and launch (ascent) of the payload, and (3) The UFP communications which triggers the UFP riser to launch. A multi-phase effort is envisioned to design, develop, and demonstrate UFP systems.

A Friendly Game
By John Liang
January 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

U.S. and British Navy and Air Force officials plan to participate together in a war game at the U.S. Naval War College this week, according to a college statement released this morning:

The five-day event, co-hosted by the Pentagon's Air-Sea Battle Office and the UK Maritime Warfare Centre, will study how to conduct combined operations in order to achieve operational access in a future maritime anti-access/area denial (A2AD) environment.

The wargame is intended to inform emerging joint operational access doctrine, such as the Air-Sea Battle Concept, potential force structure, and how combined operations mitigate risk in a disputed maritime environment. It will also enhance combined operations and synergy of command relationships associated with U.S.-UK operations.

The game is designed to be highly experiential to allow players to identify insights with U.S.-UK integration associated with conducting joint operational access operations and will help identify risk associated with conducting joint operational access operations.

More than 68 operators from across warfare disciplines will join NWC's War Gaming Department for the game. In addition to helping refine doctrine concerning joint operational access, the game will help identify how UK and U.S. forces integrate to conduct combined operations.

The game will use innovative gaming mechanics to put players in the role of operational commanders in order to explore how a given plan can be executed, its associated risk, and how to mitigate that risk. Furthermore, the game will employ functional teams of operators to explore the range of missions and desired effects associated with maritime anti-access/area denial environments. Participants will also examine capabilities needed and the role of information dominance for achieving operational access.

Check out InsideDefense.com's recent coverage of the Air-Sea Battle concept:

Card: Navy, Air Force Must Work On Air-Sea Battle Information Dominance
Inside the Navy - 12/03/2012

CNO Report: Navy To Revise Maritime Strategy, Amphibious Ops Concepts
DefenseAlert -- 31 October 2012

Dempsey's New Vision For 2020 Joint Force Sparks Mixed Reactions
Inside the Pentagon - 10/04/2012

Marine Corps War Game On A2/AD Threats Uncovers 'Numerous Gaps'
Inside the Navy - 08/27/2012

Strategic Sourcing Contacts
By John Liang
January 14, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Director Richard Ginman wants to make sure military officials know whom to contact when it comes to improving acquisition through strategic sourcing.

To that end, Ginman, in a Jan. 11 memo, provides contact information for the service officials responsible for strategic sourcing, whose support "is clearly needed in the participation and execution of any strategic sourcing initiative."

View the memo.

CV-22 Clarifications
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 11, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said today that the Defense Department would deploy the Air Force's special operations variant of the V-22 Osprey, known as the CV-22, to Japan -- but his comments, made during a question-and-answer session with reporters, later prompted Pentagon Press Secretary George Little to issue a clarification of the Pentagon's plans.

Asked if there is any plan to deploy the CV-22 to Okinawa or any other place in Japan, Donley replied, "Yes." When pressed on specific locations, he added, "I think I'll beg off on that for now. But the answer is yes." Asked about the time line, he said, "Let me see if I can get you a more detailed answer afterwards."

DOD, however, later deleted the exchange -- with the exception of the initial question -- from its transcript of the press briefing. In the place of the deleted text was an "editor's note" for "correction to the record: There have been no decisions made about the deployment of the Air Force CV-22 aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region," it stated. "As part of the planning process, the Department of Defense evaluates a range of possible basing options for our forces. That process is currently ongoing."

By day's end, Little had issued a statement titled "clarification on the Air Force CV-22 aircraft," which noted DOD has not officially told Japan about CV-22 deployment plans "because we have not made a basing decision."

Here's Little's statement:

The Department of Defense continuously assesses its worldwide force posture. We are seeking a force posture in the Asia-Pacific that is geographically distributed, operationally focused, and politically sustainable.

As part of the planning process, the Department of Defense evaluates a range of possible basing options for our forces. That process is currently on-going and includes multiple locations in the Asia-Pacific region.

Any deployment of the Air Force CV-22 to the Asia-Pacific region is years away and no construction has begun to support such a deployment. The CV-22 is a Special Operations variant of the Osprey; as a Special Operations platform the demands for this capability are fluid and constantly changing to react to world events.

The United States has not notified the Government of Japan about the CV-22 because we have not made a basing decision.

The U.S.-Japan Alliance, supported by a robust U.S. military presence which includes the U.S. Air Force, continues to provide the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of peace, security and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

ICBM Issues
By John Liang
January 11, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Inside the Air Force reports today that the service's intercontinental ballistic missile community this winter completed a successful operational test and is planning to award a broad ICBM sustainment contract. Also, most recently, the service issued an initial solicitation for white papers on the future of the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad:

The Minuteman III is the lone operational ICBM in the Air Force's arsenal and is programmed to remain in service until 2030. To that end, the service recently announced the successful completion of a November test from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, while at the same time moving ahead on more forward-looking acquisition initiatives.

The Air Force has yet to decide whether to modernize the Minuteman III to keep it viable past 2030 or replace it altogether, and to gather ideas on both possibilities, the service issued a Jan. 7 broad agency announcement calling for white papers from industry. At this early stage, a future ICBM solution is being referred to as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD.

"This BAA initiates a request for analysis, refinement, and technical amplification of concepts designed to satisfy the GBSD capabilities with an operational life of 2025-2075 time frame," the document states. "Concepts are requested to address the GBSD weapon system-of-systems, to include the payload delivery vehicle, warhead integration, basing, and nuclear command, control and communications starting at message receipt. Underlying considerations should be a modular, open systems architecture ('Plug and Play') and commonality with Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), Submarine-launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM), Prompt Global Strike/Conventional Strike Missile, and space launch vehicles."

Based on previous interaction with industry and internal research, the Air Force has created five broad classes of concepts for future ICBMs. They are: the continued use of today's Minuteman III with "no deliberate attempt" to close capability gaps; the "current fixed" concept, which would modernize existing missiles and continue using current silos; "new fixed," which would develop a replacement missile to be kept in a new, super-hardened silo; "mobile," which would develop a new ICBM to be employed off of a mobile platform called a transporter erector launcher; and "tunnel," described in the BAA as a subway system for launching ICBMs.

White papers are due Feb. 8, and contract awards -- multiple awards are possible -- are anticipated in late March. The Air Force has $3 million available for this GBSD BAA, and awardees will have six months to perform their studies, according to the document.

House and Senate authorization conferees had language on strategic delivery systems in the final version of the fiscal year 2013 defense policy conference bill that President Obama signed into law last week:

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1071) that would require the President to certify to the congressional defense committees whether plans to modernize strategic delivery systems are funded at a level equal to or more than that outlined in the November 2010 update to the plan found in section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). If the level of funding is less than that referred to in the November 2010 update, then the President must submit as part of the reporting requirements under section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), his assessment of whether a lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability. If the President determines that the lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability, he must submit with the section 1043 report a plan to preserve or retain the capability that would be lost, and a report that assesses the impact of the lack of full funding and a description of the funding required to restore the capability.

The House bill contained a similar provision (sec. 1055) that would require the President to certify annually whether plans to modernize or replace strategic delivery systems are fully resourced and being executed at a level equal to or more than the levels set forth in the November 2010 update to the plan referred to in section 1251 of Public Law 111-84. The section would further prohibit the use of funds to reduce, convert, or eliminate strategic delivery systems as a result of the New START treaty or otherwise unless the President is able to issue the required certification.

The House recedes with an amendment that would require the President to certify annually to the congressional defense committees whether plans to replace or modernize strategic delivery systems are funded at levels equal that under the November 2010 update to section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). If before fiscal year 2020, the President reports that the plan to modernize the strategic delivery systems is not fully funded according to the November 2010 update, the President shall include with the report to Congress under section 1043 of Public Law 112-81 a determination whether the lack of funding will result in a loss of military capability as compared to the November 2010 update. If the determination is made that a lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability, the President shall include with the report under section 1043 of Public Law 112-81, a plan to preserve the military capability that would be lost, an assessment of the impact of the lack of full funding on the strategic delivery systems, and a description of the funding required to restore military capability. The President must certify a commitment to accomplishing the modernization and replacement of strategic delivery systems and the political obligations concerning nuclear modernization as set forth in declaration 12 of the Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the New START treaty.

The amendment also requires that the President make the certification regarding full funding for the strategic delivery systems under the November 2010 update to the section 1251 plan not less than 60 days before the date on which the President carries out any proposed reduction to the strategic delivery systems along with any additional reporting matters described in this section. In addition, the President must certify to the congressional defense committees that the Russian Federation is in compliance with its arms control obligations with the United States.