The Insider

By John Liang
June 18, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Just as the Obama administration is moving to ramp up military aid to Syrian rebels fighting the Assad regime, the Congressional Research Service has issued a pair of reports on the country:

CRS Report On Syria's Chemical Weapons

The June 14, 2013, Congressional Research Service report states that "U.S. policymakers and Congress may wish to review and discuss authorities, funding, forces, and scenarios in advance" regarding the neutralization of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile.

CRS Report On The Syrian Civil War

The June 14, 2013, Congressional Research Service report states that "the central question for policy makers remains how best to bring the conflict in Syria to a close before the crisis consigns the region to one of several destructive and destabilizing scenarios."

As always, thanks and kudos to Secrecy News for ferreting these reports out.

By John Liang
June 17, 2013 at 9:23 PM

President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin have signed a new cooperative threat reduction umbrella agreement, the two leaders announced today.

According to a White House transcript of comments made after a bilateral meeting in Northern Ireland, Obama said:

And one of the concrete outcomes of this meeting is that we'll be signing here the continuation of the cooperation that was first established through the Nunn-Lugar program to counter potential threats of proliferation and to enhance nuclear security.

And this I think is an example of the kind of constructive, cooperative relationship that moves us out of a Cold War mindset into the realm where, by working together, we not only increase security and prosperity for the Russian and American people, but also help lead the world to a better place.

Last month, Inside the Pentagon reported that if the previous agreement, which expired today, was not amended or renewed, it could impact many of the Defense Department's joint threat reduction efforts, according to a March 22 "for-official-use-only" report signed by Madelyn Creedon, the assistant secretary of defense for global strategic affairs. ITP reviewed this report. Many of the joint threat reduction efforts cannot continue as planned without adequate legal coverage, Creedon wrote.

ITP further reported on the Creedon missive:

"Although Russia has increased its share of joint projects, significant gaps remain," Creedon states. "Recognizing that the gains from our strong cooperation to date are reversible, the United States seeks to continue cooperation and is in discussions with Russia regarding a framework to continue our successful joint efforts beyond June 2013."

"If, however, a new agreement with adequate legal protections is not concluded, the United States will determine which projects must cease operation and will shut them down in an orderly fashion," she continues.

The ITP story also had comments from various analysts on the issues that arose during negotiations:

Ken Luongo, president of the Partnership for Global Security, said negotiations on the new agreement focus on the fact that Russia wants to be more of a partner in the effort, instead of a recipient. However, he questioned "what that means in practical terms" because the Russians don't have similar programs to those of the United States. He also questioned whether Russia would spend the same amount of money as the United States, which he said came to more than $1 billion a year. "Partnership indicates some equality, not 'We don't want to be a [recipient], but by the same token we want you to spend all of the money,'" Luongo said.

Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, said another big issue being debated is liability. U.S. contractors do a lot of the work under the agreement, but if something goes awry, they would not be held liable, Collina said, noting Russia wanted to renegotiate that.

Luongo said there's not too much work left to do in Russia because a lot of projects have been completed and were related to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

By John Liang
June 17, 2013 at 4:41 PM

The Pentagon has officially implemented the requirements for a pair of defense trade treaties with the United Kingdom and Australia.

In a Federal Register notice published this morning, the Defense Department states that it "has adopted as final, with changes, the interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement requirements of the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (the U.S.-U.K. DTC Treaty) and the Security Cooperation Act of 2010 regarding export control regulations between the United States and the United Kingdom. The final rule also implements the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation."

The notice also includes an analysis of public comments made on an interim version of the regulation implementing the two treaties. For example:

Comment: The same respondent, however, was of the opinion that DoD does not have legal authority to make de facto jurisdictional determinations regarding whether a particular product is a U.S. DoD Treaty-eligible requirement. According to the respondent, contractors do have the right to self-classify, but the only Government entity that can make a definitive determination is the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. The respondent recommended that the final rule establish a process for program managers and contracting officers to coordinate with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls with respect to determinations regarding solicitations and contract line items that would be suitable for U.S.-U.K. DTC Treaty treatment, so that companies can rely on the determination.

Response: DoD and the U.K. Ministry of Defence have jointly established a Management Board to resolve such issues, adopted a detailed management plan, and conducted Pathfinder Exercises to test the process with industry participants.

DoD slightly revised the wording of the final rule at DFARS 225.7902-4 to address the concern that the program manager and contracting officer do not have the authority to determine Treaty eligibility.

By John Liang
June 14, 2013 at 3:36 PM

U.S. Africa Command announced today it "is seeking information about, and expressions of interest by, organizations, associations, and other entities, both public and private, which are currently working on the West, East, and North Coasts of Africa in the areas of maritime domain awareness and maritime security."

In a Federal Register notice, AFRICOM states that such information "and expressions of interest in observing the aforementioned exercises is being solicited to inform USAFRICOM and African Host Nations of potential public and private sector capability to improve maritime security. It is expected that these private entities will enrich the exercises planned in Africa concerning maritime awareness and maritime security on the West, East, and North coasts of Africa." Further, according to the notice:

Specifically, USAFRICOM seeks to include a limited number of local, national, and international public and private organizations, associations, and entities as observers into the USAFRICOM Express Series Exercises in order to familiarize U.S. forces and Host Nation Maritime forces with public and private entities which are often the first affected by maritime domain awareness and/or maritime security issues. USAFRICOM and African Host Nation Maritime forces seek to understand the objectives, capabilities, operating procedures, coordination processes, and information sharing tools of these organizations, associations, and entities. USAFRICOM and African Host Nation Maritime forces desire to eventually build collaborative relationships with non-federal entities and promote a sustainable unity of effort among these stakeholder public and private organizations, associations, and entities. Finally, USAFRICOM and African Host Nation Maritime forces desire to eliminate gaps in response, set standard operating processes and procedures for interaction, and promote understanding within the multi-faceted community of key maritime stakeholders.

Inside the Navy reports this week that a new Marine Corps crisis response team that falls under the control of AFRICOM is being based at Morón Air Base in Spain while the service continues to assess the appropriate location for the unit:

A special purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for crisis response (SP-MAGTF CR) is a rotational contingent of approximately 500 Marines, sailors and support elements. The unit is capable of responding to a broad range of military operations and will provide limited defense crisis response of U.S. embassies in the region, support non-combatant evacuation operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations or provide tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel, Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan wrote in a June 4 email.

The Spanish government agreed to temporarily host the unit. The Marine Corps and Spanish government will reassess the location on a year-by-year basis. Other locations could be elsewhere in Spain or somewhere in Europe, he added.

The State Department works with host countries on basing situations while U.S. European Command acts as the liaison between the embassy and the Defense Department, a Marine Forces Africa spokesman wrote in a June 6 email. . . .

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos proposed the special purpose MAGTF specifically tailored for crisis response in Africa. Forward-basing in Europe would increase the capability of the crisis-response team to rapidly respond to incidents on the continent, then-AFRICOM chief Gen. Carter Ham wrote in testimony submitted March 7 to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

By Tony Bertuca
June 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM

The Army, citing fiscal limitations, will not be awarding a new contract for the Individual Carbine and is ending the competition, according to a statement released today.

“Following extensive testing of vendor-submitted carbines, the Army announced today that the Individual Carbine (IC) competition will formally conclude without the selection of a winner,” the statement reads. “None of the carbines evaluated during the testing phase of the competition met the minimum scoring requirement needed to continue to the next phase of the evaluation.”

The Army will instead continue equipping soldiers with the M4A1 carbine. “Given limited fiscal resources, the Army’s decision would free IC funding to address other high priority Army needs,” according to the statement. “This decision is also consistent with recent testimony by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which questioned the value of an IC competition in light of existing upgrades to the M4 carbine.”

The announcement is sure to ruffle feathers in industry and on Capitol Hill, where the quest for a new weapon proved to be very political.

The House Armed Services Committee, sensing the competition would be canceled, passed a bill this week prohibiting the termination, but the measure is not law.

Frustration with the IC competition also led Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who wanted to see an accelerated competition, to put a hold on the nomination of Heidi Shyu to become the Army's next acquisition executive, though he eventually lifted it last September.

“The Army’s decision not to pursue a new carbine competition was reached following careful consideration of the Army’s operational requirements in the context of the available small arms technology, the constrained fiscal environment, and the capability of our current carbines,” according to the Army statement. “The Army remains committed to the development of future competitive opportunities that support Army small arms modernization.”

By John Liang
June 13, 2013 at 9:06 PM

The Government Accountability Office today denied Beechcraft Corp.'s protest of a long-delayed Air Force contract for the production of a fleet of light-attack aircraft for the Afghan military.

Beechcraft launched the protest after a team of Sierra Nevada Corp. and Brazil's Embraer obtained the right to build 20 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft and deliver them to Afghanistan beginning in mid-2014. Sierra Nevada and Embraer said in a June 13 joint statement that GAO's decision was "a win" for U.S. allies in Afghanistan.

In its own statement, Beechcraft said:

It is deeply distressing that the Air Force selected a more expensive, less capable, foreign-manufactured airplane with weapons and systems unfamiliar to, and outside the control of, the United States military. We have known that the requirements for this procurement were written to favor the competition’s aircraft. During this protest, we learned that the GAO's review looks only at whether the Air Force followed its process, but not whether the process itself was actually correct or appropriate. We question whether the Embraer aircraft with its foreign-made weapons can be certified to U.S. military standards in time to provide the mission-capable aircraft per the contract.

It is now time for Congress to step in and put an end to this flawed acquisition process and limit the purchase of the Brazilian aircraft to only that of the Afghanistan requirement covered by the first delivery order of the LAS contract.

Beechcraft remains confident that the AT-6, which was rated "Exceptional" by the Air Force, was the better choice for LAS and is the best aircraft for U.S. partner nations in need of light attack aircraft. The company is certain that future procurements, including those run by other governments, will validate this rating and result in the selection of the AT-6 for counterinsurgency and irregular warfare missions.

For more on this dispute, check out Inside the Air Force's recent coverage:

Court Rejects Lawsuit, Gives Air Force Green Light To Build Afghan Planes
(Inside the Air Force, April 26, 2013)

Beechcraft Corp. Files Lawsuit, Aims To Halt Production Of Afghan Aircraft
(DefenseAlert, March 21, 2013)

Lawmakers Ask Defense Secretary To Countermand Air Force Decision On Aircraft For Afghanistan
(DefenseAlert, March 18, 2013)

Air Force Gives Sierra Nevada The Green Light On Afghan Aircraft Build
(DefenseAlert, March 15, 2013)

By John Liang
June 13, 2013 at 3:31 PM

The Congressional Budget Office issued its spring update to its 10-year baseline projections last month, two months later than usual.

In a letter to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), CBO states that the report was delayed "because the President's budget was released much later than usual, and data that accompany that budget are useful for the preparation of our multiyear budget projections. That change to the usual schedule will affect what reports we produce and when we produce them during the remainder of the year." Moreover:

Specifically, in the past few years, CBO has released its long-term budget projections in June. Because those long-term projections are based on the agency’s 10-year projections, the delay in our spring update to May has pushed the long-term projections onto a later schedule. We now expect to release this year’s long-term projections in September.

In addition, every two years, CBO prepares a report on spending and revenue options for reducing the deficit. This year we plan to issue that report in October. . . .

The lack of an August update will not affect CBO's cost estimates for legislation. In previous years, the August projections have provided background information for the Congress—but for enforcing budget rules and targets, the Congress's long-standing practice has been to rely on CBO's estimates of the cost of legislation relative to the budget projections issued in the spring (even after August projections are published).

As a matter of fact, one of those cost estimates came out this week:

CBO Cost Estimate Of The House FY-14 Defense Policy Bill

The June 11, 2013, Congressional Budget Office report on the House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill estimates that "appropriation of the authorized amounts would result in outlays of $618 billion over the 2014-2018 period."

By John Liang
June 12, 2013 at 6:25 PM

The House Appropriations Committee today approved the fiscal year 2014 defense spending bill on a voice vote.

Here's the committee statement:

The legislation includes funding for critical national security needs, and provides the resources needed to continue the nation’s military efforts abroad. In addition, the bill provides essential funding for health and quality of life programs for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families.

In total, the bill provides $512.5 billion in non-war funding, a decrease of $5.1 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $3.4 billion below the President's request. This is approximately $28.1 billion above the current level caused by automatic sequestration spending cuts. The bill also includes $85.8 billion in war funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

"This bill makes the hard choices to keep our nation safe, secure, and constantly prepared for whatever threats we may face. It provides funding to advance our missions abroad, to prepare and equip our troops, and to ensure the effectiveness of the world's greatest military," House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers said, "And, given our current budget challenges, it reflects common-sense decisions that save taxpayer dollars wherever possible -- without affecting the safety or success of our troops and missions."

"This bill provides the Department with the much needed resources required to modernize and maintain readiness at the levels needed for our military to preserve its standing as the most capable and superior armed forces in the world. I applaud the Committee for approving it today, and urge its quick passage on the House floor," Defense Subcommittee Chairman C.W. Bill Young said.

The following amendments to the fiscal year 2014 Defense Appropriations bill were approved today by the full committee:

Rep. Young -– The manager's amendment makes technical and non-controversial changes to the bill and report. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

DeLauro -- The amendment prohibits funding for equipment purchases from the Rosoboronexport company, unless certain conditions are met, such as a prohibition on Rosoboronexport contracts with Syria, and a requirement that contracts be competitively bid. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

Moran -- The amendment requires a portion of the funding for the Afghan National Security Forces be used for the recruitment and retention of women. The amendment was adopted on a 24-22 vote.

To view the committee report accompanying the bill, click here.

By Christopher J. Castelli
June 12, 2013 at 4:52 PM

The Pentagon may one day create a joint organization like U.S. Special Operations Command to oversee more directly all U.S. military forces associated with cyberwarfare, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said today.

His comments came after a member of the audience at a conference sponsored by the Center for a New American Security asked why the Defense Department had not established a new military service focused entirely on the cyber domain. "It may come to that some day," Carter replied.

U.S. Cyber Command, a sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic Command plans, coordinates and synchronizes DOD's cyber activities. But the department has stopped short of making the mission area inherently joint, Carter noted.

For now, he said, DOD has determined it must focus on attracting, maintaining and making the best use of the cyber talent it has, and using the services' existing cyber-related organizations to address the mission in the most expeditious manner possible.

Meanwhile, the head of STRATCOM had some thoughts on cyber issues today as well. From our story:

Pentagon leaders may never be satisfied with the reliability and readiness of the U.S. nuclear command and control system despite continuing efforts to identify and respond to cyber vulnerabilities, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said today.

STRATCOM is reviewing its legacy nuclear command and control system to determine if there are critical vulnerabilities that exist in the system, Gen. Robert Kehler said today, adding that the review likely will not be complete for some time and that the results may never fully satisfy DOD leaders.

"I don't know that we're ever going to be fully satisfied," Kehler said. "I think you have to have some healthy view that an adversary can be ahead of you and, I think, that there's no perfect defense, there's no perfect protection in any domain, to include cyber. So I think we have to be realistic as we go forward and understand that this is something that will be an ongoing concern for us."

Kehler said that, to date, the review has not uncovered any significant concerns. He noted that many of the issues that have arisen are related to what he called "basic network hygiene," like changing passwords on a regular basis.

"In some cases, we've discovered -- especially with some of the older systems -- that there aren't any vulnerabilities there because they don't work the way that newer systems work," Kehler said. "In some cases we've found things that are a concern, I wouldn't say they're vulnerabilities, and we're going to have to fix those. But we're not finished and it's going to take a while longer."

By Thomas Duffy
June 12, 2013 at 1:54 PM

The Defense Department is reaching out to the private sector and to any "experts and interested parties" in its pursuit of detecting counterfeit parts in the military supply chain.

In a Federal Register notice published today, DOD states it wants to open a dialogue "about the requirements for detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts in DOD contracts." The department published a proposed rule to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation System on May 16.

A public hearing will be held on June 18 to obtain the views of industry and experts in the field, DOD said. The hearing will be held at the General Services Administration office in Washington.

The proposed rule is a partial implementation of a section of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Act, according to DOD:

It addresses the responsibility of DOD contractors for detecting and avoiding the use or inclusion of counterfeit electronic parts or suspect counterfeit electronic parts in items delivered to the Department. In lieu of requiring contractors to establish an entirely new and separate system for avoiding the purchase, and detecting the receipt, of counterfeit or suspect counterfeit parts, DoD plans to use contractors' existing purchasing systems and quality assurance systems.

The DFARS case will also put into practice a section of the 2012 authorization law that outlines contractor responsibility. "This provision of the law makes the costs associated with counterfeit or suspect counterfeit parts unallowable except in certain limited circumstances," DOD said.

By Christopher J. Castelli
June 11, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) today urged Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to submit a supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill to cover higher-than-expected war costs, but Hagel was noncommittal.

One supplemental “to address this issue is not going to fix this problem,” Hagel said. “The only thing that's going to fix this problem is a change . . . in the sequestration, as you have heard, I know, countless times. Now, to your specific question, we have not considered a supplemental. I have not discussed a supplemental. So if that occurs, then we will -- we would look at it, and -- but that's about as far as I can go. We just had not looked at that . . . as a possibility.”

“Well, I would encourage you to do so because although I do not support the sequestration process and believe we should be setting priorities, and I'm very worried about the detrimental impact on the Department of Defense,” Collins replied. “The fact is that is not the total cause of the shortfall in the readiness accounts. And overall, across the department, between -- well, approximately a third of the shortfall is not due to sequestration; it's due to higher than anticipated war costs. So even if we abolish sequestration today, that does not solve the problem of your needing -- legitimately needing more money to deal with the anticipated -- underestimated war costs. And so I would ask you to look at the possibility of submitting a supplemental request.”

A spokeswoman for Collins, who said the senator has raised the issue before, had no comment on what further steps, if any, she might take to advocate a supplemental request.

By Jen Judson
June 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM

The Army signed a much-anticipated $4 billion multiyear contract with Boeing to build 177 CH-47F Chinook helicopters, according to a company statement issued today.

The contract contains options that could increase the total amount to 215 Chinooks, the statement adds.

The Army had been poised to sign its second five-year contract with Boeing since last year, but was unable to do so since Congress had yet to pass a fiscal year 2013 defense budget. The passage of a continuing resolution in March that provided the Defense Department with an FY-13 budget allowed the Army and Boeing to move forward in solidifying the multiyear contract that is predicted to ultimately save the service $800 million.

Deliveries are slated to begin in 2015, the statement notes. The Army's current inventory consists of 241 F-model aircraft with a total planned procurement of 464 aircraft that include 24 to replace peacetime attrition aircraft, the statement adds.

By Christopher J. Castelli
June 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM

House authorizers are pressing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to ensure that the Pentagon's upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review includes energy-security assessments.

Language urging the Defense Department to address the issue is tucked in the June 7 report that accompanies the House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill. “The committee believes an essential element of any defense plan is the importance of energy security as a fundamental component of the Department of Defense’s ability to project power and enable combat capability for operations,” the report states.

The FY-12 Defense Authorization Act defined energy security as “having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential requirements.” The report directs Hagel to ensure that the final QDR report, due to Congress early next year, “includes details regarding the importance of, and funding necessary to achieve, energy security.”

By John Liang
June 10, 2013 at 3:04 PM

The Congressional Budget Office on Friday released a cost estimate of the fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill marked up by the House Armed Services Committee last week:

Based on legislative language for H.R. 1960 that was provided to CBO from May 30 through June 5, CBO estimates that enacting this bill would decrease net direct spending by $26 million in 2014, $18 million over the 2014-2018 period, and $2 million over the 2014-2023 period. . . . Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

The largest costs over that 10-year period result from a provision that would authorize special immigrant visas for certain Iraqi and Afghan allies and a provision that would increase spending from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to acquire additional materials. H.R. 1960 also would increase spending for Tricare beneficiaries whose eligibility derives from service in the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Uniformed Corps of the Public Health Service and for loan guarantees made by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Those costs would be offset by savings from a provision that would modify the calculation for computing the amount of the initial retirement benefit for certain military retirees.

View the CBO cost estimate here.

In related news, the House Rules Committee has released the report accompanying the FY-14 defense policy bill.

By Gabe Starosta
June 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

The Joint Strike Fighter program this week conducted its first in-air missile release, F-35 officials announced in a statement today. The workhorse of the F-35A test aircraft fleet, a jet known as AF-1, launched a test-instrumented Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM, on June 5, according to the statement.

The milestone is an early step into developing weapons capabilities for all three variants of the JSF jet, none of which are currently equipped to carry and operate weapons. The Marine Corps expects to be the first military service to declare initial operational capability in late 2015, at which point its F-35B aircraft will run on software Block 2B and will be able to hold and shoot limited types of weapons.

The missile was launched from the F-35's internal weapons bay over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range in California. Flight testing for the Air Force's conventional-takeoff-and-landing version of the aircraft, the F-35A, is based out of Edwards Air Force Base, CA.

"This is the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 [AMRAAM] demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch -- paving the way for targeted launches later this year in support of Block 2B fleet release capability," the statement reads.

The Joint Strike Fighter is designed to carry 18,000 pounds of ordnance using 10 weapon stations, according to the release.