The Insider

Shana-ba-shana
By John Liang
March 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM

No, that headline isn't about the 1970s doo-wop band that appeared in the movie musical "Grease." It refers to an Afghan concept of standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with someone -- a term taught to reporters today by a U.S. military official in Afghanistan in response a question on whether Provincial Reconstruction Teams create a dependency on foreign coalition forces. During the teleconference, Air Force Lt. Col. John "Red" Walker, the commander of the Mehtar Lam Provincial Reconstruction Team in Regional Command-East, said:

One of the things that we've done or one of the -- one of the actions that we've been very cognizantly taking is, all of the PRT actions and all of our processes are nested "shana-ba-shana." I mean, we are really integrated very well with the governor and his staff, so we don't give any opportunity or any projects or development or really any actions without the knowledge and prioritization of that Afghan government entity, whether that's at the district or at the provincial level. And I think that's what President Karzai is getting at, is that the PRTs need to be very well nested with the provincial governor and his staff.

As cooperative as coalition forces have been with their Afghan counterparts, however, senior U.S. military officials have grown increasingly worried about having to continue to operate under a continuing resolution instead of a fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. As Inside the Pentagon reports today:

Continuing to restrict Defense Department funding under stopgap legislation could complicate the war in Afghanistan by blocking the acquisition of urgently needed military equipment, according to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there.

If Congress does not pass a fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations bill, the restrictions tied to operating under a continuing resolution could prevent the armed services from buying systems such as MQ-9 Reaper drones needed to support troops in Afghanistan, he said March 18 at the Newseum in Washington.

"The CR is not yet complicating our efforts, but there is a point at which it will," he said. "To give you an example, the U.S. Air Force won't be able to buy the additional Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle [combat air patrols] that we have requested on an urgent joint operational needs statement. And then there are similar examples of that."

Inside the Air Force reported March 18 that the Air Force had exhausted its prior-year reprogramming funding, meaning that the planned purchase of 24 more Reaper drones and other equipment would have to wait for further relief from Congress or until a full appropriations bill is passed.

Petraeus noted a multibillion-dollar fund used to plan, program and implement structural, institutional and management changes in Afghan forces could also be impacted. "At a certain point, the Afghan Security Forces Fund," for which the administration is seeking a budget increase, "would be capped at a much lower level," he said.

On March 17, the Senate passed a three-week continuing resolution to fund government operations through April 8. The House previously passed the bill. President Obama signed the legislation March 18.

Petraeus also reiterated his "grave concerns about the inadequate levels of funding" for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, stressing both organizations have vital work to do in Afghanistan. He recently made the same point in congressional testimony.

"These are national security issues," he said at the March 18 event, sponsored by National Journal. The expertise of, and funding for, the State Department and USAID are needed to "cement the gains on the ground" in Afghanistan, he said.

F136: Stop Work
By Jason Sherman
March 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM

The Pentagon today announced plans to stop funding the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program, drawing a strong challenge from a key congressional committee and a pledge from F136 builder General Electric to fight the move.

The Defense Department's announcement:

The Department of Defense today issued a stop work order in connection with the Joint Strike Fighter extra engine program.

The administration and the DoD strongly oppose the extra engine program, as reflected in the President’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal that was recently submitted to Congress, which does not include funding for the program.  In our view it is a waste of taxpayer money that can be used to fund higher Departmental priorities, and should be ended now.

The House of Representatives has recently expressed its own opposition to the extra engine in its passage of H.R. 1 including the adoption of the Rooney Amendment which removed all fiscal 2011 funding for this program.  In addition, funding for the extra engine was not authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2011, enacted in January.  In light of these recent events, Congressional prerogatives, and the administration’s view of the program, we have concluded that a stop work order is now the correct course.  The stop work order will remain in place pending final resolution of the program’s future, for a period not to exceed 90 days, unless extended by agreement of the government and the contractor.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, responded with the following:

Yesterday, my staff director at the House Armed Services Committee received a call from Under Secretary of Defense Ash Carter informing the committee of the Department’s decision to discontinue funding for the Joint Strike Fighter’s competitive engine program.

The views of the President and Secretary Gates are well known on this topic, but those opinions—however strong—are not the law.  The Joint Strike Fighter F136 engine program is funded under the current Continuing Resolution.  The Secretary should follow current law and not pre-empt the Congressional deliberation process by yanking funding after a single amendment vote.

Regardless of the convenient arguments utilized by the Department of Defense and others, canceling the engine competition and awarding a sole-source, never-competed contract constitutes the largest earmark in the history of the Department of Defense.  In the case of the Littoral Combat Ship, our industry partners did not voluntarily lower their price—competition forced a lower price per ship.  In this era of fiscal responsibility, I am stunned that the Administration and the Congress would accept the argument that it is good policy to save a dollar today only to spend a thousand dollars tomorrow.

The Department’s decision is especially troubling when you consider their preferred engine has experienced development delays and a cost to complete increase of 445 percent over the last three years.

Going forward, we will explore all legislative options available to us to maintain engine competition in the largest acquisition program in U.S. history.

The F136 industry team has also weighed in with a statement:

The GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team received a "Stop Work" order from the Department of Defense instructing the team to stop efforts on the F136 for 2011 once the current funding runs out at the end of March.

While the F136 development contract contains a "stop work" clause, we are disappointed that DoD took this unilateral action before Congress has completed its work on the fiscal year 2011 budget.

However, we are not deterred by this decision. We feel so strongly about this issue, as do our Congressional supporters, that we will, consistent with the stop work directive, self-fund the F136 program through this 90-day stop work period.

We are fully committed to delivering a better engine for the F-35 program, and have no intention of abandoning the warfighter and taxpayers.

Everyone knows competition saves money. Our supporters in Congress are more determined than ever, and are encouraging us to press the merits of our case. We will not walk away from a $3 billion taxpayer investment and your hard work to deliver what the Senate has called a "near model program."

The F136 engine is meeting or exceeding performance expectations, is demonstrating significant advantages over the Pratt & Whitney engine, and is nearly complete.

The F135 has racked up $3.4 billion in cost overruns with continued delays and technical issues.  Just last week, House hearings confirmed that the P&W engine has not met required testing for the JSF flight envelope after four years.

These issues won't fix themselves.  Only competition creates performance based rewards and delivers better and better capability ... it's just that simple. Mischaracterizing the F136 as "redundant" does not support our founding principles of competition and excellence which are at the core of the US military.

We are gratified that several House and Senate leaders, who will convene in early April to complete the FY2011 budget process, are determined supporters of competing JSF engines for a myriad of financial and security reasons.

Kinetic Action
By John Liang
March 24, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, spoke yesterday during a briefing on board Air Force One about whether U.S. military actions in Libya constituted war or something else:

I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.  But again, the nature of our commitment is that we are not getting into an open-ended war, a land invasion in Libya.  What we are doing is offering a unique set of capabilities over a period of days that can shape the environment for a no-fly zone.

Expect Congress to take a hard look at the administration's policy on Libya in the coming weeks, as Inside the Pentagon reports this morning:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) said Wednesday he expects the ongoing U.S. and allied airstrikes in Libya will take center-stage March 29 when the panel holds a fiscal year 2012 budget hearing with U.S. European Command chief Adm. James Stavridis and U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Robert Kehler. "There will be a hearing in effect which will focus on this, because Adm. Stavridis will be coming in front of us Tuesday. So I'm sure this will be the main focus of that hearing," Levin said.

Plenty of Tomahawks
By Cid Standifer
March 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM

The Navy has plenty of Tomahawk missiles to burn in Libya, according to the service's top officer, who said today that replacing the rounds that have been used up establishing a no-flight zone would not be a problem.

“The Tomahawks that were shot, that's part of our current inventory,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said at a Defense Writers Group breakfast this morning. “There are ample replacements for those in the inventory -- more than ample replacements for them -- and in the budget, the funding line continues for Tomahawks to replace those that were shot.”

Roughead agreed with the Navy's top budget officer, Rear Adm. Joseph Mulloy, who told Inside the Navy on March 21 that the cost of the no-fly zone operation for the service is small, given that most of the assets being used were already in the area.

“Did we incur some additional flying hours? Yes,” Roughead said. “But, for example, the [EA-18G] Growlers that we brought in were flying in Iraq anyway, so those flying hours were being burned. . . . Moving to Japan, for example, on the [aircraft carrier] Ronald Reagan [CVN-76], which is heavily involved in the relief operation there, we're flying a lot of helicopters, but we're also not flying the air wing as much as we would have, so quite frankly it's probably costing me less money in that regard.”

The admiral noted that the service is keeping track of all Libya-related expenditures, though he said there is no sign yet of whether or not a supplemental budget would be requested to cover the cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Roughead suggested that the Navy could keep up operations off Libya more or less indefinitely.

“For the Navy, because we are deployed and we are in constant rotation, the forces that are there will continue to provide support that the tactical commander needs,” he said, “but we have other forces that are getting ready to float, so the forces that are there will be relieved by others and that flow continues.”

Libya Price Tag
By Thomas Duffy
March 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) today said he has asked his staff to work with Pentagon officials to come up with a good estimate for the cost of the U.S. military's participation in Operation Odyssey Dawn which has established a no flight zone in the skies above Libya.

During a conference call with reporters, Levin said he thinks the U.S. portion of the bill for Odyssey Dawn "will cost a lot less because we are going to be the junior partner in a multilateral effort."

Levin added that he thinks there will be some support in terms of costs that will be coming from other countries. "That may be in terms of equipment or fuel but we need to sort that out as well," he said.

The key to holding down the costs of U.S. participation is when leadership of the operation is handed off to a coalition of other countries, Levin said.

Next Tuesday, Adm. James Stavridis, head of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, will appear before Levin's committee. Libya will certainly be discussed, the senator said.

Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Jack Reed (D-RI) joined Levin on the conference call.

Team Members
By John Liang
March 23, 2011 at 4:03 PM

U.S. Joint Forces Command's Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (JECC) has deployed personnel to support international humanitarian efforts in response to the crisis in Libya, according to a JFCOM statement. Further:

Thirty-seven members from the JECC's Joint Deployable Team, the Joint Communications Support Element (JCSE), and the Joint Public Affairs Support Element are providing planning, operational, knowledge management, logistics, public affairs and communication expertise, to support U.S. Africa Command's (USAFRICOM) efforts as part of the international community's response to civil unrest in Libya.

Additionally, the JECC coordinated support of additional USJFCOM capabilities from the Operations, Plans, Logistics and Engineering Directorate (J3/4), the Joint Deployment Training Center, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency and the Joint Intelligence Operations Center to meet the requirements of this mission.

The JECC's assistance is part of the U.S. military's support to a larger U.S. government emergency response which includes close coordination with the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other international organizations.

The JECC also will support the joint information bureau (JIB) in Souda Bay, Crete, Greece, a satellite JIB in Sigonella, Italy, and assist in the establishment of Joint Task Force (JTF) - Odyssey Dawn, led by U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa.

Choke Point
By Thomas Duffy
March 22, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has opposed the U.S. involvement in Libya from the start, wants to cut off funding for the operation. Today Kucinich sent out the following letter to other House members:

Dear Colleague:

A few days ago, the United States and our allies began conducting United Nations-sanctioned, U.S.-led military operations against Libya. The establishment of a no-fly zone by the U.S. and our allies, billed as an act to protect civilians in Libya, is an act of war. Yet the President committed the U.S. to military intervention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war.

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the initial costs of a no-fly zone could cost the U.S. between $400 and $800 million, or $30 to $100 million per week. We have already spent trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which descended into unwinnable quagmires. Now, the President is plunging the United States into yet another war we cannot afford. While the Administration assures us that that the U.S. will hand-off its lead role to coalition partners within days, we have not been notified of long-term plans or goals following initial air strikes in the country. The timeline the President gave to Congress was summarized with one word: “limited.”

I intend to offer an amendment to the forthcoming Continuing Resolution or Omnibus Appropriations bill that would prohibit funding for U.S. involvement in military operations in Libya. I urge you to support this amendment.

DAWG Brief
By Thomas Duffy
March 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

A senior Pentagon group will receive a briefing this week on the results of a recently completed study of the force requirements needed for the Obama administration's missile defense plan.

Rear Adm. Archer Macy, the director of the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization, said at a missile defense conference in Washington today that the results of the Joint Capabilities Mix Study III will be briefed to the deputy secretary of defense's advisory working group -- affectionately known as the 'DAWG" -- sometime this week.

Testifying last December before the House Armed Service strategic forces subcommittee, Macy explained what the study would cover:

JCM III is examining our missile defense strategy in the PAA to inform decisions on the number and types of sensors, launchers, and interceptors we require. In order to determine force needs at this level of granularity we have to take into account how the Combatant Commands intend to employ them, what the threats are, and generally how the threat will be expected to be employed. Historically, a lot of these types of studies make assumptions about all these factors based on what other studies have used. We chose not to do this. Instead, we went to the experts. For operational employment information, like asset laydowns and shot doctrine we went to each of the Combatant Commands. We are using how they will conduct BMD operations within their Area Of Responsibility (AOR). For system performance, we went to the experts at the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). In order to keep it all in perspective we set up a joint analysis and review process.

"While this could appear to be a rather laborious structure, in reality it worked quite smoothly, and we found it was very effective in getting the combatant commands, the services and system developers" together, Macy said today. "It helped keep our efforts coherent and complete as we worked through the factors."

Operational Update
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 21, 2011 at 6:38 PM

The possibility that Libyan ruler Col. Moammar Gadhafi might use surrogates to launch terrorist attacks in the United States or elsewhere in retribution for U.S. and allied airstrikes against his military is a "very, very legitimate concern," Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, told Pentagon reporters today via satellite from AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

Ham said he has not seen anything specific to indicate Gadhafi plans to launch terrorist attacks, but he added, "We must operate under the assumption that he would like to see that happen. And so we must necessarily keep our guard and our vigilance very high." Officials must also ensure al Qaeda and its affiliates do not capitalize on the situation in Libya by gaining a foothold there, he said.

"There is no higher priority for this command than the protection of America, Americans and American interests from terrorist attack, and we watch that very closely," Ham said.

Gadhafi might remain in power, the general said. "I do see a situation where that could be the case," Ham said. "It's perhaps easier for me to address that than it is for others, because I have a very discrete military mission. And so I could see accomplishing the military mission . . . which has been assigned to me and the current leader would remain the current leader. Is that ideal? I don't think anyone would say that is ideal, but I could envision that as a -- as a possible situation at least for the current mission that I have."

Ham reiterated he has no mission to attack Gadhafi. "And we are not doing so," he said. "We are not seeking his whereabouts or anything like that. We think we have been very effective in degrading his ability to control his regime forces. And we think we are seeing that play out at various parts of the country." Asked about an attack on a facility in Gadhafi's compound, Ham noted the compound is a "pretty big place" and that the building attacked with "tremendous precision" was a command-and-control facility. The strike was conducted to "degrade the regime's ability to control its military forces . . . in the attack of civilians," he said. "So we think there is a very, very direct relationship in the attack on that target and the mission that we have."

U.S. and allied forces are expanding the no-fly zone in Libya. "Our actions today are focused on extending the no-fly zone southward, then westward from Benghazi," he said. "With the growing capabilities of the coalition, I anticipate the no-fly zone will soon extend to Brega, Misurata and then to Tripoli. That's about 1,000 kilometers, so it's a pretty wide area."

But Ham said he is not concerned about mission creep. "The military mission here is pretty clear -- it is very clear, frankly, and what is expected of us to do: to establish this no-fly zone; to protect civilians; to . . . get the withdrawal of regime ground forces out of Benghazi. And so I don't -- I don't have a sense at all that there is mission creep."

To date, the forces involved are generally achieving the intended objective, he said. The mission is not intended to destroy all of Libya's military, he added. "We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces," Ham noted. "We protect civilians." Distinguishing between opposition and regime forces can be very difficult, particularly when they are in very close contact, he noted.

Ham said he has seen no evidence to suggest other governments are now providing support to Gadhafi.

Order of Battle
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Warships armed with cruise missiles, tactical fighters, stealth bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles are among the American military assets involved in U.S. and allied forces’ attacks on the Libyan government, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, told reporters over the weekend.

On Saturday afternoon, French fighter jets launched air strikes in Libya. Then, more than 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from both U.S. and British ships and submarines, striking more than 20 integrated air defense systems and other air defense facilities ashore. It was a mixture of old Tomahawks and the newer Tactical Tomahawks, Gortney said. The latter have the capability to loiter above the battlefield until being assigned a target, but “in this particular mission we use them as we have just as one of the older Tomahawks,” he said. By Sunday, the number of Tomahawks launched rose to 124, he said.

Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyers Stout (DDG-55) and Barry (DDG-52) and submarines Providence (SSN-719), Scranton (SSN-756) and Florida (SSGN-728) participated in the strike. Other ships in the joint task force include the amphibious ships Kearsarge (LHD-3) and Ponce (LPD-15) as well as the command ship Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC-20).

Global Hawks will be used for bomb damage assessment, Gortney said.

On Sunday, he said three B-2 stealth bombers -- launched from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri -- dropped Joint Direct Attack Munitions on military facilities and aircraft from an airfield at Ghardabiya, not far from Misrata.

“In addition to the B-2 strikes, coalition tactical fighters also began hitting the ground forces of Colonel Gadhafi on the outskirts of Benghazi,” he said.

“Fifteen U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft participated in these attacks, as well as aircraft from France and Great Britain,” he added. “They were backed up by U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers providing electronic warfare support.” The Air Force fighters involved flew from bases in Europe, Gortney said, declining to be more specific.

In the coming days, the U.S. military would like to hand over leadership of the joint task force to a coalition that is led either by the British and French or NATO, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said March 20 while enroute to Russia. U.S. naval and air assets “have clearly played an important role here at the front end and we will continue to play a role, but we will be one of a number of partners beginning, I hope, in a few days,” he said.

Petraeus On Iran
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 18, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Iran's role in Afghanistan is bipolar, according to Gen. David Petraeus. Here's an exchange the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan had this morning at the Newseum with National Journal moderator Major Garrett:

GARRETT: We have two questions along this line. I want you to address it. What is the nature of Iran's role in Afghanistan? Is it entirely malignant, or are there opportunities for cooperation? There are two questions along these lines and --

PETRAEUS: Yeah, let me answer that, because I think what you see with Iran in Afghanistan is a degree of confliction, almost bipolarity. You have on the one hand the security services of Iran, which have of course been greatly strengthened in recent years as a result of the supreme leader having to turn to them in such a significant way to put down the riots and demonstrations in the wake of the hijacked elections a year and a half ago. And so you have these security services, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Qods Force foremost among them, providing training, equipping, funding and so forth to the Afghan Taliban.

And of course we publicly announced the seizure of 48 122-millimeter rockets just across the border in southwestern Afghanistan after they were seized in a joint ISAF-Afghan special operation. It wasn't a coincidence that we were there, and it wasn't a coincidence that those elements were there. These rockets are more than double the range of the 107s that we've seen in the past, double the payload and double the bursting radius. So that's a big concern.

There's also an effort to use soft power, of course, to influence various political figures. I mean, it was remarked on that the chief of staff to President Karzai was provided a gift as he left the country. I think President Karzai was pretty astute in saying we'll take money from anybody who will give it to us and we'll put it to use for the Afghan people. But that happens covertly as well, and it happens with various Afghan political figures.

And then there's the use of soft power, the cutoff of the fuel to Afghanistan a couple of months ago, as a reminder of how important access to that is. And yet there's also no desire on the part of Iran to see the Afghan Taliban return to power. Let's remember, Iran is a Shia-majority state. They don't want to see Sunni ultra-conservative, you know -- akin to -- or supportive of extremists on their soil, as the Taliban was when al-Qaida was there, coming back to power in Afghanistan.

And so you have this dynamic. That does give you some common ground. So does their keen desire to reduce the illegal narcotics- industry activity that has enslaved quite a substantial number of young Iranians. So again, quite some similar interest. And then to get Afghan refugees who have indeed returned to Afghanistan in very large numbers in recent years from Iran, Pakistan and others, but to get more of those home as well, they would -- they would applaud also.

101st Goat-Borne?
By Cid Standifer
March 17, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) encouraged Army and Marine Corps officials to get creative about taking supplies off the backs of warfighters at a congressional hearing this morning, and offered a suggestion of his own.

After noting that he grew up on a farm, Bartlett suggested that dismounted warriors could keep goats on hand for logistics help.

"If you want a pack animal, I would suggest that a neutered male goat would do a really great job," he said. "They're tough animals. If you bottle-feed them, they will follow you around like your best dog for the rest of their life. If you're looking for something to carry for you, you couldn't do better."

Bartlett noted that goats are already common in Afghanistan, so they have proven themselves survivable in an austere environment.

He also commended military units that have already adopted innovative ways to transport supplies.

"I'm very pleased to note that 4th Brigade 101st Airborne is kind of thinking outside the box," he said. "They now employ six donkeys to serve as pack animals."

Spinning Off
By John Liang
March 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM

On Tuesday, InsideDefense.com reported that the Navy had officially blessed Northrop Grumman's decision to spin off two of its shipyards into a new entity called Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

The company announced that day that its board had approved the spin-off, which will consist of its Huntington yard in Newport News, VA and the Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, MS. Northrop has said it plans to close its third yard, Avondale, near New Orleans, LA, though there had been media reports that a buyer has expressed interest in the facility. Further, according to our Tuesday story:

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Sean Stackley issued a statement this evening endorsing the move.

"Our support of the spin-off is based on having carefully reviewed key financial assumptions for HII, which include proprietary forward-looking projections," he wrote. "Ultimately, with appropriate adjustments made by NGC, captured within an agreement with the Navy, we have been able to resolve our concerns about the risk involved to this important segment of the shipbuilding industrial base, and we are confident that HII is well postured to build affordable ships into the future."

Now that the spin-off question is resolved, Stackley noted, the Navy can finalize negotiations with the new entity and award contracts for LPD-26 and DDG-113.

Asked in February if the Navy could prevent the spin-off, Stackley said the Navy is Northrop Shipbuilding's only customer.

According to Northrop Grumman's press release, the spin-off will become formal at the end of the month.

This afternoon, the Navy released a statement that included the above Stackley quote plus this:

The Navy's concern with HII's credit rating, driven by its initial debt, has been offset by NGC's agreement to relieve HII of first quarter 2011 debts, to provide a starting cash balance of $300 million, and not to recoup retentions, performance incentives, and economic price adjustment payments that the Navy might owe under current shipbuilding contracts with Northrop Grumman Ship Building from HII.

"The Navy evaluated the extent of considerations made by NGC as appropriately addressing the risk of this spin to Navy shipbuilding," said Stackley.

V-22 News
By John Liang
March 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Inside the Pentagon is reporting this morning that the Marine Corps is now committed to putting cockpit voice recorders on its fleet of MV-22 Ospreys for the first time since the requirement became law more than a decade ago, according to Lt. Gen. Terry Robling, the service's top aviation official. Moreover:

In a March 15 interview with Inside the Pentagon, Robling said he issued verbal guidance last week directing Marine Corps officials to program $10.3 million in the service's fiscal year 2013 budget plan for the technology. That new guidance from Robling, who became the deputy commandant for aviation in January, marks the first time the service has agreed to fund the capability since Congress mandated it for all Ospreys in October 2000.

ITP reported last December that the Defense Department had left the requirement unfunded for years and that the head Air Force investigator of the April 9, 2010, Osprey crash in Afghanistan said such a device could have helped conclusively prove the cause of the disaster. That prompted the House Armed Services Committee in recent days to press the Marine Corps and the Air Force to meet the statutory requirement.

"It's one of those [where] if you don't ask the question, you don't know what the problem is," Robling said, noting the problem came to light "based on the press article given to the members here. And we looked back and said yeah, there's a requirement."

In the decade since the need for the cockpit voice recorders became law in the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, the requirement did not successfully compete against other priorities in the military's long-term budget process, Robling said, adding there was "no forcing function" to make it happen. But now that the Marine Corps is funding the requirement, it could still take years to implement.

Assuming the $10.3 million makes it into the final version of the Pentagon's FY-13 budget request and that Congress approves the request, the Osprey program would start including cockpit voice recorders in new MV-22s in FY-17, Robling said.

Staffers on the House Armed Services Committee recently provided background and potential questions for tactical air and land forces subcommittee members regarding a March 14 hearing on fiscal year 2012 Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps combat aviation programs. And it's clear, as above, that Inside the Pentagon's reporting is driving this effort forward:

The fiscal year 2012 request continues the MV-22 procurement in the fifth year of a five year multi-year contract. A second multi-year is being pursued to complete procurement of the program of record. The MV-22 Osprey continues to prove highly effective and survivable in combat in Afghanistan. The Marine Corps continues to replace its UH-1N and AH-1W helicopters with H-1 Upgrades aircraft, the AH-1Z and UH-1Y. According to the Marines, the deployment of the UH-1Y in combat has been extremely successful, and the AH-1Z achieved Initial Operational Capability on 25 February 2011. First deployment of the AH-1Z will occur with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) in November 2011, which will also be the first time the UH-1Y and AH-1Z deploy together.

A recent news article in Inside Defense highlighted the fact that the Department of Defense may have failed to put cockpit voice recorders on all its V-22s a decade after Congress put the requirement to do so in law. Section 129 of the Floyd D. Spence National Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 states that "The Secretary of Defense shall require that all V-22 Osprey aircraft be equipped with a state-of-the-art cockpit voice recorder and a state-of-the-art flight data recorder each of which meets, at a minimum, the standard for such devices recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board." Committee staff has engaged with the Marine Corps and Air Force to determine each service's plan going forward to meet the statutory requirement of equipping the MV-22 and CV-22 with voice and data recorders.

Here's related coverage from last week's issue of ITP:

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, plans to investigate why the Defense Department has failed to put cockpit voice recorders on all its V-22 Ospreys a decade after Congress put the requirement in law.

His inquiry comes after a December 2010 report by Inside the Pentagon that the department left the requirement unfunded for years and that the head Air Force investigator of the April 9, 2010, Osprey crash in Afghanistan said such a device could have helped conclusively prove the cause of the disaster.

"Based on your question, we will look into it," McKeon told ITP in a brief March 3 interview.

"Chairman McKeon and members of the committee are concerned about the lack of voice data recorders in our nation's fleet of V-22s," Josh Holly, McKeon's spokesman, added March 9. "The chairman has asked the committee's professional staff to engage with the Marine Corps and Air Force to determine each service's plan going forward to meet the statutory requirement of equipping the MV-22 and CV-22 with voice data recorders. That effort is currently under way."

Senate authorizers are also unhappy that the requirement has not been met. A congressional source said DOD had failed to comply with the law and that is a concern. The defense secretary "fell down on the job," the source said, griping that DOD was supposed to be "watching over this."

. . . And here's a snippet from the story that originally broke the news:

When an Air Force CV-22 Osprey loaded with troops crashed in Afghanistan eight months ago it lacked a required cockpit voice recorder that could have helped investigators conclusively prove the cause of the disaster:

The deadly crash came seconds after a heated conversation in the cockpit and a decade after Congress directed the Defense Department to equip all Ospreys with cockpit voice recorders. But Ospreys lack that capability today because DOD left the requirement unfunded for years, Inside the Pentagon has found. And while the Air Force recently made plans to put voice recorders on its CV-22s next year, the Marine Corps -- which flies most of DOD's Ospreys -- has no similar plans for its MV-22s, a Marine Corps spokesman said.

The April 9 crash killed four, injured 16 and destroyed a multimillion-dollar aircraft. In the darkness of early morning, the Osprey rolled on its landing gear for about 45 feet before the nose hit a small, two-foot deep, natural drainage ditch that flipped the aircraft tail over nose. The Accident Investigation Board, led by now-retired Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel, could not pinpoint the crash's cause. The CV-22's flight data recorder, which tracks aircraft parameters but not cockpit audio, was presumed destroyed when Air Force personnel unaware of its existence failed to retrieve it before bombing the wreckage on the battlefield. It would have been the best item to recover for the mishap investigation, Harvel told ITP in an interview.

But cockpit voice recordings, he added, could have turned the investigation into a "slam dunk" by revealing whether the pilot's final conversation concerned unexpected mechanical problems. The board concluded that engine trouble, crew errors and weather contributed to the mishap. Harvel maintains mechanical problems likely surfaced just before the crash, but Lt. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, who oversaw the investigation, disagrees.

"Having a cockpit voice recorder, I think, would have really shed some light on if that discussion was related to an aircraft mechanical problem that they were working, or if it was related to them being really fast and having this tailwind and discussing possible options on whether they needed to go around and reset up for the approach," Harvel said. "It would have definitely tilted [the investigation findings] either toward pilot error, loss of situation awareness or a mechanical malfunction that they were working. It would have been an absolute slam-dunk solution."

Eye on Japan
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 17, 2011 at 12:40 PM

U.S. military forces remain in Japan and the United States has “full capability to fulfill our alliance commitments to defend Japan and maintain peace and security in the region,” but upon request the Defense Department will evacuate family members of military personnel living there, according to Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan.

Last night, the State Department “authorized the voluntary departure (including relocation of safe areas within Japan) for family members and dependents of U.S. government officials who wish to leave Northeast Japan,” Lapan said, noting DOD will implement this voluntary departure for eligible DOD dependents.

“These measures are temporary, and dependents will return when the situation is resolved,” he added. “Eligible DoD dependents will be given travel instructions by their local commands.” The U.S. government is also “working to facilitate the departure” of private U.S. citizens from a 50 mile radius around the Fukushima reactor, he said.