The Insider

Leaky Cauldron
By John Liang
July 26, 2010 at 4:38 PM

While House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) says he is "extremely concerned about the manner in which" a trove of classified materials related to the war in Afghanistan was leaked to The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel by the WikiLeaks.org website and made public today. "Our nation's secrets are classified for a reason, and the release of classified documents could put our national security -- and the lives of our men and women in combat -- at serious risk," he said. Further:

These leaked documents, while troubling, appear to support what I was asserting for years: the war in Afghanistan was not going well, and we needed a real strategy for success. For nearly a decade under the previous administration, our brave war fighters were under-resourced and lacked the direction of a clear strategy. Under the new counterinsurgency strategy implemented earlier this year, we now have the pieces in place to turn things around. These leaked reports pre-date our new strategy in Afghanistan and should not be used as a measure of success or a determining factor in our continued mission there.

Additionally, some of these documents implicate Pakistan in aiding the Taliban and fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan. It is critical that we not use outdated reports to paint a picture of the cooperation of Pakistan in our efforts in Afghanistan. Since these reports were issued, Pakistan has significantly stepped up its fight against the Taliban, including efforts that led to the capture of the highest ranking member of the Taliban since the start of the war. The Pakistani military has also been in combat for more than a year against its country's own Taliban, which is aligned with al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban attacking American forces and our NATO allies. While we still have concerns about Pakistan’s efforts against the Afghan Taliban, there is no doubt that there have been significant improvements in its overall effort.

OCO Burn Rate: $11B Month
By Jason Sherman
July 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM

The monthly tab for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is running about $11 billion, a sum that is 11 percent below last year's $12.3 billion average, but could still climb as U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan climb, according to a new analysis of war costs by the Congressional Research Service.

Amy Belasco, a defense budget expert at CRS, calculates that the burn rate for operations through April -- seven months into fiscal year 2010 -- were $5.4 billion for Iraq and $5.5 billion for Afghanistan, in a July 16 report, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11." The report notes:

Congress is currently considering the FY2010 Supplemental request for an additional $36.6 billion for DOD and the State Department, largely to cover the cost of deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan that President Obama announced on December 1, 2009. Most recently, the House adopted an amended version on June 30th and the Senate passed its version on May 27th, 2010. Instead of a formal conference, the Senate is expected to revise the House version and send it back to the House, in a “ping pong” process, sometime in July.

If the pending FY2010 supplemental request is enacted, cumulative war costs would total $1.1 trillion including $751 billion for Iraq, $336 billion for Afghanistan, and $29 billion for enhanced security. By FY2010, Afghanistan would account for about two-thirds of the cost and Iraq one-third, a reversal of the previous year.

QDR Independence
By Jason Sherman
July 23, 2010 at 8:42 PM

The congressionally mandated QDR Independent Panel -- headed by former defense secretary William Perry and former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley -- will publish their final report next week, possibly as soon as Monday, according to a congressional source.

Their assignment set fort in the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act is to:

  • review the terms of reference issued by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and any other materials providing the basis for, or substantial inputs to, the work of the Department of Defense on the 2009 QDR;
  • conduct an assessment of the assumptions, strategy, findings, and risks in the report of the Secretary of Defense on the 2009 QDR, with particular attention paid to the risks described in that report;
  • conduct an independent assessment of a variety of possible force structures for the armed forces, including the force structure identified in the report of the secretary of defense on the 2009 QDR; and
  • review the resource requirements identified in the 2009 QDR and, to the extent practicable, make a general comparison of such resource requirements with the resource requirements to support the force structure.

The House Armed Services Committee will receive testimony from Perry and Hadley on July 29; the Senate Armed Services Committee will hear from the same witnesses on Aug. 3.

In April the co-chairs announced the panel would focus on five issues, including:

Force Structure and Personnel: The panel will examine in detail the force sizing construct used in the QDR, the resulting recommended force structure, and “conduct an assessment of a variety of possible force structures.” The panel will also "review the resource requirements” identified in the QDR, and "to the extent practicable, make a general comparison of such resource requirements with the resource requirements to support the forces” cited in the QDR. It will also examine the expected costs necessary to sustain a force structure and supporting end-strength – both in terms of active duty and reserve components - sufficient to perform the missions anticipated in the QDR. Additionally, accessions, career progression, healthcare, and retirement costs will all be critically evaluated in the context of how to manage the escalating costs of the All Volunteer Force, while still ensuring adequate defense resources for acquisitions and operations - all in the context of a decade or more of projected budget deficits.

Acquisition and Contracting: Central to the Department of Defense’s ability to perform its missions are issues related to reform of both acquisition and contracting systems. The panel will critically assess both contract negotiation mechanisms and the acquisition process. It will evaluate the department’s ability to effectively and efficiently acquire equipment and contract with suppliers, so as to provide in timely fashion the hardware, services, and support needed by our men and women in uniform who are deployed in harm’s way. It will also evaluate the adequacy of acquisition expertise in the contracting community, the manner with which the department upgrades its IT systems, the impact of rising energy costs, and the need to build the capabilities of international partners.

The panel members are: Richard Armitage; J.D. Crouch; Charles Curtis; Rudy deLeon; Joan Dempsey; Eric Edelman; Sherri Goodman; retired Adm. David Jeremiah; retired Gen. George Joulwan; Richard Kohn; John Lehman; Alice Maroni; John Nagl; retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales; James Talent; retired Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper; and retired Gen. Larry Welch.

Mark Your Calendar
By John Liang
July 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee today announced several hearings scheduled to take place before the August recess.

On Tuesday, July 27 at 3:00 p.m., the committee will consider the nomination of Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis to become head of U.S. Central Command. Mattis is currently the head of U.S. Joint Forces Command. If confirmed, he would replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is retiring today under a cloud of controversy following remarks he made in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

Earlier that day, the committee will continue its series of hearings on the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with testimony from Steven Pifer, a senior fellow and director of The Brookings Institution's Arms Control Initiative; independent consultants Franklin Miller and John Foster; and Keith Payne, chief executive officer and president of the National Institute for Public Policy.

On Aug. 3 at 9:30 a.m., the committee will hold a hearing on the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel's report featuring testimony from panel co-chairs William Perry and Stephen Hadley.

New Army Test Chief
By John Liang
July 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

The Army's Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) is getting a new chief. Maj. Gen. Genaro Dellarocco, currently the program executive officer for missiles and space at Redstone Arsenal, AL, will become the new commanding general, the Pentagon announced yesterday. He takes the place of Maj. Gen. Roger Nadeau, who retired in March, according to a command spokesman:

ATEC held a Change of Responsibility ceremony on 19 March 2010 at which Dr. James Streilein, then ATEC's Technical Director, assumed leadership of ATEC as the Executive Director. MG Nadaeu has retired and resides in Northern Virginia. Details for a similar CoR ceremony between Dr. Streilein and the incoming CG have not been finalized.

According to the command's website, the head of ATEC has the following responsibilities:

  • Supports the materiel acquisition and force development processes through overall management of the Army's test and continuous evaluation programs.
  • Serves as a member of the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC).
  • Chairs the Test Schedule and Review Committee (TSARC).
  • Assists the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operations Research) and Department of the Army (DA) Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3 in developing and promulgating test policy.
  • Chairs Operational Test Readiness Reviews (OTRRs) as appropriate.
  • Ensures compliance with the Human Use Committee (HUC) process in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 70-25.
  • Recommends approval of Test and Evaluation Master Plans (TEMPs) for all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs), Army designated acquisition programs (ADAPs), Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) oversight and multi-service systems, and selected information technology (IT) programs.
  • Exercises approval or recommends approval of staff actions within ATEC's functional area of responsibility that require a decision or approval by the Chief of Staff, Army (CSA).
Special Relationship
By John Liang
July 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM

During a press conference this week with British Prime Minister David Cameron at the White House, President Obama voiced his support for quick ratification of the U.S.-UK Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty, saying his "administration is working hard with the Senate to move forward as soon as possible with our defense trade treaty with the U.K., which will be good for our workers and our troops in both our countries."

That remark was welcomed by Marion Blakey, the head of the Aerospace Industries Association, who in a statement released today said:

The U.S.-UK and U.S.-Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties were negotiated and signed in 2007.  As made clear by U.K. Defence Secretary Liam Fox, our closest allies are running out of patience on this issue.

Ratification of these treaties goes hand-in-hand with the Obama administration’s plan to modernize export controls.  Our industry, with about 820,000 employees and 30,000 suppliers from all 50 states strongly supports efforts to ease restrictions on American companies as we work to equip our closest friends and allies with the technology that allows their troops to stand with ours to defend our mutual interests.

Ratifying these treaties is important for both national security and economic stability in the United States.  We strongly urge the Senate to ratify the U.S.-UK and U.S.-Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties as soon as possible.

In January, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn discussed the treaty in a speech before the British House of Commons in London:

By reducing the need for individual export licenses, the treaty will allow greater exchange of defense goods, services, and information. Companies in the US and UK will be able to collaborate more easily. Our governments can focus on developing critical technologies instead of pushing licenses through bureaucratic labyrinths. Legally enforceable safeguards will ensure the integrity of sensitive materials transferred under the treaty, and each country will retain the right to unilaterally exempt technologies from its provisions. Ratifying the treaty, as we say in American-English, is a "no-brainer."

Yearly Allowance
By Jason Sherman
July 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM

The House Appropriations Committee has trimmed by $7 billion, or 1.3 percent, the amount the Obama administration requested for the Pentagon in fiscal year 2011, from $530 billion to $523 billion.

This sum -- known in budget parlance as a 302(b) allocation -- is also a $15.7 billion increase, or 3.1 percent hike, above the Pentagon's FY-10 enacted base budget of $508.1 billion, according to a committee statement.

White House's request for the State Department and foreign operations accounts take a $2.6 billion hit -- from $56.6 billion to $53.9 billion, or 4.7 percent reduction. This sum would also mark a $5.2 billion hike, or 10.7 percent increase, over the $48.7 billion amount in in the FY-10 budget.

A committee statement accompanying the figures states:

The subcommittee allocations recognize the economic realities facing the country, while allowing for modest but important investments in key priorities.

The 302(b) allocations conform to the Budget Enforcement Resolution that the House adopted on July 1, 2010, which calls for a $14.5 billion reduction to the President’s discretionary request, as adjusted for programs proposed as mandatory but which must be funded as discretionary because the Administration has not submitted the necessary legislation.

Intel Outside
By John Liang
July 21, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Yesterday's Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing on the nomination of Lt. Gen. James Clapper to become the next director of national intelligence includes a whole bunch of potential talking points for supporters and opponents of the intelligence community. Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who maintains the Secrecy News blog, in today's post noted Clapper's announcement that the Military Intelligence Program's budget would soon be disclosed for the first time:

The size of the annual budget for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), which has been classified up to now, will be publicly disclosed, said Gen. James R. Clapper, Jr., the nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence. He said that he had personally advocated and won approval for release of the budget figure. . . .

Since 2007, the DNI has declassified and disclosed the size of the National Intelligence Program (NIP) at the end of each fiscal year, in response to a legislative requirement. But despite its name, the NIP is not literally the whole "national intelligence program." Rather, it is one of the two budget constructs, along with the MIP, that make up the total U.S. intelligence budget.

Thus, when former DNI Dennis Blair said last September that the total intelligence budget was around $75 billion, he was referring to the sum of the NIP (which was $49.8 billion at that time) plus the MIP.

"I thought, frankly, we were being a bit disingenuous by only releasing or revealing the National Intelligence Program, which is only part of the story," said Gen. Clapper. "And so Secretary Gates has agreed that we could also publicize that (i.e., the MIP budget). I think the American people are entitled to know the totality of the investment we make each year in intelligence."

Aftergood also notes Clapper's willingness to reform the intelligence budget's structure:

Open government advocates believe that intelligence budget disclosure is good public policy and may even be required by the Constitution's statement and account clause. But what makes it potentially interesting to policymakers is that it would permit the intelligence budget to be directly appropriated, rather than being secretly funneled through the Pentagon budget as it is now.

"I would support and I've also been working [on] actually taking the National Intelligence Program out of the DoD budget," said DNI-nominee Gen. James R. Clapper at his confirmation hearing yesterday, "since the original reason for having it embedded in the Department's budget was for classification purposes. Well, if it's going to be publicly revealed, that purpose goes away."

Removing classified NIP funding from the DoD budget would be appealing to the Pentagon since it would make the DoD's total budget appear smaller. "It serves the added advantage of reducing the topline of the DoD budget, which is quite large, as you know, and that's a large amount of money that the Department really has no real jurisdiction over," Gen. Clapper said.

However, the intelligence community wouldn't be the "primary obstacle to such a change," according to Aftergood:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has just weakened an amendment to require annual disclosure of the NIP budget request at the start of the budget process -- which is a prerequisite to an open intelligence budget appropriation -- by making disclosure subject to a presidential waiver.

The original amendment, offered by Senators Feingold, Bond and Wyden, "was intended to make possible a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to improve congressional oversight by passing a separate intelligence appropriations bill," explained Senator Feingold. But the effort to implement that recommendation "would be seriously complicated by the year-to-year uncertainty of a presidential waiver," he said in the revised markup (pdf) of the FY2010 intelligence authorization act, released yesterday (at p. 76).

Senate Select Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond (R-MO) said at the hearing yesterday that there has been "far too many DNI confirmation hearings" in the past few years, adding:

I believe this high turnover rate is a symptom of the inadequate authorities invested in the DNI. If we are unable to address those legislative shortcomings in the remaining time in this Congress, then I hope this is something you and the next ranking Republican will be begin to address next year in the new Congress.

Slow START
By John Liang
July 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Don't expect the Senate to complete ratification of the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty anytime soon, according to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

The senator, who spoke today at an Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis-sponsored symposium on Capitol Hill, didn't exude much optimism that the treaty could be ratified before the end of this year.

"There are so many things that we have not yet had permission to read," Kyl said, including the State Department's record of the negotiations between U.S. and Russian officials that concluded earlier this year. There are "still hundreds of questions that have not been answered from the administration. . . . Both the Armed Services Committee and the (Select) Intelligence Committee have more hearings and more work to do, even if the Foreign Relations Committee is ready to wind her up," he continued, adding:

And of course there's the resolution for ratification -- we have not even begun to consider the things that need to go into that. What thoughtful people need to do is to say, 'Slow down, you will have a better chance of getting the treaty through if you try to do it the right way. If you try to run roughshod over those who have legitimate questions to ask, you try and jam it through and you don't take into account the things that we’ve raised here, then you are less likely to get it ratified than you are if you do it right,' even, I would suggest, if we get into the next Congress.

Republicans do not have a reflexive position no or yes on this, most of us have kept our powder dry, and so I'm hoping the administration will view this as a legitimate opportunity for bipartisanship which they keep calling for. Now, will it happen in September? Well it's not gonna happen this month, it's not likely to happen in September either, because there are only about three weeks of legislative time, and that's gonna be the last opportunity for Democrats to do whatever they have to do prior to the election for their election campaign purposes -- a tax bill, or something of that nature, for example.

And so that leaves the lame-duck session. Now, that offers some opportunities, obviously, but you're gonna have the omnibus appropriations bill, which will consume a lot of time in the lame-duck session, that's only about a two-and-a-half-week period between the election and Christmas that you can really take advantage of, unless you wanna work all the way through Thanksgiving. And there will be other things that they have saved up, some political things that they'd want to do then. Will this be the time for the START Treaty? Well, that's not the best time, to be sure, but I would say this: If they have gotten this 302(b) allocation issue straightened out, and if the omnibus appropriations bill clearly has all the money in it for 2011, and if the budget for the next year clearly has all the budget in it for 2012, and if the (nuclear weapons) modernization program has been spruced up, and if our questions have been answered, and we've had the opportunity to write and think about carefully the full resolution of ratification that all of us want to have, then there's a theoretical possibility that the treaty could be considered at that time, but if they don't, then I don't think it could. Or should, let's put it that way.

It's Really Official
By John Liang
July 20, 2010 at 6:27 PM

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates said as much last month, the Pentagon today sent out the official statement announcing the president's nomination of Marine Corps Gen. James Amos to become the service's next commandant.

As Inside the Navy reported in June:

The alleged selection of Gen. James Amos as the next commandant of the Marine Corps surprised many and has been called an unorthodox pick by some news outlets, but analysts are hesitant to draw conclusions based on Amos' background as an aviator or the fact that Gen. James Mattis and Lt. Gen. Joe Dunford -- the picks that inside sources had been favoring -- were not selected. . . .

Amos would be the first aviator to become commandant, which may seem to make him a counterintuitive pick based on Gates' previous statements that the Defense Department needs to focus more on the wars it is currently fighting, both of which have been primarily ground wars.

"I have a hard time with the idea that we should make too much of this sort of thing," said Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution. "I remember when Jim Jones was the first Marine to ever run NATO and a lot of people saw that as a big step . . . people said that signifies a big shift and that's a big historic change, and frankly I think we got too caught up in that kind of rhetoric."

Spirited Discussions
By Dan Dupont
July 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his South Korean counterpart today announced new military exercises aimed at North Korea.

The American Forces Press Service has details on a statement issued by both:

The first in a series is a combined maritime and air readiness exercise named Invincible Spirit. About 8,000 U.S. and ROK military personnel will participate. The exercise is in response to the unprovoked attack on and sinking of the South Korean frigate Cheonan off the west coast of the peninsula. Forty-six South Korean sailors were killed in the North Korean torpedo attack on the vessel.

“This is the first in a series of ROK-U.S. combined naval exercises that will occur in both the East and West Seas,” the two defense ministers said in their joint statement. To Americans, the East Sea is the Yellow Sea and the West Sea is the Sea of Japan.

“These defensive, combined exercises are designed to send a clear message to North Korea that its aggressive behavior must stop, and that we are committed to together enhancing our combined defensive capabilities,” the statement continued.

Navy Adm. Robert F. Willard, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, put the exercises in context for reporters traveling with Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Willard said the exercise will begin at the conclusion of the Two-plus-Two meetings between the U.S. and Korean ministers of defense and foreign affairs.

Willard called the attack on the Cheonan “heinous.”

The exercise does include the USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group and ROK Navy ships. Aircraft will come from the U.S. Seventh Air Force, the George Washington’s Air Wing, the ROK air force and ROK anti-submarine aircraft. The exercise will include F-22 Raptor aircraft training for the first time in the theater, he said.

“In all, over a hundred aircraft will fly in the event,” Willard said. “The exercise will include a variety of training opportunities – flight operations from the carrier, there will be an air defense exercise, strike exercises and opportunities for passing exercises.”

“Anti-submarine warfare is also included in the exercise with both ROK and U.S. Navy ships and P-3 aircraft participating,” he said.

At the end of the exercise, there will be a counter special forces exercise. “These occur with some frequency in both the East and West Seas, conducted by the ROK and U.S. Navy,” Willard said.

Invincible Spirit is a large-scale exercise, the admiral stressed. “This is intended to send a signal to North Korea with regard to what has occurred post-Cheonan, and it is intended to signal to the region the resolve of this alliance and our commitment to one another and the scope and scale of our ability to operate together,” he said.

Supplemental Plea
By John Liang
July 19, 2010 at 7:27 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) this afternoon added his voice to the growing chorus calling for passage of the fiscal year 2010 emergency supplemental spending bill. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):

I know you understand the importance of national security and I know you are working hard to provide the Armed Forces with all the resources necessary to carry out their missions. I am writing to respectfully request that you schedule a vote at the earliest possible opportunity on a Fiscal Year 2010 Supplemental Appropriations bill containing at least $37 billion for overseas contingency operations of the Department of Defense.

The Department of Defense urgently needs supplemental funding in order to avoid inefficient and costly budget work-arounds in the immediate future. In order to ensure that a supplemental appropriations bill can be forwarded to the President's desk for his signature as quickly as possible, I urge that the bill be constructed so that it can obtain broad bi-partisan support in the United States Senate. The long-standing tradition of bi-partisan support of the Armed Forces in times of war should continue to be our guide in this most critical of times for national security, and particularly in this critical hour for our ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

I recognize that the Senate has already passed just such a bill, H.R. 4899, with a Senate amendment which the House has returned to the Senate with a further amendment. I believe that Congress must conclude its work on this measure as soon as possible. I appreciate your hard work on this legislation which continues your years of dedicated support to the Armed Forces. A critical hour is upon us and I know you will continue to act in the nation's best interest.

As Inside the Pentagon reported last week:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is "disappointed" that Congress did not pass the bill before July 4, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. The services "will now have to begin cash-flowing operating costs for war activities using their base budgets," Morrell said. "But because of where we are in the fiscal calendar, this option won't last very long. So absent more drastic action, we project that certain Army and Marine Corps accounts will run dry in August." Lawmakers must pass the bill before their next break in August, he argued.

'Most Costly' Wars
By Jason Sherman
July 19, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Stephen Daggett, a defense budget and policy expert at the Congressional Research Service, has published an analysis of major U.S. war costs -- from the American Revolution to current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and adjusted the tallies for inflation, allowing for a side-by-side comparison of the costs of each campaign.

The tab for the two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is $1.1 trillion so far. World War II, by comparison, cost $4.1 trillion once adjusted for inflation, according to the report.

Steven Aftergood, who first reported the CRS analysis on the Secrecy News blog, notes:

This makes the "war on terrorism" the most costly of any military engagement in U.S. history in absolute terms or, if correcting for inflation, the second most expensive U.S. military action after World War II.

Daggett in his eight-page report underscores the difficulty of making accurate comparisons of war costs across the centuries.

Comparisons of war costs over a 230-year period, however, are inherently problematic. One problem is how to separate costs of military operations from costs of forces in peacetime.

Another challenge is also the actual numbers in the ledgers:

Figures are problematic, as well, because of difficulties in comparing prices from one vastly different era to another. Inflation is one issue -- a dollar in the past would buy more than a dollar today. Perhaps a more significant problem is that wars appear vastly more expensive over time as the sophistication and cost of technology advances, both for military and for civilian purposes. The estimates presented in this report, therefore, should be treated, not as truly comparable figures on a continuum, but as snapshots of vastly different periods of U.S. history.

Even with these caveats, the figures are very interesting.

The American Revolution was a relative bargain at $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2011constant dollars, according to the report.

At today's rates, the Civil War ran the Union $59 billion and the Confederacy $20 billion.

At Farnborough
By Marcus Weisgerber
July 19, 2010 at 7:02 PM

The Farnborough Air Show in England is off and running with a number of contracts and teaming agreements announced today.

First up, Hawker Beechcraft has selected CAE USA as the ground-based training systems provider for the AT-6 attack plane. Under the agreement, CAE will support Beechcraft’s “global pursuit campaigns of the AT-6 aircraft.” Those pursuits include the Air Force’s Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance program and Afghan Light Air Support contract.

“CAE USA will lead the design and development of a comprehensive ground-based training system, including aircrew and maintenance technician training solutions for the AT-6 platform,” a Hawker Beechcraft release states. “CAE’s responsibilities will include training system design and analysis, design and manufacture of synthetic training equipment, courseware development, classroom and simulator instruction, and training support services.”

CAE will also develop “embedded aircraft simulation solutions for the AT-6 and other T-6 aircraft variants,” according to the statement.

In addition, Hawker Beechcraft announced it has transitioned its maintenance of the Iraqi air force’s Peace Dragon King Air 350ER intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft maintenance into a fulltime contract logistics support role.

A total of 13 Hawker employees will provide maintenance and logistical support for the aircraft.

In other show news, Raytheon announced it has formed a team with Rockwell Collins and Honeywell to compete for the second increment of the Joint Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS) program. The system is replacing current instrument landing and precision approach radar landing systems.

"The Raytheon-Rockwell-Honeywell team has the expertise needed to implement JPALS Increment 2," Andy Zogg, Raytheon Network Centric Systems vice president of Command and Control Systems, said in a July 18 statement.

Back To School
By John Liang
July 19, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Thirty-two universities are slated to get about $227 million in research grants over the next five years, the Pentagon announced today:

Awards are subject to the successful completion of negotiations between the academic institutions and DoD research offices that will make the awards: the Army Research Office (ARO), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR).

The awards are the result of the fiscal (year) 2010 competition that ARO, ONR, and AFOSR conducted under the DoD Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program. The MURI program supports research by teams of investigators that intersect more than one traditional science and engineering discipline in order to accelerate both research progress and transition of research results to application. Most MURI efforts involve researchers from multiple academic institutions and academic departments. Based on the proposals selected in the fiscal 2010 competition, a total of 67 academic institutions are expected to participate in the 32 research efforts.

The MURI program complements other DoD basic research programs that support traditional, single-investigator university research by supporting multidisciplinary teams with larger and longer awards.  The awards announced today are for a five year period subject to availability of appropriations and satisfactory research progress. Consequently, MURI awards can provide greater sustained support than single-investigator awards for the education and training of students pursuing advanced degrees in science and engineering fields critical to DoD, as well as for associated infrastructure such as research instrumentation.

The MURI program is highly competitive. ARO, ONR, and AFOSR solicited proposals in 30 topics important to DOD and received a total of 411 white papers, which were followed by 152 proposals. The awards announced today were selected based on merit review by panels of experts.