The Insider

New JFCOM Chief
By John Liang
May 24, 2010 at 5:00 AM

President Obama has nominated Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, the current commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, to be the next chief of of U.S. Joint Forces Command.

According to a JFCOM statement released today, if confirmed by the Senate, Odierno would replace Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis later this year. Odierno has been head of U.S. Forces-Iraq since September 2008.

Prior to his current post, Odierno served as commanding general of U.S. Army III Corps from May 2006 to September 2008, according to his official bio. Further:

General Odierno returned to Iraq to assume command of USF-I less than seven months after completing a 15-month deployment with III Corps from December 2006 to February 2008, during which he served as the Commanding General, Multi-National Corps-Iraq. As the day-to-day commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq, General Odierno was the operational architect of the Surge and was responsible for implementing the counterinsurgency strategy that led to the dramatic decrease in violence in Iraq in 2007 and 2008. He is noted for being one of few Army generals in history to command a division, corps and entire theater in the same conflict.

A native of northern New Jersey, General Odierno attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, graduating in 1976 with a commission in Field Artillery. During more than 33 years of service, General Odierno has commanded units at every echelon, from platoon to theater, with duty in Germany, Albania, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United States. After his first assignment with U.S. Army Europe, General Odierno was assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery at Fort Bragg, N.C., where he commanded two batteries and served as a battalion operations officer.

Following advanced civilian and military schooling, General Odierno returned to U.S. Army Europe and the 7th Army, serving as a battalion executive officer, division artillery executive officer, and brigade executive officer, deploying in that capacity for Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. He later commanded 2nd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery, 7th Infantry Division, and the Division Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division. From October 2001 to June 2004, General Odierno commanded the 4th Infantry Division, leading the division throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom from April 2003 to March 2004. The unit was headquartered in the restive Sunni triangle north of Baghdad, and in a significant accomplishment late in the deployment, Soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division captured former President Saddam Hussein near his hometown of Tikrit in December 2003.

Ground Combat
By Dan Dupont
May 21, 2010 at 5:00 AM

It's a big day for the Army -- and the start of something bigger, the service announced today:

The U.S. Army closed the industry Request for Proposal (RFP) submission process today for the Technology Development phase of the Ground Combat Vehicle Infantry Fighting Vehicle program. This marks the beginning of the formal source selection process, which will culminate with up to three competitive contract awards in late fourth quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010.

The source selection process is used during competitive, negotiated contracting to select industry proposals that offer the best value to the Army. During the GCV source selection process the government will review the submitted proposals and adhere to Federal regulations designed to ensure full-and-open competition among offerors. The process also prohibits the release of information related to the proposals, companies involved, dollar amounts, details concerning the source selection.

Upon completion of the Source Selection and the Milestone A review, contract awards will be made for the technology demonstration phase of the program. The Technology Development Phase involves risk reduction, refinement of requirements, competitive sub-system prototyping activities, and planned technical reviews leading to a Preliminary Design which demonstrates the maturity to enter into Engineering and Manufacturing Development EMD phase.

But don't expect to hear much more for a while:

"We have had good response from industry and now the source selection process will begin immediately. Due to the sensitive nature of this procurement and the Federal prohibition on the release of procurement information, the program office will not release further source selection details until the close of the process," said COL Bryan McVeigh, program manager GCV.

More details:

The contracting strategy developed by the Army is in line with the new DoD 5000.2 guidance for competition. The program plans to award up to three (3) Technology Development phase contracts, marking a 27-month period in which to test and mature subcomponents and other material elements of the designs prior to a Milestone B decision in FY 2013. The subsequent EMD phase would run through the first quarter of FY 2016, and include delivery of the first prototype vehicle in FY 2015. The Army is approaching the GCV’s development in an incremental fashion -- designing it for adaptability, modularity and scalability to adjust to and incorporate technological change.

So who bids? Read our stories, one published today and the other yesterday:

Sources: Germany's KMW to Join SAIC, Boeing for Ground Combat Vehicle Race

Team Led By General Dynamics Submits Bid For GCV

And, as always, stay tuned for more.

JSF: Dutch Ditch?
By Marcus Weisgerber
May 21, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Several published reports over the last 24 hours claim the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament wants to cancel the country's already ordered F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and drop out of the test program.

As reported by the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad:

On Thursday, during this parliament's last official session, a slim majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by the Labour party that called upon the cabinet to end Dutch participation in the 'operational test phase' of Lockheed Martin's JSF-project.

The motion fell short of a definitive refusal to invest billions, but it is the latest step in a long political march in that direction which began in 2002.

The Netherlands is a Level 2 partner on the JSF program. The country inked a deal with Pentagon on June 17, 2002, to contribute $800 million to the test program. It plans to purchase 85 F-35 to replace its aging F-16s.

Talking North Korea
By Zachary M. Peterson
May 20, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead weighed in today on the announcement this morning that a North Korean torpedo was responsible for the sinking of a Republic of Korea ship in March. The sinking of the Cheonan killed 46 Korean sailors.

"I think it's in the best interest of all countries, specifically those in the Western Pacific an area that is so vital to the global economy, that the nations and navies in that area come together to address the problem and hold North Korea to account," Roughead said following a luncheon speech at the National Press Club. "I think that all the countries have that obligation."

The Navy chief noted he does not determine what actions are taken by the United States or any other sovereign nation, yet he argued the incident is "a matter that needs to be addressed by the international community." Roughead spoke at the Center for Oceans Law and Policy conference on "United States Interests in Prompt Adherence to the Law of the Sea Convention."

In a separate statement released this morning, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) called the behavior of the North Korean navy "unacceptable."

“Today’s report suggests that North Korea has once again defied international law and undermined international peace and security, in direct violation of the Armistice Agreement," Skelton said in the statement. "Such behavior is unacceptable."

Parting Shots
By John Liang
May 20, 2010 at 5:00 AM

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) had some choice words for the Obama administration upon learning of the resignation of Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair:

That a man who has willingly dedicated himself to the cause of our nation's freedom would rather step down than continue to serve as America’s top intelligence officer is a disturbing sign of the stranglehold the Obama White House has placed on America's intelligence agencies. Clearly, and understandably, Director Blair was frustrated by the White House's micromanagement and sidelining of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on national security issues.

Blair's resignation is the result of the Obama administration's rampant politicization of national security and outright disregard for congressional intelligence oversight. Blair's resignation is disturbing and unfortunate. The concerns I have come from how the Obama administration conducts national security, not over the director of national intelligence, who they never allowed to do it.

Hoekstra said congressional Republicans would be "watching closely who the president plans to name as a successor," calling the administration’s national security apparatus "broken, dysfunctional and in disarray, with Blair being "the one person you could count on for rationality" among U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan -- "and he’s the one the president let go."

Renewable Rodeo
By Tony Bertuca
May 19, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Army has announced it will hold a “renewable energy rodeo and symposium” June 8-9 at Ft. Bliss, TX, to showcase energy initiatives impacting all levels of the service from ground vehicles to installations.

But while it's in Texas, this rodeo will not feature any bulls or horses -- just displays and demonstrations of technologies that address the generation of renewable and alternative energy sources as well as their distribution, transfer and application.

The event is being co-hosted by the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center and Ft. Bliss, the Army's center for renewable energy, according to a statement from the service.

"The energy rodeo and symposium provides a unique opportunity to evaluate mature technologies in a dynamic environment while, at the same time, establishing crucial partnerships," Ft. Bliss commander Maj. Gen. Howard Bromberg is quoted as saying in an Army statement. "We are looking for game-changing technologies and innovative solutions for the energy and environmental challenges we all face."

According to the Army, the rodeo's list of anticipated attendees includes government officials, industry representatives, renewable energy experts, academics and Pentagon-level military and civilian officials from all branches of the armed forces.

Cyber Strong
By John Liang
May 19, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The House Armed Services Committee this morning adopted an amendment by voice vote that requires the defense secretary to conduct a study assessing the potential use of modeling and simulation to strengthen cybersecurity within the Pentagon.

"The United States is more dependent on our computer systems than any other country, especially as it relates to our military readiness and training and our national security operations," said Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), who sponsored the amendment. "Yet, our cyberdefenses are weak, leaving us vulnerable to threats emanating around the world. Not only do we need a whole-of-government and state-of-the art strategic cyberdefense plan to protect our national systems, but we should take full advantage of state-of-the-art tools available through modeling and simulation to create a cybersecurity system within the Department of Defense that is unrivaled."

Forbes' statement further reads:

In 2007, the Office of the Secretary of Defense was compelled to shut down its computer information systems for more than a week in order to defend against infiltration attempts that were found to be coming from China. Those 2007 attacks resulted in the loss of 10 terabytes of information -- an amount comparable to the contents of the entire Library of Congress, according to U.S. intelligence officials in a report by National Public Radio.

Specifically, Forbes’ amendment requires a report to Congress no later than January 1, 2012, on the use of modeling and simulation, including application recommendations, to strengthen cybersecurity within the Department of Defense.

Zero Option
By John Liang
May 19, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today gave a speech to the National Policy Conference of The Nixon Center and the Richard Nixon Foundation. In it, he questioned the Obama administration's stated goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons:

First, is 'zero' really desirable? If nuclear deterrence has kept the peace between superpowers since the end of World War II, which itself cost over 60 million lives by some estimates, are nuclear weapons really a risk to peace or a contributor to peace?

Second, since the know-how exists to build nuclear weapons and they can't be disinvented, is it really realistic to think they could be effectively eliminated? For example, if we get near to zero, any nation that can breakout and build even a few nuclear weapons will become a superpower.

And the superpowers themselves will find it difficult to get close to zero. For example, if Russia deploys ten extra nuclear weapons today, that's not a big deal, we have 2,200 deployed. If, however, each side is at 100 weapons, and one side deploys an extra ten, that's a significant military breakout. And while we will have 1,550 deployed weapons under the new treaty, and China will still have only several hundred, as we go lower, China has every incentive to build up quickly and become a peer competitor to the U.S. How do we deal with these problems? It's not clear we know.

Third, do we really have to 'restore our moral leadership' and is it necessarily more moral or moral at all to eschew weapons that have been a deterrent to conflict, but the elimination of which could make the world again safe for conventional wars between the great powers? Again, World War 2 cost an estimated 60 million lives. After 1945, the great powers have been deterred from war with each other.

Missile Defense
By Thomas Duffy
May 18, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Pentagon missile defense officials and M.I.T. physicist Ted Postol are facing off once again following a front-page story in this morning's New York Times. Postol and George Lewis, a Cornell physicist, have penned a critical look at the testing record of the Standard Missile-3 interceptor that will be published later this month in Arms Control Today. The SM-3 is supposed to provide the knockout punch for the Obama administration's new phased adaptive approach for missile defense. The plan rests on having dozens of Navy Aegis ships equipped with interceptors that can take down enemy missiles in flight using kinetic energy.

But Postol and Lewis are very skeptical, according to the Times, basing their wariness on a review of the publicly available testing record of the SM-3. Looking at 10 tests the Pentagon announced as successful, Postol and Lewis say they have determined that only one or two of the tests succeeded, according to the Times report.

Postol has been down this road before. He famously took aim at the Patriot antimissile system's batting average during the 1992 Gulf War.

Just hours after the Times story hit the newsstand, the top spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency fired back. Writing on the Defense Department's DOD Live blog, Richard Lehner said:

Postol and Lewis apparently based their assessment on publicly released photos gleaned from a sensor mounted aboard the SM-3 and postulated what they perceived to be the interceptor’s impact point although they had no access to classified telemetry data showing the complete destruction of the target missiles, or subsequent sensor views of the intercept that were not publicly released so as not to reveal to potential adversaries exactly where the target missile was struck.

Later in the blog, Lehner notes:

All of the tests cited by the authors as “misses” were tests involving short-range unitary targets, when the warhead remains attached to the booster rocket. These tests were correctly described by the Missile Defense Agency as successful intercepts, because they successfully intercepted the target. Post-test analysis from collected telemetry showed that the interceptor’s kill vehicle impacted the target body or warhead within inches of the expected impact point that was calculated to maximize damage against a variety of warhead types.

Lehner will be taking questions regarding the Postol/Lewis SM-3 analysis at 4:00 o'clock this afternoon on DOD Live.

Wheels Up
By Carlo Muñoz
May 18, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Pentagon announced this month that Brig. Gen. Kevin Magnum will head its new aviation subordinate command, headquartered at Ft. Bragg, NC. Magnum is currently the deputy commanding general-center at U.S. Division-Center in Iraq, according to a May 3 announcement on the Defense Department's website.

As first reported by Inside the Pentagon, the idea to create a new aviation subordinate command under U.S. Army Special Operations Command was spawned by findings in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as subsequent Army force structure decisions, Col. Steve Mathias, director of special operations aviation at USASOC, said last December.

The new aviation command will be headquartered at Ft. Bragg NC, and be organized in the same structure as USASOC’s Special Forces subordinate command.

The Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), known as the Night Stalkers, will be folded under the new provisional command once the organization is fully stood up, Mathias said at the time. Along with the 160th SOAR’s fleet of combat rotorcraft -- including the MH-60 Black Hawk, A/MH-6M Little Bird and MH-47 Chinook -- the new subordinate command would also be responsible for the command’s growing fleet of unmanned aircraft.

Magnum is also a former commander of the 160th SOAR.

Perception Management
By Sebastian Sprenger
May 18, 2010 at 5:00 AM

U.S. Forces Korea Commander Army Gen. Walter "Skip" Sharp has canceled exercise "Courageous Channel 2010," which was to take place from May 20-24, according to a note on the 8th Army website. The announcement contains no dateline, but the Web page's URL contains today's date.

The statement comes as the Washington Post reported this afternoon that South Korea plans to publicly blame the North over what it believes was a torpedo attack on a South Korean vessel in March that killed 46 sailors.

The cancellation "is to prevent the perception that the exercise was a response to events surrounding the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan and the subsequent investigation," the USFK statement reads.

Opening Salvos
By John Liang
May 17, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Don't expect the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ratification process to be a slam-dunk affair. At least according to Senate Republicans.

In a May 14 report, the Senate Republican Policy Committee states that the U.S. and Russian nuclear relationship "seems not to have destabilized in START's absence, and thus there is no reason for the Senate to rush its constitutional duty to evaluate the merits of the replacement treaty (New START) independently."

Specifically:

New START raises many questions on a range of topics at the heart of U.S. national security policy, including issues of nuclear modernization, missile defense, verification, tactical nuclear weapons, U.S. and Russian nuclear force structure, Russian cooperation with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, and prompt conventional global strike capabilities.

A treaty of this magnitude requires the most thorough and thoughtful deliberation and attention of the Senate. It will be especially critical for the Senate to articulate with clarity its understanding of many of the treaty’s vague clauses and Russian statements affecting these issues.

Past treaties on similarly weighty arms control matters were before the Senate for extended periods of time, with extensive committee work. START itself was subject to more than 20 days of committee hearings, while other arms control treaties of similar magnitude had more than 45 such hearings.

The Senate must be given appropriate time to complete its work. After all, the President delayed submission of his Nuclear Posture Review to Congress by four months and missed his own deadline for New START by several months.

A Heritage Foundation report released at the end of last month is somewhat harsher in its analysis, stating that the follow-on treaty "stymies U.S. efforts to develop and deploy missile defenses"; "elevates and emboldens Russia as nuclear power"; and "fails to address the real nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea."

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee, in a separate report released May 14, claims "strong bipartisan support" for the follow-on pact:

Historically, arms control treaties have enjoyed strong bipartisan support and have been advanced by leaders from both parties over the past several decades, from President John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The New START Treaty is in line with past nuclear arms treaties, including the START I Treaty, the START II Treaty, and the SORT Treaty – all of which received nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate.

Naming Names
By John Liang
May 14, 2010 at 5:00 AM

With the passing of House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) earlier this spring, Democrats on the panel this week announced their subcommittee assignments for the remainder of the current congressional session. They include:

Chair: Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana
James P. Moran, Virginia
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
Allen Boyd, Florida
Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey
Sanford Bishop, Georgia
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Michigan
Tim Ryan, Ohio

Tanker Talks
By John Liang
May 13, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Following a meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said on May 11 that the EU is ready to "immediately" negotiate a settlement of a bilateral dispute with the United States over subsidies for the development of large civil aircraft by Airbus and Boeing -- provided there are no preconditions, Inside U.S. Trade's World Trade Online reports this week.

In a press roundtable, De Gucht said the negotiations could start now but would not provide a specific timetable. “We'll have to see in the coming weeks,” he said.

The Air Force's KC-X airborne refueling tanker competition has been caught up in this transatlantic dispute, with the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. competing against Boeing for the multibillion-dollar contract. During his roundtable this week:

De Gucht gave no signal at the press roundtable that EU member states will provide launch aid for the Airbus A350 plane, but other sources said that the decision could be imminent and could be made even before the U.S. Air Force decides on the award of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, on which both Boeing and Airbus parent company European Aeronautical Defense and Space (EADS) are bidding.

EADS opponents in Congress have tried to use the subsidies issue to pressure the Air Force not to award the contract to EADS. This week, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) will introduce a bill that would force the Air Force to consider the WTO subsidy ruling in the Airbus case in the tanker decision and Boeing has been lobbying heavily for the bill.

De Gucht said he did not discuss the tanker contract in his separate meetings with Kirk and Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman.

Spain, the United Kingdom, France and Germany have pledged about $4 billion in launch aid for the A350, but the details have been under negotiation since the middle of 2009. Observers believe that the royalty-based financing is being tailored to comply with the findings in the WTO cases against previous Airbus funding.

START It Up
By John Liang
May 13, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The White House this afternoon officially submitted the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to the Senate for ratification.

In a letter accompanying the text of the treaty, President Obama writes:

The Treaty will enhance the national security of the United States. It mandates mutual reductions and limitations on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. The Treaty will promote transparency and predictability in the strategic relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation and will enable each Party to verify that the other Party is complying with its obligations through a regime that includes on-site inspections, notifications, a comprehensive and continuing exchange of data regarding strategic offensive arms, and provisions for the use of national technical means of verification. The Treaty further includes detailed procedures for the conversion or elimination of Treaty-accountable items, and provides for the exchange of certain telemetric information on selected ballistic missile launches for increased transparency.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing on the pact next week.

Administration officials can expect intense questioning on details of the pact from Republican lawmakers, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told attendees of a Capitol Hill breakfast this morning.

President Obama "wants a world without any nuclear weapons, zero, none," Sessions said. "I think that makes me nervous," he added, calling such a goal "unrealistic" and one that "raises questions in my mind of how this whole thing is going to play out."