The Insider

With fall approaching fast, Pentagon leaders are keeping a close eye on Turkey. Members of the high-powered Defense Policy Board met Sept. 13-14 at the Pentagon to “receive classified briefings and have discussions” on just that topic, according to a brief notice filed by the committee as a justification for keeping the meeting closed.

Participants included intelligence community folks, academic experts, U.S. European Command chief Adm. James Stavridis, the under secretaries for policy of the State and Defense departments and four former U.S. ambassadors to Turkey (sans Eric Edelman), according to the agenda. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was also scheduled to make an appearance.

“The committee concluded with a classified executive session and made recommendations to the secretary of defense,” DPB Chairman John Hamre wrote in a one-paragraph note, required by law even for closed meetings. There ends the information available to the public.

From what we're told, “economic growth, political development, NATO alliance, growing regional power -- how should we respond?” were some of the issues that came up. Of concern, says one person with knowledge of the matter, is the European Union's continued refusal to let Istanbul join its ranks -- a position that some U.S. officials fear could lead to country to align itself more and more with the Arab world instead of the West.

And as is the case with the last day of every fiscal year, the Pentagon yesterday rushed to wrap up as many contract awards as it possibly could. Final count: Sixty-six contracts were included in the Sept. 30 Defense Department daily contracts list, with a cumulative value of more than $6 billion.

Among those awarded yesterday -- but not the largest deals -- were three contracts to develop technology for the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) S-band and radar suite controller (RSC). Northrop Grumman got $120 million, Lockheed Martin $119.2 million and Raytheon $112.3 million, according to DOD. Specifically:

AMDR is envisioned as a radar suite containing an S-band radar, an X-band radar and RSC and will be designed to be scalable to accommodate current and future mission requirements for multiple platforms. The AMDR-S will provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications. The AMDR-X will provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination. The RSC will perform all coordination actions to ensure that both radars operate in concert in a widely diverse environment.

Hours before the contract announcement, Inside the Pentagon broke news about the way ahead for the AMDR program:

The Pentagon is advancing development of the Navy's Air and Missile Defense Radar while seeking new ways to coordinate the program with a key Air Force radar initiative, according to Defense Department, service and industry officials.

The Defense Department is poised to launch the AMDR program's technology development phase, paving the way for further contract awards while pressing to bolster ties with the Air Force's Space Fence program, Inside the Pentagon has learned.

The AMDR program is intended to meet integrated-air-and-missile-defense needs for multiple ship classes by developing a suite that includes an S-band radar (AMDR-S), an X-band radar (AMDR-X) and a Radar Suite Controller (RSC). The Space Fence program, meanwhile, is developing two to three ground-based, S-band sensors to better detect and track space junk orbiting Earth that can damage satellites. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are involved in the early stages of both programs.

The Defense Acquisition Board, chaired by Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter, had been slated to hold a meeting in August to approve the AMDR program's entry into the technology development phase with a milestone A decision. But the board opted instead to endorse the move simply by issuing a memo, a fast-track approval process known as a "paper DAB."

"The AMDR milestone A DAB did go paper, based on the recommendations of the [overarching integrated product team]," Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin told ITP. Officials have been crafting the memo that will formalize the move.

In a bid to preempt a Pentagon decision to terminate the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program, a $15.5 billion program widely believed to be on the chopping block in the fiscal year 2012 budget review, Virginia's two senators today asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to permit the EFV program to complete development and testing before its fate is decided.

The letter from Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, both Democrats, reads:

We write today to urge you to allow the Marine Corps to complete development and testing of its Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) before deciding on the future of this important acquisition program.  Reliability testing at Camp Pendleton and the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground will be completed late this year or in early 2011.  The Marine Corps will be in a much better position to confirm if the EFV satisfies its performance requirements when this testing is completed.  Early indicators are said to be positive in most categories.

The EFV, the Marine Corps' highest acquisition priority, is designed to replace the 40-year old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV).  A replacement for the antiquated AAV is a key enabler for the Marine Corps to perform one of its important roles as a multi-mission force in readiness. This month’s 60th anniversary of the Incheon landing during the Korean War reminds us that the locations and types of future Marine Corps operations cannot be predicted.  As General Amos noted during his recent confirmation hearing, amphibious forces have responded to crises at least 104 times in the past 20 years—more than double the rate experienced during the Cold War.

If current testing is completed satisfactorily, the EFV will fill a critical gap in providing the Marine Corps with an assured access capability from the sea during opposed and lower-risk operations.  Designed to achieve water speeds in excess of 25 knots and land speeds of up to 45 mph, the highly armored and well-armed EFV will provide the Navy’s amphibious ships the maneuver space and stand-off distance needed to counter anti-access weapons more effectively.

General Conway and many other Marine Corps leaders have repeatedly validated the Marine Corps’ requirement for the EFV.   We recognize that the EFV program has had a long and checkered history.  In the final analysis, it must satisfy affordability and performance requirements.  The results of this autumn’s testing should allow us to make a more informed assessment of the program’s ability to satisfy those goals, so we ask that you defer any final decision on the EFV’s future at this time.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has openly questioned the need for the EFV program, most recently in May, asking "what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire?"

"We have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again -- especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore," Gates said May 3 in an address to the Navy League. "On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?"

Gates has openly questioned the need for the EFV program, asking in May, "what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire?"

"We have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again -- especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore," Gates said May 3 in an address to the Navy League. "On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?"

The Pentagon should continue to invest in stealth aircraft because the technology remains among the most effective means of improving and ensuring aircraft survivability, according to Rebecca Grant, who today released an updated version of her 1998 report, "The Radar Game: Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability." Grant is the director of the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies.

Noting that radar detection has improved since the debut of stealth aircraft during the Gulf War in the early 1990s, Grant told InsideDefense.com today that fifth-generation fighters are needed to combat the technology on the ground:

A lot of the earliest surface to air missiles were relatively shorter-range. We see now systems like the S-300 and S-400 series (surface-to-air missiles) (with) the ability to detect non-stealth aircraft at ranges of around 100 miles or more. So to just get close enough to be effective, you have to have a fifth-generation stealth aircraft. So that is why stealth is so important.

In irregular warfare, as in Afghanistan, the need for stealth technology has diminished. However, for possible future conflicts with traditional state actors like Venezuela, China or North Korea, Grant said modern stealth aircraft could be key:

Now integrated air defenses are sold very widely. Venezuela has purchased fairly modern systems. We see them on contract in Iran. So nearly any adversary we face is likely to have at least some of these systems. And the tier of adversaries we worry about, such as those with ballistic missiles, other things that we'd want to go in and defeat, are certain to have integrated air defenses as well.

In her foreword to the updated version, Grant writes:

Stealth remains at the forefront of design. One of the best signals about the ongoing value of stealth lies in new applications. Leading unmanned aerial vehicles for high-threat operations incorporate stealth. Navy ships have adopted some of its shaping techniques. Of course, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter remains the nation’s single biggest bet on future airpower.

Success in the radar game will continue to govern the value of airpower as a tool of national security. Many of America’s unique policy options depend upon it. When and if the SA-20 joins Iran’s air defense network, it will make that nation a considerably tougher environment for air attack, for example. Already there are regions of the world where only stealth aircraft can operate with a good chance of completing the mission.

In fact, stealth aircraft will have to work harder than ever. The major difference from 1998 to 2010 is that defense plans no longer envision an all-stealth fleet. The Air Force and joint partners will operate a mixture of legacy, conventional fighters and bombers alongside stealth aircraft even as the F-35s arrive in greater numbers. The radar game of 2020 and 2030 will feature a lot of assists and the tactics that go along with that.

The top Democrat and Republican on the House Armed Services Committee want Defense Secretary Robert Gates to include "operational energy" in the Pentagon's nascent effort to find budgetary efficiencies in DOD operations.

In a letter Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Buck McKeon (R-CA) sent to Gates yesterday, the lawmakers write:

In 2009, operational energy accounted for 70 percent of all energy use by the Department of Defense at a cost of $9.34 billion, which makes it a prime area for achieving efficiencies. There are many options for achieving energy efficiencies and supplementing power through renewable energy alternatives, tactical waste-to-energy initiatives, insulation for structures, and other innovative ideas. For example, according to a U.S. Army briefing in July 2009, the average fuel consumption of a foamed building in Baghdad was 4,839 gallons per year as compared to an unfoamed building which used 10,690 gallons a year. This is a fuel savings of 55 percent. This low-technology solution results in significant and demonstrated cost savings, particularly in a region like Afghanistan where the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel is more than $200 a gallon at isolated forward operating bases.

The focus on operational energy has been a sustained priority for our Committee, most notably recognized in our creating the position of Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs in Section 139b of Title 10, United States Code. We commend the appointment and arrival of Ms. Sharon Burke as the new Director to provide leadership, conduct oversight, and be accountable for operational energy plans and programs in the Department of Defense and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

While we understand the need to exercise great care when adopting new technologies and procedures in the midst of a conflict, we encourage you to seriously consider prudent ways to reduce the need for fuel on the battlefield. We believe there are ample opportunities and technological solutions to reduce our energy footprint in theater which will reduce the logistical and security burdens on our troops. As part of the broader effort to identify efficiencies within the Department, we request an update prior to delivery of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request detailing the Department's plan to reduce operational energy through technology and culture change, the approximate savings that may be achieved, approximate funding required, timeline for deployment, and cross-service efforts to maximize investments. We look forward to hearing greater detail on this critical issue.

Senior Pentagon leaders have been making the congressional rounds this week hoping to persuade lawmakers to allow the Defense Department to find up to $100 million in efficiencies over the next few years. Yesterday, it was the Senate Armed Services Committee. Today, it's the House's turn. House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA) said in his opening statement this morning that "as with most things, the devil is in the details." Further:

Unfortunately, although we have requested more information, both verbally and in writing, the Department has failed to fully respond.  My first concern is where we find $20 billion a year in cuts—in the midst of two wars—without also cutting back on required weapons and services needed to meet the threats of today and tomorrow.   Secretary Lynn, you’ve already announced that at least a third of the savings will come from within the force structure and modernization accounts—the same accounts the Secretary is attempting to grow.  We have seen that setting arbitrary targets for cost savings, as appears to have happened with insourcing, can frequently not yield the expected results.  How do we avoid those pitfalls here?

Second, I am extremely concerned that no matter what the intentions of the Secretary may be, the Administration and some in Congress will not allow the Secretary to keep the savings.  This summer, the White House supported a teacher bailout bill that was funded in part with defense dollars.  Once these savings from this efficiencies initiative are identified, what’s to stop them from taking this money, too?

We're already seeing impacts of this summer’s cuts.  For example, some of those funds were intended to rectify an overdraft in the Navy’s military pay accounts.  Once those funds were taken, the Navy was forced to take the money from aircraft procurement accounts.  What’s the result?  It’s going to take longer to buy the external fuel tanks our Super Hornets and Growlers need and to upgrade training simulators.  Even worse -- it will cost the taxpayers more money to buy those fuel tanks because we won’t be able to take advantage of a negotiated bulk buy.  So much for efficiency.

As for committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO):

As long as I have served in Congress, the system has worked one way: the Administration proposes, and the Congress disposes.  This year and next will be no different.  So gentlemen, your task today is to persuade us that this initiative is not part of an agenda to cut the defense budget, and that it is consistent with this committee's longstanding priorities in a number of critical areas.