The Insider

The Radar Game II
By Pat Host
September 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM

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.

Amos: It's Official
By Cid Standifer
September 30, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Gen. James Amos has been approved by the Senate as the next commandant of the Marine Corps.

The vote last night came as no surprise, though Corps officials have been careful not to openly presume that the nomination would go through the Senate.

During his confirmation hearing on Sept. 21, when Amos began to answer a question, “If I become the 35th commandant,” Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) cut him off, saying, “You will, sir. There's no question about that.”

His nomination was included with 3,272 other nominations from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Amos will be the first aviator to take the helm of the service. He currently serves as current Commandant Gen. James Conway's assistant commandant.

Lt. Gen. Joseph Dunford has been confirmed as the future assistant commandant.

Corps sources have told Inside the Navy that they expect Amos to take the helm of the service near the end of October. Conway has told the press he plans to spend his retirement fishing and hunting.

Operational Energy
By John Liang
September 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

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.

Biofuels and Security
By Pat Host
September 29, 2010 at 7:44 PM

At a congressional briefing today on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's aeronautics research and development, InsideDefense.com caught up with NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver after her speech and asked about NASA's commitment to biofuels and how they apply to national security.

"We are looking right now at biofuels with a couple different centers, and one of them is the Navy, specifically," Garver said. "There is a lot of commonality . . . We have, as a federal agency, committed to reducing our fuel consumption and costs and so we have to invest in alternatives."

Garver spent 20 minutes speaking about the importance of aeronautics research and development to continued U.S. innovation and competitiveness. She said NASA aeronautics R&D is "the very fuel of our economy."

Finding Efficiencies
By John Liang
September 29, 2010 at 2:47 PM

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.

Counterproliferation Committee
By John Liang
September 28, 2010 at 7:36 PM

The Pentagon is having problems identifying the amount of resources it devotes to counterproliferation, according to a new Government Accountability Office letter to lawmakers.

The letter takes the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) to task over the way the panel assembles the information included in its annual report to Congress:

Although DOD compiles a biennial list of programs "strongly related to combating WMD" and related costs, it cannot identify with precision what proportion of its resources are devoted specifically to counterproliferation. One of the key elements of an effective national strategy is identifying resources and investments necessary to execute that strategy. However, the CPRC report provides information on only budget requests; it does not provide any data on budget authority or actual outlays. In addition, visibility over how the department's resources support its counterproliferation strategies is limited, in part because those resources are not comprehensively aligned with gaps in counterproliferation capabilities identified by the Joint Staff based on inputs from the combatant commands and other DOD sources. Moreover, efforts across DOD to align resources with identified gaps in its ability to carry out its counterproliferation strategy have not been fully integrated into DOD's budget process. Although the 2009 CPRC report shows what mission areas the various programs/program elements are responsive to, it does not show what functional capability gaps they are designed to mitigate. As a result, the report does not present congressional decision makers with a clear portrait of how counter-WMD gaps translate into DOD funding priorities.

Consequently, GAO recommends "that DOD report actual appropriations and expenditures as well as budget requests related to counterproliferation in the CPRC report and that DOD align prioritized counterproliferation capability gaps with programs and resources."

CIA last month created a new "Counterproliferation Center" to "combine operational and analytic specialists dedicated to combating the spread of dangerous weapons and technology, allowing for even greater collaboration and information sharing on a top intelligence priority," according to an agency statement.

At an April 14 House Armed Services terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee hearing, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs Andrew Weber and Defense Threat Reduction Agency Director Kenneth Myers were asked how the intelligence community was sharing information pertaining to WMD threats with appropriate officials in the Defense Department or other key U.S. agencies, and whether more needed to be done. Their response:

MR. WEBER: Congressman, we get briefed on a daily basis by the intelligence community on the whole range of WMD threats. In addition, the office of the DNI participates in the counterproliferation program review standing committee so we can align resources and investments that are being made in the countering WMD area. I would say that the reporting that we get on the threats in the -- from states -- state programs is excellent and extremely helpful in helping us prioritize where we should be spending resources.

Generally, reporting on nuclear threats is quite good. There is I would say as a consumer of intelligence room for improvement on collection and analysis on biological weapons threats which are a very difficult target.

MR. MYERS: If I may just add very quickly.

One of the efforts that is currently under way between the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency is working together in co-located spaces to work together on some of the potential WMD threats. In other words, bringing the intelligence analysts together with the technology experts, with those systems engineers that are responsible for designing the approaches that we would take in dealing with those WMD threats.

So as the assistant secretary mentioned, there is work to be had and to move forward and improve, but I think one of the things that we found is that bringing the experts together at a working level is a good step in the right direction.

Biofuel Bill
By John Liang
September 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Montana's two Democrat senators have introduced a stand-alone bill that would give the Defense Department long-term contracting authority to purchase aviation biofuels and synthetic fuels -- something the Pentagon has sought and the biotechnology industry is hailing as a way to provide financial certainty to investors backing biofuels production, sister publication Defense Environment Alert reports today:

The bill, S. 3807, was introduced by Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester Sept. 20. The bill would give DOD authority to enter into contracts for up to 20 years to purchase liquid synthetic or biomass-derived aviation fuels or fuel blends that are domestically produced, do not interfere with food stocks, and meet EPA renewable fuel standards, according to the legislation. Current law generally limits DOD to signing five-year contracts with one-year extension options.

DOD has been seeking to lengthen contract terms in order to propel private investments in renewable and alternative fuels for mobile uses. Earlier this year, the White House approved a DOD proposal to seek legislation in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill that would allow for longer contracting authorities as a way to boost private sector investments in renewable and alternative fuels. But House lawmakers in their passage of the defense bill declined to fulfill the request, instead directing DOD to produce a report on whether existing contracting authorities are adequate. The Senate has not yet completed work on its version of the defense bill, with plans to take up the bill on the floor again after the November elections.

Long-term contracting authority would allow developers of alternative and renewable fuels to point to long-term contracts with DOD as a way to persuade financial institutions to support loans for developing facilities to produce the fuels. Brent Erickson, with the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said in a Sept. 23 press statement that such a measure could provide the needed certainty for leading companies and investors to provide capital for large-scale biofuel production. While advanced biofuel producers are already working with the military to test their fuels for aviation and other uses, "efforts to commercialize advanced biofuels have been hampered during the recent recession by lack of access to institutional funding," he said.

Sources with the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition could not be reached for comment on how the bill might aid coal-to-liquids (CTL) production. CTL has been controversial among environmentalists and some lawmakers because CTL emits significantly more lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than fuels from petroleum if carbon capture technology is not used.

It was unclear at press time whether the bill, if passed, could revive a plan abandoned by the Air Force in 2009 to site a CTL fuel production facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. A spokeswoman for Baucus' office did not respond by press time to questions on the issue.

The Air Force cited operational concerns and worries over security when it backed out of the plan. The project, the brainchild of Bush-era officials who have since left the Air Force, had been under review for some time, but it courted controversy because of the questionable environmental credentials of CTL fuels and possible related legal difficulties stemming from a requirement in a 2007 energy law that bans the federal government from using fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions higher than those of conventional petroleum.

InsideDefense.com reported in July about a new study by retired admirals and generals that urged the Pentagon to play a leading role in the development and testing of clean energy technology and forge a new partnership with the Energy Department -- just as the two departments are poised to announce tighter ties:

The report, titled "Powering America's Economy: Energy Innovation at the Crossroads of National Security Challenges," states that the Defense Department's size, energy consumption and innovation track record would enable it to "provide the testing ground and the economies of scale necessary to begin the innovation that could ultimately change the course of the country."

The study is slated for release by the CNA Military Advisory Board July 27, hours before Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman and other senior administration officials are scheduled to participate in a White House forum on clean energy and energy security. The same day, DOD and DOE will also sign a memorandum of understanding on these issues, an industry source said.

The CNA study calls on the defense and energy secretaries to ensure the departments closely align their research and development work, funding and "intellectual capital."

Nomination Approved
By John Liang
September 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee this morning approved the nomination of Marine Corps Gen. James Amos to become the service's next commandant, along with 3,272 other pending military nominations, for the full Senate's consideration. During his confirmation hearing earlier this month, the general had a lot to say over a myriad of issues concerning the Marine Corps:

Amos Endorses EFV Capability As Necessary For Marine Corps

Prospective Commandant Says Many Marines Would Like A Name Change

Force Structure Review Will Address Amphibious Ship Requirement

Marines Shuffle F/A-18s To Prepare For Possibility Of Late JSF IOC

Computer Networks
By John Liang
September 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

We mentioned it in this morning's INSIDER, but in case you missed it, DefenseNews ran a story today about the Pentagon's reshuffling of its information technology efforts:

The Pentagon's top high-tech directorate will officially close its doors next March, according to a Defense Department memo that describes how its surviving functions and personnel will be split among four other DoD entities.

Robert Rangel, a senior aide to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has tapped Gen. James Cartwright, Joint Staff vice chairman, and Christine Fox, director of DoD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, with overseeing a process that will culminate with the shuttering of the Pentagon's Networks and Information Integration (NII) directorate on March 31, 2011.

Closing NII is part of Gates' push to eliminate $101 billion in unnecessary organizations and costs and transfer those savings to weapon programs over five years. He also wants to shutter U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), the Pentagon's Business Transformation Agency and the Joint Staff's Command, Control, Communications, & Computer Systems (J6) directorate. The Business Transformation Agency and the networks and information shop both are part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Sound familiar? That's because InsideDefense.com reported it a couple weeks ago:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates intends to disestablish the major Pentagon offices that handle computer networks by transferring many of their functions to the Defense Information Systems Agency and other organizations, according to a recent memo issued as part of Gates' Pentagon efficiency initiative.

The Sept. 1 memo tasks the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of the cost assessment and program evaluation (CAPE) shop with leading the working group that develops the implementation plan to disestablish the assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration (NII) and the Joint Staff's J6 function, both of which deal with enterprise information technology and hardware issues.

David's Sling
By John Liang
September 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

U.S. and Israeli defense officials have signed an agreement to continue developing the David's Sling weapon system, according to a Missile Defense Agency statement released yesterday. "This agreement continues efforts initiated under the U.S.-Israel Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense Project Agreement signed by both nations in 2008," the statement adds. Further:

Signing on behalf of the United States was Army Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency. Signing for the State of Israel were Rear Admiral Ophir Shoham, Director, Directorate of Defense Research and Development; Mr. Tzahi Malach, Department of Finance, Ministry of Defense; and Mr. Ehud Shani, Director General, Ministry of Defense.

The David's Sling Weapon System Project Agreement will advance efforts to develop an Israeli capability against short-range and theater ballistic missiles, large-caliber rockets, and cruise missiles. Included in the project is the continued development of the Stunner Interceptor to provide lower-tier intercept capability for Israel's multi-layered missile defense system. David's Sling will also address the threat posed by the types of inexpensive and easily-produced short-range missiles and rockets used during the 2006 Lebanon War, and will also advance low-altitude intercept technology and provide that technology to benefit U.S. and Israeli industry.

The signing of the project agreement demonstrates the continued commitment of the United States to the defense of Israel.

In related news, InsideDefense.com reported yesterday that House appropriators have recommended adding $301 million for the Israeli Cooperative Programs line item, with $96 million going to fund U.S.-Israeli short-range ballistic missile defense, and $205 million going to the Israeli "Iron Dome" rocket defense program.

Reform Time
By Sebastian Sprenger
September 27, 2010 at 3:39 PM

House members are expected to unveil legislation this week aimed at tackling the perennial issue of interagency reform. While most officials would agree the U.S. government must do a better job working in concert to solve today’s national security problems, they'd likely also concede there's been little progress toward that goal. Members of the Project on National Security Reform, who have been developing solutions since 2006, thought a breakthrough was afoot when newly elected President Obama picked Jim Jones and other experts affiliated with the group to serve in top national-security related slots. But with two wars going on and an economic crisis ravaging the country, interagency reform was unable to rise to the top of the new administration's agenda.

The effort could get a new boost this week, as House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) are slated on Thursday to unveil a bill to "overhaul interagency national security coordination," according to an statement from Skelton's office. The lawmakers view the legislation as "the largest reform since the 2004 reorganization of the intelligence community," the statement reads.

Defense Trade
By John Liang
September 27, 2010 at 2:51 PM

The Congressional Budget Office this morning released a cost estimate of S. 3581, the "Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties Implementation Act of 2010," which would implement a pair of defense cooperation treaties with the United Kingdom and Australia:

S. 3581 would implement two treaties to facilitate trade in defense articles and services on the U.S. Munitions List. Businesses seeking to export defense articles and services on that list generally require export licenses from the Department of State. In 2007, the United States signed bilateral treaties with the United Kingdom and Australia that would waive the licensing requirement for exports of certain goods and services to those countries. This legislation would implement those treaties.

The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) at the Department of State issues export licenses and maintains a registry of manufacturers or providers of defense articles and services. The DDTC is funded primarily through annual appropriations but has the authority to collect and spend registration fees. It is also responsible for ensuring compliance with rules and regulations governing defense trade, and has the authority to assess civil and criminal penalties for violations.

Based on information from the DDTC, CBO estimates that most of the DDTC's workload would be unaffected by the treaties and that implementing the bill would have insignificant effects on spending subject to appropriation. Enacting S. 3581 could affect collections of civil and criminal penalties and registration fees, thus affecting federal revenues and direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that such collections and spending would not be significant in any year.

CBO has not reviewed S. 3581 for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates because section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that are necessary for the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that the bill falls within that exclusion.

During a press conference in July with British Prime Minister David Cameron at the White House, President Obama voiced his support for quick ratification of the U.S.-U.K. 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."

S. 3581 isn't the only defense-trade-related piece of legislation on the congressional docket. As Inside the Pentagon reported in June:

An international defense procurement group is concerned about provisions on industrial base matters and "monitoring exemptions" in the House's fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill, according to a Canadian official with the organization.

The Defense MOU Attaché Group, founded in 1986 and comprised of 21 countries, is monitoring these issues "very closely," said Jennifer Stewart, vice chairwoman of the group and director general of defense procurement at the Canadian embassy in Washington. The organization includes officials from Australia, Belgium, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and other countries that have reciprocal defense procurement agreements with the United States.

The international defense procurement officials are concerned about a provision in the House bill asking the Pentagon to include "detailed analysis of waivers granted under the Buy American Act, including analysis of domestic capacity to supply articles, materials or supplies procured from overseas," Stewart said in an interview.

The bill also asks for an analysis of the reasons for an increase or decrease in the number of waivers granted from fiscal year to fiscal year.

"The issue . . . looks like an attempt to make sure that DOD is basically buying exclusively from American sources," charged Stewart. "It kind of undermines the MOUs that we have in place to try to minimize an American preference."

Changing of the Guard
By Carlo Muñoz
September 24, 2010 at 6:04 PM

The White House this week nominated Lt. Gen. Larry James to succeed retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula as the new chief of the Air Force's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance shop, according to a Sept. 23 Pentagon announcement. James will leave his current post as the commander of 14th Air Force at Air Force Space Command to assume the new A2 position. As the 14th Air Force chief, James was also dual-hatted as the commander of U.S. Strategic Command's Joint Functional Component Command - Space.

Maj. Gen. Susan Helms is slated to receive her third star and replace James as the head of the 14th and the JFCC-S. Prior to her nomination, Helms was the director of STRATCOM's policy and programs directorate (J5) at Offutt Air Force Base, NE.

The administration's announcement come on the heels of a major restructuring of the air service's senior leadership. As first reported by Inside the Air Force, those moves culminated in the nomination of Lt. Gen. Phillip Breedlove to become the Air Force's new vice chief of staff and Gen. Robert Kehler's selection to replace Gen. Kevin Chilton as the head of U.S. Strategic Command.

Deptula officially resigned his post as the A2 chief in August.

Engine Trouble
By John Liang
September 24, 2010 at 3:41 PM

The San Diego Union Tribune is reporting this morning that the Littoral Combat Ship Freedom, for the second time in the past six months, is having engine problems that will result in completely replacing the unit:

"High vibration indications were discovered in the starboard-side gas turbine engine while the ship was operating off Southern California," said Commander Jason Salata, a spokesman for Naval Surface Forces, San Diego.

"A borescope was done and damage was found to the engine's blading. The engine will be replaced during a scheduled (servicing) visit to Naval Surface Warfare Center in Port Hueneme," which starts on Sept. 27.

Freedom has a second gas turbine. But the ship switched to its two diesel engines when the problem arose offshore on Sept. 12. In early May, the vessel had to pull into General Dynamics-NASSCO shipyard in San Diego for repairs when issues developed with a waterjet, which is part of the ship's propulsion system.

The first-of-its-kind ship -- built by Lockheed Martin -- has had its share of teething problems as the Navy considers whether to buy Lockheed's version or a competing one being manufactured by Austal USA. As Inside the Navy reported in May:

The Navy's first Littoral Combat Ship, the Freedom (LCS-1), dry-docked in a San Diego shipyard late last week awaiting repairs to a starboard boost water jet, according to Naval Surface Forces.

"Freedom requires a short dry-dock period of three to five days to repair the starboard-boost water jet," Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a service spokesman, told Inside the Navy May 4. "LCS-1 water jets have been reliable since the ship launched more than three and a half years ago and we did not have any mission limiting problems on deployment."

Freedom recently returned from its maiden deployment to the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean before arriving at its home port in San Diego last month.

"Original equipment manufacturer, Rolls/Kamewa, is expediting the shipment of a replacement seal," Servello noted. "The ship is expected to dock at NASSCO San Diego on May 8. Rolls/Kamewa indicates that seal failure is rare, but does occasionally occur within the maintenance interval."

The following month, another wrinkle popped up:

The Lockheed Martin-built Freedom (LCS-1) the Navy's lead ship in the nascent Littoral Combat Ship class will not make a previously scheduled appearance at an international fleet review due to leaks discovered recently in the port and starboard splitter gear lube oil coolers, a Navy spokesman said last week.

"Due to emergent maintenance, over the last two weeks the decision was made to not have Freedom attend the International Fleet Review in Vancouver, Canada, in order to ensure the ship is fully prepared to participate in the upcoming [Rim of the Pacific] exercise," Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello told Inside the Navy.

The leaks and crack and structural damage in the ship's centerline fuel tanks were discovered recently and fixed over the weekend (June 5-6), Servello noted. The repairs were made pierside.

"Prime contractor Lockheed Martin and subcontractors were able to successfully troubleshoot the problem and make the needed repairs," he said. "Additionally, cracks and minor structural damage was discovered in one of the centerline fuel tanks. Repair and post-repair inspections on the tank were completed over the weekend."

Rare Earth
By John Liang
September 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM

A story in today's Wall Street Journal highlights U.S. national security officials' concerns about China's control of certain minerals and metals that are used in a whole bunch of applications -- from jet fighter engines to flat panel displays:

China's control of a key minerals market has U.S. military thinkers and policy makers alike worried about access to materials that are essential for 21st-century technology like smartphones—and smart bombs.

The concern over supplies of so-called rare-earth elements was highlighted this week by a report that Chinese customs officials had blocked exports of the materials to Japan. On Thursday, Beijing denied those reports. "China doesn't block rare-earth exports to Japan," said Chen Rongkai, a spokesman for China's Ministry of Commerce.

At issue is a group of 17 metallic elements with magnetic properties suited for high-tech applications such as computer hard drives and digital cameras. Rare-earth elements are also key to "green" technology: Energy-efficient light bulbs use europium and yttrium, while hybrid car batteries and wind-power turbines use neodymium.

While rare-earth ore deposits are found around the globe, China's dominance in mining and processing the elements has raised alarms in Washington. According to an April 2010 Government Accountability Office report, China now produces approximately 97% of the world's rare-earth oxides, the raw materials that can be further refined into metals and blended into alloys that can be made into finished components.

Over the past year, China has imposed global export quotas on the elements. Its Commerce Ministry has said total exports for the year would be capped at just under 30,300 metric tons, down 40% from last year. Only 7,976 tons of that were allocated for the second half of this year. Experts say much of that has already been shipped.

That has spurred anxiety among government officials and industry executives. Delegations from the U.S., Germany, and Japan have implored Beijing to recognize how critical they consider sustained supply. . . .

The fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill contains a provision that, if passed, would direct the Pentagon to address national security issues related to rare-earth materials in the defense supply chain. As Inside the Pentagon reported in June:

A congressionally mandated Government Accountability Office report on rare earth materials in DOD's supply chain, issued in April, said that current capabilities to process rare earth metals into finished materials (such as precision-guided munitions, lasers, communication systems and radar systems) are "limited mostly to Chinese sources" and bolstered vertical integration may "increase China's total market power and dominance."

As a result, the Senate Armed Services Committee wants DOD acquisition chief Ashton Carter to report to Congress on national security issues related to rare earth materials in the defense supply chain by March 15, 2011.

The report must include the steps that DOD has taken to identify and address national security risks due to the department's dependence on Chinese sources for rare earth materials and which DOD plans to take within the next two years to identify and address such risks, authorizers add. The DOD report should also indicate whether direct investment by the U.S. government is needed to minimize national security risks associated with an interruption of supply and when the department plans to have a comprehensive plan to deal with these risks, the committee states.

Last month, the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News blog highlighted a Congressional Research Service report on rare earth elements. According to the report:

The concentration of production of rare earth elements (REEs) outside the United States raises the important issue of supply vulnerability. REEs are used for new energy technologies and national security applications. Is the United States vulnerable to supply disruptions of REEs? Are these elements essential to U.S. national security and economic well-being?

There are 17 rare earth elements (REEs), 15 within the chemical group called lanthanides, plus yttrium and scandium. The lanthanides consist of the following: lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium. Rare earths are moderately abundant in the earth’s crust, some even more abundant than copper, lead, gold, and platinum. While more abundant than many other minerals, REE are not concentrated enough to make them easily exploitable economically. The United States was once self-reliant in domestically produced REEs, but over the past 15 years has become 100% reliant on imports, primarily from China, because of lower-cost operations.

In February 2009, a Pentagon board ruled that specialty metals are not materials critical to national security for which only a U.S. source should be tapped, eliminating a national security reason for the Defense Department to ensure a long-term domestic supply of such materials. As InsideDefense.com reported at the time:

John Young, the defense acquisition executive, submitted the finding to Congress in a Jan. 26 report mandated by lawmakers. The report followed a Dec. 12 meeting of the Strategic Materials Protection Board, chaired by Young and composed of representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the service acquisition executive offices and the under secretary of defense for intelligence.

The Strategic Materials Protection Board discussed and approved the definitions of strategic and critical materials proposed by the executive secretary during its meeting, the report states.

"As a result of the modified definition for critical materials, any material designated as critical will require a risk assessment and a strategy to ensure domestic availability," the committee explains.

The status of specialty metals used to make sensors, armored vehicles, satellites and other items has long been a congressional concern. The Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Act mandated the creation of the Strategic Materials Protection Board to oversee their use.

A year later, the FY-08 Defense Authorization Act directed the board to assess the extent to which domestic producers of strategic materials are investing in a sustained way in the processes, infrastructure, workforce training and facilities needed for the continued domestic production of such materials.

The Jan. 26 report concludes that the critical nature of a material is a function of its importance in DOD applications. It also assesses the extent to which department actions are required to shape and sustain the market and the impact and likelihood of supply disruption.