The Insider

Guam EIS
By John Liang
February 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The Navy intends to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to evaluate the consequences of building and operating a live-fire training range on the Pacific island of Guam, where the service plans to relocate troops now based on the Japanese island of Okinawa, according to a Federal Register notice issued this morning:

The proposed action that will be analyzed in the SEIS is to construct and operate a live-fire training range complex that allows for simultaneous use of all firing ranges to support training and operations on Guam for the relocated Marines. The DoN has preliminarily identified five alternatives for the range complex: two are adjacent to Route 15 in northeastern Guam, and three are located at or immediately adjacent to the Naval Magazine (NAVMAG), also known as the Naval Munitions Site. The SEIS will also consider the No Action Alternative.

The purpose and need for the proposed action is to ensure that the relocated Marines are organized, trained, and equipped as mandated in section 5063 of Title 10 of the United States Code, and to satisfy individual live-fire training requirements as described in the Guam and CNMI Military Relocation Final EIS and associated Record of Decision (ROD).

The live-fire training range complex will consist of a Known Distance (KD) rifle range, KD pistol range, Modified Record of Fire Range, nonstandard small arms range, Multipurpose Machine Gun range, and a hand grenade range. The proposed action also includes associated roadways and supporting infrastructure.

The DoN encourages government agencies, private-sector organizations, and the general public to participate in the NEPA process for the training range complex. Because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will have to approve airspace associated with the training range complex at any of the five preliminary alternatives being considered, the DoN will invite the FAA to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS.

Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear, nominee to become the next head of U.S. Pacific Command, was asked about Guam in questions posed in advance of his nomination hearing today:

How does the planned relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam improve U.S. security in the region?

Our commitment to the security of Japan is unshakeable. I understand the planned changes in the Asia-Pacific region will result in force posture that is geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable. Guam’s strategic location supports our ability to operate forces from a forward location.

Planned posture shifts result in greater geographic distribution of our forces in the region, enhancing our ability to respond to contingencies and meet treaty obligations in Asia. It demonstrates our commitment to allies and to fulfilling our agreements with allies and partners. . . .

Is the cost-sharing arrangement between the United States and Japan to pay for the relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam and to cover the costs associated with the continued presence of U.S. forces in Japan equitable and appropriate? Why or why not?

I believe the cost-sharing arrangements with the Government of Japan (GOJ) to be among the best we have. Under the terms of the 2006 Realignment Roadmap and the 2009 Guam International Agreement, Japan committed to providing up to $6.09B (in FY08 dollars) for the relocation of Marines to Guam. For the GOJ this was an unprecedented step, funding the construction of facilities for the use of U.S. forces on U.S. sovereign territory. To date, the GOJ has provided $834M towards fulfillment of that commitment. For relocations within Japan, the GOJ is paying the lion’s share of the costs to develop new facilities. In April 2011, we entered into a new, five-year host nation support agreement with Japan that maintained the overall level of support we receive from Japan for labor and utilities, while for the first time putting a floor on the amount the GOJ provides for facilities construction.

The One Percent
By Sebastian Sprenger
February 8, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of ISAF Joint Command and deputy commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, today attempted to push back against an Army whistle-blower's complaint that military officials are overselling progress in the country. In doing so, he dropped a statistic that shows just how steep the road ahead is. Scaparrotti told reporters at the Pentagon that 29 Kandaks -- units comparable to a battalion in size -- of the Afghan National Army and seven of the Afghan National Police had reached the highest capability category, "independent with advisers."

That comes to about one percent of the total size of the ANA and the ANP, according to Scaparrotti.

However, the three-star was more upbeat about the next-best category, "effective with advisers," attained by 42 percent of the Afghan security forces.

That's . . . been growing throughout, and that's really what we're trying to do . . . you know, that's half your force, nearly that -- effective with advisers. So they can operate; they need our enablers, they need some advisors to help them, and that's where we're at today.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said earlier this month the plan for Afghanistan is to scale back U.S. combat operations in 2013 while stepping up advising activities.

Media Relations
By Sebastian Sprenger
February 8, 2012 at 7:02 PM

"The media" turned out to be a favored topic of conversation at the National Defense Industry Association's annual special operations conference in Washington this week, thanks to the forceful voice of retired Army Lt. Gen. James Vaught of Operation Eagle Claw fame.

On Tuesday, he demanded to know from Rear Adm. Sinclair Harris, head of the Navy Irregular Warfare Office, why the service wasn't more forcefully confronting Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. "Blow these bastards out of water," he shouted into the microphone, which clearly wasn't calibrated to handle such an outburst. The suggestion netted applause from the audience, which to that point had been entertained only by an abstract debate about strategies for integrating Special Forces with general-purpose forces.

No can do, responded Harris, offering three letters as an explanation -- "CNN." By that he meant that news about anyone being blown out of any water these days likely would end up on the evening news. Oh, and there are also rules of engagement to be considered, Harris added.

Vaught had made news earlier that day, too. In what is now an international story, he confronted Special Operations Command chief Adm. William McRaven about the wisdom of publicizing sensitive operations like the one that led to the killing Osama bin Laden. (ABC News has footage of the exchange.)

In setting up his piece of advice -- "Get the hell out of the media" -- he brought to light this somewhat puzzling nugget recalling the capture of Iraq's former leader:

Back when my special operators extracted Saddam [Hussein] from the hole, we didn’t say one damn word about it. We turned him over to the local commander and told him to claim that his forces dug him out of the hole, and he did so. And we just faded away and kept our mouth shut.

Vaught's account could not be immediately verified, as they say in the media. According to a SOCOM official, however, the retired three-star "had no role" in the operation in question, having retired two decades prior. (It is possible that Vaught was referring to his special operators in an endearing way, as a former commander might do.)

As for the rest of the information, perhaps the history books of the Iraq war must be rewritten? There is a public record of how the capture was announced to the world. It was during a -- wait for it -- press conference, the one that then-Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer opened with the now-famous words, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him."

The event transcript, courtesy of CNN, is available here. (Hint: Special operators did get public kudos at the time. And: The local commander Vaught was referring to has since made his way up the Army ranks and became the chief of staff.)

Export Control Authority
By John Liang
February 8, 2012 at 5:54 PM

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) is pursuing a new line of attack on the Obama administration's export-control reform initiative by questioning its legal authority  to create a new subset of the Commerce Control List (CCL) for items it plans to transfer from the U.S. Munitions List (USML), Inside U.S. Trade reports today. Further:

The new subset of the CCL for these items has been informally dubbed by administration officials as the "Commerce Munitions List (CML)," because it would place transferred items into a new 600 series of Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCN).

At a Feb. 7 committee hearing on export controls, Ros-Lehtinen said this "proposed arrangement" raises questions about the CML's statutory basis and its relationship to programs by which the U.S. government provides security assistance to other nations such as the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. License-free shipments for such programs are authorized under the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations which implement the USML.

Following the hearing, a House aide clarified that Ros-Lehtinen is questioning whether the CML exists outside the current framework of the CCL and whether moving items there would require a different notification process to the congressional committees of jurisdiction than items that are otherwise transferred from the USML to the CCL. The aide said that was still an open question, a point subsequently disputed by a senior administration official.

The administration plans to pursue a notification process for all items it wants to transfer from the USML to the CCL under Section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act. Under this process, a formal notification of a transfer goes into effect unless Congress passes a resolution of disapproval within 30 days.

Ros-Lehtinen also questioned whether the subsequent export or retransfer of these transferred items should be subject to congressional notification and reporting requirements.  She did acknowledge that the administration plans to require licenses for CML controlled items and to prohibit exports to countries like China on which the U.S. imposes an arms embargo.

But she questioned the administration's plan to make these items eligible for a new license exception known as Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) for ultimate government end use in 36 countries deemed to pose little or no diversion risk. According to Ros-Lehtinen, the administration has failed to put in place safeguards against diversion of such items once they are shipped to their initial destination.

Such safeguards would explain which foreign parties can have access to the controlled items and to what extent is foreign cooperation on enforcement expected, she said. Failure to do so could lead to widespread diversion of these military items to countries like China, she claimed.

"History has shown that, without such safeguards, country exemptions for defense articles are vulnerable to exploitation by grey market brokers, foreign intelligence entities, front companies, and even terrorists," she said in her opening statement.

At the hearing, which featured only private-sector witnesses, Ros-Lehtinen reiterated her objections to the scope of the reforms, which she wants to limit to the transfer of generic parts and components from the USML to the CCL. "There are elements of the USML review that have merit," Ros-Lehtinen said in her opening statement. "However, its many complexities demand close congressional scrutiny."

Renewable Energy Deployment
By John Liang
February 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), the renewable sector's largest umbrella group, is working with the military through a series of private forums to create a public-private partnership to advance renewable energy deployment, according to senior ACORE officials and others involved in the effort. In a story published Monday on Inside EPA's Clean Energy Report:

ACORE held a closed meeting between its members and Department of Defense (DOD) officials the week of Jan. 27, as the first in a four-part series of forums meant to resolve barriers to better industry-to-government cooperation on renewable energy advancement. Officials with the Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) also participated in the forum, according to the officials.

ACORE plans to hold a separate set of forums later in the year to examine opportunities for renewable energy through the implementation of EPA utility rules and other regulatory factors, say the sources.

The meetings follow President Obama's announcement in his State of the Union address of a new effort to advance clean energy by leveraging the renewable energy policies of the Navy and DOD. ACORE sources say the recent meeting and the president's announcement were unrelated, and that the administration has not yet coordinated with industry on the president's initiative. Nevertheless, ACORE officials say administration leadership is needed to build on DOD's history of spurring innovation.

The first meeting between senior DOD officials and industry featured a number of panel discussions on renewable energy deployment at installations, the use of renewables at forward deployed bases, the use of renewable energy for transportation and overcoming technology gaps for advanced energy, says an ACORE official.

Permitting, siting and funding were also key concerns discussed at the forum, says the source. The next forum, to be held in the coming months, will focus on military acquisitions, says the official, dealing with DOD authority to purchase or acquire renewable energy services and fuels.

A senior ACORE official says the forums will continue throughout the year, resulting in a series of recommendations that will be assembled into a report.

ACORE has teamed up with other organizations to advance this effort, announcing Jan. 26 a partnership with the Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), a business federation representing the entire advanced energy industry. Both industry groups believe there is a role for the private sector in DOD's effort to deploy renewable energy to mitigate energy security threats, according to sources with the groups.

The groups want to make themselves available as a resource to help DOD discern the right technologies for the right mission, based on an installation's geographic area and what sources of energy are most available, say the sources. The groups believe the military is prepared to purchase more clean energy services, but it is not always aware of the available technologies, say the sources. ACORE and AEE will work to close the information gap on renewable technology availability and increase coordination between DOD and industry.

LEMV Limbo
By Jason Sherman
February 7, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Plans for the first flight of the Army's new hybrid airship -- the Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle -- have slipped again, this time from the end of February to the end of March, according to a service spokesman.

In February 2011, prime contractor Northrop Grumman announced the LEMV's first flight would be in “mid to late summer,” a goal that by July slipped until the fall. However, on Sept. 11, program officials did achieve a key milestone, fully inflating the airship for the first time.

Then, last month, Army officials predicted a late-February first flight date. But John Cummings, a spokesman for Space and Missile Defense Command, told InsideDefense.com today that the LEMV's maiden flight is now slated for next month:

I can confirm the first flight of the LEMV is scheduled for the end of March at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ, with follow-on flights following shortly thereafter. Additional testing is scheduled to occur in Melbourne, Fla. and at Eglin AFB, Fla.

Asked why the program faces another delay, Cummings said only: “The LEMV is a one-of-a-kind prototype technology demonstration and as such the first flight will occur when the vehicle is ready.”

Strategic Direction
By John Liang
February 6, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey today released his "Strategic Direction To The Joint Force," a pamphlet outlining his thoughts on where he plans to focus his efforts as chairman. According to his introductory cover letter:

First, we must achieve our national objectives in our current conflicts. For as long as we have America's sons and daughters in harm's way we, will not be distracted. Al-Qa'ida remains in our sights, and our forces in Afghanistan remain in a tough fight.

At the same time, we are creating the military of our future. We must develop a Joint Force for 2020 that remains ready to answer the Nation’s call -- anytime, anywhere. We need to offset fewer resources with more innovation.

We also must confront what being in the Profession of Arms means in the aftermath of war. Each of us must be a leader of consequence beyond our battalion, our squadron, our ship, and our unit.

Above all, we have to keep faith with our Military Family -- Active, Guard, Reserve, and Veteran. They have endured much and need support now more than ever. They are our heart and must remain our priority despite pressure to do otherwise.

Flying High Again
By Christopher J. Castelli
February 6, 2012 at 5:48 PM

An F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft that had been grounded resumed flying Friday for the first time since Jan. 26, according to a statement released over the weekend by the program office:

AF-1, a F-35 Lightning II, resumed flying Friday, Feb. 3, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., after the Integrated Test Force Team there received and installed the first properly packed parachute head box assembly for its ejection seat from the Martin Baker Aircraft Corporation. The F-35 head box assembly was installed in AF-1 early Friday morning and the aircraft flew later that day. Three more head box assemblies containing properly packed parachutes are expected to be received and installed during the weekend allowing additional aircraft to return to flight at Edwards early next week. More head boxes should be received in the coming days for installation in the remaining jets at Edwards, nine jets at Eglin AFB, Fla., and jets in assembly at the F-35 production plant at Ft. Worth, Texas.

Friday’s flight at Edwards was the first since 26 January when high speed ground and flight operations were temporarily suspended at Edwards AFB, Calif., Eglin AFB, Fla. and Lockheed Martin’s F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas after discovering improperly packed parachutes in affected production and test aircraft. The apparent cause was due to improperly drafted packing procedures in the -21 and -23 ejection seats. The parachutes packed in the head boxes of these seats were reversed 180 degrees from design during installation. Although the improperly packed parachutes would have still deployed as designed to provide a safe landing, it would have made it more difficult for the pilot to steer the canopy during the parachute descent. The temporary suspension of flight test did not apply to the 8 F-35 test aircraft at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., which have an earlier version of the ejection seat with the properly packed parachutes head box assembly.

Egypt Aid Eyed
By Christopher J. Castelli
February 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

In new letters to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, 41 members of Congress are warning that U.S. financial support to Egypt could be withheld due to raids by the Egyptian government on non-governmental organizations.

"The absence of a quick and satisfactory resolution to this issue will make it increasingly difficult for congressional supporters of a strong U.S.-Egypt bilateral relationship to defend current levels of assistance to Egypt -- especially in this climate of budget cuts in Washington," the lawmakers write.

Earlier this week, Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member John McCain (R-AZ) said U.S. military aid to Egypt is in jeopardy. The concern from Congress coincides with this week's visit to the United States by a delegation from the Egyptian defense ministry.

Twitter Town Hall
By John Liang
February 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

The Pentagon is holding its first virtual "town hall" session on Twitter next week, according to this tweet from the Defense Department public affairs office:

#DoD is happy to announce our first ever Twitter Town Hall with @PentagonPresSec on Mon, Feb. 6 at 3:30 p.m. EST. Send ?s with #AskDoD

Returning Fire
By John Liang
February 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The war of words between the winner and loser of a $355 million contract competition that gave the winning contractor the right to supply up to 20 light attack aircraft to the Afghanistan military escalated today, with contract winner Sierra Nevada Corp. issuing a "point-by-point rebuttal of misinformation being spread by the disqualified contender for the contract," according to an SNC statement.

SNC contends in its statement that since the company -- teamed up with Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer -- won the LAS contract in December, losing competitor Hawker Beechcraft "has undertaken a massive misinformation campaign, challenged the integrity of the U.S. Air Force contracting process, questioned the intentions of the Obama administration, and used litigation to stop work on the contract."

In the statement, SNC contends:

In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose.

In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.  This aircraft will be made in America by American workers.  More than 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by American companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act.  The aircraft will be built in Jacksonville, Florida creating at least 50 new high tech jobs and supporting another 1,200+ jobs across the country.

"It's unfortunate that the truth is being sacrificed for the self interests of Hawker Beechcraft and its owners, a Canadian company, Onex, and an investment bank, Goldman Sachs.  Hawker Beechcraft is using aggressive media and lobbying tactics to fight the Air Force decision instead of letting the Court decide this issue in due course. These delaying tactics are having the greatest effect on our fellow Americans currently engaged in combat operations.  They need the capability that only the A-29 can provide. The delay also is preventing the creation of jobs at a time when there is an urgent need to put Americans to work," said Taco Gilbert, Ret. USAF Brigadier General, and Vice President of ISR Business Development at SNC.

"Unbelievably, this is the second time that Hawker Beechcraft has prevented a light air support aircraft that has been thoroughly evaluated by our military from going forward to support our troops in need.  Urgent requests for the A-29 from Afghanistan continue to languish because Hawker cannot provide an acceptable capability, but will not let anyone else provide it either," Gilbert said.

In a separate and unusual action in the midst of a legal proceeding, the USAF issued a fact sheet on the LAS acquisition process and specifically countered claims by Hawker Beechcraft that it has not received information regarding the evaluation of their proposal.

Click here to view SNC's full statement.

Inside the Air Force reported last month that Hawker Beechcraft expected the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to rule on its lawsuit against the Air Force over the LAS contract within the first quarter of 2012. Further, ITAF reported:

Bill Boisture, chairman and CEO of Hawker Beechcraft, told Inside the Air Force on Jan. 4 that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims will rule quickly and, also, that the Air Force would soon be submitting to the court its response to the company's lawsuit. The Air Force will be submitting information to the court sometime next week, according to Hawker Beechcraft spokeswoman Nicole Alexander.

In the meantime, the service has issued a temporary stop-work order for the Light Air Support contract, won by a team of Sierra Nevada Corp. and Brazilian-based Embraer, according to Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy.

Cassidy told ITAF via a Jan. 5 email service remains certain that "the competition and source selection evaluation were fair, open and transparent."

"The Air Force is confident about its contract award decision and the merit of our position and we anticipate minimum delay and rapid resolution to this litigation," Cassidy said.

Public-Private Partnering
By John Liang
February 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM

The Defense Department just released a guidebook titled "Public-Private Partnering for Sustainment."

According to a DOD summary, the Feb. 1 guidebook "addresses public-private partnering as a useful tool for all aspects of integrated product support." Additionally:

Although the majority of existing partnerships center on the depot maintenance function, there is a desire within DOD to expand partnering opportunities to encompass a broader range of sustainment functions and processes.  The guide provides current best practices and is intended to be used by Program and Product Managers (PMs), Product Support Managers (PSM), Product Support Integrators (PSI), and government and commercial industry Product Support Providers (PSP). It builds on a body of information that has been collected by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Maintenance Policy and Programs (OSD Maintenance) with contributions from the Industrial Integration IPT (with representatives from OSD, the Services, industry and academia under the charter of the November 2009 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Product Support Assessment (WSAR-PSA)). It reflects defense policy on depot maintenance partnering (DoD Instruction 4151.21 Public-Private Partnerships for Depot-Level Maintenance), as well as the legal authorities that authorize public-private partnerships and provides updated data about innovative approaches, successful implementations, and information resources for partnering beyond depot maintenance.

CRS On Nunn-McCurdy
By John Liang
February 2, 2012 at 4:49 PM

A new Congressional Research Service report looks at the 1982 Nunn-McCurdy Act, the law that requires the Defense Department "to report to Congress whenever a major defense acquisition program experiences cost overruns that exceed certain thresholds."

The Jan. 31 report lists three issues for Congress to consider: the law as a reporting and management tool; shortening the statute's time line; and applying Nunn-McCurdy-type reporting requirements to operations and sustainment costs. (Note: The 2011 date on the first page of the report is a typo.)

On the first issue, CRS notes:

Congress appears to view Nunn-McCurdy as both a reporting and a management tool. To enhance the effectiveness of the act as a reporting tool, Congress has amended it over the last 25 years to increase visibility into MDAP cost growth and improve the reliability of the data reported. For example, as discussed above, in the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress added an additional threshold against which to measure cost growth to improve visibility into the cost growth experienced by a program from its inception.

At the same time, Congress has taken actions which imply that Nunn-McCurdy is also a management tool. For example, in the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Congress mandated that a program that has a critical breach must be restructured to address the root causes of cost growth and have its most recent milestone approval revoked.

Clarifying what role Nunn-McCurdy should play in helping Congress exercise its oversight role could help Congress determine how best to amend the act in the future.

. . . As for shortening the Nunn-McCurdy time line, CRS states:

Some analysts have argued that under the current statute, too much time elapses from when a critical breach is first identified to when DOD certifies the program to Congress. According to these analysts, the Nunn-McCurdy timelines often span two budget cycles, and in some cases can exceed 300 days from when a program manager accurately suspects that a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach has taken place. One option for Congress could be to consider shortening some of the Nunn-McCurdy timeframes. Condensing the timeframes could give Congress more of an opportunity to consider budgeting options for troubled programs.

Some analysts have gone further, arguing that the time it takes to report a breach to Congress could be shortened by notifying Congress when a Unit Cost Report or when a Contract Performance Report (which is used in Earned Value Management) indicates that a program has breached a Nunn-McCurdy threshold.

However, according to DOD, "The timing of breach determinations is one of the most difficult parts of Nunn-McCurdy." Within the department, there is a great deal of discussion and deliberation at all levels prior to the formal breach determination and notification to Congress.

Initial breach indications from the contractor or program manager could be premature. For example, even if the program manager has reasonable cause to believe there is a Nunn-McCurdy breach, senior leadership could initiate cost reductions or descope the program. Using the Unit Cost Reports or Contractor Performance Reports to determine a Nunn-McCurdy breach could deprive DOD of the opportunity to manage programs and take steps to rein in cost growth.

. . . And on applying Nunn-McCurdy-type reporting requirements to O&S costs, the report states:

Given the costs associated with operations and support, Congress may want to consider applying Nunn-McCurdy-type reporting requirements to O&S costs. Applying a reporting requirement to O&S costs might help Congress set its budgetary priorities, as well as gather and track cost data for future analysis. Another option for Congress could be to require the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office to include in its annual report to Congress a comparison of original O&S cost estimates to current actual costs (adjusted for inflation) for ongoing programs. The extent to which these options may be viable depends on the reliability of the data available.

Budget Briefings
By Christopher J. Castelli
February 1, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. James Winnefeld, the service secretaries and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will today provide closed, classified briefings on budget issues to both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, said Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby. The same top-level group of defense officials will brief House committees tomorrow under the same circumstances, he added.

Another closed Defense Department briefing on Capitol Hill is also scheduled for today, which is not budget related but involves other Pentagon and military officials, Kirby said, declining to comment further on that session.

Egyptian Defense Talks
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM

A delegation from the Egyptian defense ministry will meet this week with U.S. counterparts, including Joseph McMillan, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, Lt. Gen. Terry Wolff, the Joint Staff's director of strategic plans and policy and Vice Adm. Harry Harris, assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon spokesman Capt John Kirby told reporters today.

This is a long-scheduled meeting, he said, noting there was no consideration given to canceling the session in light of published reports that the Egyptian government has blocked some American staff members for a non-governmental organization from leaving the country.