The Insider

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.

Amos On The Budget
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos released a statement early this morning on the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Amos' statement defends the plan to shrink the Marine Corps to 182,100, noting the service will be able to accomplish the missions of the new Defense Strategic Guidance. "I am confident that we will be able to maintain our legendary high standards of training, education, leadership and discipline while supporting joint force capabilities across the full spectrum of operations," Amos states:

Our nation is in the midst of a challenging economic environment that has forced the Marine Corps to make tough fiscal choices with respect to manpower, procurement, operations and maintenance. Though the fiscal choices made over the past year were difficult, we are confident that we managed risk by shifting capacity in a post-Afghanistan environment towards balanced capabilities across our Corps, while maintaining the high levels of readiness the nation has come to expect of its Marines.

In the fall of 2010, the Marine Corps initiated a force structure review whose mission was to re-shape the Marine Corps while responsibly meeting our national security challenges. Our goal in this effort was to provide the American people with the most ready, capable, and cost-effective crisis response force our nation can afford. For 8.2 percent of the Department of Defense's budget, the Marine Corps provides our nation 31 percent of its ground forces, 12 percent of its fighter attack aircraft, 19 percent of its attack helicopters and the ability to respond to unexpected crises, from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts, to full scale combat.

Our force structure review resulted in a "purpose-built" Marine Corps that is smaller, but in many ways more capable than the force we had at the onset of the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have acknowledged the changing nature of the battlefield by increasing our contribution to special operations and cyber warfare, and have lightened the Marine air-ground-logistics task forces by reducing the number of heavy armor and artillery units, and through streamlining our organizational hierarchy.

With a force structure of 182,100, our re-shaped Marine Corps is able to accomplish the missions of the new Defense Strategic Guidance while keeping faith with our Marines, sailors and their families. I am confident that we will be able to maintain our legendary high standards of training, education, leadership and discipline while supporting joint force capabilities across the full spectrum of operations.

As our nation turns its attention to the Pacific, the Marine Corps looks forward to reorienting our focus west to this historic area of operations; in doing so, we will continue to respond to crises and contingencies throughout the world as the President may direct. In line with the strategic guidance, we will recommit ourselves to our long-standing forward-deployed and forward-engaged partnership with the Navy, while returning to our fundamental role as America's expeditionary force in readiness.

Rescheduling (Updated)
By John Liang
January 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM

The Pentagon's official submission of its fiscal year 2013 budget request a week later than usual has pushed back the dates lawmakers had set for hearings to question senior Defense Department leadership.

Instead of meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 7, the Senate Armed Services Committee will host Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey the following Tuesday, Feb. 14, according to a committee statement.

The hearing featuring Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, originally set for Feb. 14, will be rescheduled to a later date, as will the Feb. 9 hearing with Navy Adm. Robert Willard, head of U.S Pacific Command, and Army Gen. James Thurman, head of U.S. Forces Korea.

Other scheduled Senate hearings include:

March 1: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe Adm. James Stavridis; U.S. Africa Command chief Gen. Cater Ham; and U.S. Transportation Command head Gen. William Fraser.

March 6: Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command; and Navy Adm. William McRaven, head of U.S. Special Operations Command.

March 8: Army Secretary John McHugh and Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno.

UPDATE 4:30 p.m.: The committee now plans to hold a hearing on Feb. 28 featuring Fraser of TRANSCOM and Willard of PACOM.

Closing Time
By Gabe Starosta
January 27, 2012 at 6:51 PM

In a briefing with reporters today, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said that unlike the last time around, the service likely will have to close bases if Congress goes ahead with a new base realignment and closure round, as requested by the Obama administration. The last BRAC round, in 2005, resulted in “a multitude of realignments” but no base closures, Schwartz said, and the service's excess infrastructure has only grown since then.

“There are estimates in that era that our infrastructure, we had excess infrastructure in the neighborhood of 20 percent,” he said. “Since 2005, our inventory of aircraft, for example, has declined in the neighborhood of 500 aircraft, and so the presumption is -- and I think it's a fair presumption -- is that there is yet more excess infrastructure. So indeed, we certainly support the proposal to go through another round of base closure analysis and execution.”

Budget documents released by the Pentagon yesterday indicate that the Defense Department intends to ask lawmakers for back-to-back BRAC rounds this decade, with the first in 2013 and the next in 2015. Many members of Congress immediately released statements detailing their opposition to base closures, which would negatively affect some congressional districts.

Wall Street Analysis
By John Liang
January 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Boeing, followed by Raytheon and General Dynamics, will likely fare the best -- stocks-wise -- in the wake of yesterday's preliminary Pentagon fiscal year 2013 budget announcement, according to a research note published by Wall Street analysis firm Credit Suisse.

The companies whose stocks would be most impacted by the Pentagon's budget decisions are Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Huntington Ingalls Industries, "although maintenance of an 11 carrier fleet provides some offset for HII," the note states.

Rockwell Collins, United Technologies, Textron and Esterline Technologies Corp. "may also be impacted by a 3-5 year delay in Army helicopter modernization," the note adds.

Odierno Signs Airlift MOU
By Jen Judson
January 27, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said he signed a memorandum of understanding this morning setting up an arrangement for the Air Force to provide ground support to the Army using C-130s rather than C -27Js, which the Army hoped would replace its retiring C-23 Sherpas.

Prior to his announcement this morning at the Pentagon during a budget briefing, Odierno previewed this arrangement at a Jan. 25 Association of the United States Army breakfast in Arlington, VA. He said then that the Air Force's C-27J cargo aircraft program was likely to be canceled and that the services were working together on an agreement to require the Air Force to provide support using C-130s.

A Pentagon white paper released Jan. 26 reveals C-130 aircraft would provide direct air support for the Army's ground forces after the Defense Department weighed all options. “The C-27J was developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs in difficult environments such as Afghanistan where we thought the C-130 might not be able top operate effectively,” the white paper reads.

“However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield constraints for C-130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal in future scenarios,” the document states.

Global Hawk Disappointment
By John Liang
January 26, 2012 at 9:15 PM

The Pentagon's decision to cancel the Global Hawk Block 30 program and have the U-2 aircraft the unmanned system's mission resulted in disappointment for Global Hawk builder Northrop Grumman. In a just-released statement, the company pledges "to work with the Pentagon to assess alternatives to program termination." The statement further reads:

The Global Hawk program has demonstrated its utility in U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, as well as its utility in humanitarian operations in Japan and Haiti. Just a few months ago, the Pentagon published an acquisition decision memorandum regarding Global Hawk Block 30 that stated: 'The continuation of the program is essential to the national security... there are no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost.'

Global Hawk is the modern solution to providing surveillance. It provides long duration persistent surveillance, and collects information using multiple sensors on the platform. In contrast, the aging U-2 program, first introduced in the 1950s, places pilots in danger, has limited flight duration, and provides limited sensor capacity. Extending the U-2's service life also represents additional investment requirements for that program.

Northrop Grumman is committed to working with our customers to provide the best solutions for our country and our allies. We are pleased with the continuing support for the Global Hawk Block 40 system, as well as for the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system and our other unmanned systems.

InsideDefense.com reported earlier this month that the top developmental testing official in the Pentagon's acquisition directorate had recommended not proceeding to initial operational testing for the Global Hawk, a recommendation the Air Force chose to ignore.

Moreover, in December 2011, Inside the Air Force reported that service Secretary Michael Donley would not finish the tasks that former acquisition chief Ashton Carter set out for the restructure of the Global Hawk program until the submission to Congress of the fiscal year 2013 budget request, adding:

Earlier this year, the Air Force began implementing more than a dozen initiatives required by the Pentagon's acquisition executive as part of the restructuring of the Global Hawk program. The initiatives were listed in a "for official use only" June 14 acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) issued by Carter. The plan included establishing independent review teams to assess everything from reliability to operational performance that are slated for completion beginning in the summer of 2011 and moving forward through 2012.

Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy told Inside the Air Force in a Dec. 21 email that within 30 days of receiving the ADM, Donley supported the Global Hawk Block 40 milestone C decision and submitted a Block 40 test and evaluation concept briefing to the deputy assistant secretary of defense for developmental test and evaluation and the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation.

In addition, he has provided, or will soon provide, copies of the updated Air Force Weapon System Agreements to the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for materiel readiness. Donley also, as the June 14 ADM requested, established a senior-level Air Force reliability and maintainability subject matter expert review team to make assessments and recommendations for reliability and sustainability improvement activities.

Last month, Global Hawk program manager Col. Karl Rozelsky told ITAF that the team's first meeting took place on Nov. 8 and Nov. 9 and that it was scheduled to meet again this month to mull over how to make reliability and maintainability improvements. The team consists of 10 or 11 members -- primarily subject matter experts in reliability and maintainability -- and is chaired by an engineer who works under Air Force Acquisition Executive David Van Buren, he said during a November interview (ITAF, Nov. 18, p. 1).

Check out Inside the Air Force tomorrow for more Global Hawk coverage.

First Reactions (Updated)
By John Liang
January 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) isn't too optimistic about the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget request. In a just-released statement, he says:

Today Secretary Panetta announced how he will execute the President’s direction to cut $47 billion from his original request for FY13 military spending.  Contrary to those who would assert that this budget still represents an increase in defense spending, clearly this budget is a real cut in military spending.

To achieve these reductions, the President has abandoned the defense structure that has protected America for two generations; turning 100,000 Soldiers and Marines out of the force.  To compensate for this loss, he will build on unmanned assets and Special Forces.  To be clear, these asymmetric assets are a vital component in defending America; but they are insufficient to meet the manifold security challenges America faces.

This move ignores a critical lesson in recent history: that while high technology and elite forces give America an edge, they cannot substitute for overwhelming ground forces when we are faced with unforeseen battlefields.

These cuts reflect President Obama’s vision of an America that is weakened, not strengthened, by our men and women in uniform.  This is a vision at odds with the President’s empty praise on Tuesday evening, and one I fundamentally disagree with.  To be clear, the impacts of these cuts are far deeper than Congress envisioned in the Budget Control Act because of strategic choices the President has made.

Last year, when the Super Committee failed, I pledged that I would not be the Chairman who would preside over the hollowing out of our military.  I renew that commitment today.  This month the House Armed Services Committee will continue and intensify our rigorous oversight, keeping in mind that while the President proposes, Congress disposes.

UPDATE 3:45 p.m.:

House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee Chairman Todd Akin (R-MO) doesn't much like the proposed budget, either. In a statement of his own, he says:

I am deeply concerned by the cuts announced by the Secretary of Defense this afternoon.  Only a few weeks ago, the President announced a “pivot” to Asia, with a focus on Navy and Air Force power. However, today the Secretary announced that he is cutting at least 12 new Navy ships over the next five years and retiring at least 9 ships earlier than planned. It is stunning that the President would announce a strategy and then cut the Navy who will be called on to execute this strategy.

I am also concerned by the announced delays to the Ohio-class replacement program. Our nuclear missile submarines are a vital piece of our nuclear deterrence, and I am concerned that this delay will put our ability to deter at risk.

Lastly, I am deeply concerned about the 100,000 soldiers and Marines who will be losing their jobs. With a tough economy, many of these brave men and women will end up on the unemployment line. For every soldier or Marine getting fired, there had better be a government bureaucrat getting fired. The President made a special trip to the Pentagon recently to announce cuts to the Defense Department. When will the President make a special trip to announce cuts to any other federal bureaucracy? When will the President get serious about reforming mandatory spending programs, which are the real problems facing our national budget? Taken in whole, these cuts will create a more dangerous world for America and her allies.

UPDATE 4:45 p.m.:

California Democrat Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) had this to say:

I commend Secretary Panetta for the Department's review and for their considerable efforts to comply with significant cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act.  Recently, the Department of Defense issued a new strategy for the United States military.  It was appropriate, considering the budget cuts, for the Department to re-evaluate what resources need to be sustained while prioritizing regions our forces would need to maintain presence.  Simultaneously, the strategy stressed the importance of strengthening our alliances in order to maintain a global presence.  Despite the significant cuts I was happy to see the strategy addressed the importance of mobilizing a healthy industrial base in order to maintain efficiency and readiness.

The Secretary will request $525 billion for the Department's FY13 base budget along with $88.4 billion for overseas contingency operations.  I believe the most significant costs to the Departments are big systems such as our ships, air carriers and weapons systems and of course the labor and cost of benefits.  We are no longer fighting a conventional war, which means the skills, resources and technology we buy must also change.  And this is why I agree with Secretary Panetta that we must increase our Special Operations Forces capacity and focus on unconventional threats like cyber-attacks.  We will also be reducing our force size but this only reflects the current situation as we drawdown from two major wars.

We live in an unpredictable world, where threats can develop anywhere and at any time.  It is absolutely necessary for our Armed Forces to be trained, equipped, and ready to address these threats -- and yes this requires affluent resources and funding.  However, the instability of our current economy has rendered many Americans unable to receive adequate education and health care. The Department must be flexible and as Secretary Panetta has demonstrated, willing to develop new and cost-efficient ways to secure the safety of this nation.

House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH), on the other hand, was most concerned about the administration's proposed nonproliferation funding. In a statement of his own, Turner says:

When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The Administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and Senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized.

The Secretary's announcement today is yet another indication that the President is backing off his part of the deal. Ultimately, this changes the circumstances for U.S. participation in the treaty under both Condition Nine of the New START Treaty Resolution of Ratification and language I offered in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY12.  Following this announcement, I will look carefully at the President’s budget request for NNSA Weapons Activities, specifically the CMRR and UPF projects which the President pledged to accelerate.  These two facilities are absolutely critical to the ability of the U.S. to maintain a credible and reliable deterrent, and they were an essential piece of the New START treaty bargain.

I am also concerned about the Administration's missile defense plans.  For three years, the Administration has underfunded and diverted funding from national missile defense.  With rising threats from Iran, North Korea, China and others, we cannot afford the risk created by the Administration’s irrational opposition to the missile defense of the United States.  I hope the FY12 budget undoes more than three years of neglect of national missile defense.

UPDATE 6:15 p.m.:

House Armed Services readiness subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) added his two cents:

The President's defense strategy embraces weakness by a thousand cuts. PLA Admirals will welcome the news that the President has no plans to catch up to China's sixty attack submarines nor to invest in a missile defense system that can rival China's mounting arsenal of missiles. North Koreans will feel more secure as America prepares to dismiss almost 1 in 6 soldiers.  Tehran will be pleased that one-third less American cruisers are slated to patrol the world's sea lanes.  Foreign shipyards will embrace a shift toward outsourcing defense manufacturing jobs.

This Administration is not building a military that is lean, agile, and flexible.  It is dismantling our nation's greatest strategic asset and accepting grave risk in the process.  Virginians will undoubtedly suffer as a result of this Administration's budget proposal -- so too will our allies -- but it is our men and women in uniform who will suffer the most.  They are the ones who will face America's unforeseen enemies under-prepared, under-resourced, overworked and late to the battle.  America is a superpower on a dangerous and rapid course towards mediocrity.