The Insider

By John Liang
December 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM

House lawmakers today passed legislation that would allow the continued funding of government operations at 2010 levels for an additional 15 days beyond the current Dec. 3 deadline. Republicans opposed to the bill argue the additional time should give the Democrat-controlled House a chance to pass a massive, trillion-dollar "omnibus" spending package for fiscal year 2011.

House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-CA) didn't like the measure. According to a statement he delivered earlier today on the House floor:

As I have made clear time and time again, I am strongly, unequivocally opposed to any potential omnibus spending bill the Democrat leadership may be planning to bring to the House floor before the end of the year. Likewise, I remain adamantly opposed to extending the CR for the balance of the fiscal year at current spending levels which are, frankly, too darn high.

Instead of this last ditch effort by the Democrat majority to give themselves more time to spend taxpayer dollars, Congress should extend the CR until the next Congress. This would allow the new House Republican majority to begin putting our Nation’s fiscal house in order by completing the Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations bills at 2008 levels, saving taxpayers $100 billion. In addition, we should immediately pass my bill, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Rescission Act" (HR 6403), to rescind billions of dollars of unspent federal "stimulus" funding and apply it to deficit reduction.

At a time of historic deficits, record debt, and ten percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. The message from the American people is loud and clear -- they want us to stop the explosion of government spending that is hurting our economy and our financial future.

By Sebastian Sprenger
December 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Army folks aren't the only ones thinking about the impact of the global economic crisis on U.S. defense operations. Defense Business Board officials, whose recommendation to close U.S. Joint Forces Command made waves over the summer, are slated to brief the results of a new study on the hot topic at their Jan. 20 meeting, a board official told us today. According to the study's title, the review will also consider the effects of the economic crisis on allies.

Some meeting notices for the DBB task force previously suggested a separate report would be released on the country of Germany. That is because at one point the board's plan was to release a series of reports, each focusing on one U.S. ally, according to the DBB official. But board members changed their mind and are now planning to consider all allies in one treatise, the official said.

By John Liang
December 1, 2010 at 5:51 PM

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, whose final report was released this morning, has some interesting defense-related recommendations. One of them deals with requiring the president "to propose annual limits for war spending." Specifically, the administration should:

Create a separate category for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

Discretionary spending constraints must not ignore spending for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other future conflicts. At the same time, budget rules should not determine war policy. In order to balance these competing goals, the Commission chose as a starting point the more gradual of CBO’s troop drawdown scenario, while providing the President and Congress with an opportunity to adjust the path to more accurately track with actual projections of OCO spending needs.

Spending for OCO would not count against the general security spending cap, but would constitute a separate category subject to a dollar limit of its own. The Commission proposes establishing limits on OCO spending based on CBO’s projection for a reduction of troop levels to 60,000 by 2015. In his FY 2012 budget, the President may propose adjustments to the limits on OCO spending to reflect the administration’s projections for the costs of current war policy. Any spending above the OCO limit must be either offset or subject to a 60-vote point of order (and all other requirements established for regular emergency spending).

OCO funds would be limited to spending that meets the OMB criteria for OCO designation. Under these criteria funding for OCO could only be used in geographic areas in which combat or direct combat support operations occur, and would generally be limited to: 1) Operations and maintenance for the transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies to, from and within the theater of operations; deployment-specific training and preparation for units and personnel to assume their directed mission; and the incremental costs above the funding programmed in the base budget to build and maintain temporary facilities; provide food, fuel, supplies, contracted services and other support; and cover the operational costs of coalition partners supporting US military missions; 2) Military personnel spending for incremental special pays and allowances for Service members and civilians deployed to a combat zone; and incremental pay, special pays and allowances for Reserve Component personnel mobilized to support war missions; 3) Procurement costs to replace losses that have occurred, but only for items not already programmed for replacement in the Future Years Defense Plan; 4) Military construction spending for facilities and infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support of combat operations; and 5) Research and development projects required for combat operations in these specific theaters that can be delivered in 12 months.

Another recommendation calls for the White House to "unleash agencies to begin identifying savings." Specifically:

Every federal agency will need to do its part to live within tough spending caps. The Commission recommends that as part of their annual budget submissions and Congressional Budget Justifications, all agency heads should be required to identify a share of their budget recommended for cancellation and to identify ways to shift from inefficient, unproductive spending to productive, results-based investment. As a tool to improve productivity, agencies should be given a two-year window to conduct employee buyouts, and expanded latitude for personnel realignment. Congress should also consider a "BRAC commission" for terminating major weapons systems, appointed and headed by the Secretary of Defense, for trimming redundant or ineffective weapons from the Defense Department’s inventory.

By John Liang
December 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Looks like the North American Aerospace Defense Command's annual Santa Tracker website, due to be launched today, is in for some competition. According to a Russian news report that came out earlier this month, Father Frost, Russia's Santa Claus, will have "a staff featuring a GLONASS satellite navigation system so he can be tracked on his New Year's gift-giving journey." Further:

The system will transmit Father Frost's coordinates to a special center, which will publish them on the internet so that everyone can follow his progress on his traditional New Year voyage.

"Technical innovations have become an essential part of modern life. Therefore, Father Frost has mastered computer skills, receives e-mails from children, has blogs in social networks and uses a cell phone to communicate with other magicians," said Ivan Nechayev, the executive director of the Russian Navigation Technologies company, which presented the staff.

The GLONASS module was installed in the crystal-shaped top of the staff, which is 180 cm long and weighs some 3 kg.

Last year, Father Frost's sledge and other vehicles at his residence in the town of Veliky Ustyug were also equipped with GLONASS navigation systems.

In response, NORAD earlier this month published a statement on its Facebook page:

We welcome the competition from our Russian friends this holiday season. Maybe this enterprise will one day be a uniting force.

By John Liang
November 30, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Getting Islamic extremists to stop conducting terrorist activities may not be enough to counter the threat, according to a new RAND Corp. study. In fact, "deradicalizing" them, or changing their beliefs, "may be even more important," a RAND statement reads. The report "examines counter-radicalization programs in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Europe."

Further, according to the RAND statement:

Although there has been much research about the radicalization and recruitment of Islamist extremists, there has been little study until recently about how one deradicalizes those who have been recruited into the Islamist extremist movement.

A key question is whether the objective of counter-radicalization programs should be disengagement (a change in behavior) or deradicalization (a change in beliefs) of militants. A unique challenge posed by militant Islamist groups is that their ideology is rooted in a major world religion, Islam.

"Getting militants to refrain from violence is only part of the process," said Angel Rabasa, lead author of the study and a senior political scientist with RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "Ideally, the goal is to get the individual to change his belief system, reject the extremist ideology and embrace a moderate worldview. This is difficult with Islamist extremists, because the requirements of the ideology are regarded as religious obligations."

But deradicalization may be necessary to permanently defuse the threat posed by these groups, Rabasa said. If a militant agrees to stop fighting purely for practical reasons -- such as a condition for one’s release from prison -- when the circumstances change, the person may once again return to terrorist acts.

The RAND study identifies and analyzes the processes through which militants leave Islamist extreme groups, assesses the effectiveness of deradicalization programs and summarizes the policies that could help to promote and accelerate the processes of deradicalization.

The best-designed deradicalization and counter-radicalization programs in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Europe leverage local cultural patterns to achieve their objectives, Rabasa said. For that reason, these programs cannot simply be transplanted from one country to another.

Deradicalization programs have two other important goals. One is to obtain intelligence on extremist organizations and the second is to discredit the extremist ideology. Challenging the extremist ideology with an alternative interpretation of Islam is not only likely to effect a more permanent change in the militant’s worldview and to reduce the risk of recidivism, but it also helps to weaken the appeal of radical Islamism. An important indicator of success is convincing rehabilitated militants to speak out against extremist groups and ideology.

Because counter-radicalization or deradicalization programs are embedded in a war of ideas, the counter-ideological component of these programs is extremely important. Most Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian programs use a form of theological dialogue in which mainstream scholars and sometimes even former radicals engage extremists in discussions of Islamic theology in an effort to convince the militants that their interpretation of Islam is wrong.

However, because many of these programs are focused on eliminating the domestic terrorism threat, they may forbid terrorism in the home state because the government is Islamic, but condone it elsewhere.

Rabasa said he and his colleagues found that there isn’t enough reliable data to reach definitive conclusions about either the short-term or long-term effectiveness of these programs. Many state-sponsored programs guard their statistics and some programs target terrorist sympathizers more than hardcore radicals.

While the United States does not have these kinds of programs in place now, the study notes that Islamist extremism and terrorism is a global threat, and the lessons learned from the research has policy implications for the United States.

Researchers say programs that aim to rehabilitate radical Islamists should focus on influencing participants by offering material incentives, practical assistance and alternative support networks. A counter-ideological component designed to induce militants to question their radical ideology is another crucial element.

The study, "Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists," can be found here.

By John Liang
November 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Raytheon plans to relocate its Patriot New Equipment Training program to Ft. Sill, OK, beginning early next year, according to a company statement.

The move is in response to the Army's Base Realignment and Closure-related decision to relocate the Air Defense School to Ft. Sill. The program trains Army personnel on upgrades to the Patriot system.

Raytheon's Patriot missile business would likely not be hurt anytime soon by the next-generation Medium Extended Air Defense System, regardless of what decision is made on the latter program, according to company CEO William Swanson. As Inside Missile Defense reported earlier this month:

Patriot has 12 customers around the world, compared to three for MEADS, (Swanson) said last week, adding: "We expect Patriot to be around for a long time." MEADS is seen as an eventual replacement for Patriot.

Funding for the MEADS trinational missile-defense program is divided among partner nations: 58 percent from the United States, 25 percent from Germany and 17 percent from Italy. Lockheed Martin is developing the system in conjunction with Lenflugkorpersysteme in Germany and MBDA-Italia; the current design-and-development contract is for roughly $3.5 billion. MEADS is envisioned to eventually replace the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system, which Raytheon developed.

Sister publication Inside the Army reported last month that with the Army's air and missile defense portfolio review in full swing, service acquisition chief Malcolm O'Neill and Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly had met recently to discuss how they might work together on MEADS.

By Dan Dupont
November 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM

The Army has released its much-anticipated request for proposals for the Ground Combat Vehicle, according to a statement that just reached us. The service says it "anticipates awarding up to three contracts for the Technology Development phase in the early third quarter of 2011."

More:

Delivery of the first production vehicle is expected within seven years of the initial contract award. The Infantry Fighting Vehicle will be developed in three phases commencing after the initial contract award: Technology Development, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, and Production and Deployment. The prime contractors selected for the Technology Development phase will focus on the identification of effective and affordable vehicle technologies, development -- including preliminary design -- of competitive vehicle component prototypes, planned technical reviews and reduction of program schedule risk.

The Army will rely on mature technologies and affordability targets in designing and developing the vehicle to meet these objectives. The Army anticipates awarding three fixed-price incentive fee contracts for the Technology Development phase. The RFP allows industry to utilize existing technologies and innovative solutions in their proposals. Industry will be allowed to propose non-developmental items (NDI), modified non developmental items, or new development solutions in response to the RFP. These approaches will enable the Army to field an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that provides critical Soldier protection and full-spectrum operational capabilities for a 21st Century threat environment.

The Army held a widely attended industry meeting in early October 2010, which provided valuable feedback from industry regarding the Ground Combat Vehicle program and provided the Army with an opportunity to convey its priorities and objectives for the program to the public.

The RFP release follows dedicated efforts by Army leaders and key stakeholders to ensure the Ground Combat Vehicle program succeeds as an achievable and affordable acquisition program. Comprehensive reviews of the vehicle’s acquisition strategy, planned capabilities, operational needs, program schedule and vehicle technology readiness helped formulate the RFP.

The Army remains firmly committed to the Ground Combat Vehicle program as the centerpiece of its combat vehicle modernization strategy, which will provide Soldiers with protected mobility and a decisive edge in both current and future combat environments. The RFP clearly conveys the Army’s priorities in terms of capabilities, while providing industry with a successful framework to design and develop an effective and affordable Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

The Ground Combat Vehicle acquisition program will follow Department of Defense best acquisition practices, including full and open competition.

By John Liang
November 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Congress should fund an Army force of 700,000 active-duty soldiers, according to an Association of the U.S. Army statement released today. The 700,000 troops should be "drawn from the Active Army, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve," a goal that is a "key piece" of the organization's legislative agenda for 2011, the statement reads. Specifically:

In the preamble to its resolutions approved by 122 of AUSA's chapters, the Association noted, "The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply." The preamble added that legislative and regulatory policy changes are needed to "allow the Reserve Component to execute its role" as an operational reserve to meet the requirement for 700,000 Soldiers to be serving in the active force.

To pay for this, the Association is seeking congressional approval to increase "non-supplemental defense spending to at least 5 percent of gross domestic product," increase the Army's share of the defense budget from 24 to 28 percent and provide a consistent funding stream.

As in the past, the resolutions "focus on people, readiness and Army modernization." Adding,  "People are the heart and soul of the Army – Soldiers, Civilians, Family Members and Retired Soldiers."

The resolutions call for closing the pay gap between soldiers and Army civilians and the private sector; revising and enhancing the compensation package for the reserve components; and warns against an "erosion of benefits, especially in health care . . . to ensure the continued success of the all-volunteer force."

They also recognize the Army's efforts in "refining understanding of Full Spectrum Operations through training and professional dialogue [and] reducing the backlog in professional military education."

The resolutions recognize the stress of continued conflict upon soldiers and their families and acknowledge the efforts to build resilience through programs such as Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention.

On modernization, the resolutions state, funding must be available to execute the revised strategy "for developing the interoperable network and a new ground combat vehicle." The resolutions also address the Army's need for funds for research, development and testing for future forces.

Money to repair and replace equipment lost during nine years of war will need to continue for several years after hostilities end.  At the same time, "Funds associated with base realignment and Closure, Global Posture Reviews and the Quadrennial Defense Review must be provided" to all the Army "to remain the world’s dominant land power."

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told Inside the Army in a September interview that he fears that efforts to save money on defense could turn on cutting end strength, a step he believes should not be taken in the near term as the service recovers from combat operations in Iraq and continues fighting in Afghanistan. Specifically:

"For the Army, the big thing for us is to maintain our end strength for a sufficient amount of time so that we can reset and reconstitute the force," Casey told Inside the Army on Sept. 14 after speaking at an economic-development event on Capitol Hill sponsored by the North Carolina congressional delegation. "I worry . . . the first thing folks look at is Army end strength," he said.

His comments come amid efforts at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill to find savings in the defense budget. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has set a target of $100 billion in savings over the next five years through improved efficiencies. He has been careful to note that the move does not amount to a cutting of the defense budget.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are more closely scrutinizing the Pentagon budget, with the Senate Appropriations Committee last week approving a spending bill $8 billion below President Obama's $678 billion request for fiscal year 2011.

"We've seen this coming," Casey told ITA, noting Army efforts since 2008 aimed at reforming "the way we manage ourselves." The idea, he said, is to generate enough efficiencies through these reforms so end strength cuts are unnecessary. "We were already moving down this road" before Gates announced his savings push earlier this year, he added.

By Thomas Duffy
November 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM

The Obama administration is putting on a full-court press to prevent the unauthorized release of classified information following another WikiLeaks document dump this weekend.

In a memo issued yesterday, the new director of the Office of Management and Budget Jacob Lew laid the responsibility for controlling classified information at the feet of every government worker who has been granted access to that info.

The recent irresponsible disclosure by WikiLeaks has resulted in significant damage to our national security. Any failure by agencies to safeguard classified information pursuant to relevant laws, including but not limited to Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information (December 29, 2009), is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Lew then laid down two new, specific instructions:

Each department or agency that handles classified information shall establish a security assessment team consisting of counterintelligence, security, and information assurance experts to review the agency’s implementation of procedures for safeguarding classified information against improper disclosures. Such review should include (without limitation) evaluation of the agency’s configuration of classified government systems to ensure that users do not have broader access than is necessary to do their jobs effectively, as well as implementation of restrictions on usage of, and removable media capabilities from, classified government computer networks.

The Office of Management and Budget, the Information Security Oversight Office, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will stand up processes to evaluate, and to assist agencies in their review of, security practices with respect to the protection of classified information.

By Thomas Duffy
November 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM

The Pentagon's No. 2 acquisition official thinks it's a good idea if the Defense Department's professional acquisition corps goes back to school to brush up on requirements development..

In a Nov. 19 memo, Frank Kendall said DOD's Panel on Contracting Integrity has pointed to the need to address the requirements development process, "which has been identified as a weakness in the Department and has led to cost and schedule overruns on many programs." The panel was established at the request of Congress.

Kendall suggested the best avenue for improving professional education:

The Panel on Contracting Integrity has reviewed available requirements development training and related courses, which are compiled in the attached matrix of training offered by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). Of special note is the Service Acquisition Workshop that is tailored to address performance-based requirements for services. Additionally, the matrix provides Agency-unique training and guides. Since DAU is continually updating its course offerings, I strongly recommend regularly reviewing their website for additions to the requirements curriculum and associated courses.

By John Liang
November 24, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Navy Adm. James Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (SACEUR) and head of U.S. European Command, participated in a question-and-answer session earlier today at the State Department's Foreign Press Center, where he fielded numerous questions about the recent Lisbon Summit and missile defense in particular. Below are the missile defense-related excerpts:

Q: I wanted to ask you some detail about the missile defense agreement. First of all, how important, you know, in your position, do you feel this is going to be to protect NATO member countries? And also, you know, what countries are seen as a threat? I mean, it was -- it was often said that it's 30 plus countries that are seen as the threat. However, Iran was previously always highlighted. I know Turkey had some objection to this. If you could just elaborate a little bit on that meeting.

STAVRIDIS: Well, the second part is the easiest one to address, which is the 30-plus countries. And frankly, I think that's the right way to think about this, rather than trying to identify any particular nation as a threat to NATO, because the world changes.

So we're developing a capability, just like we do with cyber, to create a (missile) defense. I think that as the United States moves forward with the European Command-led phased adaptive approach, it will initially be sea-based. It will come into the Eastern Mediterranean. We'll have a U.S. command and control backbone that will run from the president to the secretary of Defense to me, as the combatant commander, and then down to my Air Force subordinates in an air defense center in Germany, thence down to the ships, initially.

Over time, as we decide how to integrate with a NATO air command and control system, we will plug in -- we will plug in the NATO part of that architecture. And it will be roughly parallel to the U.S. one. Fortunately, I am dual-hatted as the U.S. European commander and the Supreme Allied Commander. So that same structure, which will run operationally from the nations, the 28 nations, secretary-general to me and down through the NATO parallel chain of command, will then go down to the shooting asset.

So it'll be parallel to the structure the United States employs. The details will be worked out. The European -- or I should say the NATO system that will be the backbone is called the ALT -- A-L-T -- BMD system. And I'm quite confident we'll be able to surmount the technical challenges as we go forward. . . .

Q: I just wanted quick follow-up on that actually. Last time I ask Ambassador Daalder, he said, very similar to what you just said, that -- about the command and control system of the missile defense system, will be very similar to the one that -- integrated air missile defense system that I believe under your command.

Could you please elaborate on that, because there is a huge discussion in Turkey, as you are aware, who is going to push the button if threat emerges.

STAVRIDIS: Well, all of that, as I mentioned, will be part of that discussion as we move forward. So there's no definitive answer at this moment for how the NATO side will plug into the U.S. side. But the point I made with the reporter here in the back is that we have a -- an idea based on the U.S. structure, and I think we'll do something somewhat similar. But all of that will be a proposal that I will develop over the next six months or so and then will be presented to the nations via the North Atlantic Council. And all these decisions will be taken in consensus. But there is no detail to add to it beyond what I've offered thus far. . . .

Q: How certain we are that this radar part of the installment will be placed in Turkey? Is this still detail question that will be work out in the future, or it's for sure that Turkey's decided and -- what's next step? Thank you.

STAVRIDIS: There are no concrete decisions on the emplacement of the NATO side of the installation as yet. All that will be a matter of discussion. It will be eventually proposed and then, again, decided by consensus.

And I must say, coming out of the Lisbon summit, when I looked at the decisions that were taken on the Strategic Concept, on the NATO- Russia Council, on Afghanistan, I felt a great deal of consensus among all 28 of the nations. So therefore, I'm confident we can work through the technical part of this to come to a structure that is acceptable to all of the nations. . . .

Q: The secretary-general of NATO after the Lisbon meeting sounded quite positive about the possibility that Russia may cooperate to the missile deployment plan in Eastern Europe. How realistically do you assess this development?

And second, NATO, since the operations in former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, has expanded its out-of-area operations. With the Korean crisis developing, do you see any role for the alliance?

STAVRIDIS: Let me take the Korean question first. The alliance, I believe, speaking through our spokesman in Brussels, has condemned the attacks of North Korea on South Korea, and we are monitoring the situation very closely.

In terms of the missile defense and how realistic it is to have -- envision Russian participation, I think it's very realistic. As I look at it, the technical capabilities that both the alliance and Russia possess are compatible. We could combine them.

In terms of the political will, I was present at the meeting where President Medvedev said the Russians are very willing to listen to serious technical proposals. We're committed to going forward in providing those, and then we'll have a dialogue as the new year unfolds.

And as a personal viewpoint, as the Supreme Allied Commander and the operations officer, if you will, of the alliance, I think it's very realistic from technical perspective, and we'll see how this all develops from a political perspective. . . .

Q: A high-ranking White House official briefed that in the final stage of missile defense, that system will protect not only Europe but also the United States. And I'm a little bit confused. If so, what kind of difference we can see from the new MD and Bush-era missile defense? If at the end, if it is same, doesn't it, I mean, make (not a ?) problem with Russia?

STAVRIDIS: The two systems are extremely different, and let me quickly articulate it. The current system is called the "phased adaptive approach." It is phased in that it will move in over time. It will not be a sudden emplacement, a very large in-ground, very heavy, permanent radars.

It's phased because the system is going to come off of ships. It's going to come of the Aegis ships, which are employed by the United States, by Japan, by Spain, by Korea, several other nations. That system will come off the ships. It's light, and it can be phased in ashore.

It's adaptive in that, because it is light, it can be moved around.

And thirdly, the capabilities of this system would not pose a strategic threat to any strategic system. It is designed to work against the ballistic missile threat.

So you will find that what the system is designed to do is to be very phased, very adaptive. It's very different than the previous systems.

And I'm convinced that as we get into technical talks with Russia, we will be able to ameliorate their concerns in a way that -- that we are not posing that system against any of their systems but rather we want to cooperate with them to create a commonly shared defensive zone.

And yes, over time, as we expand the number of radars -- back to the question from the gentleman of the Times here -- you will see that the coverage also expands. And eventually it will provide coverage not only to Europe but also to the United States, but it will do so in a way that does not -- does not interfere with the Russian capability. . . .

Q: My question is, what is the estimation of the total -- this whole missile system? How much? I mean, end of the phase is -- I believe is 2018. That will be whole system; it will be finished.

Do you have any kind of estimation how much this is going to cost? And second, do you also have any kind of estimation or plan that -- which manufacturers will be producing this whole system? Because (I believe ?) it is a marginal topic here, but it's very important. And a lot of discussion is going on. Countries like Turkey that -- you know, which sector will be the most beneficial (out of whole ?) billions of dollars? . . .

STAVRIDIS: Well, first of all, the good news for NATO is that the United States has already borne a great deal of the cost of the research and development of the systems. For example, as I mentioned, the Aegis defense system was developed here. That will be adapted and moved ashore. So a great deal of the costs have already been -- have already been spent in the development of the R&D portion of this thing.

In terms of the European side of this thing, the cost is actually relatively low, because it's a command and control system that plugs into hardware that is being offered up by the United States at this point. So the command and control side of this thing will be in the low hundreds of millions of dollars. The actual infrastructure is, indeed, in the billions of dollars, but much of those costs will be borne by the United States.

In terms of other entities that will be involved, there are other parts of this system that eventually will plug into it: point defense systems, mid-range systems. Some of those will be developed, some are already developed. It's a complicated question. But there's a variety of actors that will plug into this over time. But those are the kind of technical questions we'll need to resolve over the next couple of years, frankly.

And you're correct. The overall end game for this is 2018 to 2020.

So we've got time to develop this. I think it's the right system. I'm going to have to leave it right there.

By John Liang
November 24, 2010 at 5:21 PM

James Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, has been elected as chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association's board of governors for 2011, according to an AIA statement released today. Albaugh will begin his term Jan. 1, succeeding Textron CEO Scott Donnelly. The board also elected Pratt & Whitney President David Hess as AIA's vice chairman.

"Aerospace is an important part of the economy of the United States. Today we face both challenges and opportunities. AIA gives member companies a strong unified voice in advocating our priorities," Albaugh said in the statement. "In the capacity of chairman, I am looking forward to helping to ensure a strong and vital aerospace industry long into the future."

The chain of succession for next year's election is pretty clear, according to AIA spokesman Dan Stohr, who told InsideDefense.com that "as a matter of course, the vice chair succeeds the chair, so barring unforeseen circumstances, David Hess of P&W will be our chair in 2012."

The board also re-elected Marion Blakey as AIA's president and CEO "as well as AIA's chief financial officer, Ginette C. Colot, as secretary-treasurer," according to the statement.

Additional members of the 2011 AIA board of governors executive committee are:

Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer & President, Northrop Grumman Corporation

Scott C. Donnelly, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Textron Inc.  (Ex-Officio, immediate past chair)

Charles A. Gray, Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, Frontier Electronic Systems Corporation (Board representative to the Supplier Management Council)

Dawne S. Hickton, Vice Chair & Chief Executive Officer, RTI International Metals, Inc.

Linda P. Hudson, President & Chief Executive Officer, BAE Systems, Inc.  (Ex-Officio)

Jay L. Johnson, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, General Dynamics

David L. Joyce, President & Chief Executive Officer, GE Aviation

Neal J. Keating, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Kaman Corporation

Howard L. Lance, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Harris Corporation

Steven Loranger, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, ITT Corporation

Tim O. Mahoney, President & Chief Executive Officer, Honeywell Aerospace

Robert J. Stevens, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation

Michael T. Strianese, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, L-3 Communications Corporation

William H. Swanson, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Raytheon Company

Jeffrey L. Turner, President & Chief Executive Officer, Spirit AeroSystems

Additional members of the 2011 AIA Board of Governors are:

David C. Adams, Co-Chief Operating Officer, Curtiss-Wright Corporation

Robert P. Barker, President, Aerospace, Parker Aerospace, and Executive Vice President & Operating Officer, Parker Hannifin Corporation

David E. Berges, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Hexcel Corporation

Robert T. Brady, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, MOOG Inc.

Kenneth Bram, President, AUSCO, Inc.

Kevin D. Brown, President, M7 Aerospace

James Callan, General Manager, Aerospace & Defense, Timken Aerospace Transmissions, LLC

Kevin J. Carter, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer, TIMCO Aviation Services, Inc.

Colin P. Combs, President, Belcan Advanced Engineering and Technological Group

Pinaki Dasgupta, Executive Director, Aerospace and Defense, Accenture

David C. Dobson, President, Alcoa Defense

Mark W. DeYoung, President & Chief Executive Officer, ATK

Thomas A. Gendron, Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer, Woodward Governor Company

Steven F. Gaffney, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, DynCorp International LLC

Paul L. Graziani, Chief Executive Officer, Analytical Graphics, Inc.

David Groen, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc.

James M. Guyette, President & Chief Executive Officer, Rolls-Royce North America Inc.

Walter P. Havenstein, Chief Executive Officer, Science Applications International Corporation

Guy C. Hachey, President & Chief Operating Officer, Bombardier Aerospace

Raanan Horowitz, President & Chief Executive Officer, Elbit Systems of America

Richard C. Ill, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Triumph Group, Inc.

Tariq Jesrai, Chief Executive Officer, McKechnie Aerospace

Clayton M. Jones, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Robert J. Khoury, Member, Vice Chairman, B/E Aerospace, Inc.

Christopher J.Kneizys, President, Micro-Coax, Inc.

Mark Kokosinski, Senior Vice President, HITCO Carbon Composites

John S. Langford, Chairman & President, Aurora Flight Sciences

Marshall O. Larsen, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Goodrich Corporation

Stephen R. Larson, Vice President of Strategy & Technology, Esterline Technologies

Armand F. Lauzon, Chief Executive Officer, Chromalloy

John S. Lenyo, President & General Manager, CAE USA, Inc.

Terence W. Lyons, President & Chief Executive Officer, AmSafe Global Holdings, Inc.

Ulick McEvaddy, Director, Omega Air, Inc.

Michael J. McGuire, Senior Vice President, Aerospace and Defense Business Unit, Celestica Corporation

Laurans A. Mendelson, Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer, HEICO Corporation

Cathy L. McCarthy, President & Chief Executive Officer, SM&A

Richard L. McNeel, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lord Corporation

Gregory F. Milzcik, President & Chief Executive Officer, Barnes Group Inc.

Bradley J. Morton, President, Aerospace Group, Eaton Corporation

Frank S. Pace, President, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.

Anthony C. Patti, Chairman, Global Aerospace and Defense Council, CSC

Paul W. Pendorf, President, AMT II Corporation

Art Prangley, Director, HP Enterprise Services, Aerospace

James H. Randall, President, Allfast Fastening Systems, Inc.

Anthony J. Reardon, President & Chief Executive Officer, Ducommun Incorporated

Ronald S. Saks, President & Chief Executive Officer, LMI Aerospace Inc.

Kevin M. Sandkuhler, President, Chief Executive Officer & Director, Pinkerton Government Services, Inc.

Scott J. Seymour, President & Chief Executive Officer, Aerojet

Gwynne Shotwell, President, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation

Randy Snyder, President, Wesco Aircraft Hardware Corporation

Gary J. Spulak, President, Embraer Aircraft Holding Inc.

Robert R. Sprole, President & Chief Executive Officer, Therm, Inc.

Terry D. Stinson, Group Vice President, Structures & Systems, AAR Manufacturing, Inc.

Charlie Stuff, Executive Vice President, Cobham

By John Liang
November 24, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Army Brig. Gen. Jeff Colt, the head of the Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence (JUAS COE), recently led a UAS demonstration called "Blue Knight 2010" that tested U.S. manned and unmanned joint force capabilities against airborne unmanned systems. The U.S. Joint Forces Command website has a Q&A with Colt on the exercise. Here's an excerpt:

Q: What is the next step in the continuing evolution of counter UAS?

Colt: As technology evolves, threat capabilities will, too.  In UAS that may be even smaller and faster platforms—or it may include swarm (multiple) adversary UAS.

The next steps in counter UAS include going to a more comprehensive modeling and simulation.  I think we will see this more widely introduced into operational level exercises and at the combat training centers to expand baseline awareness for the tactical to operational decision makers.

I feel closer integration of exercise objectives between what has been done here and the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization's Black Dart exercises are necessary -- the Black Dart exercises focus more on future technologies -- we don't need a whole series of systems, but examining some emerging technologies may allow us to deal with the evolution of future UAS threats more effectively.  But the long-term solution lies in a balance between procedures and technology.

More than 50 nations now are employing UAS.  As the technology continues to proliferate, I think the sophistication in how those applications are employed is going to increase in the future.  I think it would be naïve not to believe that an intelligent and learning threat will try to use these systems to gain some local advantage or make a wider statement.

With that said, we really don't have either the time or financial resources to go out and develop a single perfect solution or capability to deal with all the potential threats.  As a result of that, we must adapt the systems that already exist and array them in a manner combined with validated procedures so we can detect, track, identify and then take action. We need to educate the joint force about what is available.

I am confident, given fundamental joint procedures and a better understanding of our existing joint capabilities, our joint warfighters are capable of taking the output of this exercise, and exercises similar to it, to devise even more relevant applications.

By Andrew Burt
November 23, 2010 at 9:19 PM

While the eyes of the world have been riveted on the Korean  Peninsula following North Korea's artillery attack on a South Korean island, U.S. Pacific Fleet is thinking of the long-term prospects for the region.

On Nov. 16, Pacific Fleet headquarters issued a request for a contractor to:

study the diplomatic, political, economic, security, and strategic implications of a regime collapse in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and provide political-military policy recommendations to mitigate the disruptions and security threats inevitably attendant to such an event. This study and analysis should be holistic in nature and include participants from key regional countries, for the purpose of collaboratively exploring issues of vital national security interest to the United States and other countries in Northeast Asia.

And seeing as Pacific Fleet consists of approximately 180 ships, nearly 2,000 aircraft and 125,000 Sailors, Marines and Civilians, according to Navy figures, one might think that the Navy wouldn't have to contract out studies on the implications of regime collapse in (by some accounts ) the world's most notorious rogue state. InsideDefense.com sought more details on the contract announcement from Pacific Fleet, but Navy spokesmen have yet to respond.

By Thomas Duffy
November 23, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Ever read through a government report or memo -- especially one coming out of the Pentagon -- and felt you needed a road map just to find your way to the end? The Obama administration is trying to do something about that by issuing preliminary rules yesterday for the Plain Writing Act of 2010.

President Obama signed the legislation into law back in mid-October with an eye toward promoting "clear government communication that the public can understand and use," according to an Office of Management and Budget memo released yesterday. The law requires OMB to "develop and issue guidance on implementing the requirements" of the act by April 13, 2011. In the memo, OMB says that final guidance will be developed by the deadline but until then the preliminary rules will give federal agencies some much needed direction.

OMB explains the purpose behind the law this way:

Plain writing is concise, simple, meaningful, and well-organized. It avoids jargon, redundancy, ambiguity, and obscurity. It does not contain unnecessary complexity.

This is not the first time a sitting administration has tried to untangle government syntax and retire certain jargon. OMB provides several examples of how plain writing can save the taxpayer a few dollars:

  • reduce questions from the public to agency staff;
  • improve compliance with regulations;
  • reduce resources spent on enforcement;
  • reduce errors on forms and applications; and
  • reduce time spent addressing errors.