The Insider

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), chairman of he House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, plans a "roundtable hearing" on "the future of jointness in the Armed Services and its critical relationship to the readiness posture of the nation’s armed forces," he said today.

It's clear from his statement that the hearing, slated for tomorrow (March 31), will have a lot to do with U.S. Joint Forces Command, the closure of which Forbes has staunchly opposed:

"As the United States prepares to shutter the nerve center of its joint military operations at Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), it is imperative that Congress work with the armed services to ensure that jointness is not only maintained, but more importantly, that jointness is improved upon and advanced. There is still much work to be done in developing jointness in areas like communication, weapon systems procurement, and logistics processes and information systems. This hearing will serve as a means by which we construct a legal and practical framework for continuing to enforce a joint structure within the armed services and enhancing joint capabilities in the future,” Forbes said.

The witnesses:

• Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of JFCOM
• Vice Adm. William Gortney, director of the Joint Staff
• Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

The statement continues:

In a recent speech at the Air Force Academy, Secretary Gates said, "It's easier to be joint and talk joint when there's money to go around and a war to be won. It's much harder to do when tough choices have to be made within and between the military services - between what is ideal from a particular service perspective, and what will get the job done, taking into account broader priorities and considerations."

In light of Secretary Gates' comments, Congressman Forbes and members of the subcommittee will discuss those priorities and considerations to ensure that jointness is not forfeited due to budgetary concerns.

The Defense Department fell short of many of its fiscal year 2010 energy reduction and renewable energy goals established by law or executive order, but far exceeded a 2010 goal for lowering its water consumption, Defense Environment Alert reports today, citing testimony submitted to the Senate earlier this month by a high-level Pentagon official.

"Although the department is steadily improving its installation energy performance, we have failed to meet key statutory and regulatory goals for the last two years," Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment Dorothy Robyn states in written testimony submitted to the Senate Armed Services readiness and management support subcommittee for a hearing that was held March 17 on military construction, environmental and base realignment and closure programs. Specifically:

Overall, the entire Defense Department lowered its energy intensity by 11.2 percent between 2005 and 2010, missing a goal of 15 percent reduction, according to Robyn. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, DOD is to lower its energy intensity, measured in British Thermal Units per square foot, by 3 percent per year, or 30 percent overall, from the baseline year of 2003 to 2015.

A key factor in missing this goal resulted from the demands placed on the Army to move troops and equipment to and from Afghanistan and Iraq and to complete the base closure process, where in some cases, the Army has been running electricity in both the closing facilities and the facilities it is transitioning to, Robyn says. The news comes as the Army less than a year ago publicly said it had fallen behind in FY-09 in meeting the energy goals for both energy conservation and renewable energy purchases at its facilities, prompting staff to notify senior leaders that more was needed to advance efforts to meet the goals. . . .

During oral testimony before the subcommittee March 17, Robyn noted that DOD is working on a guidance to require the services to meter a higher fraction of their buildings' energy consumption, something she said the Navy is already doing. "We are very data starved," she said, adding that this is an area where DOD needs to know how much it is consuming in order to make progress. DOD is also leading an effort to launch an energy management system that cuts across the services, she told the subcommittee.

Meanwhile, on the renewable energy front, DOD increased its consumption of renewable energy to 4.1 percent, but fell short of a goal under the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 to have at least 5 percent of its electricity use come from renewable energy by 2010, Robyn states. Under EPACT, DOD must meet the 5 percent mark in renewable electricity purchases in 2010-2012, and then must increase its use of renewable energy to 7.5 percent of total electricity consumption in 2013 and beyond. Also, under defense law, it is to produce or procure 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2025. DOD, however, is on target to meet this latter goal, Robyn's testimony states.

The Air Force appears to be on track with regard to both the renewable energy and reduced energy intensity goals. The service contends it has already lowered its facility energy use by nearly 15 percent from 2003 levels, according to written testimony submitted March 17 to the same subcommittee by Air Force Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment and Logistics Terry Yonkers. In addition, he states the Air Force exceeded its goals "and produced or procured nearly 7 percent of our total facility energy from renewable sources," leading among the services as the top purchaser of renewable energy for the fifth year in a row.

The news on renewable energy purchasing comes as DOD has just released an acquisition rule that gives DOD longer-term contract authority to purchase renewable energy electricity, but sources doubt it will spur significant industry interest in making such contracts, saying much longer contract terms than the 10 years allowed are needed. . . .

DOD says it also failed to achieve its target to lower its consumption of petroleum by non-tactical vehicles. "DOD achieved a 6.6 percent reduction in its petroleum use from the 2005 baseline, compared to the target of 10 percent," Robyn states in her written testimony. Under a 2009 executive order, DOD is to reduce its consumption of petroleum in non-tactical vehicles by 30 percent by FY20, as compared to FY05.

"The Department continues to pursue replacement of non-tactical fleet vehicles with more efficient models, alternative fuel vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles to decrease petroleum fuel demand," Robyn's testimony reads.

To get back on track in meeting its energy mandates, DOD plans to use a combination of government funds and alternative financing mechanisms, recognizing that "[t]he amount of investment needed to fully fund requirements to meet energy mandates far exceeds the amount of available appropriated DoD funding," a DOD spokeswoman stated in a written response to questions.

At the same time, DOD "far exceeded" its goal for 2010 to lower its potable water consumption, according to the spokeswoman. It lowered its potable water consumption intensity by 13 percent from 2007 to 2010, as compared to the goal of 6 percent, she wrote. In contrast, from 2007 to 2009, DOD lowered its water consumption at its facilities by 4.6 percent. "This dramatic improvement is due to the combination of an aggressive program to detect leaks followed up by a program to repair them," she wrote. Under an executive order, DOD must reduce its water consumption intensity by 16 percent by the end of FY-15, using an FY-03 baseline.

Executive orders require DOD to meet a goal of reducing potable water consumption intensity by 2 percent per year, with the latest order requiring these reductions to occur through FY-20, using a baseline year of 2007.

The Missile Defense Agency has awarded Lockheed Martin's Space Systems division a contract worth nearly $695 million to build and deliver 48 interceptors and ground-support equipment for batteries 3 and 4 of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, according to a Federal Business Opportunities notice issued this morning. The contract -- a "fixed price incentive and cost-plus-fixed-fee modification" -- has a performance period through December 2013.

Last week, MDA announced via FedBizOpps that the agency would "negotiate on a sole source basis" with Lockheed "for the manufacturing of THAAD Production Lot 3." Specifically:

The contracting approach for this manufacturing effort will be to modify the existing Fire Unit Fielding (FUF) Contract HQ0147-07-C-0196. Contract HQ0147-07-C-0196 requires manufacturing, delivery and integration of the THAAD components for fire unit fielding and initial spares. The THAAD Fire Unit Fielding (FUF) components are comprised of the THAAD Launcher, THAAD Fire Control and Communications (TFCC), Interceptors, and Peculiar Support Equipment (PSE). Quantities for Production Lot 3 to be procured are a maximum of 18 launchers, 68 interceptors, 1 Fire Control Suite, and associated PSE. This action is expected to be awarded in 2nd quarter FY12.

The proposed acquisition is directed to LMSSC pursuant to the authority of 10 USC 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii), (iii) and (b)(1)(ii). Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. LMSSC is the only source that currently possesses the in-depth technical knowledge of the THAAD system requirements to satisfactorily perform the work contemplated herein within the needed timeframe. No other source has access to the required technical data and resident expertise to perform the described effort. This expertise cannot be attained by any other contractor within the anticipated period of performance without incurring an unacceptable delay and risk to the overall program in fulfilling these agency requirements and mission and without incurring a substantial duplication of costs. LMSSC is the system prime contractor for three other THAAD system developmental efforts: Contract DASG60-92-C-0101 ($1.4B), DASG60-00-C-0072 ($6B) and THAAD Field Support Contract HQ0197-10-D-0001 ($435M). Contract DASG60-00-C-0072 will continue through FY11 and the work under this proposed contract action must be completely compatible and fully integrated with the work under the other THAAD development contracts. Only LMSSC is capable of manufacturing the identified THAAD components, combining them into fire units, and successfully integrating these tasks with prior and on-going development work on the THAAD System.

The F-35 joint program office late Friday night announced the Joint Strike Fighter test flight program -- suspended more than two weeks ago following the in-flight failure of a key component -- is resuming in full:

The three remaining F-35 test aircraft with the production alternate engine starter/generator (AES/G) configuration, as well as the first two production aircraft, will resume flight operations.

This action follows a thorough analysis of a March 9 in-flight dual generator failure on AF-4 during a test flight at Edwards AFB, Calif.  During the March 9 flight, the aircraft backup electrical generator came on line as designed and the test pilot was able to return the jet safely back to base.

Flight clearance was reinstated after an investigation and test data indicated a maintenance procedure resulted in excess oil remaining within the AES/G lubrication system. Previous maintenance procedures could allow a small amount of extra oil to remain within the generator following servicing.  Under some conditions, the extra oil that is churning inside a narrow air gap within the AES/G could cause internal temperatures to increase.  It was assessed that high temperatures led to the generator failures. Maintenance documents have been amended to provide improved engine starter/generator servicing procedures.

There are two primary generator configurations used on the F-35 - the ES/G (Engine Starter / Generator) which is used on AF-1/2/3, BF-1/2/3/4 and a newer production item known as AES/G (Alternate Engine Starter/Generator) which was installed in AF-4, BF-5, CF-1 and all Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft. Both generators provide the functions of engine start and primary electrical power generation in the overall architecture.

There was no significant impact to the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) program or production operations. Flight test schedules are built with a margin for precautionary safety stand-downs. After it was determined the dual generator failure was unique to aircraft with the AES/G configuration, seven SDD jets (AF-1/2/3, BF-1/2/3/4) were cleared to return to flight on March 14. The F-35 test programs at Edwards AFB, Calif. and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD remain ahead of their monthly flight test schedules.

The Navy expects to issue the results of its VXX presidential helicopter analysis of alternatives (AOA) in the second quarter of 2011 and seems to be on track to capitalize on lessons learned from the previous VH-71 program, the Government Accountability Office writes in a report issued today.

"While we cannot assess its sufficiency until it is complete, statements by DOD officials on the nature of the AOA effort suggest the pursuit of an acquisition approach in line with best practices, the report states. "Plans are for the AOA to analyze in detail the estimated cost and effectiveness of a range of potential materiel solutions to support the need."

Program officials told GAO they understand the need to establish and maintain a solid business case laying out a balance between requirements, cost and schedule that results in an executable program with acceptable risk.

"To accomplish this, the program intends to use a rigorous four-phase systems engineering and technical review process constituting a more knowledge-based acquisition approach," the report states. "This process differs greatly from the process followed during the VH-71 program. According to VXX program officials, the VXX program’s systems engineering and technical review process will begin earlier during the technology development phase (pre-Milestone B). VXX program officials stated that they plan to enter the systems development phase with a preliminary technical design and possibly an early prototype of subsystems."

The Pentagon today announced plans to stop funding the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program, drawing a strong challenge from a key congressional committee and a pledge from F136 builder General Electric to fight the move.

The Defense Department's announcement:

The Department of Defense today issued a stop work order in connection with the Joint Strike Fighter extra engine program.

The administration and the DoD strongly oppose the extra engine program, as reflected in the President’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal that was recently submitted to Congress, which does not include funding for the program.  In our view it is a waste of taxpayer money that can be used to fund higher Departmental priorities, and should be ended now.

The House of Representatives has recently expressed its own opposition to the extra engine in its passage of H.R. 1 including the adoption of the Rooney Amendment which removed all fiscal 2011 funding for this program.  In addition, funding for the extra engine was not authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2011, enacted in January.  In light of these recent events, Congressional prerogatives, and the administration’s view of the program, we have concluded that a stop work order is now the correct course.  The stop work order will remain in place pending final resolution of the program’s future, for a period not to exceed 90 days, unless extended by agreement of the government and the contractor.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, responded with the following:

Yesterday, my staff director at the House Armed Services Committee received a call from Under Secretary of Defense Ash Carter informing the committee of the Department’s decision to discontinue funding for the Joint Strike Fighter’s competitive engine program.

The views of the President and Secretary Gates are well known on this topic, but those opinions—however strong—are not the law.  The Joint Strike Fighter F136 engine program is funded under the current Continuing Resolution.  The Secretary should follow current law and not pre-empt the Congressional deliberation process by yanking funding after a single amendment vote.

Regardless of the convenient arguments utilized by the Department of Defense and others, canceling the engine competition and awarding a sole-source, never-competed contract constitutes the largest earmark in the history of the Department of Defense.  In the case of the Littoral Combat Ship, our industry partners did not voluntarily lower their price—competition forced a lower price per ship.  In this era of fiscal responsibility, I am stunned that the Administration and the Congress would accept the argument that it is good policy to save a dollar today only to spend a thousand dollars tomorrow.

The Department’s decision is especially troubling when you consider their preferred engine has experienced development delays and a cost to complete increase of 445 percent over the last three years.

Going forward, we will explore all legislative options available to us to maintain engine competition in the largest acquisition program in U.S. history.

The F136 industry team has also weighed in with a statement:

The GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team received a "Stop Work" order from the Department of Defense instructing the team to stop efforts on the F136 for 2011 once the current funding runs out at the end of March.

While the F136 development contract contains a "stop work" clause, we are disappointed that DoD took this unilateral action before Congress has completed its work on the fiscal year 2011 budget.

However, we are not deterred by this decision. We feel so strongly about this issue, as do our Congressional supporters, that we will, consistent with the stop work directive, self-fund the F136 program through this 90-day stop work period.

We are fully committed to delivering a better engine for the F-35 program, and have no intention of abandoning the warfighter and taxpayers.

Everyone knows competition saves money. Our supporters in Congress are more determined than ever, and are encouraging us to press the merits of our case. We will not walk away from a $3 billion taxpayer investment and your hard work to deliver what the Senate has called a "near model program."

The F136 engine is meeting or exceeding performance expectations, is demonstrating significant advantages over the Pratt & Whitney engine, and is nearly complete.

The F135 has racked up $3.4 billion in cost overruns with continued delays and technical issues.  Just last week, House hearings confirmed that the P&W engine has not met required testing for the JSF flight envelope after four years.

These issues won't fix themselves.  Only competition creates performance based rewards and delivers better and better capability ... it's just that simple. Mischaracterizing the F136 as "redundant" does not support our founding principles of competition and excellence which are at the core of the US military.

We are gratified that several House and Senate leaders, who will convene in early April to complete the FY2011 budget process, are determined supporters of competing JSF engines for a myriad of financial and security reasons.

The Navy has plenty of Tomahawk missiles to burn in Libya, according to the service's top officer, who said today that replacing the rounds that have been used up establishing a no-flight zone would not be a problem.

“The Tomahawks that were shot, that's part of our current inventory,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said at a Defense Writers Group breakfast this morning. “There are ample replacements for those in the inventory -- more than ample replacements for them -- and in the budget, the funding line continues for Tomahawks to replace those that were shot.”

Roughead agreed with the Navy's top budget officer, Rear Adm. Joseph Mulloy, who told Inside the Navy on March 21 that the cost of the no-fly zone operation for the service is small, given that most of the assets being used were already in the area.

“Did we incur some additional flying hours? Yes,” Roughead said. “But, for example, the [EA-18G] Growlers that we brought in were flying in Iraq anyway, so those flying hours were being burned. . . . Moving to Japan, for example, on the [aircraft carrier] Ronald Reagan [CVN-76], which is heavily involved in the relief operation there, we're flying a lot of helicopters, but we're also not flying the air wing as much as we would have, so quite frankly it's probably costing me less money in that regard.”

The admiral noted that the service is keeping track of all Libya-related expenditures, though he said there is no sign yet of whether or not a supplemental budget would be requested to cover the cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Roughead suggested that the Navy could keep up operations off Libya more or less indefinitely.

“For the Navy, because we are deployed and we are in constant rotation, the forces that are there will continue to provide support that the tactical commander needs,” he said, “but we have other forces that are getting ready to float, so the forces that are there will be relieved by others and that flow continues.”