The Insider

ATEC Assessment
By John Liang
December 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Next Monday's Inside the Army -- available today -- is reporting that while the Army has concerns over how a commercial off-the-shelf analyst tool, made by the California software company Palantir, will work with its own Distributed Common Ground System-Army, the service is not attempting to block the use of Palantir's technology in theater and is working to address how it might be incorporated into the Army's intelligence analysis framework:

At issue is a debate that has erupted in the last year over the extent to which the Army should use Palantir, software designed to track positions of roadside improvised explosive devices, over DCGS-A. The Army last year was accused of preventing units that wanted Palantir from receiving the software in theater and manipulating an Army Test and Evaluation Command operational assessment report about Palantir to downplay the software's performance and criticisms of DCGS-A (Inside the Army, Sept. 3). The Army was cleared of wrongdoing on the ATEC report, according to the results of an investigation -- laid out in an Oct. 17 memo obtained by ITA -- that was ordered by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno.

Service officials last week took pains to explain the Army's position. "We are not fighting Palantir," Maj. Gen. Harold Greene, deputy for acquisition and systems management, told reporters in a Dec. 20 roundtable. "The Army leadership is very clear on what the job of those of us in the acquisition community is and it's to get the best of the breed for our soldiers with the resources that the taxpayers give us."

In working with Palantir software, "we have a concern about the interoperability and we are working to do the best we can to mitigate that challenge," Greene said.

Through a cooperative research and development agreement with Palantir, the Army is exchanging information between Palantir and DCGS-A. "We've had some initial success in the laboratory and we are looking at how we would build upon that. We are looking at how we can make all this work together so we can leverage the goodness that people have seen in Palantir," Greene stated.

We now have the Oct. 17 ATEC assessment (marked "for committee use only//unclassified//FOUO//LIMDIS").

View the full Dec. 24 ITA story.

New Appropriations Chair
By John Liang
December 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) will be the next chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Mikulski, selected by her Democratic Caucus colleagues this afternoon, is the first woman and the first senator from Maryland to head the committee, according to a statement. She succeeds Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who died on Monday.

Whether Mikulski will also replace Inouye as chair of the defense subcommittee remains to be seen.

"Subcommittee assignments will be announced once the new Senate has organized (hopefully in January)," a committee spokeswoman told InsideDefense.com in an email.

Satellite Controls
By John Liang
December 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM

The Obama administration's export control reform initiative will gain a boost -- with respect to satellite controls and the notification requirements for the removal of items from the U.S. Munitions List (USML) -- from the final version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that emerged from conference on Dec. 18, which Congress is expected to pass by the end of this week, Inside U.S. Trade reports this morning:

On satellites, the [National Defense Authorization Act] gives back to the president the authority to move all satellites and related items from the USML to the Commerce Control List (CCL), provided they are not exported, re-exported or transferred directly or indirectly to China, North Korea or any country listed as a state-sponsor of terrorism.

It also precludes any satellite or related item to be launched from any of these countries or as part of a launch vehicle owned by the governments of one of these countries. The president, however, can waive this prohibition on a case-by-case basis if he determines it is in the national interests of the U.S. to make the export and notifies the appropriate congressional committees about his determination.

Regarding the notification requirements, the final NDAA drops the language in the House version of the NDAA that would have required the administration to enumerate "to the extent practicable" the items it wants to move off the USML. The administration has long criticized this language as making it impossible to implement its overall export control reform initiative, and demanded that it be removed from the final NDAA bill.

The U.S. satellite industry supports the satellite language in the conference report, which was the result of negotiations that occurred among the administration and congressional staff in the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

The legislation essentially repeals a provision in the NDAA for fiscal year 1999 that took the authority over satellite export control away from the president in the wake of a diversion scandal and returned all satellites and related items that had been transferred to the CCL back to the strict controls of the USML.

"Going back to the source and repealing [the 1999 NDAA] is a very clean way of doing it," said Patricia Cooper, president of the Satellite Industry Association.

Industry sources said this was a more desirable outcome than the House NDAA language, which tried to establish a new definition of which satellites and components the president could control. The House language referred to “commercial satellites and related components and technology” and defined them as communications satellites that do not contain classified components, including remote sensing satellites with performance parameters below thresholds identified on the USML. This language could have been interpreted to exclude authority over scientific, research and other types of satellites.

The language in the conference report gives the president nearly unrestricted authority over all satellites and related items, which are found in Category XV of the USML.

View the conference report.

IAMD Memo
By John Liang
December 19, 2012 at 9:59 PM

In June, Inside the Army reported on a Pentagon decision made in February to allow the Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense Program to increase its inventory:

While the Army's cornerstone missile-defense program has cleared a critical design review in recent months, service officials are keeping the results of a new cost estimate, mandated by a February acquisition decision memorandum, under wraps.

The Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense program has undergone significant changes in recent years, leading to an increase in the Army's acquisition objective -- from 285 systems to 431 -- last summer. Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall approved the change in a Feb. 1 ADM.

The program represents the Army's contribution to a Defense Department-wide missile-defense network. At its heart lies a battle command system (IBCS), designed to enable a modular, "plug-and-fight" capability for commandeering sensors and interceptors.

Both the IBCS portions and the IAMD effort as a whole cleared design reviews this spring, moving the program into the second phase of engineering and manufacturing development, according to Army spokesman Matthew Bourke. Reviewers were said to be "pleased" with the program's progress, and a new cost estimate approved on April 24 led the service to consider the endeavor as "affordable," Bourke wrote in an email.

But what that means is unclear; service officials declined several requests for comment on what the Army's new cost estimate amounts to in dollars. That information is "pre-decisional and under a rolling review," said Bourke.

According to a June 11 statement by IBCS contractor Northrop Grumman, the design review showed that the program is "technically realistic and attainable." Moreover, it meant the program can meet performance requirements and is mature enough to proceed to "full-scale fabrication," assembly, integration and testing, the statement reads.

View the full story.

View the February ADM -- marked "for official use only".

Parting Shots
By John Liang
December 19, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Outgoing Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl didn't mince any words during his farewell speech on the Senate floor today, particularly in his criticism of the Obama administration's missile-defense policies:

First, over the past four years, the Obama administration has consistently reduced funding for missile defense. Second, it has refocused funding on regional missile defenses at the expense of protecting the homeland and developing future technologies.

Third, the administration has scaled back the number of ground-based interceptors protecting the homeland from 54 to only 30 -- numbers that do not meet the standard established by the Missile Defense Act of 1999, which required a defense capable of addressing accidental and unauthorized attacks from any source. And, fourth, the administration has no plans to modernize interceptors that are more than 20 years old and therefore unlikely to keep pace with future threats.

And there is, as I said, very little funding devoted to new, breakthrough technologies that could provide even more effective defenses for the United States, such as lasers and space-based interceptors.

We must remember, as NORTHCOM commander General Jacoby has explained to Congress, that ‘no homeland task is more important than protecting the United States from a limited ICBM attack ...’

Finally, one of the greatest challenges we face today stems from Russian attempts to limit the development and deployment of U.S. and allied missile-defense systems. The United States cannot allow Russia to dictate to us limits on the capabilities of U.S. missile defenses. If they could be effective against a Russian launch, so be it. That’s what it means to protect Americans from potential threats. If the Russians argue that they pose no possible threat, then our missile defense should be irrelevant to them.

From negotiations on the New START treaty to threatening the United States and NATO in an attempt to limit our planned deployments in Europe, the Russians have never abandoned their goal of limiting the effectiveness of U.S missile defense. The answer is not ‘reset,’ but recommitment to the principle that the most moral way to protect the American people from missile attacks is by missile defense.

View the full national security-related excerpts from Kyl's farewell speech.

Alternative Fuels
By John Liang
December 19, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report that "provides background information and identifies issues for Congress regarding Department of Defense (DOD) alternative fuel initiatives, a subject of debate at congressional hearings on DOD's proposed FY2013 budget."

In the Dec. 14 report, CRS notes that the military services "have spent approximately $48 million on alternative fuels, and the Navy has proposed a $170 million investment in biofuel production capacity. By comparison, DOD purchases of petroleum fuels totaled approximately $17.3 billion in FY2011."

According to a Senate Armed Services Committee summary of the FY-13 defense authorization conference report agreed to last night, the legislative language:

* Does not include a provision of the House-passed bill that would have prohibited fiscal year 2013 funding for the production or purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost of producing or purchasing the alternative fuel exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuel, with limited exceptions.

* Requires DOD to issue guidance for financing renewable energy projects.

* Authorizes $150.0 million for the Energy Conservation Investment Program.

* Authorizes $200.0 million in funding for the Defense Research and Development (R&D) Rapid Innovation Program to aid in technology transition across a broad spectrum of technologies, including those which will improve energy efficiency, enhance energy security, and reduce the Department's dependence on fossil fuels.

View the CRS report.

View the full FY-13 defense authorization conference report.

Nixing F-16s To Egypt
By John Liang
December 18, 2012 at 9:59 PM

With Egypt in political turmoil, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to halt the planned delivery of 20 F-16 fighter jets to that country beginning early next year.

In a statement released today, Inhofe said:

The Obama Administration should not be putting top-of-the-line aircraft in the hands of a government that is perpetuating instability in its region and showing aggression towards our ally, Israel. While this agreement for the F-16s was forged two years ago, Egypt's leadership has since changed hands, leaving open the question as to how this equipment might be used.

The first four jets are scheduled for delivery on Jan. 22, according to a Dec. 17 letter Inhofe sent to Clinton. He adds:

In light of the ongoing instability, aggression towards Israel, [Egyptian] President [Mohammed] Morsi's dictatorial decree, and absence of a constitution and parliament, this delivery should be stopped and subject to further review.

Until Egypt is able to establish [a] democratic parliament and ensure stability in the country, the delivery of F-16s to Egypt should be postponed for further review. I look forward to your response.

Bearish On Defense
By John Liang
December 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

At least one Wall Street analysis firm isn't too bullish on the defense sector next year.

In a "2013 Aerospace & Defense Outlook" released today, Credit Suisse analysts note that during 2012, "defense has outperformed aerospace (19.3 percent vs 2.1 percent), driven by high cash returns to shareholders at defense primes, a beat and raise trend, and the view by many that defense offered a relative safe-haven against wider economic uncertainty."

As for next year, however:

In 2013, we think defense will eventually succumb to more tangible pressure on topline by 2014, even without Sequester. As such, we favor aerospace, as do investors, according to our latest buyside survey. We specifically prefer [original equipment] suppliers [Precision Castparts], [Triumph Group Inc.] and [BE Aerospace] over [Boeing] as the latter could lag if orders slow, along with Q1 strike risk. Inside we review expectations for each end market, and draw on results from our new 2013 Investor Sentiment Survey.

And:

Defense -- Market Yet to Recognize CY14 Downside: Many defense names are at-or-near 52-week highs having waved off budget worries on the view that major cuts are too extreme to proceed, or that strong defense yields trump poor economic visibility elsewhere. We think this view could hold into H1’13 until the fiscal cliff issue is resolved. Thereafter, we expect the market to refocus on the greater relative downside to CY14 topline and so we look for a correction in defense in H2’13. We favor RTN for its higher electronics & int'l exposure, solid execution & bookings trends, stable mgmt. and well balance cash return strategy.

To view the full Credit Suisse analysis, click here.

Partnership Program
By John Liang
December 17, 2012 at 9:09 PM

The Pentagon last week issued a policy document outlining how a U.S. state National Guard would enter into a partnership with a foreign military. Specifically, the Dec. 14 memo defines such a "State Partnership Program" like this:

A DoD security cooperation program under which a military-to-military relationship is established between the National Guard of a U.S. State and a partner nation's military forces for the complementary purposes of promoting mutual understanding; interoperability; furtherance of the Combatant Commander's theater security cooperation program objectives by building enduring relationships with, and, to the extent authorized by law, the capacity of, partner nation military forces; and promoting the readiness of U.S. National Guard forces.

Inside the Army reported last month that a debate had begun to emerge within the Pentagon about giving reserve forces unique missions, indicating that an explicit division of labor between the ground service components may be in the works. Specifically:

"We are on a little bit of a broader quest right now" to figure out what should be in the active component and what should be in the reserve component, a defense official told Inside the Army. Unlike the Air Force, the Army does not "have a good way to think about it. They take the [active component] and [reserve component] end strengths as given, then try to build the best AC and the rest goes in RC. It is more art than science," the official said.

As the Army tries to shape its future active and reserve components, the California adjutant general, Maj. Gen. David Baldwin is concerned that the active-duty Army is assuming more missions traditionally carried out by reserve forces. The two-star referred to "poaching" when describing what he perceived to be a trend by the active-duty Army to take these missions, which have included peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Sinai, according to minutes from a Reserve Forces Policy Board meeting held in September (ITA, Oct. 15).

A National Guard Bureau spokesman declined to say whether the NGB shared Baldwin's position.

The Guard, for its part, is considering what unique missions it might be suited for, with cyberspace operations being a candidate. NGB spokesman Jon Anderson noted that many members of the Guard have strong technical skills gained through private sector job experience that could be put to good use especially in such missions as cyber security.

Unlike Baldwin, Army Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Talley is "not concerned" that the active force will take the missions that Reserve forces would traditionally perform. The issue "really doesn't apply to the Army Reserve component because [the active component] has to come to us for all those enablers," Talley said during a Nov. 14 Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.

View the full Dec. 14 policy memo.

View more of InsideDefense.com's coverage of Reserve and National Guard issues.

Arctic Agreement
By John Liang
December 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Senior U.S. and Canadian officials recently signed an agreement on cooperation in the Arctic.

According to a Dec. 11 statement, Army Gen. Charles Jacoby, head of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD, and Lt. Gen. Stuart Beare, head of the Canadian Joint Operations Command, signed the "Tri Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation" during a Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense meeting in Colorado Springs, CO. Further:

The Tri-Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation acknowledges the Arctic is not a region of conflict and the Canadian and U.S. militaries will support other departments and agencies in response to threats and hazards in the region when requested and directed. In that context, the goal of the Framework is to promote enhanced military cooperation in the Arctic and identify specific areas of potential Tri-Command cooperation in the preparation for and conduct of safety, security and defense operations. It strengthens an already unique and mature partnership where coordination and cooperation occurs on a regular basis. The Tri-Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation document is not a plan but rather outlines a process that supports the identification of opportunities for potential cooperation in the Arctic. Areas that continue to be improved, particularly in the Arctic, include planning, domain awareness, information-sharing, training and exercises, operations, capability development, and science and technology.

The NORAD and USNORTHCOM Commander and the CJOC Commander both have portions of the Arctic within their respective areas of operation and areas of responsibility. The Commands have complementary missions and work closely together to meet their individual and collective responsibilities as part of a whole-of-government effort in the Arctic. Given the safety and security challenges in the region, the commands often act in support of civilian authorities.

Inside the Navy reported in October that the service was looking to predict weather changes in the Arctic just like the service does in other regions through a next-generation fully coupled ocean atmosphere and arctic prediction system:

The system is important as the Navy plans an increase in operations in the Arctic, Rear Adm. Jonathan White, Navy oceanographer and navigator, said Oct. 23 at the Office of Naval Research's Naval Science and Technology Partnership Conference in Arlington, VA.

Between 2014 and 2040, the Arctic will allow for one month of ice-free operations, he said. Over the next eight years, the Navy wants a new prediction system to replace legacy systems, Frank Herr, ONR ocean battlespace sensing department director, said during the conference.

For polar regions, snow and ice have an immense impact on weather conditions, yet no current models incorporate atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere data into the models, Navy spokesman Robert Freeman wrote in an Oct. 25 email.

Weather Doctrine
By John Liang
December 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

The Pentagon recently released a document that "sets forth the joint doctrine for the planning and execution of meteorological and oceanographic operations in support of joint operations throughout the range of military operations."

The joint doctrine document released this week "updates space weather information and its impacts on operations."

Inside the Air Force reported earlier this month that the service had awarded Northrop Grumman additional funds to facilitate an adjusted launch schedule for the last two remaining satellites in the service's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Specifically:

The service issued the contract modification on Nov. 16, providing an extra $36 million to the company to prepare the sensors on the last remaining satellites, DMSP-19 and DMSP-20. According to Gilbert Chan, Northrop's lead on DMSP, the company's original contract specified a 2010 time frame for both satellites -- a schedule that has since been moved to January 2014 for DMSP-19 and October 2014 for DMSP-20.

Chan said he's been given direction from the Air Force that the DMSP-20 launch will be moved to the latter part of the decade -- no earlier than 2016. However, the company's contract does not yet reflect that change. The funds provided through this modification will be used to recalibrate crucial sensors on both satellites.

"The majority of the work is that we are re-accepting the sensors and making sure that they are acceptable for launch in the 2014 time frame," Chan told Inside the Air Force during a Nov. 30 interview. "And in addition, the infrastructure that is required to provide the re-delivery of the sensor is what is also getting extended into the end of 2014."

The Air Force is early in the process of acquiring a new space-based weather capability, the Weather Satellite Follow-on (WSF), to replace the legacy DMSP, which launched its first satellite in 1962. A past effort to replace the system, the Defense Weather Satellite System, was canceled in 2011.

These last two DMSP satellites -- which were built in the 1990s with six-year design lives and have spent close to 20 years in storage -- will be utilized until WSF is operational.

Other updates from the September 2008 version of the joint doctrine document include:

* Eliminates information on weather observations taken by Army intelligence personnel as a nontraditional source of meteorological and oceanographic (METOC) data.

* Updates nontraditional sources of METOC data for the Army to include further information on tactical weather data.

* Updates nontraditional sources of METOC data for the Navy to include subsurface METOC data and astronomy, geophysics, and precise time.

* Updates Figure III-1, Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations Support Community.

* Establishes a senior meteorological (SMO) and joint meteorological and oceanographic officer planning checklist.

* Updates information on Marine Corps METOC forces.

* Updates information on special operations component METOC forces.

* Clarifies SMO designation in multinational operations.

* Clarifies SMO designation and relationship between the National Weather Service and Department of Homeland Security as it relates to interagency operations within the United States.

* Establishes a new vignette on METOC during Operation TOMODACHI.

* Establishes a new vignette on METOC in riverine operations.

* Replaces the term "Marine air traffic control squadron" with "Marine air control squadron."

* Replaces the term "civil support" with "defense support of civil authorities."

Subcommittee Chairs
By John Liang
December 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) today named the next heads of the panel's subcommittees.

"I selected these Members to be Subcommittee Chairmen for their long service on the Armed Services Committee and their dedication to our men and women in uniform. In the years ahead, this Committee must ensure our troops and their families have what they need to face increasing dangers abroad, in an era of declining resources at home. That tension between threats and resources will present our subcommittees with difficult choices, but I am confident in the leadership of our chairmen," McKeon said in a statement.

The subcommittee chairmen (minus the oversight and investigations subcommittee, who will be named later) are as follows, according to the statement:

Emerging Threats and Capabilities -- Rep. Mac Thornberry, Texas, Full Committee Vice Chair

Seapower and Projection Forces -- Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Virginia

Military Personnel -- Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina

Tactical Air and Land Forces -- Rep. Mike Turner, Ohio

Strategic Forces -- Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama

Readiness -- Rep. Rob Wittman, Virginia

On Guard
By John Liang
December 13, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett, president of the National Guard Association of the United States, has weighed in on the debate over fiscal year 2013 funding for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

In a statement released this afternoon, Hargett says:

"Fueled by misinformation from some Air Force officers, it appears a handful of House Armed Services Committee members are willing to circumvent the legislative process to force a budget on the Air National Guard that the governors, the adjutants general and most in Congress oppose.

"This is the kind of mischief that can occur during conference, when a handful from the House and Senate can go behind closed doors and literally change legislation in the name of forging compromise between the two chambers.

"The House and Senate both rejected the Air Force's fiscal 2013 budget request, which would take disproportionate cuts from the Air National Guard. Both chambers told Air Force officials to go back and work with the governors and the adjutants general on a new proposal that addressed state concerns.

"Unfortunately, Air Force officials have since ignored the governors and the adjutants general. Neither group has been able to provide meaningful input to a new budget plan. Nevertheless, Air Force officers have told members of Congress that they have a compromise plan in hand.

"For the record, the nation's governors and adjutants general favor a freeze on Air Guard manpower and force structure and the establishment of a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force. Neither organization has agreed to any Air Force proposal. Both remain concerned that the cuts to the Air Guard would adversely affect domestic response.

"In addition, to our knowledge, the chief of the National Guard Bureau has not endorsed any compromise plan for the Air National Guard in the fiscal 2013 Air Force budget.

"Commissions are certainly not the ideal way to craft budget decisions. They are a last resort. But at this point, a commission independent from the Air Force is our only remaining hope for a transparent process that includes real input from the governors and Guard leaders."

Earlier this week, the Council of Governors sent a letter to senior House and Senate lawmakers asking that during the upcoming defense authorization conference negotiations they continue to support a freeze of Air National Guard manpower and aircraft throughout FY-13. As InsideDefense.com reported on Tuesday:

"In the absence of an agreement on the Air Force's budget proposal for FY2013, and without an agreement between governors and [the Defense Department] on a consultative process for future years, we request your continued support in conference for the freeze in ANG manpower and aircraft and for the Senate's proposed National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force," the council's Dec. 10 letter states. Inside the Air Force obtained a copy of the letter.

Council members sent the letter yesterday to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member John McCain (R-AZ), as well as their House counterparts Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA). In the letter, council co-Chairs Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) and Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) write that the council has "diligently" tried to work with DOD to address concerns surrounding the Air Force's FY-13 force-structure strategy and "avoid future budget disputes," but to no avail. National Governors Association Chairman Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D) and NGA Vice Chair Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) also signed the letter.

The council, created by executive order to ensure that the relationship between state and federal governments runs smoothly, has requested that Congress maintain a freeze on manpower and aircraft just days after the Air Force sent lawmakers a compromise deal on its FY-13 force-structure strategy. The service submitted a revised force-structure strategy at the end of November in response to the criticism it received after its original plan, sent along with the FY-13 budget request, was met with sharp criticism by Congress and the Council of Governors. The revised strategy restores dozens of aircraft to the Air Force's inventory and re-missions a handful of Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard squadrons.

"As you know, through the Council of Governors . . . we have worked diligently with the Air Force this year to try to rectify the surprising and disproportionate cuts facing the ANG as part of the Air Force's FY2013 budget request," the letter states. "While we recognize the Air Force's recent attempt to revise its earlier proposal, there has not been sufficient time for all interested parties to fully review the details, assess impact and discuss modifications. We look forward to continuing to work with the Air Force on a proposal that could be implemented in FY2014."

View more of InsideDefense.com's coverage of Guard and Reserve issues.

CRS On DOD Energy Use
By John Liang
December 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM

With more than $1.4 billion requested in fiscal year 2013 for operational energy initiatives, the Congressional Research Service has taken a look at potential issues for lawmakers regarding the Defense Department's fuel use.

"By some accounts, DOD is the largest organizational user of petroleum in the world. Even so, DOD's share of total U.S. energy consumption is fairly small," a Dec. 10 CRS report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News -- states, adding: "DOD is by far the largest U.S. government user of energy. The amount of money that DOD spends on petroleum-based fuels is large in absolute terms, but relatively small as a percentage of DOD's overall budget."

CRS notes that the Pentagon's fuel costs "have increased substantially over the last decade, to about $17 billion in FY2011," with petroleum-based liquid fuels being the department's largest energy source, "accounting for approximately two-thirds of DOD energy consumption."

The Air Force is the service that uses the most fuel, according to CRS.

About 75 percent of the Pentagon's energy use goes toward operational energy and the remainder goes toward installation energy, the report states.

Consequently, CRS lists the following "potential oversight issues for Congress regarding DOD's energy initiatives":

* DOD's coordination of operational energy initiatives being pursued by the military services.

* DOD's efforts to gather reliable data and develop metrics for evaluating DOD's energy initiatives.

* DOD's estimates of future fuel costs.

* DOD's role in federal energy initiatives.

* The Navy's initiative to help jumpstart a domestic advanced biofuels industry.

* The potential implications for DOD energy initiatives of shifts in U.S. military strategy.

View the full CRS report.

And for more InsideDefense.com coverage of Pentagon energy issues, check out Defense Energy Alert.

Do-Over On F-35
By Jason Sherman
December 12, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Canadian sticker shock over a new, independent $30 billion cost estimate for Ottawa's planned acquisition of 60 F-35s has put Canada's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter in question, with the government's "national fighter procurement secretariat" today announcing plans for how it will evaluate alternative aircraft to replace its aging CF-18s.

In reaction, the Defense Department did not dispute the findings of accounting firm KPMG's review of Canada's F-35 costs. "The model which produced the latest Canadian acquisition cost estimates aligns with similar U.S. cost estimates," said Joe Dellavedova, spokesman for the F-35 joint program office.

Rona Ambrose, Canada's minister of public works and government services, said in a statement today that the release of the terms of reference for the re-evaluation of alternative fighter aircraft demonstrates "that we are serious about looking at all available options to replace the CF-18s."

Dellavedova said the Canadian fighter review "is very similar to the review the U.S. performed in 2010," when the Pentagon was required by law to recertify the F-35 program's necessity in order to avoid termination in the wake of cost growth disclosures. "The U.S. review determined that there is no alternative to the F-35 that can provide the necessary capability at lower cost," Dellavedova said.