The Insider

By Jordana Mishory
March 22, 2012 at 8:09 PM

A means of helping unmanned aerial vehicles provide far more surveillance time and intelligence information per mission while reducing support costs has been successfully developed by industry -- but will not be employed, according to a project accomplishments summary by one of the companies.

The June 2011 summary, as reported today by Secrecy News, notes that Sandia National Laboratories and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation felt that the technical goals of the UAV ultra-persistence research projects were accomplished.“Overall, performance, specific power parameters, technical complexities, security safety and other operational features were successfully investigated,” the report states. Northrop "was quite pleased with the results of analysis and design, although it was disappointing to all that the political realities would not allow use of the results.”

According to the project accomplishments summary, Northrop Grumman Corporation Integrated Systems “requested support from Sandia to develop an ultra-persistent propulsion and power system (UP3S) for potential incorporation into next generation UAV systems. The team members tried to determine which energy storage and power generation concepts could most effectively push UAV propulsion and electrical power capabilities to increase UAV sortie duration from days to months while increasing available electrical power at least two-fold.”

So what is this technology? Secrecy News writes that it “seems clear that the Sandia-Northrop project contemplated the use of nuclear technology for onboard power and propulsion.” The project summary refers to “propulsion and power technologies that [go] well beyond existing hydrocarbon technologies,” the website reports. Secrecy News also notes that the lead investigator at Sandia, Steven Dron, specializes in nuclear propulsion.

The summary adds that the technology and systems designs considered "have previously never been applied to" UAVs. However, it adds, none of the results can be shared with the public "due to national security constraints."

By John Liang
March 22, 2012 at 6:20 PM

The intelligence community this morning released an unclassified study on global water security.

The bottom line, according to the assessment:

During the next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will experience water problems -- shortages, poor water quality, or floods -- that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional tensions, and distract them from working with the United States on important US policy objectives. Between now and 2040, fresh water availability will not keep up with demand absent more effective management of water resources. Water problems will hinder the ability of key countries to produce food and generate energy, posing a risk to global food markets and hobbling economic growth. As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia will face major challenges coping with water problems.

This isn't the first time the intelligence community has worried about the availability of potable water across the globe, however.

Following a March 2 speech Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave in Louisville, KY, Panetta was asked about climate change and its possible effect on national security. Here's what he said, according to a Pentagon transcript:

With regards to climate change, the -- actually, what we developed at the CIA was an intelligence branch of the CIA that focused on that issue actually for intelligence purposes, because of the implications that these changes might have with regards to national security.

For example, when we incur greater droughts, when we incur areas that in fact have less rain and are incurring unusual climate impacts, it creates obviously an impact in terms of the population.  It's something we have to be aware of because that can create chaos.  We've seen that happen in Africa.  We've seen that happen in other parts of the world.  So we need to have that kind of intelligence.

In addition, because of the ice melt, there are indications of a rising ocean.  We've already seen that take place.  And there our concern is how will that impact on ports, how will that impact on facilities, how will that impact on low line levels that could be impacted by that?  So we continue to try to get intelligence on that as well.

In addition, obviously, we do look at the polar ice cap and are able through imagery to determine what's happening with polar ice cap and just how quickly is it melting and what that impact will be.  I can tell you.  As the polar ice cap melts, the national security implications are that countries like Russia and others are going to be looking for the opportunity to go into those areas and try to go after the resources in the Arctic.  They've already made claims to that effect.

So clearly as it melts, as those opportunities increase, then there are countries that are going to assert themselves, try to gain access to the resources that are there.  That also constitutes an issue that relates to national security.

So from an intelligence point of view, it's important for us to keep track of those trends.  You know, this isn't about the battle of climate change and the issues related to that.  This is about what we are seeing happen and the intelligence that flows from that.  And that is important for us to consider as we look at issues that can threaten America's national security.

. . . And one can go ever further back: In June 2008, InsideDefense.com cited a senior intelligence official as saying that climate change could lead to a range of global crises over the next two decades that would degrade U.S. military readiness by diverting key transportation assets and combat support forces. Further:

Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, told a joint House committee hearing today [June 25, 2008] in testimony that such crises might include humanitarian relief operations and missions to prop up governments of weak states reeling from extreme weather events.

These findings -- distilled from an assessment of the national security implications of global climate change prepared by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, portions of which InsideDefense.com first reported last week -- could have direct implications for Pentagon planners responsible for the size and shape of U.S. forces as well as the portfolio of weapon systems the Defense Department buys.

"As climate changes spur more humanitarian emergencies, the international community's capacity to respond will be increasingly strained," states Fingar's testimony, prepared for a joint hearing today of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

"The United States, in particular will be called upon to respond," he said. "The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations."

Another finding with immediate relevance to Pentagon planners concerns possible warming temperatures in Africa, an event that could have particular consequence for the Defense Department as it works to establish a new unified U.S. military command with responsibility for overseeing the American operations there.

"The United States' new military area of responsibility -- Africa Command -- is likely to face extensive and novel operational requirements," Fingar's prepared testimony states. "Sub-Saharan African countries -- if they are hard-hit by climate impacts -- will be more susceptible to worsening disease exposure. Food insecurity, for reasons of both shortages and affordability, will be a growing concern in Africa as well as other parts of the world. Without food aid, the region will likely face higher levels of instability -- particularly violent ethnic clashes over land ownership."

In general, the intelligence community assessment found that climate change may trigger food and water shortages, aggravate health problems and the spread of disease, increase the potential for conflict, property damage -- including critical infrastructure -- and erode coasts.

By Jason Sherman
March 22, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, yesterday convened a second “strategic seminar" where combatant commanders and service chiefs examined the implications of the new Defense Strategic Guidance issued by President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in early January.

“We explored complex scenarios that test the strategy, determined how far our future programmed force can stretch, and discussed new and innovative ways to solve traditional problems,” Dempsey wrote on his Facebook page yesterday. “These seminars are valuable as we take a thorough look at how to best execute the defense strategy.”

More background on the seminars .

By John Liang
March 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM

A multiagency committee charged with overseeing the U.S. strategic and critical materials stockpile wants to hear from the public on a proposal to establish three new research projects, according to a Federal Register notice published this morning:

The purpose of this notice is to advise the public that the National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee . . . is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the proposed supplement to the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Materials Plan related to establishing three new material research and development projects. The research and development projects involve three materials -- cadmium zinc tellurium (CZT) substrates, trichlorobenzene (TCB), and rhenium alloy. The role of the Market Impact Committee is to advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals involving the stockpile and related material research and development projects. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.

The committee is comprised of representatives from the Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Commerce, State, Agriculture, Interior and Treasury departments, and is co-chaired by the Commerce and State departments.

By Jason Sherman
March 19, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Two key lawmakers today cautioned the Pentagon to avoid any preliminary action to implement force structure reductions proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget request until congressional authorization is granted.

In a letter today to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member John McCain (R-AZ) outlined their concerns:

In our preliminary review of the fiscal year 2013 budget request, it has become clear that the Department intends to begin implementing decisions under this budget request by taking actions in fiscal year 2012.  It is also clear that there are programs where the Department plans to implement actions in 2012 before any of the congressional defense committees will have had an opportunity to act on the fiscal year 2013 budget request.  While we understand that doing so may help the Department achieve more “savings” than might be otherwise realized, the Department should avoid taking actions that would restrict Congress’ ability to consider and act on the fiscal year 2013 budget request.

We request that you not take actions to implement decisions that would be difficult or impossible to reverse by anticipating congressional approval of what may turn out to be very contentious proposals before the committees have had an opportunity to produce bills reflecting their responses to the fiscal year 2013 budget request.

By John Liang
March 19, 2012 at 6:31 PM

House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) has again invited Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) to tour the facilities at Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico.

Last month, Markey introduced legislation that would cut $100 billion in spending on "outdated, wasteful nuclear weapons and related programs over the next ten years," he said in a statement, adding: "Let's cut new nuclear weapons and not programs for the poor, the elderly, the sick and the children of our country."

In a March 16 statement, Turner said: "Without ever seeing the true state of these facilities, Mr. Markey is living in blissful ignorance. It must make calling for funding cuts and unilateral disarmament a lot easier. No one who has toured these facilities and has seen their deplorable conditions would deny the need for this funding."

In a letter sent to Markey the same day, Turner writes:

It is clear from your response that you have been given grossly inaccurate, or wholly out-of-context, information on the plutonium and uranium facilities -- and their prospective replacements -- at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex. We very much need to get you to Los Alamos and Y-12 as soon as possible to clear up this terribly mistaken information.

This is not the first time Turner has written Markey on the state of U.S. nuclear labs. Click on the below to view those related letters:

Rep. Turner's 11/30/2011 Letter To Rep. Markey On Nuclear Deterrent Costs

Turner 11/4/2011 Letter On The Cost Of The U.S. Nuclear Deterrent

By John Liang
March 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM

A Defense Department report detailing the national security implications of returning to the president the authority to move satellites and related components from the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to the less-stringent Commerce Control List (CCL) must be submitted to Congress in the next three weeks if lawmakers are to have adequate time this year to pass legislation to permit such transfers, Inside U.S. Trade reports this morning, citing a senior congressional aide:

"The window for real constructive legislative action is not very wide," said David Fite, a House Foreign Affairs Committee staff member who works on export control issues for Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA).

Many lawmakers will not make up their minds about whether to support legislation that would restore the president's authority over the transfer of items off USML Category XV, which covers satellites and related components, until the so-called "Section 1248" report is released, Fite said at a March 14 forum on export controls at the Satellite 2012 conference.

The report, required as part of Section 1248 of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, could be forthcoming soon now that it is in the inter-agency review process, according to Lou Ann McFadden, an official with the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) who spoke at the same forum.

Although McFadden would not assign a specific expected date to the report's release to Congress, she said it is in the final coordination stages. The report will be accompanied by a proposed revision of Category XV and a corresponding rule showing where transferred items will be placed.

Fite encouraged the administration to make the release of the report a "big deal." "This can't be released at 5 o'clock on a Friday afternoon," he said, adding that national security professionals, preferably wearing uniforms, should be publicly involved.

The transfer of militarily less significant items from the USML to the CCL where they will be subject to a broad export license exception is a key part of the administration's export control reform initiative. The reform effort's current goal is to restructure what are viewed as arcane controls that are impacting U.S. commercial trade of items currently on the USML.

Despite an imminent release of the report, Fite acknowledged that it's "almost too late for this Congress" to pass legislation on satellites.

Fite said there will need to be enough time for markups and floor debates in both chambers. Additionally, after passage in each chamber, the two bills would likely have to go through a conference proceeding.

In addition to procedural considerations, Fite signaled that passing such a bill may become more difficult the closer it gets to the November presidential election. Although there is bipartisan support for legislation already introduced in the House, Republican opponents of the reform initiative may be more likely to raise objections to the satellites bill in order to score political points given that the export control reform is a presidential initiative,

Passing such a bill would clear the one legislative hurdle this phase of the president's export control reform effort needs to overcome.

Berman has already introduced a bill, H.R. 3288, that would restore authority over satellites to the president with certain conditions. Fite also said there is a companion bill that will be introduced in the Senate in the coming weeks.

But for any legislation in the Senate will have to overcome opposition from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who was closely involved in pushing for the 1999 legislation that moved all satellites, parts and components and related technology from the CCL to the USML.

Control of satellites has been a hot-button issue after a 1999 scandal in which U.S. satellite manufacturers Loral and Hughes Space and Communications were found responsible for the unlicensed export of missile design information to China during the course of an independent investigation to review the failure of a Chinese launch vehicle. This fueled fears that China would be able to further develop the same launch capabilities it could use for a nuclear weapon.

In the wake of that scandal, Congress obtained the authority to determine if Category XV items can be moved off the USML.

Supporters of legislation that restore the president's authority over satellite transfers have said the U.S. space industrial base has lost competitive ground to satellite producers in Europe who can manufacture and export commercial satellites and related parts without the same export restrictions.

Supporters go further to say that this is a national security risk to the U.S. as foreign companies are beginning to "design out" U.S. satellite parts and components that are subject to the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that govern items on the USML.

This has led at least one European satellite manufacturer, Thales Alenia, to advertise "ITAR free" satellites that do not require customers to undergo the scrutiny of the U.S. export control system because of U.S. content.

Fite said an ongoing State Department investigation into a so-called "ITAR free" satellite that was sold to China without a license even though it still contained U.S.-controlled content has highlighted the national security impact of maintaining too stringent restrictions on commercial satellites.

For more news from this week's Satellite 2012 conference, check out this morning's issue of Inside the Air Force:

Loverro, Shelton Stress ORS Emphasis Will Remain Despite Closure

DOD Asks Congress To Nix Biennial GPS Reporting Requirement

Rep. Ruppersberger Urges DOD To Adopt Space-Launch Competition

Pentagon Takes Key Step Toward Acquiring New SBIRS Satellites

By John Liang
March 15, 2012 at 6:56 PM

North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command are holding their annual Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Summit this week at Peterson Air Force Base, CO, according to a NORTHCOM statement released today. The statement further reads:

The purpose of this year's summit is to bring together Canadian and U.S. CBRN personnel from local, state, national and military organizations to give the current composition of the CBRN Response Enterprise a hard look and determine if changes need to be made.

"It's part two of a three-part strategic assessment for the CBRN Response Enterprise," said Army Lt. Col. Pete Lofy, Deputy Chief of NORAD and USNORTHCOM CBRN Operations. "The first part was a rehearsal of concept for the CBRN Response Enterprise and had a military focus. Round two has an interagency focus."

Lofy said the summit will look at several aspects of the enterprise and ask hard questions. Any changes that are determined to be necessary would affect the Fiscal Year 2015 CBRN Response Enterprise.

"We're going to look at whether we are addressing the missions and requirements," he said. "Do we have the right units conducting these missions? Are the logistical functions set up to support the CBRN Response Enterprise? And are we satisfying the Interagency's requirements for consequence management in the homeland?"

The summit consists of panel discussions, working groups, static displays and a table-top exercise wherein CBRN organizations respond to a simulated incident on the U.S.-Canadian border.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Public Safety Canada and Canada Command have sent representatives to the summit while on the U.S. side organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as local responders from Denver and Michigan will also be participating.

In September 2010, InsideDefense.com reported that DOD should elevate the importance of its homeland-security mission to make it equal with warfighting as a means of ensuring that Pentagon planners set aside enough forces to support civil authorities in the aftermath of a catastrophe on U.S. soil with chemical, biological, or nuclear agents, according to a commission chartered by Congress. Further:

Despite DOD's claims in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review that homeland security is a key mission, there is "inadequate provision" for a task known as defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) in the military force-generation cycle, according to the panel's Sept. 15 report.

"DOD is not placing sufficient emphasis on budget and planning priorities related to DSCA missions, including CBRNE response," states the document. "DOD must have the ability to generate forces for the execution of DSCA missions, notwithstanding its other commitments."

The recommendation is one of many forwarded to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and congressional defense leaders by the Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents. The Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act called for the creation of the panel, which first met on Sept. 15, 2009. The group published its final report, titled "Before Disaster Strikes -- Imperatives for Enhancing Defense Support of Civil Authorities," in accordance with disclosure requirements governing government advisory groups.

U.S. Northern Command should get a plus-up of federal forces operating under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the report states. It does not say how many such forces panelists believe are needed.

"Despite the advent of the National Guard [Homeland Response Forces], given the magnitude of a catastrophic CBRNE incident, general-purpose Title 10 forces that may be required for DSCA should be identified, at least by type," the document states.

In July 2010, InsideDefense.com reported that the Pentagon's acquisition executive had established a standing advisory panel to regularly assess the vulnerability of U.S. military weapons to attack from an electromagnetic pulse designed to cripple microcircuits and electronic systems.

Ashton Carter, the then-under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, directed the Defense Science Board to form a permanent task force "to assess all aspects of survivability of DOD systems and assets to EMP [electromagnetic pulse] and other nuclear weapon effects," according to a March 1, 2010, memo. InsideDefense.com further reported:

Carter has authorized the assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs, Andrew Weber, to "act upon the advice and recommendations" of the task force, according to the memo.

The new task force -- co-chaired by Miriam John, former head of Sandia National Laboratories' California division, and Joe Braddock, founder of the BDM Corporation -- will "conduct an independent review and assessment of DOD's EMP survivability program and review other matters associated with nuclear survivability," according to the memo. . . .

In September 2008, the Defense Department issued a policy requiring all mission-critical weapon systems to have a plan to withstand the effects of a nuclear attack -- which includes a powerful electromagnetic pulse. This directive -- in the form of DOD Instruction No. 3150.09 -- stated that "survivability may be achieved by hardening, [tactics, techniques or procedures], or another mitigation procedure as funding allows."

Carter wants the new task force to "assess implementation" of this instruction as well as to "assess the effectiveness" of the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Survivability Oversight Group (CSOG) led by Weber and created to review and monitor the execution of DOD CBRN survivability policy.

Check out the DSB's subsequent conclusions here:

DSB Report on EMP Survivability of Defense Systems

By John Liang
March 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The Missile Defense Agency's major information technology activities in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 "will be concentrated in IT services delivery and support, information assurance support, IT infrastructure recapitalization, and Defense business system migration efforts," according to the agency's FY-13 IT budget request.

Overall, MDA has the following activities planned for FY-12 and FY-13, according to the budget book:

* Implement a more advanced applications interface for mobile devices

* Plan, engineer and buildout IT for the Von Braun IV facility in Huntsville and the P609 Building in Dahlgren, Virginia

* Operate and maintain the classified and unclassified IT infrastructure for all MDA locations

* Field a unified communications collaboration capability that integrates voice, video and documents into a single environment

* Sustain hardware, software and maintenance licenses while focusing on consolidating procurements

* Continue to implement web-based applications to enhance MDA business processes and improve efficiency

* Sustain global classified and unclassified communications to support personnel at all MDA locations

* Operate and maintain general purpose conference rooms and auditoriums Video Teleconferencing (VTC) capabilities in order to minimize travel costs.

As for information assurance in particular, MDA has the following activities planned for FY-12/13:

* Actively monitor MDA test and administrative IT systems via the MDA Computer Emergency Response Center (CERT)

* Continue to test and certify all MDA systems in accordance with DoD Information Assurance policy and instructions

* Provide IA engineering and planning guidance for all MDA IT acquisition programs

* Continue implementation of classified Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)

* Upgrade network equipment to comply with DoD Instruction 8500.2 and DoD Global Information Grid architecture plan.

For more coverage of DOD's FY-13 IT budget, check out this story from today's Inside the Pentagon:

DOD Seeks $37B For IT Spending With Goal Of IT 'Anywhere, Anytime'

. . . as well as this related story:

In IT Reform Effort, DOD Touts Acquisition Instruction Revision, Programs

. . . and stay tuned for more coverage in tomorrow's Inside the Air Force.

By Sebastian Sprenger
March 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Many lawmakers have said they want to find a way to avoid defense cuts under the oft-cited "sequestration" mechanism of the Budget Control Act. Today, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) went a step further, saying he would work against all the cuts required under the legislation.

"I held my breath and voted for the BCA, with the hopes that we could fix the serious problems with the bill shortly after,” McKeon said in a speech at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. “That’s why one of my top priorities is getting that half a trillion dollars back."

Congress passed the BCA last summer as a precondition to raising the nation's debt limit. The law mandates roughly $500 billion in reductions to planned defense spending over 10 years. Because a congressional "Supercommittee" was unable to agree on deficit-reduction measures last fall, an additional BCA stipulation is now in effect, which says an additional $500 billion must be cut.

The Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal begins the process of scaling back defense spending. The FY-13 request includes the first tranche, a reduction of $45 billion over projections last year, to a total of $260 billion over the five-years spending plan.

By John Liang
March 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM

President Obama held meetings with British Prime Minister David Cameron this morning, with defense cooperation among the topics discussed. Here are some excerpts from a fact sheet released by both countries:

Today President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron reaffirmed their commitment to continue close cooperation on defense as the United States and United Kingdom build their Armed Forces for the future. The U.S. and UK share an unprecedented defense relationship that has helped secure our shared interests and values since the World Wars of the last century.  We have developed unparalleled military interoperability and interconnectedness, working together to meet the challenges of the Cold War, leading in NATO, and fighting side-by-side in defense of global interests. At every level of our defense establishments British and American service men and women train together, learn together, develop capability together and, when called upon, fight together.

Standing Together: British and American forces routinely operate side-by-side across a wide range of operations. A century of shared battlefield experience has led to a level of interoperability and familiarity that is unique in its breadth.  This is exemplified in Afghanistan today where the U.S. and UK are the two largest contributors to ISAF, and our Armed Forces are working together to degrade the insurgency and to train and mentor the Afghan Forces to provide security in Afghanistan.  For example, in Helmand province the U.S. Marines' Task Force Leatherneck and the UK-led Task Force Helmand are working together to deliver stability. . . .

Training, Learning, and Developing Together:  The ability of American and British forces to operate on the battlefield effectively is due in large part to the close-knit and constant training and exchange opportunities undertaken together.  As close Allies, the U.S. and UK host each other's forces in order to conduct training, be prepared to forward-deploy when necessary, and in many cases conduct current operations.  The U.S. currently has over 9,000 personnel permanently stationed in the UK, primarily on shared Royal Air Force (RAF) bases such as RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall, where U.S. units conduct fighter, transport, and aerial refueling operations.  The Joint Analysis Center (JAC) at RAF Molesworth is a prime example of cooperation, where U.S. and British analysts monitor the world’s trouble spots together.  All four U.S. services send exchange officers to work with the British services, and exchange both junior and senior military officers with British defense schools.

The UK currently stations over 800 British personnel in the U.S., conducting a wide variety of activities from conducting RPAS (Remotely Pilot Air Systems) operations in Afghanistan from Creech AFB, Nevada, to working side by side with American colleagues on major acquisition projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter and C-17 projects, to working with U.S. counterparts on cyber and space cooperation.  Approximately 200 British officers are on exchange with the American services to develop joint approaches to develop capability and increase interoperability. . . .

Collaborating for the Future: The President and the Prime Minister agreed that both defense departments will continue to push for increased interoperability across the spectrum of military operations after today’s operations come to an end.  The U.S. Defense Strategic Guidance and UK Strategic Defence and Security Review reached many common conclusions, including the need for increased cooperation in dealing with the threats we face. We are committed to working together, and with other close allies, wherever possible.

• Navy -- Secretary Panetta and Secretary Hammond recently signed a Statement of Intent directing the U.S. and Royal Navies to seek ways to better develop aircraft carrier doctrine and maritime power projection capabilities.

• Land -- We will also seek to develop similar initiatives to enhance the already close ground force relationship though increased training opportunities in Europe and unit exchanges in the U.S.

• Air -- The UK is a tier-one partner in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter - a unique program in which each country’s defense industries are sharing in the development of a common platform that will ensure the U.S., UK, and other partners own the cutting edge in air superiority for the next generation.

• Cyber -- The U.S. and UK, along with other capable nations, are working together to protect vital information infrastructure from cyber attack. We are committed to building our interoperability in this vital new space, building on a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2011.

• Space -- The UK and U.S. will work with other partner nations to explore the potential for collaboration and information sharing in this expanding realm of activity.

• Management of defense -- Both countries are committed to ensuring that our Armed Forces have what they need for the future, are given the support they and their families deserve, while maximizing the value of the resources spent on defense. There are many areas where we can work together to make this happen, ranging from our Service Personnel Task Force, to work on future energy requirements, science and technology, to nuclear sharing.

By John Liang
March 14, 2012 at 4:03 PM

A coalition of organizations is urging the Senate Armed Services Committee to make the unclassified portion of its annual defense authorization bill mark-up hearing open to the public again.

"The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) last year authorized more than $662 billion of taxpayer dollars for FY 2012, but was drafted and debated behind closed doors in the Senate Armed Services Committee," according to a Project On Government Oversight statement released this morning. The statement further reads:

The "Open NDAA" campaign urges Senators to shine a light on the defense budget by making the draft bill and amendments available in advance of the markup, as well as opening the mark-up -- or committee votes -- to the public.

Because the NDAA is one of the few bills passed annually, it attracts many proposals, some of which would be considered by other committees -- and some have been very controversial.

For the past few years, the SASC has voted to close the entire markup for the NDAA -- instead of closing only the portions of the session dealing with classified information. Last year, 17 senators voted to close the markup and 9 voted against closing the mark-up.

Consequently, POGO today sent thank-you letters to the committee members who in the past have called on re-opening the mark-up process to the public, and a separate letter to those panel members who voted for keeping the mark-up closed urging them to change their minds.

By John Liang
March 13, 2012 at 9:08 PM

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the fiscal year 2012 budget requests of U.S. Northern and Southern commands, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asked NORTHCOM chief Gen. Charles Jacoby today about the possibility that commercial ships would be regularly transiting the Arctic Ocean for two months out of the year by 2020. Jacoby responded:

Arctic is a unique domain and it's changing every day for us. We work closely with the Canadians on how they think about the Arctic and how they are planning for it. They really are working in three five-year blocks towards some of the same things we are considering.

Today, [U.S. Coast Guard Commandant] Adm. [Robert] Papp and I are going to sign a white paper that we've done -- a capabilities gap assessment, principally in the areas of communications, domain awareness, infrastructure and presence, and what we will recommend for the future that might lead to prudent investments to position us for that eventual opening of the Arctic.

Traffic's already increased over 61 percent in the Arctic since 2008. They'll be drilling starting in the Beaufort Sea prior to the close of the spring, so security interests follow closely behind economic interests, and we will be participating in a number of venues to help lead that for the Department of Defense.

Following a March 2 speech he gave in Louisville, KY, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was asked about climate change and its possible effect on national security. In his response, he touched on the melting polar ice cap:

In addition, obviously, we do look at the polar ice cap and are able through imagery to determine what's happening with polar ice cap and just how quickly is it melting and what that impact will be.  I can tell you.  As the polar ice cap melts, the national security implications are that countries like Russia and others are going to be looking for the opportunity to go into those areas and try to go after the resources in the Arctic.  They've already made claims to that effect.

Further, a Jan. 13 Government Accountability Office report on DOD policy toward the Arctic found:

While DOD has undertaken some efforts to assess the capabilities needed to meet national security objectives in the Arctic, it is unclear whether DOD will be in a position to provide needed capabilities in a timely and efficient manner because it lacks a risk-based investment strategy for addressing near-term needs and a collaborative forum with the Coast Guard for addressing long-term capability needs.

By John Liang
March 12, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Credit Suisse, which co-hosted an aerospace and defense conference last week with McAleese and Associates, came away from the event with the notion that while sequestration is "highly unlikely," it's still a "rising concern," according to a just-released research note.

"While we agree the expiring Bush Tax Cuts should drive a negotiated compromise during the lame-duck session, we see increased headline risk building into the summer," the note reads. Further:

Share Downside Outweighs Upside; Boiling Frog Still Possible:  We think defense stocks are discounting zero-to-little chance of Sequestration (which adds >$500B in incremental cuts over 9 years).   We expect ultimate negotiation to yield $100B-$300B in incremental cuts.  However, the closer the end result to the lower end, the greater the chance that further cuts become necessary in the out-years (the Boiling Frog scenario).

The note also lists the companies Credit Suisse analysts had varying degrees of bullishness if sequestration did in fact take place:

* Most Bullish: BA (OP-$85): Based on our discussions, Boeing is the only company specifically preparing for a sequestration.  While it needs new orders to keep the F-18 line open beyond 2014, we see it as best positioned in the near-term.  We note universally positive commentary on Tanker progress from all relevant DoD stakeholders.

* Slightly Bullish: LMT (N-$80): We heard resounding DoD support for F-35, but customer still frustrated by cost & schedule. Int’l demand solid, but buyers laser focused on holding price.  See building confidence in ES revs and IS&GS margins.

* Developing Risk: HII (N-$30): CVN-78 (Ford) is under pressure with overrun currently estimated at >$800M; Congress pushing to zero HII’s profit, although DoD it expected this to mitigate somewhat.

* Incremental: GD (OP-$85): Gulfstream sounds great, Marine sounds good, but Combat remains challenged.  Further, we see risk for GD’s guidance for back-ended 2012 year at IS&T with GD’s expectation for combined effect of likely FY13 CR and Sequester overhang.

Check out InsideDefense.com's coverage of the Credit Suisse conference:

Hale: Costly Submarines Will Force Cuts To Other Priorities

Venlet: Navy To Test F-35C Tailhook Mods This Summer At Pax River

PEO Aircraft Carriers Working To Cut Man Hours, Cost In Future Ships

Mabus: Navy To Move 2,000 Sailors From Desk Jobs To Piers

Venlet: JSF Deferment Will Lead To Pricing Adjustments

Hale: DOD Unmoved By Senator's Warning On More Cuts

Senior Defense Officials: DOD Plans Naval Buildup In Pacific

By John Liang
March 9, 2012 at 8:07 PM

House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-OH) this week introduced legislation that would "directly link reductions in U.S. nuclear forces with successful execution of the president's nuclear modernization plan," according to a statement from his office. Further:

It would require construction of key new plutonium and uranium facilities, prevent asymmetries between the sizes of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and codify the President's promise of full funding for modernization of the nuclear stockpile. Further, the bill would refuse funding for implementing the results of the President's ongoing nuclear employment strategy review to allow ample time for Congress to consider it. Reports in the media have stated that the President's review could recommend unilateral reductions of up to 80 percent of U.S. nuclear forces.

Click here to view the bill.