The Insider

To Kabul And Beyond
By Jason Sherman
February 21, 2012 at 9:03 PM

The Pentagon's No. 2 official is in Afghanistan for a few days, the Pentagon announced:

Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrived in Afghanistan this evening for a multiple day trip to meet with Afghan leadership and ISAF personnel.  While in Kabul, Secretary Carter will meet with senior Afghan officials and parliamentarians about the United States' enduring commitment to the people of Afghanistan.  Carter also will visit multiple regional commands to thank American and ISAF service members.

Carter in Afghanistan
By Christopher J. Castelli
February 21, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter arrived in Afghanistan today to meet with the Afghan leadership and International Security Assistance Force personnel, the Pentagon said in a statement.

"While in Kabul, Carter will meet with senior Afghan officials and parliamentarians about the United States' enduring commitment to the people of Afghanistan," the statement notes.

Carter also will visit multiple regional commands during the trip to thank American and ISAF service members.

What's In A Name?
By Sebastian Sprenger
February 21, 2012 at 7:16 PM

A name change is about to make its way through the Army bureaucracy, by way of a two-star general's memo to a four-star reporting on an approved recommendation by the service's chief of staff.

At issue is the term for the Army's Heavy Brigade Combat Team, which will henceforth be known as the Armored Brigade Combat Team. The change would "align the name to its operational mission and the inherent capabilities in that formation," Maj. Gen. Robert Brown, the chief of the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence, wrote to Gen. Robert Cone, who heads Training and Doctrine Command. In his Feb. 16 memo, Brown made reference to a Feb. 8 briefing about the "Army 2020" to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, at which Odierno agreed with the recommendation for the change.

The new name comes as Army leaders are rethinking the composition of the service's fighting units, so there is a good chance that some more substantial changes are also in the offing.

New PACOM Chief Confirmed
By John Liang
February 17, 2012 at 7:09 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved President Obama's nomination of Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear to become the next head of U.S. Pacific Command, the panel announced this morning. According to the official bio of the 1977 Naval Academy graduate:

His career as a surface warfare officer includes assignments aboard USS William V. Pratt (DDG 44), USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), USS Callaghan (DDG 994) and USS Truxtun (CG 35), culminating in command of the USS Leftwich (DD 984). Subsequent fleet command assignments include commander, Destroyer Squadron Two, commander, Nimitz Strike Group, and commander, U.S. 3rd Fleet.

Ashore, he served as executive assistant to the vice chief of naval operations, the 78th commandant of midshipmen, United States Naval Academy, director, Assessment Division (OPNAV N81), and director, Programming Division (OPNAV N80). Prior to Locklear’s current assignment, he served as director, Navy Staff from July 2, 2009 to Sept. 10, 2010.

He is a 1992 graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and holds a master’s degree in Public Administration from George Washington University.

As commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe he is responsible for providing overall command, operational control, and coordination of U.S. naval forces in the European area of responsibility. As commander, U.S. Naval Forces Africa he is responsible for providing overall command, operational control, and coordination of U.S. naval forces in the Africa Command area of responsibility. As commander, Allied Joint Force Command, Naples, Locklear currently has operational responsibility for NATO missions in the Balkans, Iraq, and the Mediterranean. He assumed his duties on Oct. 6, 2010.

The committee also approved the nomination of Mark Lippert to be assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs, along with 2,430 other military nominations.

Export Control Redux
By John Liang
February 17, 2012 at 4:20 PM

President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal includes a request for $3.5 million in additional funding for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to add more staff in its export administration division as part of the administration's export control reform initiative, Inside U.S. Trade reports this morning:

The funding request is for 24 additional staff to handle the increased workload of approximately 30,000 export license applications that will become the responsibility of BIS as a result of the reform initiative, according to a budget summary for the bureau.

The reform effort plans to transfer thousands of items from the U.S. Munitions List, which is under the jurisdiction of the State Department, to the Commerce Control List (CCL) administered by the BIS.

The transfer of items will increase the licensing workload of BIS by 150 percent even though the net burden the U.S. government export control system imposes on exporters will decrease, according to the budget summary.

The additional staff will be added to the export administration division's 188 full-time employees, according to the proposal. BIS estimates that each new licensing officer hired will process up to 1,200 export licenses per year and will also be involved in performing compliance training, outreach and tasks associated with resolving control issues under the new system, according to the budget report.

For other divisions within BIS, Management and Policy Coordination and Export Enforcement, the budget proposal would decrease funding by $0.3 million and $2 million, respectively. These reductions reflect savings that the administration says would occur as a result of reorganizing the information technology system and using a single licensing system.

Savings in these divisions will also come from the reduction of main frame requirements as BIS moves to the Department of Defense's USXPORT System, which is the licensing system all government agencies will use as a result of the reform effort.

New Reprogrammings
By John Liang
February 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM

InsideDefense.com reported yesterday that the Defense Department is seeking congressional permission to shift $571.4 million in fiscal year 2012 spending to fund a raft of programs deemed "urgent warfighter" needs, including two Army programs to defeat Taliban tactics in Afghanistan and more than a dozen projects to enhance airborne surveillance and intelligence capabilities. Further:

Robert Hale, the Pentagon comptroller, recently sent lawmakers four previously unreported reprogramming requests to fund programs -- including a handful of new starts -- that were neither authorized nor appropriated in the FY-12 budget. Each would meet an "urgent" operational need.

Hale asked to shift $285.2 million on Jan. 26; $124 million and $48.1 million Feb. 3; and $114.1 million on Feb. 7. Each item in each reprogramming request must be approved by the House and Senate defense authorization and appropriations panels.

We now have the reprogramming requests:

DOD 2/7/2012 Reprogramming Request For ISR Programs

DOD 2/3/2012 Reprogramming Request For Intel Support To Cyber

DOD 2/3/2012 Reprogramming Request For The AIAMD System

DOD 1/26/2012 Reprogramming Request For PGK Fuzes

CRS On China
By John Liang
February 15, 2012 at 8:25 PM

China's president-in-waiting, Xi Jinping, included a stop at the Pentagon yesterday as part of his visit this week. As Agence France-Presse reports:

Underlining the importance Washington attached to Xi's visit, the Pentagon staged a rare show for a visiting foreign dignitary, with a booming 19-gun salute, marching bands and honor guards from each branch of the armed forces.

Last week, the Congressional Research Service issued a report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News -- that summarizes issues for Congress regarding U.S.-China military contacts:

Issues for Congress include whether the Obama Administration has complied with legislation overseeing dealings with the [People's Liberation Army] and pursued contacts with the PLA that advance a prioritized set of U.S. security interests, especially the operational safety of U.S. military personnel. Oversight legislation includes the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 (P.L. 101-246) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65). Skeptics and proponents of military exchanges with the PRC have debated whether the contacts have achieved results in U.S. objectives and whether the contacts have contributed to the PLA's warfighting capabilities that might harm U.S. security interests. Some have argued about whether the value that U.S. officials place on the contacts overly extends leverage to the PLA. Some believe talks can serve U.S. interests that include conflict avoidance/crisis management; militarycivilian coordination; transparency and reciprocity; tension reduction over Taiwan; weapons nonproliferation; nuclear/missile/space/cyber talks; counterterrorism; and POW/MIA accounting. . . .

Policymakers could review the approach to mil-to-mil contacts, given concerns about crises. U.S. officials have faced challenges in cooperation from the PLA. The PLA has tried to use its suspensions of exchanges while blaming U.S. "obstacles" (including arms sales to Taiwan, legal restrictions on contacts, and the Pentagon's reports to Congress on the PLA). The PRC's harassment of U.S. surveillance ships (in 2009) and increasing assertiveness in maritime areas have shown the limits to mil-to-mil talks and PLA restraint. Still, at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in July 2009, President Obama called for military contacts to diminish disputes with China. The NDAA for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) amended P.L. 106-65 for the annual report on PRC military power to expand the focus to security developments involving the PRC, add cooperative elements, and fold in another report on mil-to-mil contacts. However, the Administration was late in submitting this report in 2010 and in 2011 (not until August). Enacted as P.L. 112-81 on December 31, 2011, the FY2012 NDAA required reporting on cyber threats but did not require a change to the original title, while adding a requirement for a report from the Defense Secretary before any waiver of a ban on defense procurement from PLA companies.

Arrow Milestone
By John Liang
February 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency and Israel's Missile Defense Organization recently conducted a target-tracking test of the Arrow Weapon System over the Mediterranean Sea, calling it a "major milestone" for the program.

According to a Feb. 10 MDA statement, "data collected from the flight test will be used to verify functionality of the Block 4 AWS." Further:

This test, designated Block 4 System Verification Flight Test (B4SVFT), was a target-only tracking exercise. During the test, the AWS Super Green Pine fire control radar tracked a Blue Sparrow target, representing potential ballistic missile threats facing Israel. The radar transferred information to the Citron Tree battle management controller, which prepared a simulated intercept solution. Elements of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) successfully performed interoperability with the AWS and collected data.

The success of the test is the final test before delivery of the Block 4 Arrow Weapon System. This was a major milestone in the development of the Arrow Weapon System and provides confidence in operational Israeli capabilities to defeat the developing ballistic missile threat.

Personnel from the Israel Missile Defense Organization and U.S. Missile Defense Agency conducted the flight test. The main contractor for the integration and development of the Arrow Weapon System is MLM of the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). ELTA Industries developed the "Super Green Pine" radar. Tadiran Electronic Systems, Ltd. developed the "Citron Tree" battle management controller.

According to MDA's just-released budget justification documents, the agency is asking Congress for nearly $99.9 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense efforts in fiscal year 2013, and $502.6 million over the five-year budget plan.

Intel Request
By Thomas Duffy
February 14, 2012 at 2:51 PM

As it has for the past several years, the office of the Director of National Intelligence yesterday released its budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. In 2013 the DNI is asking for $52.6 billion in aggregate appropriations. The DNI also added the following statement:

Any and all subsidiary information concerning the National Intelligence Program (NIP) budget, whether the information concerns particular intelligence agencies or particular intelligence programs, will not be disclosed. Beyond the disclosure of the NIP top-line figure, there will be no other disclosures of currently classified budget information because such disclosures could harm national security. The only exceptions to the foregoing are for existing unclassified appropriations, such as for the Intelligence Community Management Account.

Playing Defense
By Jason Sherman
February 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are on Capitol Hill this morning to defend the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In explaining the Pentagon's $525.4 billion proposal for FY-13, unveiled yesterday along with an $88.5 billion war spending request, the defense secretary is making a critical point to lawmakers: don't tinker too much with DOD's plan, a “carefully balanced package that keeps America safe,” he will testify, adding:

As you take a look at the individual parts of this plan, I encourage you to do what the Department has done: to bear in mind the strategic trade-offs inherent in any particular budget decision, and the need to balance competing strategic objectives in a resource-constrained environment.

Each decision needs to be judged on the basis of the overall strategy that it supports, recognizing that unwinding any one piece puts our whole package in jeopardy. The bottom line is that I believe there is little room for modification to preserve the force and capabilities we believe are needed to protect the country and fulfill assigned missions.

Panetta, a former congressman and veteran budget hand, is also using today's hearing, the first of at least four budget presentations to Congress, to explain that the planned $259 billion in cuts assumed over the next five years -- including $111 billion sliced from modernization accounts, more than 40 percent of the reductions -- are a direct consequence of last summer's deal between Congress and the White House to reduce deficits.

No senator's constituents will escape the adverse impact of the proposed cuts, Panetta warns in his prepared testimony:

I understand how tough these issues can be, and that this is the beginning and not the end of this process. Make no mistake: the savings we are proposing will impact all 50 states. But it was this Congress that mandated, on a bi-partisan basis, that we reduce the defense budget, and we need your partnership to do this in a manner that preserves the strongest military in the world. This will be a test of whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action.

Lastly, the defense secretary cautions that congressional failure to identify a long-term deficit reduction plan this year will trigger the “goofy meat-axe” provision of the Budget Control Act, bringing total cuts to the military budget over the next decade to roughly $1 trillion.

My hope is that now that we see the sacrifice involved in reducing the defense budget by almost half a trillion dollars, Congress will be convinced of its important responsibility to make sure that we avoid sequestration. That would be a doubling of the cuts, another roughly $500 billion in additional cuts that would be required to take place through a meat-axe approach, and that we are convinced would hollow out the force and inflict severe damage on our national defense.

Aiming High
By Gabe Starosta
February 13, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Two of the Air Force's biggest priorities will take up an increasing share of the service's research, development, test and evaluation budget in the coming years, Air Force officials said today. Between the service's next-generation bomber and the KC-46 refueling tanker, the Air Force plans to spend $11.7 billion in RDT&E funding over the future years defense plan.

In budget briefings given today by Air Force officials, and in justification documents released by the service tonight, the Air Force revealed that its FYDP, spanning fiscal year 2013 through FY-17, includes a request for $5.4 billion in RDT&E funding for the KC-46 tanker.

At this time last year, the service announced plans to put $3.2 billion toward KC-46 development between fiscal year 2012 and 2016. This year, the service is saying it now plans to invest $5.9 billion over five years.

RDT&E funding for the tanker will actually peak in FY-13, with a request of $1.8 billion, and progressively shrink from there as the program moves into procurement.

At a budget briefing today, Air Force Deputy for Budget Marilyn Thomas said the program's funding profile has been “rephased” because Boeing was awarded its KC-46 development contract later than anticipated, but she did not directly address the rising RDT&E price tag.

“There has not been a restructure of the tanker program,” Thomas said. “The contract award occurred later than we had originally expected, so the funding profile has been rephased some, but the program has not been restructured.”

Service officials also announced today that the new budget request projects $6.3 billion in funding or the next-generation bomber, referred to in the budget documents as “Long Range Strike,” over the FYDP. The service received $294 million from Congress in fiscal year 2012 for formal research on the program, and the Air Force plans to request $292 million in FY-13.

Looking forward, the bomber funding profile increases rapidly, going over $1 billion in FY-15 and up to $2.7 billion in FY-17.

High (Intercept) Hopes
By John Liang
February 13, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The Missile Defense Agency really wants to be able to shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile target before the end of this fiscal year. As the agency's fiscal year 2013 budget justification book released today states:

Our highest priority is to successfully return the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program to flight testing with a successful intercept in FY 2012. Additionally, we will procure additional ground-based interceptors (GBIs) for enhanced GMD testing for a total of 57. We will focus on GBI enhancements for reliability and aging testing.

The Pentagon's FY-13 defense-spending request includes $9.7 billion for BMD programs, "including $7.8 billion" for MDA, according to the budget book.

Sequestration Opposition
By John Liang
February 10, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Travis Sharp, a fellow with the Center for a New American Security, argues in a policy paper released this morning that allowing the defense budget to go into sequestration would be a really bad idea:

Sequestration is an irresponsible way to reduce defense spending for three reasons. First, the large amount of cuts imposed by sequestration will make it difficult for the U.S. military to pursue its longstanding and generally successful strategy of global engagement. Second, the sudden and inflexible process for implementing cuts under sequestration will unnecessarily damage U.S. defense capabilities. Third, sequestration already has failed to achieve its sole purpose, which was to encourage the "super committee" to compromise.

For these reasons, Congress should pass bipartisan legislation to repeal sequestration as soon as possible, and President Obama should sign it. Congress and President Obama should replace sequestration with a bipartisan process to negotiate a comprehensive deficit-reduction package. This type of process has failed before and probably will not make much progress during a presidential election year. Nevertheless, it is the most responsible framework for pursuing changes to federal budgetary priorities. In the meantime, the Budget Control Act's $487 billion level of defense cuts should stand. If Congress and the president decide to make further defense cuts beyond that level, they should implement those cuts gradually and flexibly, while remembering that they must accept more national security risk as the amount of cuts increases.

Army Materiel Moves
By Dan Dupont
February 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM

The Army Materiel Command has just released a statement touting the movement of several generals to, from and within AMC, including the reassignment of Maj. Gen. Lynn Collyar -- director of logistics operations at the Defense Logistics Agency -- to lead of the Aviation and Missile Command.

The full list:

Maj. Gen. Lynn A. Collyar has been selected as the Commanding General, United States Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala. His previous assignment was as Director, Logistics Operations, Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, Va.

Maj. Gen. Kurt J. Stein, currently the Commanding General, United States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mi. has been reassigned as the Commanding General, 1st Theater Sustainment Command, Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.

Maj. Gen. Michael J. Terry will become the Commanding General, United States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mi. He currently serves as Commanding General, 8th Theater Sustainment Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

Maj. Gen. Larry D. Wyche, currently the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and Operations, United States Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala. has been named the Commanding General, United States Army Combined Arms Support Command and the Sustainment Center of Excellence, Fort Lee, Va.

Brig. Gen. (Promotable) Gustave F. Perna, currently the Commanding General, Joint Munitions and Lethality Life Cycle Management Command/Joint Munitions Command, Rock Island, Ill. will become the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and Operations, United States Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

Brig. Gen. Kevin G. O'Connell, currently the Director for Logistics, Engineering and Security Assistance, J-4, United States Pacific Command, Camp H. M. Smith, Hawaii will become the Commanding General, Joint Munitions and Lethality, Life Cycle Management Command/Joint Munitions Command, Rock Island, Ill.

Brig. Gen. John F. Wharton, currently the Deputy Chief of Staff, United States Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., has been named the Commanding General, United States Army Sustainment Command, Rock Island, Ill.

Brig. Gen. Darrell K. Williams has been selected as Deputy Chief of Staff, United States Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala. Williams currently serves as Commander, Defense Logistics Agency, Land and Maritime, Columbus, Ohio.

Col. (Promotable) Duane A. Gamble has been selected as Deputy Commanding General, United States Army Sustainment Command, Rock Island, Ill. He currently serves as Director for Strategy and Integration, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, United States Army, Washington, DC.

Guam EIS
By John Liang
February 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The Navy intends to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to evaluate the consequences of building and operating a live-fire training range on the Pacific island of Guam, where the service plans to relocate troops now based on the Japanese island of Okinawa, according to a Federal Register notice issued this morning:

The proposed action that will be analyzed in the SEIS is to construct and operate a live-fire training range complex that allows for simultaneous use of all firing ranges to support training and operations on Guam for the relocated Marines. The DoN has preliminarily identified five alternatives for the range complex: two are adjacent to Route 15 in northeastern Guam, and three are located at or immediately adjacent to the Naval Magazine (NAVMAG), also known as the Naval Munitions Site. The SEIS will also consider the No Action Alternative.

The purpose and need for the proposed action is to ensure that the relocated Marines are organized, trained, and equipped as mandated in section 5063 of Title 10 of the United States Code, and to satisfy individual live-fire training requirements as described in the Guam and CNMI Military Relocation Final EIS and associated Record of Decision (ROD).

The live-fire training range complex will consist of a Known Distance (KD) rifle range, KD pistol range, Modified Record of Fire Range, nonstandard small arms range, Multipurpose Machine Gun range, and a hand grenade range. The proposed action also includes associated roadways and supporting infrastructure.

The DoN encourages government agencies, private-sector organizations, and the general public to participate in the NEPA process for the training range complex. Because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will have to approve airspace associated with the training range complex at any of the five preliminary alternatives being considered, the DoN will invite the FAA to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS.

Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear, nominee to become the next head of U.S. Pacific Command, was asked about Guam in questions posed in advance of his nomination hearing today:

How does the planned relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam improve U.S. security in the region?

Our commitment to the security of Japan is unshakeable. I understand the planned changes in the Asia-Pacific region will result in force posture that is geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable. Guam’s strategic location supports our ability to operate forces from a forward location.

Planned posture shifts result in greater geographic distribution of our forces in the region, enhancing our ability to respond to contingencies and meet treaty obligations in Asia. It demonstrates our commitment to allies and to fulfilling our agreements with allies and partners. . . .

Is the cost-sharing arrangement between the United States and Japan to pay for the relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam and to cover the costs associated with the continued presence of U.S. forces in Japan equitable and appropriate? Why or why not?

I believe the cost-sharing arrangements with the Government of Japan (GOJ) to be among the best we have. Under the terms of the 2006 Realignment Roadmap and the 2009 Guam International Agreement, Japan committed to providing up to $6.09B (in FY08 dollars) for the relocation of Marines to Guam. For the GOJ this was an unprecedented step, funding the construction of facilities for the use of U.S. forces on U.S. sovereign territory. To date, the GOJ has provided $834M towards fulfillment of that commitment. For relocations within Japan, the GOJ is paying the lion’s share of the costs to develop new facilities. In April 2011, we entered into a new, five-year host nation support agreement with Japan that maintained the overall level of support we receive from Japan for labor and utilities, while for the first time putting a floor on the amount the GOJ provides for facilities construction.