The Insider

Sequestration Elucidation
By John Liang
October 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM

The House Armed Services Committee this morning convened a hearing to discuss the "economic consequences of defense sequestration."

InsideDefense.com reported earlier this month that if Congress fails to agree on a long-term deficit reduction plan, the massive cuts that would follow would be "devastating" to the defense industrial base and prompt a "fundamental rethinking of our industrial strategy," according to a senior Pentagon official. Further, the Oct. 14 story reads:

Brett Lambert, deputy assistant secretary of defense for manufacturing and industrial base policy, said last week that if the $1 trillion in mandatory military spending cuts are imposed, the Defense Department would consider overturning a keystone of the Pentagon's current industrial-base policy -- allowing market forces to drive the shape of the industrial base.

"Everyone uses 'devastating' because it is the right word," Lambert said in an interview about the impact on the defense industrial base from cuts mandated under the Budget Control Act's "sequestration" provision, which kicks in if Congress this fall does not hammer out a plan to reduce the overall federal deficit by $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

The Pentagon's industrial policy shop is wrapping up a new industrial base assessment, directed earlier this year by the deputy defense secretary, that is designed to provide DOD leaders a higher-fidelity representation of the health of private-sector firms, both domestic and foreign, that manufacture the U.S. military arsenal.

Pentagon leaders are using the findings of that not-yet-complete assessment to shape decisions on how to cut more than $450 billion from the military budget over the next decade, as required by the August debt-ceiling agreement between the White House and Congress.

"Under the current plan, I think we're on the ragged edge or maintaining a robust and healthy industrial base at the sub-tier level," Lambert told InsideDefense.com on Oct. 4. "If you go much lower, then you're talking about fundamentally changing the strategy of our industrial policy where you're not likely to allow market forces to be as robust as they have been to the benefit of the taxpayer and the warfighter."

The new assessment -- dubbed the "Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier Assessment of the Defense Industrial Base" -- is revealing "some fragility" among lower-tier companies that provide components critical to major weapon systems (DefenseAlert, Oct. 5).

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) had this to say about sequestration in his opening statement at this morning's hearing:

As a fiscal conservative, I tend to oppose increasing government spending for the purpose of job creation. But I think we must understand that the defense industry is unique in that it relies entirely on federal government dollars. We don't spend money on defense to create jobs.  But defense cuts are certainly a path to job loss, especially among our high skilled workforces.  There is no private sector alternative to compensate for the government's investment.

Secretary of Defense Panetta has said that cuts on the scale of sequestration will result in a 1% hike to unemployment and 1.5 million jobs lost. The Aerospace Industries Association released a report yesterday, based on the analysis of Dr. Fuller, one of our witnesses today, that estimated just over one million industry jobs would be lost – based on cuts to procurement and R&D alone.  When one factors in the separation of active duty service members and DOD civilians, the number is quite close to DOD's. The impact is not proportional across all 50 states. Dr. Fuller's testimony suggests that nearly 60% of the jobs lost would come from just 10 states. One-third of the lost jobs would fall in three states – California, Texas, and Virginia. How does this translate to the larger economy?  In 2013 alone, growth in GDP would fall by 25%.

But the economy could be affected further, as the U.S. military might no longer be seen as the modern era’s pillar of American strength and values. There is risk that some within the international community would try to take advantage of the fragile American economy and the perceived limitations on our military's ability to promote global stability.

In these difficult economic times, we recognize the struggle to bring fiscal discipline to our nation.  But it is imperative that we focus our fiscal restraint on the driver of the debt, instead of the protector of our prosperity.

Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA), however, feels that raising taxes needs to be part of the governmental debt-reduction equation. According to his opening statement:

If we can avoid sequestration, I believe that we can rationally evaluate our national security strategy, our defense expenditures, and the current set of missions we ask the military to undertake and come up with a strategy that requires less funding; indeed the Department of Defense is currently focused on just such an evaluation. Sequestration would make that rational evaluation impossible, which is why it must be avoided. But it is also important that we address the revenue side of our budget problem. Recently, some of my colleagues on this committee issued dire warnings about the potential impacts of additional defense budget cuts. I share their concerns, and that is why we must consider raising additional revenue. In order to avoid drastic job losses caused by cuts to our military and other important programs, revenue must be on the table.

It is my hope that this hearing will help remind everyone here that we have to make some serious choices.  Our budget problems must be looked at in a comprehensive manner.  If we are serious about not cutting large amounts of funding from the defense budget, something else has to give.  Large, immediate, across the board cuts to the defense budget, which would occur under sequestration, could do serious damage to our national security.  They would also likely result in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Americans losing their jobs.  Sequestration would have a similar impact on American workers in cutting other non-entitlement spending.  In order to avoid these large cuts and the resulting job losses, we’re going to have to stop repeating ideological talking points and address our budget problems comprehensively, through smarter spending and enhanced revenue.

Back in the Air
By Gabe Starosta
October 25, 2011 at 9:09 PM

F-22 flight operations have resumed at Langley Air Force Base, VA, several days after a pilot suffered hypoxia-like symptoms while in flight, according to a statement issued today by Air Combat Command.

The F-22 fleet was formally grounded earlier this year because of concerns over the aircraft's oxygen-generation system, but that grounding was lifted before a complete fix could be discovered. The service opted to lift the standdown “while implementing improvements to the aircraft's life-support systems and carefully collecting and analyzing operational, maintenance and physiological data for all Raptor flights-more than 1,300 missions since the return to flight,” the ACC statement reads.

After a pilot experienced hypoxia-like systems at Langley AFB earlier this week, the F-22 fleet based there was temporarily grounded based on a decision from on-site officials, ACC confirmed. Those aircraft resumed operations this morning.

“Local commanders are authorized to pause operations whenever they need to analyze information collected from flight operations to ensure safety,” according to the statement. “That is what happened at Langley Air Force Base.”

Raptor aircraft were also temporarily grounded at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska in response to the incident at Langley, a decision made by Pacific Air Forces headquarters as a precautionary measure, according to to Elmendorf-Richardson spokeswoman Corinna Jones. Jones confirmed to InsideDefense.com today that the standdown in Alaska lasted from Thursday through Monday, and that pilots in Alaska experienced no problems with the F-22's oxygen system. Raptors based at Elmendorf-Richardson “are in the air right now,” she said.

CH-47 Report Removed
By Jen Judson
October 25, 2011 at 5:18 PM

A final report on the Aug. 6 crash of a CH-47 helicopter in Afghanistan, which killed all 38 personnel aboard, has been pulled from U.S. Central Command's website due to inconsistencies in the redaction process, a CENTCOM spokesman said today.

CENTCOM released a five-page executive summary of the report on Oct. 12, which is still available online. The full report was released on Oct. 13, according to a post on the CENTCOM website. A link is provided at the bottom of the post for the full report, which routes to the CENTCOM information portal. However, instead of the report, a message appears that states there are no items to show.

CENTCOM spokesman Maj. T.G. Taylor cited inconsistencies found in the redaction of sensitive material from the report. He could not say when it would be re-posted.

In fact, the report has now been posted and pulled twice, for the same reason, Taylor added.

InsideDefense.com covered the crash review results earlier this month:

Report: CH-47 Was Shot Down By Rocket-Propelled Grenade In Afghanistan

A rocket-propelled grenade shot down a Chinook helicopter flying a mission in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, on Aug. 6, according to a report issued by U.S. Central Command on Oct. 12.

"The shoot-down was not the result of a baited ambush," the report states, "but rather the result of the enemy being at a heightened state of alert due to 3 1/2 hours of ongoing coalition air operations concentrated over the northwestern portion of the Tangi Valley."

The investigation determined that when the helicopter neared a landing zone in an attempt to collect an Army Ranger platoon, two RPGs were fired at the aircraft in succession by suspected Taliban fighters in a two-story mud-brick building about 220 meters south of the helicopter.

Services Contracts
By John Liang
October 25, 2011 at 5:09 PM

U.S. Special Operations Command and the Pentagon's procurement and acquisition policy office will publicly release "the first inventory of activities performed pursuant to contracts for services" within the next 30 days, according to a Federal Register notice published this morning.

The inventory will be published to SOCOM's public portal website, the notice states.

Battle Stations
By Thomas Duffy
October 24, 2011 at 6:39 PM

The Aerospace Industries Association will fire another salvo tomorrow in the war against military budget cuts. AIA will hold an afternoon briefing at the National Press Club to unveil a new study that "predicts dramatic job losses and a devastating economic impact that far outstrips any value from the cuts to defense contemplated under the Budget Control Act," according to a press release AIA issued today.

The act, passed this summer, set up a congressional "supercommittee" and tasked it with finding $1.5 billion in federal budget cuts beyond what was called for in the legislation. If the 12-member supercommittee can not reach a consensus, a sequestration lever is pulled and the Defense Department could be subject to up to $600 billion in additional cuts.

Appearing along with AIA President and CEO Marion Blakey will be R. Thomas Buffenbarger, the international president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; and Stephen Fuller, a professor at George Mason University who conducted the analysis.

Last month, AIA launched the "Second to None" campaign touting the economic benefits of the defense and aerospace industry.

Two years ago, two researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst released a similar study to the one AIA will release tomorrow. But that study showed the opposite of what AIA will trumpet: It concluded that $1 billion spent on clean energy, health care and education -- as well as tax cuts that produce increased levels of personal consumption -- "will create substantially more jobs within the U.S. economy than would the same $1 billion spent on the military."

FMS Help Wanted
By John Liang
October 21, 2011 at 6:25 PM

The Pentagon is seeking comments from the public on how the Defense Department can "improve the way it procures defense items and defense services in support of foreign military sales (FMS) programs," according to a Federal Register notice published yesterday:

The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program is authorized under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The FMS program is an important instrument of U.S foreign policy. It allows the United States to provide defense articles and defense services to friendly countries and international organizations in order to deter and defend against aggression, facilitate a common defense, address security issues of mutual strategic concern, and to strengthen the security of the United States. The sales agreement between the United States and a foreign country or international organization is executed via a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA). Security Assistance Management Manual, DoD 5105.38-M, found at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/samm/, provides guidance for the administration and implementation of Security Assistance and related activities. The articles and services acquired via FMS sales are procured through the Department of Defense Acquisition System. In the LOA, the Department of Defense (DOD) promises that when procuring for the purchaser, DOD will, in general, employ the same contract clauses, the same contract administration, and the same quality and audit inspection procedures as would be used in DOD procurements. Pricing for FMS contracts typically use the same principles used in pricing of other defense contracts. However, the application of the pricing principles in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 15 and 31 to an FMS contract may result in prices that differ from other defense contract prices for the same item. Direct costs associated with meeting a foreign customer's additional or unique requirements are allowable under such contracts. Indirect burden rates applicable to such direct costs are permitted at the same rates applicable to acquisitions of like items purchased by DOD for its own use. If the foreign government has conducted a competition resulting in adequate price competition as identified in FAR part 15, the contracting officer shall not require the submission of cost or pricing data. The contracting officer should consult with the foreign government through security assistance personnel to determine if adequate price competition has occurred. In accordance with the Presidential policy statement of April 16, 1990, DOD does not encourage, enter into, or commit U.S. firms to FMS offset arrangements.

The decision whether to engage in offsets, and the responsibility for negotiating and implementing offset arrangements, resides with the companies involved. Relating to offset costs, a U.S. defense contractor may recover all costs incurred for offset agreements with a foreign government or international organization if the LOA is financed wholly with customer cash or repayable Foreign Military Financing (FMF) credits. The U.S. Government assumes no obligation to satisfy or administer the offset requirement or to bear any of the associated costs. Typically, costs not authorized under FAR part 31 are not allowable in pricing FMS contracts. On November 22, 2002, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) was amended to increase FMS customer participation and acquisition transparency in DoD contracts awarded on behalf of FMS customers. DFARS subpart 225.73 provides authorization for FMS customers to participate in specifications development, delivery schedule planning, identification of warranties and other contractual requirements unique to the customer, as well as the review of pricing needed to make price-performance tradeoffs. This DFARS change encourages customer participation in both the acquisition process and industry discussions. Customers also are allowed to participate in the contract negotiation process within the limitations of DFARS subpart 225.73, to the degree authorized by the contracting officer (CO). This section specifically protects against unauthorized release of proprietary data and improper influence on the contracting process.

The request stems from a requirement in a congressionally mandated DOD report on security cooperation reform published in July that found:

Although DOD's ability to support routine partner country requirements reliably in a steady-state environment has typically been strong, DOD has been far less able to support unplanned, urgent requirements for partner countries reliably. Under those circumstances, standard security cooperation processes have proven to be too reactive, too fragmented, and too slow to deliver needed equipment and related capabilities urgently and reliably in response to crises, opportunities, and operational contingencies. To address this pressing shortfall, DOD's security cooperation processes must be better able to anticipate partner countries' needs for defense articles and related services (including individual and collective training requirements), and become more flexible and rapid in responding to them.

Heading East
By Christopher J. Castelli
October 20, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will visit Indonesia, Japan and South Korea next week in his first trip to Asia as the Pentagon's chief.

The stop in Indonesia will involve bilateral talks on issues like maritime security as well as discussions with defense ministers from the region, who will be assembled for a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a senior defense official said today.

There is a "rich agenda" of issues that Panetta will discuss with Japanese officials, including regional security; arms sales; export control; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; ballistic missile defense and the realignment roadmap, another senior defense official said. The third leg of the trip will reinforce U.S. security commitments to South Korea, officials said.

DARPA Tech
By John Liang
October 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is getting credit for developing the voice-recognition technology used on Apple's new iPhone 4S. According to a recent White House Office of Science and Technology Policy blog post:

Apple earlier this month announced that a virtual personal assistant called Siri would be the premier feature of the new iPhone 4S. People will be able to ask Siri to book a table at a nearby restaurant, make an appointment with a friend or colleague or answer a question using the information from multiple search engines and web sites.

Siri is a significant advance in our ability to develop computers that understand and do what we mean. Many experts believe that this technology – which integrates advances in wireless communications, speech recognition, artificial intelligence and smartphones, will transform the way we interact with information technology.

What you may not know is that this technology is a direct outgrowth of a federally funded research project called the “Personalized Assistant that Learns.” This project was backed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the same agency that supported the early research that led to the Internet, GPS and stealth aircraft. DARPA wanted to build “cognitive” computers for the military that can reason, learn from experience, be told what to do, explain what they are doing, and reflect on their experience.

Although a start-up company, venture capitalists and Apple itself had to make significant investments to commercialize Siri, federally funded research played a key role in developing the basic technology. Federal basic research has also contributed to the other components of your smartphone, including the lithium-ion batteries, the hard drive, the memory chips, and the liquid crystal display.

Another emerging DARPA technology, the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) demonstration effort, will undergo a "major program review" next week by an independent assessment team, Inside the Pentagon reports this morning:

DARPA will use an independent government assessment team, structured with Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, to conduct the program review, according to Lockheed's director of advance programs for missiles and fire control, Glenn Kuller.

The agency previously awarded Lockheed two cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts for the development and demonstration of two variants of the LRASM missile, or phase II of the project: $60.3 million for LRASM-A and $157.7 for LRASM-B. LRASM-A is a stealthy air-launched variation of the missile, while LRASM-B is a high-speed ship-launched missile.

The tests next week will involve both LRASM-A and LRASM-B, as well as some of the ram jet components under a Lockheed Martin subcontract with Pratt & Whitney, Kuller said.

"It's a good soup-to-nuts-, nose-to-tail review of the entire program," Kuller said.

More SM-3 Block 1As Wanted
By John Liang
October 19, 2011 at 6:55 PM

The Missile Defense Agency needs more Standard Missile-3 Block 1A interceptors.

According to a Federal Business Opportunities notice posted yesterday, Raytheon's missile systems business unit has been awarded a $286 million contract to build 23 additional SM-3 Block 1A missiles. The performance period will last until April 30, 2014, the notice adds.

So far, 81 SM-3 Block 1A interceptors have been delivered, MDA spokesman Rick Lehner told Inside Missile Defense in an email.

The extra 23 missiles are needed because "combatant commands' requirements for SM-3 Block 1A interceptors exceed available assets," according to Lehner.

Yesterday's award increases the system's total contract value from $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion, according to the FedBizOpps notice.

Last month, a more-advanced SM-3 Block IB interceptor failed to hit its target in a test off the coast of Hawaii. An agency spokesman told IMD in September that no decisions had yet been made regarding any changes to the test schedule as a result of the failed Sept. 1 intercept attempt.

However, Senate appropriators expect a delay to the SM-3 Block IB acquisition schedule, and aim to tweak the funding line for the system that missed its intended target.

According to the report accompanying the Senate Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2012 defense-spending bill, "The committee notes that SM-3 missiles are in high demand by combatant commanders around the world, and is concerned that a delay to the SM-3 Block IB's test and acquisition schedule will negatively impact mission capability, shut down the vendor base, and drive up costs of the SM-3 production line." Further, IMD reported:

Consequently, "[n]oting the relative success of the SM-3 Block IB's predecessor, the SM-3 Block IA missile, and its high commonality with the SM-3 Block IB," the panel directs MDA to apply the $565.4 million in the FY-12 budget "requested for the procurement of 46 SM-3 Block IB interceptors to SM-3 Block IA missiles should the test and acquisition schedule for Block IB missiles require any adjustments during fiscal year 2012," the report states. "The committee expects to be fully informed about progress of the SM-3 Block IB missile's test and development schedule and of any changes to its acquisition strategy."

Paving The Way
By John Liang
October 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Note to style purists: It looks like the term "paveway" with a lowercase "p" is now a generic one for a type of laser-guided bomb.

In a statement issued this morning, Lockheed Martin announced it had won a legal fight against Raytheon, which had filed a trademark claim with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Lockheed submitted an opposition filing in 2005 "in response to Raytheon's request to register the term 'paveway' after Lockheed Martin became a fully qualified supplier of the paveway LGB to the U.S. Air Force, Navy and international customers," according to Lockheed's statement. Further:

"This decision supports Lockheed Martin's goal of delivering competitive, best value solutions to the global market," said Joe Serra, precision guided systems senior manager in Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Fire Control business. "It fully recognizes Lockheed Martin as one of two U.S. Government-qualified sources for paveway II precision guided systems."

The TTAB found that the term has been used in a generic manner by the armament manufacturers, industry press, armament wholesalers and Government purchasers.  The term "paveway" also has been accepted as a generic term in tribunals in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Thailand, and additional cases are pending.

Lockheed Martin began production of paveway II products in 1992 with its laser guided training rounds (LGTR) and followed with paveway II LGB kits and paveway II Dual Mode Laser Guided Bomb (DMLGB) kits for domestic and international customers.  The paveway LGB kits are fully qualified for all three variants of the paveway II MK-80 series of GBU-10, -12 and -16 guidance kits (2,000, 500 and 1,000 lbs, respectively) and have been used successfully in Operation Iraqi Freedom and current overseas contingency operations.

In September 2011, Lockheed Martin received a $100.5 million contract from the U.S. Air Force for production and delivery of the increased precision paveway II Plus LGB GBU-12 guidance kits.  The award represents the majority share of an initial $134 million paveway II Plus LGB procurement, part of an overall $475 million five-year, firm-fixed-price, multiple-award contract announced by the U.S. Air Force on August 1.

As Inside the Air Force reported on that contract in September:

The award accounts for the majority of the initial $134 million Paveway II Plus LGB GBU-12 guidance kits procurement, which is part of a $475 million, five-year, multiple-award contract issued on Aug. 1, according to a Lockheed Martin statement released on Sept. 6. The latest contract provides both hardware and software updates under the indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, according to Tim O'Donnell, a precision guided systems engineer for Lockheed. Company executives expect to begin delivering the guidance kits in 2012.

The new guidance kits will provide greater accuracy over the legacy Paveway II system, O'Donnell said.

"It is available and ready for use," he said during a Sept. 8 telephone interview with Inside the Air Force. "It is fully compatible with every aircraft and every system that has used the Paveway II legacy system."

The Paveway II plus kits already went through full qualification testing in preparation for the initial $34 million procurement contract Lockheed Martin received last year, O'Donnell said. The company is producing the kits for the Air Force and Navy as part of the contract.

The Air Force completed a force development evaluation program for both the GBU-10 and GBU-12 guidance kits at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, in October 2010. The kits were qualified on both the F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Beijing Bound
By Christopher J. Castelli
October 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM

On Oct. 21, National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon will travel to Beijing, China for meetings with Chinese leaders and policymakers, including Vice Premier Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo, the White House announced today, noting Donilon will discuss "a wide range of bilateral, regional and global issues of mutual concern."

Donilon will then head to India for meetings with Indian leaders including National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon. Donilon and Indian leaders will "review recent developments in the U.S.-India strategic partnership, and discuss ways to advance key elements of the relationship, including both countries' participation in the upcoming East Asia Summit," the White House said in a statement.

Donilon's visit "underscores this administration's commitment to growing U.S. leadership in Asia, and our work with emerging powers, such as China and India, as a core component of this commitment," according to the statement. Later this month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is slated to make his first visit to Asia since taking charge of the Pentagon in July.

Cyber Edge
By Christopher J. Castelli
October 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM

The United States "still has an edge" in cyberspace over other countries such as Russia and China, according to U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Robert Kehler. The general did not mention specific countries by name in his comments today, which came in response to a question from a reporter at a breakfast in Washington.

“I would just say this: There are a number of very sophisticated actors who operate in cyberspace. I believe that the United States still has an edge,” he said. Kehler said he cannot describe “how great that edge is,” except that in “some places” it is “quite an edge.” The United States has some “very, very good capabilities – both defensive capabilities and our ability to protect ourselves,” he said. Looking ahead, the question facing U.S. officials is how to invest, train and draw on expertise to retain the edge, Kehler said, noting U.S. Cyber Command needs more highly specialized personnel.

As defense officials continue working on the legal framework and doctrine for operating in cyberspace, they are considering whether “active defense” amounts to offense in cyberspace, Kehler said, adding he believes the answer to that question is no. He said such defense is analogous to actions a Navy captain might take to protect a ship at sea.

Switchblade in the News
By Jen Judson
October 18, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Agence France Presse is making waves with a story today about the Army's $4.9 million purchase of Switchblade agile munitions:

A miniature "kamikaze" drone designed to quietly hover in the sky before dive-bombing and slamming into a human target will soon be part of the US Army's arsenal, officials say.

Dubbed the "Switchblade," the robotic aircraft represents the latest attempt by the United States to refine how it takes out suspected militants.

Inside the Army reported this purchase in a story on Sept. 2:

The Army continues to procure small, unmanned systems. The service signed a $4.9 million contract for the Switchblade agile munition, according to a Sept. 1 AeroVironment statement. The award is for rapid fielding to deployed combat forces.

The Switchblade is launched from a small, man-portable tube. After the aircraft is fired out of the tube, its wings pop open, its propeller starts spinning and it can transmit live video feed. The system can feature a "loitering aerial munition" with a high-explosive charge, "so that in the event somebody finds somebody, a sniper shooting at them, they could actually use the Switchblade to neutralize that sniper without having to wait for an F-16 to drop a 500-pound bomb on the building or a Predator or a Hellfire missile or what have you," Gitlin said.

Inside the Army had more on Switchblade before that announcement:

As part of the company's strategy to "look at white space in the market," Gitlin said AeroVironment is working on other programs that could fulfill service needs. One system it calls Switchblade is a man-portable unmanned aircraft system launched out of a tube similar to a mortar system's, but "much smaller," Gitlin said. After the aircraft is fired out of the tube, its wings pop open and its propeller starts spinning. It is battery-powered and uses the same ground control station as Puma, Raven and Wasp, he said.

In addition to a video transmittal and sensor capabilities, one version of the Switchblade will be a "loitering aerial munition" carrying a high-explosive charge, "so that in the event somebody finds somebody, a sniper shooting at them, they could actually use the Switchblade to neutralize that sniper without having to wait for an F-16 to drop a 500-pound bomb on the building or a Predator or a Hellfire missile or what have you," Gitlin said. "The utility is small, easy to use and helps to close that kill-chain very quickly without the delays normally associated."

MEADS Communications
By John Liang
October 17, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Lockheed Martin recently completed early delivery of intra-fire unit communications kits designed for use with the Medium Extended Air Defense System, according to a company statement issued this afternoon:

This tactical hardware for the MEADS Internal Communications Subsystem (MICS) will support integration, test and qualification of MEADS elements.

MICS provides secure communications between the MEADS sensors, launchers and battle managers across a high-speed internet protocol network. Through a capability called "plug-and-fight," sensors, shooters or other battle managers act as nodes on the network. From the MEADS battle manager, a commander can add or subtract nodes as the situation dictates without shutting down the system. With MICS, these MEADS elements can be positioned for maximum lethality and survivability while maintaining clear, rapid and efficient communication.

"Our technology helps the warfighter maintain situational awareness and combat superiority," said Rich Russell, director of sensors, data links and advanced programs in Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Fire Control business. "With MICS, ground units can exchange command, control and status data over a secure network."

MICS provides plug-and-fight technology for streamlined data exchange. MICS software minimizes the need for an individual to manage the network because it dynamically reconfigures as weapon system end items enter and exit. It also autonomously routes network traffic past anything that might slow it down or stop it.

Inside the Army reports this week that the service is still internally debating the logic to transfer to the Missile Defense Agency some aspects of the Army's missile defense programs, including aspects of the Patriot system.

Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, Army programs deputy chief of staff, said at an industry symposium this month that there are a number of reasons to transfer the programs, ITA reports:

"There is one program in the entire Department of Defense that does ballistic missile defense that was not part of the MDA and that is our Patriot system," Lennox said. Over the last 10 years, he said, the Army has not been able to invest in the Patriot system at the level it should have. Instead, he added, the Army has been investing in the Medium Extended Air Defense System.

MEADS is a trinational program with Italy and Germany, which the Army says it won't fund beyond a two-year research and development phase. The Army would then harvest the technology garnered from that phase.

By transferring aspects of the Patriot program, Lennox said, it could leverage the work the MDA is doing, the agency's buying power and its research and development arm. "That is the primary reason we see a benefit," he said.

Lennox said splitting funds between the Army and the MDA is a major undertaking. "Once that is resolved," he said, "we will go to the Department of Defense and ask their approval and then we know we have to go to Congress for their approval."

The MOA outlines the transfer of Army ballistic missile defense program responsibilities to MDA and lays out an implementation plan for the Army's program executive office for missiles and space to also serve as the program executive for Army BMD systems within MDA.

Missile Concerns
By Christopher J. Castelli
October 17, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said today he is "very concerned" about reports that surface-to-air missiles from Libya are being smuggled into Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. The department is looking into the matter, he told reporters during an honor cordon to with Italian defense minister Ignazio La Russa. The Washington Post reported Oct. 12 on the smuggling.

La Russa said Italy is also facing defense budget cuts; he said the efficiency of the Italian military must not be reduced, noting the size could be cut but no particular reductions in size are on the table.