The Insider

Budget Bust-Up
By John Liang
September 23, 2011 at 8:09 PM

With the government yet again teetering on the brink of a shutdown if lawmakers in the House and Senate cannot compromise on a continuing resolution by the end of the month, House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) today issued the following statement:

Our country faces a long-term, systemic budget dilemma -- we don't collect enough revenue to cover our expenditures.  Currently, we must borrow about 40 cents for every dollar the federal government spends. Going forward, we must fix this problem from both ends -- spending will have to come down, and we're going to have to generate new revenues.

As Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that further large and indiscriminate cuts to the defense budget could have a substantially negative impact on our military. I am also deeply concerned about cuts to all non-entitlement spending, which bore the brunt of the recent deficit deal. Furthermore, if the super committee fails to reach a deal, then cuts through sequestration will only impose deeper and more dangerous cuts to our military and non-entitlement spending such as infrastructure, education and homeland security.

Recently, Republican members of the Armed Services committee have been issuing dire warnings about the potential impacts of additional defense budget cuts. I share their concerns, but at the same time my Republican colleagues refuse to consider raising any additional revenue. In order to avoid drastic cuts to our military and other important programs, revenue must be on the table.

We also cannot just issue dire warnings about the national security impacts of defense cuts. We must develop a comprehensive national security strategy that takes into account current and future funding and rationally appropriates our resources to best meet our challenges.

I applaud the President and his Administration for undertaking a zero-based review of our defense strategy. A strategic review at this moment is a rational and responsible decision.  Our defense strategy should not be driven by arbitrary budget numbers, but by the same token, it would be irresponsible to develop a strategy without considering the available resources.

We can rationally evaluate our national security strategy, our defense expenditures, and the current set of missions that we ask the military to undertake, and we can come up with a strategy that requires less funding. Spending more does not necessarily improve our national security, spending more wisely does.

Again, I share the concern with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that large, immediate, across the board cuts to the defense budget may well do damage to our national security. But it is important to understand the reality that we can’t just wish our problems away. I hope my Republican colleagues will recognize that in order to avoid arbitrary cuts to defense and other important programs we must put revenue on the table and we must undergo a comprehensives strategic review to understand how best to spend the defense dollars we have.

For more news on the DOD budget process, check out Defense Budget Alert.

Global Hawk Move
By John Liang
September 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM

A Block 10 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft that completed its final mission for the service in late May was the last Block 10 to fly as an Air Force aircraft. It also has the most flight hours of all Global Hawks -- more than 7,000 of which were flown providing surveillance for combat troops, according to a statement released this morning by Northrop Grumman, the aircraft's manufacturer. Further:

"For many years Block 10 Global Hawks have persistently performed countless missions in support of the warfighter and in support of disaster relief efforts," said George Guerra, HALE Systems vice president, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. "While the aircraft have concluded their missions and support for the Air Force, they will now support missions for the U.S. Navy."

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) is transferring its seven Block 10 aircraft for use by other government agencies. Currently, three were transferred to the U.S. Navy to continue to support the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Demonstration (BAMS-D) program and two were transferred for museum static displays.

In August, the Navy awarded Northrop Grumman a $35.5 million annual contract for continued operations and maintenance for the BAMS-D aircraft.

All seven Air Force Block 10 Global Hawks are fully operational. The Block 10 made its first flight on Sept. 9, 2003. Since then, Air Force Block 10 aircraft flew 2,141 missions for 35,528 hours, 89 percent of which were in support of combat operations. In addition to combat missions, the aircraft supported disaster response teams addressing forest fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and floods and also provided support to the U.S. counter-drug mission.

After DARPA's initial seven ACTD aircraft, the Air Force contracted with Northrop Grumman to build nine Block 10s as a transitional capability until the larger Block 20 configuration could begin production. Two of the Block 10 aircraft were acquired for the Navy BAMS-D program in the original procurement program.

Follow-on aircraft:

The U.S. Air Force has deployed Block 30 Global Hawks to support the missions once supported by Block 10 aircraft. The Block 30 Global Hawks currently deployed are equipped with the Raytheon Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite (EISS). EISS includes electro optical/infrared and synthetic aperture radar. Within the next year, the Block 30 aircraft will be reconfigured to include Northrop Grumman's multi-intelligence sensor package, the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload, in addition to EISS.

Inside the Air Force reports this morning that Northrop Grumman is looking into the possibility of buying spare parts in bulk and early on as a way to shave down the dollar figure of its Global Hawk program:

George Guerra, vice president of the company's high-altitude, long-endurance systems, told Inside the Air Force during a Sept. 21 interview that the company is looking into the possibility of ordering spares when negotiating the price of equipment to obtain a quantity price break as one of 243 initiatives being evaluated by Northrop Grumman and the Air Force.

"We're going to do that as much as possible," Guerra said. "And you'll see a decrease in price because instead of going to a supplier and saying, 'Can I buy two sensors from you?' Now, with spares, you can go to them and say, 'I need those two sensors and spare parts from you,' and you get a price break."

Purchasing the materials in bulk is just one of the initiatives Northrop Grumman is evaluating, according to company executives. Those initiatives were supposed to be discussed during an August affordability workshop at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH, that was designed to unite the Air Force and Northrop Grumman employees in their search for savings, according to company executives (ITAF, Aug. 12, p.2).

For additional Gobal Hawk news, see below:

Senior-Level Team Established For Restructuring Of Global Hawk Program

Air Combat Command Looks At New Capabilities For Global Hawk Aircraft

Global Hawk Budget Woes Incite Push To Separate Air And Ground Segments

Air Force And Northrop To Hold Global Hawk Affordability Workshop

OCO Funding Slide
By John Liang
September 22, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Analysts at Wall Street firm Credit Suisse expect overseas contingency operations funding to decrease, even if Congress passes a continuing resolution before the Rosh Hashanah break next week. According to a just-released research note:

Congress may eliminate the one silver lining of an expected continuing resolution by immediately implementing the 25% OCO funding reduction planned for FY'12.  Some contractors hoped a new CR might extend FY'11 OCO funding ($157B run-rate) into FY'12.  However, our reading of HAC’s FY'12 CR bill shows it wants to implement FY'12 OCO ($118B run-rate, down 25%) on time on Oct 1, even under an FY'12 CR, which would then apply only to base budget funding.  While OCO is ~60% O&M, it includes modest investment spending as well. We see greatest downside to infrastructure firms (see Ex. 1), but also expect some impact to those supporting combat operations, including MANT, CACI, & LLL.

The note also includes additional analysis of the Senate Appropriations Committee's mark of the FY-12 defense-spending bill:

SAC-D's full FY'12 mark was released last Friday, and, in our view, best resembles the ultimate outcome for an FY'12 budget.  While investors have already seen the highlights (JSF funding reduction, JLTV termination, MLP curtailment), there are other meaningful cuts that could stick.

*      Boeing Fared Best in SAC-D Mark: Our analysis indicates BA fared best with LMT hit the hardest. Most of BA's aircraft and missile programs were funded, excepting a sizable cut to BA's EMARSS ($540M request cut to zero on production delays likely attributable to LLL's protest). LMT’s impact includes a ~$700M cut to JSF and, far more importantly, an F-35 production freeze at 32 aircraft/year through FY'13, below the current plan to ramp to 42 in FY'13, with a likely cascading impact through the next FYDP FY’13-17.

*      O&M Cuts Clarified: SAC-D says it cut $8B in O&M funding, but our review of the bill indicates the sub-committee simply transferred $7B of these cuts into the FY'12 OCO accounts.  This generally protects suppliers such as BAH and SAI who are more attached to base funding, but does not mitigate impact for war-driven suppliers (noted above) who are exposed to the 25% decline in FY'12 OCO funding associated with the ongoing troop drawdown.

*      JTRS HMS Cut More than Expected: JTRS received ~$750M less than the ~$1.8B request, highlighted by an unexpected $377M cut to HMS (GD). GMR was cut by $113M (largely expected).  We see JTRS as increasingly vulnerable, but expect Army to support HMS, even at lower rates. . . .

*      Ground Combat Vehicle Funding Plummets: SAC-D recommended a $644M cut to the FY'12 request of $884M for GCV, and a $150M rescission to existing 2011 GCV funding. The program is currently in development with a GD team and a BAE/NOC team competing.  We think the Army will fight to protect GCV (and its network WIN-T and JTRS HMS -- both GD) but long-term prognosis for GCV remains negative because of increasing OSD and Congressional dissatisfaction.

NNSA Funding
By John Liang
September 22, 2011 at 5:38 PM

House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) gave a speech yesterday at the Nuclear Strategy Forum in which he highlighted some of the funding challenges that face the National Nuclear Security Administration. Some highlights from the text of his speech:

So here we have all of this agreement -- all of this momentum -- towards taking the steps needed for our nuclear deterrent, and we run into the fiscal challenges facing the nation. The fiscal challenges we face are real and immediate. We must take action. But the road we have recently started heading down appears to go in the opposite direction from the solid consensus we've developed for our nuclear deterrent.

The first indicator of trouble was in H.R. 1, the first Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011, when nuclear modernization funding was initially threatened with significant reductions. With the help of Speaker Boehner and Senator Kyl we remedied that situation, and received an "anomaly" for NNSA's Weapons Activities that enabled nearly-full funding for FY11.

More recently and disturbingly, the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill for FY12 again contains major cuts to the NNSA budget request. The bill would cut $1.1 billion -- or 10% -- from NNSA, including $498 million from Weapons Activities and $123 million from Naval Reactors. The companion Senate bill recently reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee would make similar cuts -- which is troubling given that the four Senators I previously noted sent a letter to President Obama requesting full funding for nuclear modernization are all key leaders on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

These NNSA activities are critical defense programs, and need to be treated as such. But the appropriations committees continue to treat them differently from other defense programs, considering them alongside water and other non-defense matters in the Energy and Water bill. This is a structural problem that results in -- year after year -- my colleagues trading away critical defense dollars for parochial water projects.

Consider this: in the FY12 defense appropriations bill, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee recommended a 1% cut to the budget request for the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, in the energy and water appropriations bill, the Energy and Water Subcommittee recommended a 10% cut to the defense programs of NNSA. Importantly, in that same bill, funding for water projects such as dams, dredging, and canals was increased by 4% above the budget request.

What makes this particularly egregious for FY12 is that Secretary Gates agreed to transfer over $5 billion in top-line budget authority from DOD to NNSA over the next several years to support nuclear modernization. What's more, the $2 billion Chairman Ryan found for the modernization program was used by the Appropriations Committee for other purposes. We're actively trading away security and defense funding for parochial water projects.

Real McCoy: $450B-ish
By Jason Sherman
September 21, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Roman Schweizer, MF Global defense analyst and former chief editor of Inside the Navy, today honed in on a key point about the military budget raised during yesterday's Pentagon press briefing by DOD's top civilian and uniformed leader. In a note to Wall Street investors, Schweizer writes:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen yesterday disclosed that the first round of DoD cuts required under the Budget Control Act's discretionary caps is actually higher than the widely reported $350 billion.

We expect mainstream media to start adopting the "$450B-plus" terminology even though it has been discussed by defense trade press and experts in recent weeks.

On Sept. 2, InsideDefense.com reported the actual size of the spending cuts the Pentagon was working to adopt was $460 billion:

The Office of the Secretary of Defense, eying what a senior official says is a White House-directed cut of "about $460 billion" over the next decade, has instructed the services to deliver by Sept. 16 their revised spending plans in accordance with the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The explanation for the higher number -- nearly one-third higher than the widely reported $350 billion figure -- is the $110 billion difference between the lower Congressional Budget Office forecast and the Obama administration's long-range budget plan outlined in February along with the FY-12 spending request.

The larger figure underscores the likelihood that the first round of DOD budget cuts will be “much worse and immediate, even without sequestration and particularly when compared to the previous budget plan that had modest real growth for research and development and procurement,” Schweizer notes. “It also makes it harder on those accounts because implementing money-saving reforms in other areas takes time -- but cuts are real for the FY-13 budget, sequestration or not.”

Lastly, he argues:

While there are various political scenarios that make sequestration a possibility but never implemented, we think the Pentagon's FY-13 budget will show significant program changes. That's assuming the budget that is released is not under sequestration. If the Pentagon must release a "doomsday" budget in February because Congress and the administration cannot find $1.2T in savings, it'll show draconian cuts that will have to wait until January 2013 to actually be implemented.

Carter Approved
By John Liang
September 21, 2011 at 5:32 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee today approved President Obama's nomination of Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter to succeed Bill Lynn as deputy defense secretary. The nomination will now go to the full Senate for consideration.

Click here to view the text of Carter's Sept. 13 nomination hearing.

PAA Skeptics
By John Liang
September 21, 2011 at 3:45 PM

The Federation of American Scientists today announced the publication of a study written by FAS Scientific Consultant Yousaf Butt and MIT Professor Ted Postol that assesses the Obama administration's proposed Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) missile defense system. Suffice it to say that they're not very optimistic of the chances that Russia will sit idly by and accept it:

While the United States continues to work with Russia to find a path forward on missile defense, Russian military strategists know that Iran does not at present have the capabilities to attack Europe. The potential for an arms race depends on Russia's reaction to Washington.

The Russian Federation might react by increasing the number or capabilities of their nuclear-armed missiles and/or by ending or blocking future nuclear arms reductions negotiations with the United States. This will have far-ranging implications for global security, and for President Obama's goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Before the missile defense system is implemented, Dr. Butt and Prof. Postol recommend a non-partisan peer-reviewed study of its costs and benefits to U.S. and NATO security.

In practice the PAA will provide little, if any, protection leaving nuclear deterrence fundamentally intact. While the PAA would not significantly affect deterrence, it may be seen by cautious Russian planners to impose some attrition on Russian warheads. While midcourse missile defense would not alter the fundamental deterrence equation with respect to Iran or Russia, it may, in the Russian view, constitute an infringement upon the strategic balance set down in New START -- especially with regard to the SM-3 Block II interceptors because of their theoretical capability.

The Standard Missile-3, the cornerstone of the administration's proposed PAA, suffered a failed intercept attempt earlier this month. As Inside Missile Defense reports this morning:

In the wake of the most recent Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense intercept failure, Senate appropriators want to tweak the funding line for the system that missed its intended target.

The Pentagon's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes nearly $565.4 million for the procurement of 46 Standard Missile-3 Block IB missiles, according to the report accompanying the Senate Appropriations Committee's FY-12 defense-spending bill.

"Following developmental challenges and schedule delays, MDA revised its acquisition strategy for the SM-3 Block IB missile in February 2011 and initiated a series of flight tests that are intended to culminate in a production decision in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012," the report states.

However, on Sept. 1 an SM-3 Block IB interceptor failed to hit its target in a test off the coast of Hawaii (Inside Missile Defense, Sept. 7, p1).

According to briefing slides presented by MDA Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly at a missile defense conference last month, the next test of the system is scheduled for the third quarter of fiscal year 2012. An agency spokesman told IMD earlier this month that no decisions have yet been made regarding any changes to the test schedule as a result of the failed Sept. 1 intercept attempt.

Even with no decision yet by MDA, Senate appropriators expect a delay to the SM-3 Block IB acquisition schedule, according to the report. "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."

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."

For more on FY-12 missile defense appropriations:

Senators Deny Army-MDA Program Transfers, Lament Lack Of Analysis

Appropriators Want MRBM Target Funding Moved To Aegis Program Office

Senate Committee Action Could Save MEADS From Termination In FY-12

Appropriators Call For Missile And Space Intel Center Five-Year Plan

Bill Puts GCV, THAAD, VXX In Budget Crosshairs

JSF Cognizance
By Jason Sherman
September 20, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Nine senators penned Defense Secretary Leon Panetta a letter yesterday urging him to “not deprive our warfighters of the critical capabilities the need to keep our nation safe” as he hunts for roughly $460 billion to cut from the budget over the next 12 years.

The lawmakers -- seven Republicans, one Democrat and one Independent -- have a particular program in mind: the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's largest and most expensive procurement effort.

Read the entire letter here.

Cartwright to CSIS
By Jordana Mishory
September 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright is joining the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Cartwright will be the first to serve in CSIS' new Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies. He served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs for nearly four years, leaving the post last month. He previously headed U.S. Strategic Command.

"America will be forever indebted to Gen. Cartwright for his many years of distinguished service," said CSIS President and CEO John Hamre in a statement. "His thoughtful leadership, keen intellect, and his commitment to making the world a better place are of great value to CSIS."

CSIS Counselor and Trustee Brown, who is the namesake of Cartwright's post, said in the statement that the general was the best pick to serve as the first defense policy studies chair.

"As the United States faces changing and increasing political, economic and security challenges, it is crucial that our nation's most experienced and capable leaders remain active in the public process of U.S. policymaking," Brown said. "Gen. Cartwright has always put America's security first and I am delighted that he will continue to help shape policies and influence decisions to make us all safer and more secure."

Cartwright is slated to begin his new job in October.

New Life For The F136
By John Liang
September 19, 2011 at 5:16 PM

A just-released Government Accountability Office report on the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program -- an effort the Pentagon has sought to quash -- has given the program's congressional supporters additional fuel for their arguments. According to the report:

In 2010, at congressional request, we reviewed the basis for DOD's $2.9 billion funding projection and reported that the projection did not include the same level of fidelity and precision normally associated with a detailed, comprehensive cost estimate and that the amount of up-front investment needed could be lower if two key assumptions in DOD's analysis were changed. Moreover, since DOD's projection and our last review, several fundamental changes in the JSF aircraft and engine programs have taken place. . . .

In early 2010, DOD determined that it would need an additional $2.9 billion to support an alternate engine program up to the point where it believed it could begin competition in 2017. Since then, there have been major changes to the JSF aircraft and engine program costs, schedules, and procurement plans. Specifically, (1) defense officials substantially restructured the JSF program, adding cost and time to development and changing the procurement profile to buy fewer aircraft and engines over the next 5 years; (2) more engine production cost data are available; and (3) the F136 alternate engine contractor offered to fund development costs for 2011 and 2012 with its own corporate funds. These and other changes could affect portions of the department's $2.9 billion projection and would have to be addressed and quantified in order to make a more up-to-date and complete funding projection. While there have been significant changes made to the JSF aircraft and engine programs, DOD has not updated its funding projection and has no plans to do so. DOD has not done a complete analysis of the potential life-cycle costs and benefits of the competitive engine strategy in over 4 years. A cost-benefit analysis is an important tool for making investment decisions. DOD's $2.9 billion funding projection through 2016 comprises only a portion of the information that would be needed for such an analysis. DOD maintains that while there have been significant changes made to the JSF aircraft and engine programs, there is still not a compelling business case to continue supporting both engines, and DOD does not plan to update its cost-benefit analysis. Thus, whether a more current, comprehensive analysis that includes all life-cycle costs, benefits, and risks would result in a more definitive business case--one way or another--remains an unanswered question. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD reiterated its position that the up-front costs to support the alternate engine were not affordable and that a new analysis reflecting recent changes would not likely alter its position. We continue to believe that acquisition decisions should weigh both near-term and long-term costs and benefits and that an updated analysis would provide important information for making these decisions. We are not making recommendations in this report.

Such findings are music to the ears of congressional advocates of the alternate engine. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who requested the study, just released a statement:

"Congress and the Pentagon should not make pivotal decisions without timely and accurate information, and the GAO report makes a strong case for an updated assessment of alternative engine costs," Levin said. "I continue to believe that DOD choked off funding for the alternative engine without fully analyzing or justifying its decision, and this report is further evidence that DoD must do a better job of developing a business case."

Among the important findings in the report is the fact that an offer by the F-136 contracting team  to self-fund its engine for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 would reduce estimated costs by as much as $700 million.

"DOD argues that it doesn’t have enough information to assess the self-funding offer, but so far, Pentagon officials and the JSF program office haven't even met with the contractor team to discuss it," Levin said. "Within the past week, DOD officials have informed me that they may finally be willing to meet with the F136 contractor team to discuss their offer. I am hopeful that this shows more openness within DOD leadership to considering the benefits of competition for a program that may spend more than $30 billion on fighter engines."

Levin has consistently supported competition among defense contractors as a way to lower costs and improve capabilities. In 2010, he requested a GAO report that concluded DOD's $2.9 billion estimate "did not include the same level of fidelity and precision normally associated with a detailed, comprehensive cost estimate" and was subject to significant change if its underlying assumptions were changed.

For more of InsideDefense.com's coverage of the F136 issue, check out the following stories:

Carter: JSF Second Engine Work Would Cost $480 Million Over Next Year

GE-Rolls Royce Outline $100 Million F136 Self-Funding Plan

House Bill Would Require DOD To Keep JSF Second Engine Property Accessible

House Panel Wants Competitive Engine Effort -- For New Bomber

House Authorizers' Mark-Up Could Require DOD To Fund JSF Alternate Engine

DARPA Funding Dip
By John Liang
September 16, 2011 at 7:20 PM

As InsideDefense.com reports today, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would see its fiscal year 2011 appropriations cut back by nearly $126.6 million if language in the Senate Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2012 defense appropriations bill survives conference negotiations with the House version.

According to the Senate committee's report accompanying the just-released FY-12 defense-spending bill, here are the FY-11 appropriations for DARPA:

DARPA Undistributed Rescission.................................................................. 126,589,000

DARPA Defense Research Sciences.............................................................. 1,827,000

DTRA Weapons of Mass Destruction Defeat Technologies.............................. 10,435,000

DARPA Tactical Technology .......................................................................... 10,084,000

DARPA Materials and Biological Technology .................................................. 1,000,000

DARPA Electronics Technology ........................................................................ 500,000

DTRA Counterproliferation Initiatives—Proliferation Prevention and Defeat ...... 11,950,000

DARPA Classified Programs ............................................................................ 4,000,000

DARPA Command, Control and Communications Systems............................... 3,000,000

DARPA Space Programs and Technology ........................................................ 1,000,000

DARPA Advanced Electronics Technologies..................................................... 1,000,000

DARPA Network-Centric Warfare Technology.................................................. 1,000,000

The committee's recommendation is part of an overall $2.7 billion cut of funds previously allocated to Pentagon weapons-modernization accounts, cuts that would be imposed as part of the FY-12 defense-spending bill that trims $9 billion from the Obama administration's request for new weapons spending.

Here is the report language for DARPA's FY-12 budget:

The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes approximately $3,000,000,000 for DARPA. The Committee notes that roughly 50 percent of the budget request is contained in only five Program Elements, of which one is greater than $400,000,000. The Committee is concerned by the level of resources requested in single Program Elements, particularly in light of DARPA's considerable financial flexibility. The Committee believes that transparency would be better served by reducing the size of DARPA's individual Program Elements.

BMD In Poland, Romania
By John Liang
September 15, 2011 at 3:16 PM

This week has been an eventful one for the United States' missile defense efforts in Europe. This morning, the State Department released the following announcement:

The United States and Poland are pleased to jointly announce that the Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement of 2008 and its Amending Protocol of 2010 on deployment of the land-based SM-3 system within Poland has entered into force, effective September 15, 2011. The U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense system will be located at Redzikowo Base as a part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in the 2018 timeframe. This base represents a significant contribution by our two nations to a future NATO missile defense capability.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi signed an "Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Romania on the Deployment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System in Romania." According to a department fact sheet:

This Agreement calls for the establishment and operation of a U.S. land-based SM-3 ballistic missile defense (BMD) system in Romania. The deployment to Romania is anticipated to occur in the 2015 timeframe as part of the second phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). In addition to deepening the bilateral strategic relationship between our two countries, cooperation in this area will make a substantial contribution to NATO's collective security and will be an integral part of a NATO missile defense capability.

UCP Changes
By John Liang
September 14, 2011 at 7:25 PM

The Defense Department has updated its Unified Command Plan (UCP) to reflect the disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command and other changes, according to a DOD statement issued this afternoon.

The UCP is "a strategic document that establishes the missions, responsibilities, and geographic areas of responsibility (AORs) for commanders of combatant commands," the statement reads. President Obama approved the changes on Sept. 12.

"Every two years, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is required to review the missions, responsibilities, and geographical boundaries of each combatant command and recommend to the President, through the secretary of defense, any changes that may be necessary," according to the statement. Further:

Significant changes made by UCP 2011 Change 1 include:

- Removing language that refers to U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), which was disestablished on Aug. 31, 2011.

- Removing language for geographic combatant command standing joint force headquarters, which are approved for disestablishment by the end of fiscal 2012.

- Adding responsibility for global standing joint force headquarters to U.S. Transportation Command. These assets will transfer as the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command from USJFCOM.

- Transferring the Joint Warfare Analysis Center missions to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Joint Warfare Analysis Center was previously a subordinate command to USJFCOM.

- Removing language and responsibilities for information operations, military deception, and operations security from USSTRATCOM. These missions will transfer to the Joint Staff.

The UCP 2011 continues to support U.S. defense security commitments around the world while improving military responsiveness to emerging crises.

Fighting FOIA
By John Liang
September 13, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Following a loss in the Supreme Court earlier this year, the Navy is using new arguments to prevent the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding safety procedures for a naval weapons facility, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning.

The Navy is arguing on remand that an exemption protecting certain law enforcement records from mandatory public disclosure applies to the public withholding of safety procedures for a naval weapons facility. Further:

The Navy, in its opening brief in the remanded case Glen Milner v. U.S. Department of the Navy, relies heavily on statements made by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion issued in the March 7 high court ruling in the original case.

In the 8-1 Milner ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the Navy's attempt to use a personnel rules exemption -- Exemption 2 -- to withhold the public release of safety procedures for a naval weapons facility in Washington State. The ruling signaled strong backing by the court for broad public disclosure of information with only narrow, limited exemptions, easing concerns from activists that the court would end up blocking access to environment and other data without good cause (Defense Environment Alert, March 15).

But at the same time, the high court left open the possibility for the Navy to argue on remand to a lower court that the information should be withheld under a different FOIA exemption, Exemption 7.

Specifically, the Navy is now arguing that Exemption 7(F) allows it to withhold the safety procedures from public release. It filed its opening brief Sept. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Truck Stop
By Dan Dupont
September 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM

The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, in its mark of the fiscal year 2012 defense bill, has terminated the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, according to the panel's chairman.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) made the announcement in his opening statement at a hearing today. More to come.