The Insider

By John Liang
May 25, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Recent earthquake, tsunami and nuclear reactor disasters in Japan have had a variable amount of impact on that country's ability to cooperate with the United States on missile defense, the head of the Missile Defense Agency told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee this morning.

When asked by subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) regarding the effects of recent events in Japan, MDA Director Lt. Gen. Partick O'Reilly responded:

They have been outstanding partners to work with, meet every commitment and are very meticulous in their planning and it's made it very helpful for us to work together in the fashion which we have.

Regarding the tsunami and earthquake, it did not interrupt the operations of our major activity in Nagoya with MHI -- Mitsubishi Heavy Industry. Some of their subcontractors were affected. They were not stopped; it slowed down some deliveries. We do not anticipate nor does the Japanese government that this will effect the ultimate delivery of the program.

But in that regard, we do rely outside that program on some of the foundries in Japan that develop our focal plane arrays. And they have been affected by their proximity to their nuclear power plant. And we are concerned about that and we work closely with them, but that is an ongoing concern of our reliance on only one or two foundries around the world to produce these focal plane arrays that have wide application beyond just missile defense.

By Christopher J. Castelli
May 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM

The Army has sent Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) a May 10 letter acknowledging congressional concerns about the potential impact of the service's combat vehicle modernization plans on the industrial base, but offering no detail on the substance of lawmakers' complaints.

The Army letter comes in response to a May 6 letter from nearly 140 members of Congress urging Army Secretary John McHugh to reconsider the service's plans to cease buying Abrams tanks for three years.

"An inquiry into this matter has been initiated," states the reply from the office of the Army's legislative liaison. But a service official said that is boilerplate language used in countless Army letters to lawmakers acknowledging the receipt of congressional letters on a wide range of subjects.

By John Liang
May 24, 2011 at 8:17 PM

The White House this afternoon released a statement of administration policy on the House version of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill. The Obama administration threatens to veto the bill if it includes language regarding an extra engine in the F-35 program; impinges on the president's authority to implement the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and set nuclear weapons policy; or "recharacterizes" the administration's scope on detainee matters.

Read the full statement.

By John Liang
May 24, 2011 at 7:23 PM

The Aerospace Industries Association just released a report on defense investment that, according to an AIA statement, "takes a historical look at spending in the investment accounts and the ebb and flow of spending since the 1970s. It concludes that our nation and its military members pay a large price when we decrease spending on procurement and research and development." Further, the statement reads:

Defense investment accounts not only support current operations, they also ensure that our troops will always have the tactical advantage of technological superiority, according to a new report released by AIA.

"We all recognize the need to address the nation's debt and deficit spending," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey at a Senate Aerospace Luncheon. "On the surface, defense investments are easy reductions. But with a worldwide mission and a limited number of service members, we must make up in technological capability what we lack in numbers." . . .

"Americans can be proud that the products used by men and women in uniform are the best in the world," Blakey said. "These systems provide our military with an unparalleled battlefield advantage -- they certainly deserve no less."

That said, the report itself finds that DOD investment accounts -- "including procurement and research and development -- are often cut first when the defense budget comes under fire." Further, according to the report:

On the surface, they are the easy reductions that do not involve urgent present needs as do personnel, force structure, benefits, or operations and maintenance. But as this report shows, with a worldwide mission and in the absence of more service members, our force must be better empowered by technology. The investment accounts not only support current operations -- as we are witnessing every day -- they also provide the future capabilities needed to address threats that may emerge and ensure that our forces will always have the tactical advantage that technological superiority provides. Americans will not accept less.

The report recommends 35 percent of the budget devoted to modernization accounts, as a prudent and affordable level for supporting the force of today and the future, according to AIA.

"The U.S. defense industry remains a key strategic asset for the United States," Blakey said in the statement. "However, it is an asset that must be managed, maintained and sustained to ensure our service members are equipped to succeed under the most demanding circumstances."

By Christopher J. Castelli
May 24, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, due to step down next month, made a conscious choice to avoid recommending cuts to specific defense programs in a speech today at the American Enterprise Institute, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell.

"The comprehensive budget review the secretary launched last week is designed to identify specific cuts and consequences for the president's consideration," Morrell said. "He does not want to get out ahead of that process and constrain the review team's thinking. He has granted them wide latitude and does not want to hamstring them in any way."

Gates reiterated that certain programs -- including the procurement of new tankers, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, ships and nuclear ballistic missile subs -- must continue. He said efforts to cut overhead have not gone far enough. And he called for reviewing the military's force structure while managing risk.

By Thomas Duffy
May 24, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The House Rules Committee will meet this afternoon to consider the amendment process for the House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill. That bill may be considered on the House floor this week.

Last week, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the committee's chairman, sent out a "dear colleague" letter spelling out how each House member can offer an amendment to the bill without violating the House Republican Conference's earmark ban. As part of the 111th and 112th Congress, the Republican conference agreed to prohibit Republicans from making congressional earmark requests, McKeon said. He then added:

The House Armed Services Committee bill contains no congressional earmarks. Moreover, I will not support any amendments for congressional earmarks during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 on the House floor.

What will be allowed are budgetary amendments, McKeon told his House colleagues. These amendments are proposals to make specific funding changes to the defense authorization bill "in order to assert congressional priorities in the conduct of U.S. defense policy."

A key point of these amendments is that the Defense Department cannot be directed to spend money "to a specific entity or within a specific locality," McKeon said. All monies have to be spent through a competitive award process, he added.

By Cid Standifer
May 24, 2011 at 1:51 PM

The Navy released its final request for proposals for the Ship-to-Shore Connector on May 20, after repeated delays.

The vessel, alternately referred to in documents as LCAC-100, is slated to replace the fleet's air-cushioned landing craft.

According to updates from Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Chris Johnson, the program took its time working through the bureaucratic process, but, as of April 25, Johnson said the setbacks were not expected to impact the initial operational capability for SSC.

The RFP released last week shows the first batch of four SSCs being delivered in 2016. If all of the extending options of the contract were exercised, the last SSCs would be delivered in 2020.

The Navy has said it expected initial IOC for the SSC in 2019, and to have its LCAC fleet completely replaced by 2030.

At a conference in October, Capt. Walt Towns, head of the Navy's amphibious warfare directorate, said the SSC could still be fielded on time if the RFP were released by the end of 2010. Towns also said that there may be a dip of between 15 and 18 vessels in the transition between LCACs and SSCs.

The draft RFP, which was posted on March 1, said the final copy would be out by the end of that month.

The RFP includes one parameter that appears to have been modified sometime in the past month requiring the weight of the SSC not exceed 180 metric tons. According to the RFP, the contractor will owe the government $110,000 per craft for every ton over 180 the vessel weighs, up to a penalty of $1 million.

The RFP also asks that offerors address the issue of total ownership cost for the craft in their bids. “Offerors shall describe the top three design and engineering Total Ownership Costs (TOC) reduction initiatives inherent in their approach to developing the SSC Detail Design,” the proposal stipulates. “Offerors shall provide supporting rationale, including design trade-offs and key assumptions, to demonstrate the projected likelihood that each TOC reduction will provide a substantial benefit to the Government, assuming 150 annual operating hours per craft and a 30 year service life.”

The RFP says companies should emphasize total ownership cost while designing and building a test and training craft. The total ownership cost-reduction strategies are included in the RFP's evaluation criteria, with credit being given to the proposals evaluators believe are most likely to benefit the government.

Responses to the RFP are due by June 20.

By Christopher J. Castelli
May 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is warning against sharply reducing U.S. commitments abroad and the size and capabilities of the military, while underscoring the need for some cuts in Defense Department overhead, personnel costs, missions and capabilities.

“The lessons of history tell us we must not diminish our ability or our determination to deal with the threats and challenges on the horizon, because ultimately they will need to be confronted,” he warned Sunday in a commencement speech at Notre Dame.

“Now to be sure, a strong military cannot exist without a strong economy underpinning it,” he added. “At some point fiscal insolvency at home translates into strategic insolvency abroad. As part of America getting its financial house in order, the size of our defense budget must be addressed. That means culling more bureaucratic excess and overhead, taking a hard look at personnel and costs, and reexamining missions and capabilities to separate the desirable or optional from the essential.”

By John Liang
May 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) is reminding President Obama that the U.S. military cannot indefinitely continue conducting operations in Libya without formal congressional authorization. In a letter sent today to Obama, McKeon writes:

As the United States military's involvement in Libya approaches 60 days without congressional authorization, I must reiterate concerns expressed at the outset of this operation regarding our strategic objectives, the length of America's commitment, the funding mechanism for this operation, and the potential effect of this operation on other more vital interests.

There continues to be an apparent disconnect between our stated political objectives and the military mission. Although United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized member states "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" in Libya, you have stated clearly that Gaddafi must be removed from power. Although this may be necessary and strategically desirable, it is not clear that the means chosen to achieve this outcome are adequate. History has demonstrated that an entrenched enemy like the Libyan regime can be resilient to air power. Moreover, by targeting command and control sites not directly threatening civilian populated areas, NATO operations may have prompted Gaddafi to use civilian shields as a countermeasure to our air superiority. This may put NATO and U.S. pilots in the paradoxical position of firing on civilians in order to save civilians. Consequently, I believe the Administration should present a fuller explanation to Congress of the connection between strategic ends and operational means.

This disparity between means and ends suggests the conflict is heading toward a protracted stalemate, as neither Gaddafi nor the opposition appears capable of gaining the upper hand in the near term. Moreover, the recent indictment of Gaddafi and senior Libyan regime officials for "crimes against humanity" - although likely justified from a legal standpoint - removes any incentive those individuals would have had to abdicate power short of a complete military defeat, an outcome that appears far from imminent. Thus, the Administration should explain how long the United States intends to pursue the current strategy, and whether the intention is to engage in a prolonged conflict over Libya similar to Operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch over Iraq.

Furthermore, greater clarity needs to be provided to Congress regarding the role of U.S. forces within NATO operations. Although Administration officials have provided Congress with some data regarding the percentage of sorties flown by U.S. pilots in Operation Unified Protector, the specific nature of our role in NATO operations remains unclear. Do U.S. forces continue to be engaging in hostilities, or are they merely playing a supporting role? Congress must receive additional information regarding the extent to which U.S. assets -- whether manned or unmanned -- deliver munitions on Libyan targets in order to exercise appropriate oversight of these operations.

By Amanda Palleschi
May 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM

A Huntsville, AL-based defense contractor has acquired a cyber security and information assurance program from EADS-North America, which counts the Defense Department and other government agencies among its customers.

In a statement issued Thursday, Camber Corp. announced its acquisition of EADS-North America Defense Security and Systems Solutions, Inc (DS3). The system provides cyber security, information assurance, information technology and secure satellite communicate services for DOD and operates and supports Joint Cyberspace Operations Range (JCOR) -- a major DOD cyber range, according to the statement.

A dollar figure was unavailable at press time.

The DS3 program serves customers including the Air Force, Navy, U.S. Strategic Command, the National Guard Bureau, the Veterans Affairs Department, the Defense Contracting Management Agency and commercial satellite companies, according to the statement.

"DS3's participation in large-scale joint exercises also facilitates Camber's communication with key participants in the Federal cyber community, providing its National Security Group with unique insight into the latest cyber attacks, vulnerabilities, mitigation measures and defensive techniques," said DS3 chief executive officer Ron Moore.

By John Liang
May 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM

The Navy yesterday made the official announcement that its newest Lewis and Clark-class of underway replenishment cargo ships would be named after labor organizer Cesar Chavez. According to the Pentagon statement:

Continuing the Lewis and Clark-class tradition of honoring legendary pioneers and explorers, the Navy's newest underway replenishment ship honors the memory of Mexican-American civil rights activist Cesar Chavez.  Chavez served in the Navy from 1944-1946 after which he became a leader in the American Labor Movement and a civil rights activist who co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers.

"Cesar Chavez inspired young Americans to do what is right and what is necessary to protect our freedoms and our country," said Mabus. "The Cesar Chavez will sail hundreds of thousands of miles and will bring support and assistance to thousands upon thousands of people. His example will live on in this great ship."

Designated T-AKE 14, Cesar Chavez is being built by General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego.  Eleven of the T-AKEs are slated to serve as combat logistics force (CLF) ships, and three are slated to be part of the maritime prepositioning force (MPF).  Cesar Chavez will serve the CLF missions, helping the Navy maintain a worldwide forward presence by delivering ammunition, food, fuel and other dry cargo to U.S. and allied ships at sea.

That decision, however, didn't sit well with Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who said in a statement:

This decision shows the direction the Navy is heading.  Naming a ship after Cesar Chavez goes right along with other recent decisions by the Navy that appear to be more about making a political statement than upholding the Navy’s history and tradition.

If this decision were about recognizing the Hispanic community’s contribution to our nation, many other names come to mind, including Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta, who was nominated for the Medal of Honor for action in Iraq.  Peralta is one of many Hispanic war heroes -- some of whom are worthy of the same recognition.

And we cannot forget about John Finn, a lifelong San Diego resident who won the Medal of Honor for what he did during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Finn is another worthy candidate that was evidently overlooked in the selection process.

According to an April 1 Congressional Research Service report on Navy ship names:

Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers in recent years have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. . . .

Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation relating to ship names. Measures passed by Congress in recent years regarding Navy ship names have all been sense-of-the-Congress provisions.

By John Liang
May 18, 2011 at 3:43 PM

The vessel that carries the Missile Defense Agency's Sea-Based X-Band Radar is docked in Seattle and will undergo thruster maintenance over the next three months, work that was originally scheduled for last year.

According to a recently released environmental assessment of maintaining the vessel, the ship was due for thruster maintenance in 2010, but MDA received a waiver extension to May 31, 2011. Agency spokesman Rick Lehner told Inside Missile Defense in an email that the "operational schedule of the SBX prevented getting into a suitable shipyard until after the initial maintenance period. The waiver was obtained in order for the SBX to continue operations until the work could be performed."

According to the report:

The SBX Radar Vessel became operational in 2005. As with any vessel, it requires routine maintenance as well as mandatory recertification of structural and propulsion components. Both the hull and the four thrusters require a 5-year maintenance cycle and certification in order to continue operation.

As for where the thruster maintenance work would take place, the report states:

MDA is currently planning for the maintenance work to be done at Todd Pacific Shipyards, a commercial shipyard in Seattle, WA beginning in May of 2011. MDA must conduct this maintenance around the SBX Radar Vessel’s scheduled participation in BMDS flight testing planned throughout the year. Therefore, MDA is also developing contingency plans to potentially utilize other locations should the test schedule change or other unforeseen circumstances occur that would affect the ability to obtain the required maintenance at Todd Pacific Shipyards. MDA is proposing to perform necessary maintenance activities on the SBX Radar Vessel at one of two proposed contingency locations (Naval Station Everett [NSE], WA or Naval Base Coronado-Naval Air Station North Island [NASNI], San Diego). This work could commence in the Spring/Summer of 2011, if Todd Pacific Shipyards becomes unavailable, and would require approximately 3 months to complete. However, due to the operational requirements of the SBX Radar Vessel and shifting world events, the commencement date could change. NSE and NASNI are not typically used as maintenance and repair facilities. Although minor maintenance and repair activities are currently performed at NSE and NASNI, they are not functioning shipyards and do not perform shipyard-type work. Therefore, this Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to examine the potential for impacts to the environment as a result of the proposed maintenance activities associated with the SBX Radar Vessel at NSE and NASNI only.

Lehner told IMD that the thruster maintenance work would indeed be done at Todd Pacific Shipyards, now known as Vigor Shipyards Seattle. "Work has already begun and will continue for about three months," he wrote.

By Sebastian Sprenger
May 17, 2011 at 7:34 PM

Two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have asked panel Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) to “significantly restrict funding” for the Medium Extended Air Defense System in his mark of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill.

Defense leaders have put MEADS on a “proof-of-concept” trajectory through FY-13, to the tune of $800 million. In a joint May 16 letter to Levin, Sens. Mark Begich (D-AK) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) argue the plan is unreasonable because the United States and its program partners Germany and Italy would not get “any tangible benefit” out of MEADS.

They propose authorizing only $265 million -- which, they write, would be enough to cover the U.S. share of termination costs in the event of a mutual decision by all three countries to cancel the program.

By Cid Standifer
May 17, 2011 at 6:30 PM

The Navy made it official today: As expected, Rear Adm. James Murdoch has been tapped to lead the recently created program executive office for the Littoral Combat Ship.

The LCS program has been divided between a program office for the seaframe and another for mission modules since its inception, but as Defense News reported earlier this month, the Navy plans to unite them under one PEO.

The Navy confirmed that today in its flag officer announcements, which said Murdoch will be transferred from his post as Fleet Forces Command fleet maintenance officer to the head of the new office.

This is not Murdoch's first run-in with the LCS beast. Until mid-2010, he was program manager for the LCS shipbuilding program under Naval Sea Systems Command.

By Jordana Mishory
May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

The Pentagon is on track to become audit ready by the 2017 deadline set by Congress, according to the latest version of a biannual audit readiness report released this week.

Signed by Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale, the report states that audit readiness is a top priority for the Defense Department and lays out a series of incentives to encourage components to get their books ready. The DOD has still not complied with a two-decade-old law requiring all federal agencies be audited. On May 16, Hale, Deputy Chief Financial Officer Mark Easton and Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Director Joseph Quinn presented elements of the new report to a Defense Audit Advisory Committee.