The Insider

By Sebastian Sprenger
February 23, 2011 at 9:12 PM

The Army's just-released update of its field manual 3-0, Operations, bids farewell to what advertising folks would call a key visual, the "Tennessee Chart." The widely used graphic uses stacked sections resembling the outline of the state of Tennessee to illustrate the Army's idea of full-spectrum operations.

Service officials decided to ditch the chart because it "inadvertently established a false dichotomy" between the requirement to prepare for major war and for smaller-scale irregular conflicts, Training and Doctrine Command chief Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote in the updated FM 0 foreword.

"In the next revision of FM 3-0, we will sharpen our language regarding full-spectrum operations," Dempsey wrote.

The manual's next iteration is scheduled for release at the annual convention of the Association of the United States Army in October.

Also new today is the Army's updated Field Manual 7-0, titled "Training Units and Developing Leaders for Full Spectrum Operations."

By John Liang
February 23, 2011 at 4:07 PM

The Army has approved for fielding the Joint Capabilities Release, an upgrade to the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below situational awareness communication platform developed by Northrop Grumman, the company announced this morning in a statement. Further:

FBCB2 is the key situational awareness and command-and-control system used by U.S. and coalition forces. More than 95,000 FBCB2 systems have been deployed worldwide, forming the world's largest tactical network. The system has been successfully fielded for 16 years.

JCR will be incorporated into the LandWarNet/Battle Command Baseline for fielding to deploying units scheduled to receive software block 2.

JCR upgrades include an increase in network bandwidth that allows the system to move more information to more users within seconds rather than in minutes. JCR also provides a common FBCB2 platform solution for both the Army and U.S. Marine Corps.

"The ability to receive and share battlefield data through a broad-based, reliable network is increasingly important and critical to the mission. JCR provides new collaboration tools and other enhancements that are orders of magnitude more capable than what is available to soldiers and Marines today," said Joe G. Taylor, Jr., vice president of the Ground Combat Systems business unit within Northrop Grumman's Information Systems sector.

The service had completed the formal evaluation of the JCR upgrade last March, Inside the Army reported at the time:

The JCR upgrade, also a Northrop Grumman product, is intended to act as an interim operating system until the service can replace FBCB2 with the Joint Battle Command Platform, a system still in development and not expected until 2013. JCR will then act as a foundation upon which JBC-P can be built.

Kevin Anastas, an Army account manager at Northrop Grumman, told Inside the Army JCR improves upon FBCB2 in several ways by providing significantly increased bandwidth and a joint forces platform for the Army and Marines.

"Soldiers can do things now in seconds instead of minutes," he said in a March 9 interview. "And the Army and the Marines are now going to converge on the same situation awareness software."

JCR also offers several features that provide the FBCB2 system with greater utility and make it more user-friendly. One such application is called "Self-Descriptive Situational Awareness," which allows JCR to transition between tactical service gateways with uninterrupted connectivity.

"In the old system, you need to have a pre-published address book," Anastas said. "So, if a unit were going to deploy to Iraq, somebody had to build the address book for that unit before they left. They took it with them and when they got there, they weren't allowed to change the addresses. You can imagine how frustrating that was because if they wanted to cross-attach part of a unit to another unit, they couldn't talk together because the addresses were all fixed. We got good at changing them, but it was a huge headache."

The upgrade will also be outfitted with Convoy Patrol Group, a program that will allow users to group units on their screens and color code them to make monitoring friendly forces more manageable.

By Dan Dupont
February 22, 2011 at 6:43 PM

DOD posture planning guidance does not require that U.S. European Command "include comprehensive cost data in its theater posture plan and, as a result, DOD lacks critical information that could be used by decision makers as they deliberate posture requirements," the Government Accountability Office says in a report released today.

DOD guidance requires that theater posture plans provide specific information on, and estimate the military construction costs for, installations in a combatant commander’s area of responsibility. However, this guidance does not require EUCOM to report the total cost to operate and maintain installations in Europe. GAO analysis shows that of the approximately $17.2 billion obligated by the services to support installations in Europe from 2006 through 2009, approximately $13 billion (78 percent) was for operation and maintenance costs. Several factors—such as the possibility of keeping four Army brigades in Europe instead of two—could impact future costs. DOD is drafting guidance to require more comprehensive cost estimates for posture initiatives; however, these revisions will not require commanders to report costs, unrelated to posture initiatives, for DOD installations. GAO’s prior work has demonstrated that comprehensive cost information is critical to support decisions on funding and affordability. Until DOD requires the combatant commands to compile and report comprehensive cost data in their posture plans, DOD and Congress will be limited in their abilities to make fully informed decisions regarding DOD’s posture in Europe.

Further:

EUCOM has developed an approach to compile posture requirements, but it does not have clearly defined methods for evaluating posture alternatives or routinely incorporating the views of interagency stakeholders. EUCOM has taken several steps to assign responsibilities for developing its posture plan and established an Executive Council to deliberate posture issues and work with the service component commands, but the process of developing a theater posture plan is relatively new and is not yet clearly defined and codified in command guidance. While EUCOM’s steps to date have improved its ability to communicate with stakeholders and resolve conflicting views on posture issues, it has not been clearly defined and codified in command guidance. Furthermore, it does not provide for the analysis of costs and benefits, because the combatant commander has not been required to include such analysis in developing the theater posture plan. In addition, the Interagency Partnering Directorate—which was established by the EUCOM commander to improve interagency coordination within the command—has been included in the Executive Council, but EUCOM has not defined how interagency representatives can regularly participate in ongoing posture planning activities. As a result of these weaknesses in EUCOM’s posture planning approach, the command is limited in its ability to consider and evaluate the cost of posture in conjunction with the strategic benefits it provides, and it may not be fully leveraging interagency perspectives as it defines future posture requirements.

By John Liang
February 18, 2011 at 4:49 PM

With all the news coming out of this week's release of the fiscal year 2012 budget request, some of the documents related to the request can get lost in the shuffle. Below, we highlight some from the defense-wide sector:

Missile Defense Agency's FY-12 Budget Justification Book

Defense Information Systems Agency's FY-12 Budget Justification Book

Defense Threat Reduction Agency's FY-12 Budget Justification Book

U.S. Special Operations Command's FY-12 Budget Justification Book

By Jordana Mishory
February 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Senior Pentagon officials admitted today that they don't know where they would hold terrorists caught outside of battle areas in light of President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this morning, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the detainment of a high-value target would be an unknown location.

“I think the honest answer to that question is we don't know,” Gates told Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). “If we capture them outside of -- outside of the areas where we are at war and are not covered by the existing authorizations, war authorizations, one possibility is to -- for such a person to be put in the custody of their home government. Another possibility is that we bring them to the United States. After all, we've brought a variety of terrorists to the United States and put them on trial in Article III courts here over the years. But it will be a challenge.”

Gates noted that the prospects for closing the detention base at Guantanamo were “very, very low” based on the fact that so many in Congress were against it.

Later in the hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen also stated that DOD does not know what to do about terrorists caught outside of war zones, much to the chagrin of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“This is a big deal to me,” Graham said. “We're in a war, and capturing people is part of intelligence gathering. It's an essential component of this war. Do you agree with that, Adm. Mullen?”

Mullen said he did.

Graham went on to note that it's “better to capture someone than it is to kill them, in a lot of cases” -- a statement that Mullen also acknowledged as accurate.

“It is hard to capture someone if you don't have a jail to put them,” Graham said. “I hope, Mr. Chairman, that some time this year Republicans and Democrats can have a breakthrough on this issue to help our men and women fighting this war, because it is a very spot to put the special -- a tough spot to put the special operators in. And our CIA -- our CIA doesn't interrogate terrorist suspects any longer. And these are things we need to talk about and get an answer to.”

By Amanda Palleschi
February 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM

The Defense Department has made progress in efforts to centralize its cyberspace operations but has “a long way to go,” Defense Secretary Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing this morning.

Funds budgeted for cybersecurity in the fiscal year 2012 budget, including half a billion dollars for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency work, would put the “dot-mil” world in “pretty good shape," Gates said.

He added that he and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had begun to better leverage DOD and DHS capabilities to help DHS protect its networks without running into privacy and civil liberties issues.

And this last summer, Secretary Napolitano and I signed a memorandum of understanding that gives -- that begins to move us in a direction where we can begin to do better at protecting dot-gov and dot-com. The reality is, there was a big debate -- and it went on in the Bush administration and it continued in this administration -- of people who did not for -- did not want to make use of NSA in domestic cyberprotection because of civil liberties and privacy concerns. And what Secretary Napolitano and I did was arrive at an agreement where DHS senior officials are now integrated into NSA's senior leadership. They have their own general counsel, their own firewalls, their own protections so that they can exploit and task NSA to begin to get coverage in the dot-gov and dot-com worlds. This is really important. And I think it's a start, but we still have a long way to go.

By John Liang
February 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM

The Defense Department isn't the only agency looking to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning that the United States would "really be in the soup" if his counterparts in the State Department don't get the full funding they need to continue operations in Afghanistan. Gates said it "reminds me of the final scene in the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War,' where we spent billions to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but couldn't get $1 million to build a school."

By Dan Dupont
February 16, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, through spokesman Geoff Morrell, has reacted to the House vote on the JSF alternate engine. His statement:

Secretary Gates welcomes today's vote and is gratified that the full House has recognized the merits of the Department's position in opposing the JSF extra engine. He understands this afternoon's vote is but one step, although a very important one, on the path to ensuring that we stop spending limited dollars on unwanted and unneeded defense programs.

By John Liang
February 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM

The Government Accountability Office has given the Pentagon office in charge of processing security clearances a pat on the back for improving the way the office does its job.

In its "High-Risk Series" update released today, GAO removed the high-risk designation from the Defense Department's Personnel Security Clearance Program. According to a GAO statement:

Serious delays in processing security clearances prompted GAO to first designate this program, which handles the vast majority of security clearances in the federal government, a high-risk area in 2005. Continued delays, coupled with concerns about clearance documentation, resulted in the program being included on GAO’s 2007 and 2009 high-risk lists.  GAO is removing the high-risk designation from this program because of DOD’s progress in timeliness and in developing tools and metrics to assess quality.  High-level attention by DOD, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, along with sustained congressional oversight, played a key role in spurring progress.

More specifically, according to the report itself:

High-level attention by DOD, OMB, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, along with consistent congressional oversight, has led to significant improvements in processing security clearances. For example, DOD processed 90 percent of all initial clearances in an average of 49 days in fiscal year 2010 and thus met the 60-day statutory timeliness objective. Furthermore, DOD has reduced the average time it takes to process 90 percent of initial security clearances for industry personnel from 129 days in 2008 to 63 days in 2010. DOD has also developed and is implementing quality assessment tools and has issued adjudicative standards for addressing incomplete investigations.

By Jason Sherman
February 16, 2011 at 6:59 PM

The House this afternoon voted to strip funding for the Joint Strike Fighter F136 alternate engine program from the fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations bill, adopting an amendment introduced by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) to halt spending on the effort.

The vote hands Defense Secretary Robert Gates a major victory in his effort to adjust the Pentagon's budget.

More to follow . . .

By Jason Sherman
February 16, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) today raised the prospect that OSD's legislative affairs shop may have contravened a statute that prohibits the Pentagon from lobbying Congress by circulating to lawmakers “information" papers on the F136 program that argue “the interests of the taxpayers” and the military “are best served by not pursuing a second engine.”

Here's the exchange from the House Armed Services Committee hearing this morning:

Bartlett: For the past two days two papers have been circulated by the Congress here. One on Monday, one on Tuesday. They are unsigned and undated. It simply says prepared by the Department of Defense. The Office of the Secretary of Defense for legislative affairs has refused to respond over the last three days to why these papers are not dated, why they were not provided to the [House] Armed Services Committee.

Sir, when I was a little boy, my mother impressed on me that an intent to deceive is the same thing as a lie. In each of these papers there is a statement, “The F136 alternate engine is currently three to four years behind in development compared to the current engine program,” and yesterday's paper said the F136 engine is already three to four years behind in the development phase.

Sir, as you know the first engine is now about 24 months behind in its development and I understand that the second engine is just two to three months behind in its development cycle. So, in reality, had they both been started at the same time, the second engine would now be well ahead of the first engine.

Sir, are you comfortable that these two [issue papers[ that have gone through the Congress for the last couple of days do not constitute a violation of the statute that prohibits the Pentagon from lobbying the Congress?

Gates: I am not in the slightest aware of either one of those documents. . . .

Bartlett: Sir, these two papers are circulating. They are both unsigned and undated. And the Office of the Secretary of Defense Legislative Affairs refuses to respond over the last three days as to why these papers are not signed.... they were provided to everyone else in the Congress except the Armed Services Committee, is my understanding.

Are you comfortable sir, that this does not violate the statute that says, the Pentagon cannot lobby Congress?

Gates: Let me see the papers and find out the background before I make a judgement on them.

On Monday, during a Pentagon press conference, Gates reached out to newly elected GOP House members expressing a hope that they would support his call to terminate the F136 program when he said:

And my hope is that, particularly the new members who are interested in fiscal responsibility will see this as an opportunity to save $3 billion for the taxpayers that can be put to better use.

Josh Holly, spokesman for House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA), told InsideDefense.com today that the Office of the Secretary of Defense shipped the "information" paper in question to all new House members on Monday. "Our staff pinged OSD/LA on Monday and Tuesday -- and did not receive a response, which is highly unusual," Holly said in an e-mail, adding:

Chairman McKeon believes Rep. Bartlett raised some valid concerns at the hearing this morning. The Department of Defense is viewed on the Hill as a neutral authority; and pushing questionable information to specific Members without providing the committee of jurisdiction the courtesy of a heads-up is questionable and might cause some to doubt the Pentagon’s motives on other programs as well.

By Jason Sherman
February 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates today issued a stern warning to lawmakers against reducing military spending, cautioning that “shortsighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later” -- including “an unacceptably high cost in America blood and treasure.”

During his opening statement before the House Armed Services Committee this morning to defend the Pentagon's fiscal year 2012 budget request, Gates used the opportunity -- perhaps his last before the panel as SECDEF -- to exhorting against precipitous cuts in military spending.

We still live in a very dangerous and very unstable world. Our military must remain strong and agile enough to respond to a diverse range of threats from non-state actors attempting to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated missiles to more traditional threats of other states both building up their conventional forces and developing new capabilities that target our traditional strengths.

We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril.

Retrenchment brought about by shortsighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later, indeed as they always have in the past. Surely we should learn from our national experience since World War I that drastic reductions in the size and strength of the U.S. military make armed conflict all the more likely with an unacceptably high cost in America blood and treasure.

By John Liang
February 15, 2011 at 4:59 PM

The office of the Director of National Intelligence announced yesterday it is asking Congress for $55 billion for fiscal year 2012. Want more detail? Unless you have a security clearance, fat chance. According to the DNI statement:

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

UPDATE: Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists had this to say about the DNI budget disclosure on his Secrecy News blog:

The disclosure of the budget request constitutes a new milestone in the “normalization” of intelligence budgeting. It sets the stage for a direct appropriation of intelligence funds, to replace the deliberately misleading practice of concealing intelligence funds within the defense budget.  Doing so would also enable the Pentagon to (accurately) report a smaller total budget figure, a congenial prospect in tight budget times.  (See "Intelligence Budget Disclosure: What Comes Next?", Secrecy News, November 1, 2010.)

The publication of the intelligence budget request is the culmination of many years of contentious debate and litigation on the subject.

Until quite recently, intelligence community leaders firmly opposed disclosure both of the intelligence budget total and of the total budget request.  In response to a 1999 lawsuit brought by the Federation of American Scientists, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet said that revealing the budget request would damage national security and compromise intelligence methods.

"I have determined that disclosure of the budget request or the total appropriation reasonably could be expected to provide foreign intelligence services with a valuable benchmark for identifying and frustrating United States' intelligence programs," DCI Tenet wrote in a sworn declaration.  The court upheld the classification of the requested information.

By John Liang
February 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Defense Environment Alert is reporting this week that an ad-hoc team of energy assessors convened by the commandant of the Marine Corps is recommending the service make a number of changes to lower the cost and risk of providing energy and water to forces operating in Afghanistan.

The team's recommendations include advice to better match electrical power load to demand in order to eliminate wasted energy, and to exploit local water sources, replacing bottled water shipments. Specifically:

The recommendations were recently released in a report dated January 2011 by the Marine Energy Assessment Team (MEAT), which was tasked in August 2009 to conduct an assessment in the Helmand province in southern Afghanistan to determine measures to lower energy and water costs and risks. The commandant directed the assessment in response to the high fuel consumption rates and related costs, along with the high human toll from improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on supply convoys. . . .

After visiting both large and small bases, collecting data on-site and input from leaders, logistics staff and others, the MEAT recommends changes for the near-term (within six months), mid-term (between 6 months and three years) and long-term (beyond three years).

For the short-term, the team makes a number of recommendations. First, the Marine Corps should eliminate the use of bottled drinking water in Marine operations in nearly all of Helmand province, located in South Central Afghanistan, and known as the Marine Expeditionary Brigade - Afghanistan (MEB-A) area of responsibility (AOR). "Over half of the tactical logistics capacity in MEB-A is being used to transport bottled drinking water to forces arrayed in the AOR," the report says. Exploitable water sources exist within reach for forward operating bases and smaller bases and outposts, "yet two months after decisive operations commenced the sole source of drinking water and in many cases the sole source for all water remains bottled water transported at great cost and risk to human life," it says. It recommends evaluating all sites in the AOR to identify exploitable water sources and move forward on extracting the water and making it potable.

Second, in the short-term, the Marines should be more efficient at using spot electrical power generation for smaller bases, for instance by "ganging generators," it says. Ganging generators more closely matches power load to generation, increasing fuel efficiency and wear and tear on the generator, according to the DOD Energy Blog website. The report notes that in many cases generators in the AOR "are not efficiently matched to the demand load."

Third, the report recommends exploring alternative power sources in place of generators for the relatively small loads at smaller bases and operations. Reducing fuel requirements for this would directly lower the frequency of resupplies needed, it says.

And it recommends an information campaign targeted at Marines at all levels emphasizing power and water conservation.

For the mid-term, the report advises reducing demand for energy, particularly at combat operations centers (COCs) without affecting operational capability by assessing lessons learned on reducing in-theater energy and water demand across the military services, and exploring the possibility of reducing the size of COC staffs.

Second, in the mid-term, the Corps should accelerate the fielding of technologies to exploit local renewable power and water resources, which could reduce fuel requirements in the AOR. Third, the Corps should improve its capacity, through for instance extreme resolution digital maps, to plan for the use of local water and renewable energy such as solar, wind or small hydro power sources.

For the long-term, the Corps should work with the private sector, academia and government labs to find creative, highly efficient solutions to meet expeditionary requirements for energy.

The team released initial findings in October 2009, finding that at the tactical level, the most pressing energy-related challenge in Afghanistan has been the transport of water.

Inside the Navy reports this week that despite the Defense Department's commitment to calculate the fully burdened cost of fuel as part of its energy efficient acquisition process, DOD still has no overall estimate for how much it costs to get fuel to forces in Afghanistan, according to David Bak, the lead analyst in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans. Further:

Speaking at a conference Feb. 9 in Washington, Bak explained that determining the "fully burdened cost of fuel," which covers not just the price per gallon but the expenditures required to equip and deploy the convoys that deliver the fuel to its final destination, "is actually technically impossible."

But according to Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, that metric has already been worked into the acquisition process.

"We are making sure that energy efficiency is a part of our acquisition process," Lynn said at a defense environmental awards ceremony in June. "Calculating the fully burdened cost of fuel used by potential weapons systems -- including the costs of securely transporting it to a war zone -- is now a mandatory part of their evaluation."

Speaking last October, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli echoed Lynn's words.

"Already we've taken a significant step to improve our energy security by using the fully burdened cost of fuel as we conduct the analysis of alternatives for the Ground Combat Vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and the Armed Aerial Scout," he said.

According to Bak, however, the main problem holding DOD back from determining that figure has to do with the lack of data collection from the field.

"One of the problems we have in Afghanistan today is we don't collect the data uniformly or consistently about what the fuel burn rate is," he said. "We know how much the Defense Logistics Agency sells to the services, how much is generally used. But the department hasn't done a point of use data collecting or metering by any means -- hardly at all, frankly."

By John Liang
February 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM

The Missile Defense Agency has released a draft environmental assessment for the maintenance and repair of the ship that carries the Sea-Based X-Band Radar. According to an agency statement:

Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed maintenance and repair of the vessel are analyzed in the Draft EA. Regularly scheduled maintenance and repairs are needed for the vessel to be certified for continued operation. The SBX Radar Vessel is an integral part of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Maintenance and repair work may begin in the spring of 2011, and will take approximately three months to complete.

Current plans are to have maintenance work performed at Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle, Wash. Two naval facilities, Naval Station Everett, Wash., and Naval Base Coronado-Naval Air Station North Island, Calif., are being considered only as contingencies should unforeseen circumstances prevent work from being performed at Todd Pacific Shipyards. The Draft EA has been prepared to analyze potential effects at these two alternative federal facilities.

The SBX Radar Vessel became operational in 2005. It is one of the sensor systems supporting the nation’s missile defense system. It requires routine maintenance and repair as well as mandatory recertification of structural and propulsion components. Thruster maintenance and repair must be performed at a deepwater (a minimum of 50 feet) facility. Three locations on the West Coast have the appropriate depth to accomplish repairs: Todd Pacific Shipyards, Naval Station Everett and Naval Base Coronado-Naval Air Station North Island. The X-band radar will not be turned on when the vessel is in port.

In its fiscal year 2012 budget request unveiled yesterday, MDA is asking Congress for $177.1 million in FY-12 for SBX procurement. Over the next five years, the agency envisions needing $172.6 million in FY-13, $162.6 million in FY-14, $185.9 million in FY-15, and $173.6 million in FY-16.