The Insider

By Zachary M. Peterson
May 4, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told luncheon attendees today at the Navy League's annual Sea-Air-Space conference that the Defense Department should focus on what the Joint Strike Fighter "should" cost not what the jet "will" cost.

Carter did not expand much on the comment; however, he did say that the key to the troubled program's success is affordability. The acquisition czar added that the department must get the JSF program back on track and is "determined to do so" after the Joint Estimating Team (JET) found last fall that the cost of the Pentagon's largest current procurement effort had grew considerably from the original estimates.

When asked by a lieutenant commander in the audience how fellow acquisition professionals could avoid the mistakes that plague JSF in the future, Carter said people working within program offices should focus on the "content, not the process." He argued in many cases program personnel are "so choked with process" that they are satisfied if they start out with a "lion and end up with a mouse." Further, Carter said programs must be able to allow issues to surface "in an honest way," so they can be solved before more serious problems arise.

Carter declined to take any questions from reporters.

By John Liang
May 3, 2010 at 5:00 AM

National Public Radio this morning did a curtain-raiser on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference being held this week at the United Nations in New York. NPR spoke with several nonproliferation experts to get their views on Iran and North Korea. Leonard Spector of the James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies had this to say about Iran's challenge to the United States regarding the U.S. commitment to nonproliferation:

Iran will pound away at that, but I think most states are going to say, whoa, the United States has really made some progress. It's committed quite openly to the vision of disarmament, which we had not seen in the previous administration. Maybe now it's time for us, the other countries, to stand behind the United States in an effort to reinforce the non-proliferation parts of the treaty.

Mitchell Reiss, a nuclear issues expert at the College of William and Mary, said that non-nuclear countries could receive security benefits from the NPT, regardless of whether the United States were to make reductions to its atomic arsenal:

It's the non-nuclear weapon states that have the most to gain from making sure that the NPT is robust and that its safeguards are effective and the cheaters, like North Korea and Iran are punished. Our reductions aren't a prize or a reward to the non-nuclear weapon states; it's something that we do out of our self-interest. But the NPT is in their self-interest.

By Jason Sherman
May 3, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates today raised fundamental questions about the affordability of the Navy's modernization plans and called for the sea service “to be designed for new challenges, new technologies, and new missions.”

In an address to the Navy League Sea-Air-Space Expo at the Gaylord Convention Center in National Harbor, MD, Gates issued a raft of challenges to Navy and Marine Corps leaders. We'll have a full story up on the speech, which is sure to get lots of attention. For now, here are some key quotes -- not necessarily in order of delivery -- from the prepared text:

  • I do not foresee any significant topline increases in the shipbuilding budget beyond current assumptions. At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 ((billion)) to 6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.
  • Our Navy has to be designed for new challenges, new technologies, and new missions -- because another one of history’s hard lessons is that, when it comes to military capabilities, those who fail to adapt often fail to survive.
  • … ((T))he virtual monopoly the U.S. has enjoyed with precision guided weapons is eroding -- especially with long-range, accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles that can potentially strike from over the horizon. This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion-dollar blue-water surface combatants, where, for example, a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially $15 to $20 billion worth of hardware at risk. The U.S. will also face increasingly sophisticated underwater combat systems -- including numbers of stealthy subs -- all of which could end the operational sanctuary our Navy has enjoyed in the Western Pacific for the better part of six decades.
  • But we must also rethink what and how we buy -- to shift investments towards systems that provide the ability to see and strike deep along the full spectrum of conflict. This means, among other things: extending the range at which U.S. naval forces can fight, refuel, and strike, with more resources devoted to long-range unmanned aircraft and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. New sea-based missile defenses; a submarine force with expanded roles that is prepared to conduct more missions deep inside an enemy’s battle network. We will also have to increase submarine strike capability and look at smaller and unmanned underwater platforms.
  • ((T))he Department must continually adjust its future plans as the strategic environment evolves. Two major examples come to mind.
    • First, what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire -- in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City -- forcing Saddam’s army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again -- especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?

Second -- aircraft carriers. Our current plan is to have eleven carrier strike groups through 2040. To be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But, consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities.

By Christopher J. Castelli
April 30, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Pentagon's Feb. 1 Quadrennial Defense Review report addressed many but not all of the items required by law, according to a study released today by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Of the 17 required reporting items, the Defense Department addressed six, partially addressed seven, and did not directly address four, GAO concludes.

"The items not directly addressed included items addressing the anticipated roles and missions of the reserve component, the advisability of revisions to the Unified Command Plan, the extent to which resources must be shifted among two or more theaters, and the appropriate ratio of combat to support forces," GAO writes. "According to DOD officials, these items were not directly addressed for a variety of reasons such as changes in the operational environment, the difficulty of briefly summarizing a large volume of data generated through the QDR analyses, or departmental plans to report on some items separately."

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development David Ochmanek discussed the tooth-to-tail ratio in an interview with Inside the Pentagon.

By Dan Dupont
April 30, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The issue of counterfeit parts in the military supply chain is back in the news, as you may have noted. From our story yesterday:

The Defense Department is unable to vet counterfeit parts from U.S. weapon systems' supply chain, a shortcoming that has exposed Air Force aircraft to bogus parts such as sensitive electronics and metals used in critical components, according to a new report by congressional auditors.

That report, from the Government Accountability Office, is here.

It contains this little nugget of interesting info:

In April 2009 DOD formed a departmentwide team -- partially in response to media reports that highlighted the existence of counterfeit parts in the DOD supply chain10 -- to collect information and recommend actions to mitigate the risk of counterfeit parts in its supply chain.

And what media reports are those? Here's one, from the GAO report's footnote:

"Fake Parts are Seeping Into Military Aircraft Maintenance Depots,” Inside the Air Force (Mar. 28, 2008) . . . .

By John Liang
April 29, 2010 at 5:00 AM

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has tapped House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Peter King (R-NY) to chair a "National Security Solutions Group" made up of select House Republicans "that will take the lead in advocating and developing better solutions to the national security challenges we face and hold the Obama administration accountable when it pursues misguided policies that make the American people less safe," according to a statement released today. Specifically:

The National Security Solutions Group, like the other House GOP Solutions Groups that have been established over the past year on issues ranging from economic recovery to energy reform, will complement and support the work of Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is leading the effort by House Republicans to engage the American people and put forth a positive governing agenda.

"The world is growing more dangerous, not less so. That’s why Republicans have consistently supported our troops in harm’s way and advocated policies that confront the threat America faces and reaffirm our commitment to our allies. When the President has made responsible decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans have stood by him and supported his efforts. However, when he has advocated policies that make America less safe – such as importing terrorists into the U.S., alienating our closest allies, and undermining our missile defense capabilities – we have listened to the American people, taken principled stands, and offered better solutions," said Boehner. "Peter King is uniquely qualified to chair this Solutions Group, and I’m pleased he will be working with Kevin McCarthy in the weeks and months ahead to engage the American people and put forth common-sense solutions to keep them safe."

"Keeping the American people safe and secure must be the number one mission of our federal government. Republicans in Congress have long recognized this critical fact. We must ensure that Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration do what is necessary to keep the nation secure, including properly funding our troops and keeping terrorists out of America," added King. "I am honored to accept Leader Boehner’s invitation to serve as Chair of the National Security Solutions Group, which will work to develop solutions to the current and future threats we face from around the globe and even here at home, and I look forward to working with Kevin McCarthy on the agenda project as we move forward this year."

The group will comprise these members:

Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Peter King (R-NY)
House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA),
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)
Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA)
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA)
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)

In his own statement, McKeon said: "The American people deserve and are demanding a stronger national defense.

"While our citizens are skeptical of some of the decisions made by this administration, they fundamentally want to trust the federal government to provide for the common defense," McKeon continued. "Our efforts, combined with those of Kevin McCarthy, will be focused on listening to the American people, including our brave troops and their families, and developing national security policies that are responsive to their needs and concerns."

By John Liang
April 29, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher this morning laid out the Obama administration's goals for next week's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York.

"We are going to New York with our eyes wide open," Tauscher said in a speech to the Center for American Progress, adding that the nuclear nonproliferation regime "is under great stress and is fraying at the seams" due to efforts by North Korea and Iran to develop atomic weapons.

Next week's conference "is not a silver bullet or an end in and of itself," Tauscher warned in her prepared remarks. "It is one of several tools at our disposal to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Other tools include multilateral and unilateral sanctions, extended deterrence, and other mechanisms like United Nations Resolution 1540" that the U.N. passed in 2004 which established for the first time binding obligations on all U.N. member states to enforce measures against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials.

Tauscher was somewhat less sanguine about the prospects of the conference's turning out a "final document" encompassing the views of all 189 countries that are signatories to the NPT Treaty:

A final document, which can only be reached by consensus of all 189 nations -- and yes, that includes Iran -- can be valuable. It can energize our efforts, but it cannot change the substance of the Treaty. In our view, whether there is a consensus Final Document should not be the measuring stick to judge the success of the Review Conference. As I said, a Final Document can easily be blocked by the extreme agendas of a few.

Tauscher then went on to list the administration's goals for the conference:

First, we want to make it clear that the United States is living up to its obligations under the Treaty. President Obama has jump started arms control as a goal and as a process – everyone in this room has read his speech in Prague last year. Not only is this good for our own security interests, it gives us leverage to ask more of other states to strengthen the Treaty’s nonproliferation obligations at the Review Conference. So we’re not going to shy away from claiming credit from taking these steps to point out that we follow through on our NPT obligations.

Second, we seek to demonstrate broad consensus in support of strengthening the Treaty’s nonproliferation pillar. So we will offer more support for the IAEA to obtain the tools and authorities it needs to carry out its mission.

We will push for universal adherence to the Additional Protocol. The current Director General, Yukiya Amano, and his predecessor, Mohammed El Baradei, have said that this is critical. The IAEA must be able to provide credible assurances that not only declared nuclear material under safeguards is not being diverted for military purposes, but that there are no undeclared fissile material and nuclear weapons activities.

We will push to make sure that there are real consequences for those states that choose not to comply with their nonproliferation obligations.

We will work to prevent states from cynically violating the Treaty and then exercising their withdrawal rights to evade accountability.

Finally, we intend to engage in a vigorous and high-level discussion of these issues at the Review Conference. Some believe that it is critical that we “name names” when discussing noncompliance. That’s a tactical decision, but nobody should be mistaken who we are discussing when we raise compliance concerns.

By John Liang
April 28, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Wannabe Air Force pilots covet a "wings" badge. Now, Air Force hackers have their own badge to proudly sport on their uniforms.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has approved a new badge that officers working in the cyberspace domain can wear, according to the service. In an April 21 memorandum, Schwartz "set forth guidelines and addressed standard eligibility requirements for officers working in the cyberspace domain," the statement reads. "Eligibility criteria for enlisted personnel are slated for release in a future message." Further:

Maj. Gen. Michael Basla, Air Force Space Command vice commander, who will wear the new badge, highlighted its significance. “The Air Force mission -- to fly, fight and win/ /in air, space and cyberspace -- acknowledges the significance and interrelationship of our three operational domains in effective warfighting. The establishment of the Air Force Cyberspace Badge underscores the crucial operational nature of the cyberspace mission,” said General Basla.

The Air Force’s Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer said the new badge reflects the importance of cyber operations. "The Air Force's cyberspace operators must focus on operational rigor and mission assurance in order to effectively establish, control, and leverage cyberspace capabilities. The new cyberspace operator badge identifies our cyberspace professionals with the requisite education, training, and experience to operate in this new critical domain. The badge symbolizes this new operational mindset and the Air Force's commitment to operationalize the cyberspace domain," said Lt Gen William T. Lord.

The new badge is authorized in three levels: basic, senior and master. Badge level eligibility criteria are consistent with those listed in Air Force Instruction 36-2903. The guidance for the Cyberspace Badge will be included in the next revision of the AFI. Certain officers are “grandfathered” and eligible to wear the new badge. Officers converting from the 33S to the 17D Air Force Specialty Code on April 30 are authorized the basic Cyberspace Badge. Officers may continue to wear the Communications and Information Badge at the authorized level until Oct. 1, 2011. Upon completing the Distance Learning Cyberspace Operations Transition Course (the “X- course”), Undergraduate Network Warfare Training, or meeting criteria for upgrade, officers who earned the senior or master level Communications and Information Badge are authorized to wear that same level of the Cyberspace Badge.

. . . The design element of the badge holds significant meaning. The lightning bolt wings signify the cyberspace domain while the globe signifies the projection of cyber power world-wide. The globe, combined with lightning bolt wings, signifies the Air Force’s common communications heritage. The bolted wings, centered on the globe, are a design element from the Air Force Seal signifying the striking power through air, space and cyberspace. The orbits signify the space dimension of the cyberspace domain.

The new badge is equal in precedence to the Aeronautical and Space Badges. Those awarded multiples of the Cyberspace, Aeronautical and Space Badges must wear the Cyberspace Badge above the others while serving in a cyberspace billet.

By John Liang
April 27, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Defense Department has commissioned an independent study to analyze the impacts on military radar from a proposed large wind farm in Oregon -- this after initial military concerns prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to label the project a possible hazard to air navigation, signaling possibly significant roadblocks to this and potentially other nearby projects, Defense Environment Alert reports today:

At issue is the Shepherds Flat wind farm project slated to be built by Caithness Energy in Arlington, OR. In March, the FAA issued a notice of presumed hazard regarding the project -- due to DOD concerns -- triggering a formal evaluation of the project’s potential impacts and allowing for discussions with the project’s backer to determine if mitigation of the impacts can be adopted, according to an FAA spokeswoman. The wind facility, if constructed, would be the largest such facility in Oregon, according to Caithness’ Web site.

DOD has now also launched an independent study to be led by MIT Lincoln Laboratory to assess the security threats posed by the wind farm and to identify mitigation options, an Air Force spokesman says in an e-mail response to questions.

The Pentagon’s objections have caused a stir within the Obama administration, given its interest in developing sources of alternative energy, according to an April 15 Washington Post article chronicling the debate between DOD’s security concerns and clean energy interests.

According to the FAA’s presumed hazard finding, DOD is concerned about the cumulative effects of about 1,800 turbines proposed or existing within the Air Force’s radar line-of-sight in Fossil, OR. DOD fears the cumulative impact of the wind turbines will reduce the sensitivity of the military’s radar, the FAA notice says.

“This loss of coverage over the entire volume of the radar will seriously impair the ability of the DOD to detect, monitor, and safely conduct air operations in this region, and therefore poses an unacceptable risk to DOD’s mission.” No overlapping radar exists in the area to compensate for this, it says.

“To mitigate this impact, the DOD recommends moving the proposed turbines outside of the radar line-of-sight,” it says.

The Air Force spokesman says a report from the independent study will be submitted to the administration as soon as possible but no later than 60 days after April 16. The study will include advice from experts on the impacts of renewable energy facilities on radar “and will bring technically competent, independent analysis to bear to inform our consideration of next steps for the Shepherds Flat wind farm,” the spokesman says.

Further, the Air Force says it has reached out to Caithness, the wind farm developer, and GE, the wind turbine manufacturer, to discuss ways to mitigate wind turbines’ potential risks to military radar. A request to Caithness to comment on the issue went unanswered. . . .

The FAA’s potential interference determination has triggered Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to indicate he will place a hold on Sharon Burke’s nomination to become DOD’s operational energy director nominee, according to the Post article. Wyden’s staff did not respond by press time to questions on the issue.

In a recent posting on the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s (NORAD) blog, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of both NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, makes note of recent talk in the public arena over the military’s involvement in wind energy development, and its role in determining if new developments interfere with flight safety or radar operations. He stresses the military’s full backing of alternative energy development, noting that the development of such energy and the maintaining of national defense are not mutually exclusive.” Make no mistake about it, NORAD and U.S. Northern Command are dedicated to both homeland defense and clean energy,” he writes.

By Sebastian Sprenger
April 27, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Congressional Research Service this month penned a new assessment of the Defense Department's newest combatant command, U.S. Africa Command. The report includes a neat overview of what countries on the continent have signed up to provide the Pentagon with access to so-called "cooperative security locations." According to the document, they are: Algeria, Botswana, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia.

U.S. military officials generally pursue a low profile on the continent. They have continued to stress the command's emphasis on diplomacy and aid. But officials are also aware of the continent's vastness, which could make it difficult to stage forces if a conflict were to break out that required American intervention.

The CSLs, plus AFRICOM's Adaptive Logistics Network, are supposed to guarantee that the Pentagon has access to critical transportation nodes during crises.

By John Liang
April 27, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), chairwoman of the House Armed Services terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee, is helming a hearing today on the need for more rotorcraft for U.S. special operations forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"This hearing represents a 'good news, bad news' story," Sanchez said in her opening statement. "The good news is that the committee, the (Defense) Department, and (special Operations Command) all recognize that rotary-wing shortfalls are a critical issue for our Special Operations Forces. The bad news is that much work remains to be done, and the proposed solutions may take years to implement." Moreover, the congresswoman added:

Currently, our Special Operations Forces operate in more than 75 countries each and every day - countering terrorism, building partnership capacity in key areas, and improving security and stability for key partner nations. Often working in remote locations with limited infrastructure and reinforcements, air assets provide a vital operational link to ensure mission success for SOF.

Rotary-wing assets in particular are key enablers for our special operators, and critical for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. These helicopters and tilt-wing aircraft provide fire-support, surveillance, insertion/extraction, and other combat support functions. Most critically, they serve as a logistical backbone for SOF and other forces, moving critical supplies over rugged terrain to remote locations in minimal time.

My top priority as chairwoman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities is to provide all the necessary resources to our military in order to protect our country from terrorist threats. And this includes rotary-wing assets which are high demand, low density resources.

It is important to note that U.S. Special Operations Command cannot buy aircraft but is only authorized to pay for SOF-unique equipment for aircraft. This means that SOCOM must coordinate very closely with the Services. I look forward to discussing this process with each of the witnesses, and hearing how the Services’ larger acquisition programs align with and support SOCOM priorities.

By Christopher J. Castelli
April 27, 2010 at 5:00 AM

Iran is not pursuing military activities in Venezuela, U.S. Southern Command chief Gen. Douglas Fraser said today. Tehran's activities there are diplomatic and commercial in nature, he told reporters at a breakfast in Washington.

A recent Pentagon report on Iran's military power says Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force (IRGC-QF) has in recent years increased its presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela. The report says the Qods Force stations operatives in foreign embassies, charities and religious/cultural institutions to foster relationships with people, often building on existing socioeconomic ties with the well established Shia Diaspora. The report also notes the elite force engages in paramilitary operations to support extremists and destabilize unfriendly regimes.

But Fraser said he has seen no evidence of any Iranian military presence in Venezuela. And he said he was not contradicting the Pentagon report.

"I don't see it as a contradiction," he said. "I see an increasing presence of Iran in Latin America. Now, specifically what that means and what elements of that there are -- I don't have all the details of what that means."

For the time being, Fraser said, he sees no need to adjust SOUTHCOM's posture based on the Iranian presence, though he noted the command will continue to watch the issue.

By Debbie Siegelbaum
April 26, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Army’s Integrated Battle Command System is ready to enter the design phase, after contractor Northrop Grumman announced the successful completion of an Interim Design Review for the program.

In an April 26 press release, Northrop said the three-day review, concluded on March 25, was the first in a series of events leading up to the Army's Delta-Preliminary Design Review slated for later this year.

According to the release, the IBCS program -- which uses an open-architecture and can be tailored for different missions using a battle command system for air and missile defense -- will utilize an integrated fire control network, significantly enhancing joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense operations.

The Army awarded Northrop a $577 million, five-year design and development contract in December 2009 to develop IBCS.

By Marcus Weisgerber
April 26, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Pentagon notified Congress last week that it intends to sell 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III cargo haulers to India. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified lawmakers of the much-anticipated $5.8 billion sale on April 23.

Also included in the sale are five spare engines, 10 AN/ALE-47 counter-measures dispensing systems, 10 AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems and other spare parts and equipment, according to an April 26 DSCA notice.

Pentagon officials believe the new C-17s will increase India's ability to mobilize troops and equipment within the country and will “enable India to provide significantly increased humanitarian assistance and disaster relief support within the region,” according to the notice.

“This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to strengthen the U.S.-India strategic relationship and to improve the security of an important partner which continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in South Asia,” the notice states. “India will likely use these aircraft to replace its aging aircraft and associated supply chain with new and highly reliable aircraft.”

The aircraft potential C-17 sales come at a time when the no additional Air Force purchases are expected.

By Tony Bertuca
April 26, 2010 at 5:00 AM

The Army last week released the draft purchase description for the Joint Light Tactical Family of Vehicles as a precursor to an industry day being held today (April 26) in Sterling Heights, MI.

While many of the JLTV's specifications have only been released to industry and those on a “need to know” basis, the PD does include a few nuggets of useful information.

The document describes four different JLTV categories:

a. Payload Category A (JLTV-A): The JLTV-A will serve Battlespace Awareness (BA) mission roles.

b. Payload Category B (JLTV-B): The JLTV-B will serve Force Application (FA) mission roles by providing protected, sustained and networked tactical ground mobility for mounted infantry/combat arms forces.

c. Payload Category C (JLTV-C): The JLTV-C will serve Focused Logistics (FL) mission roles by providing transport of wounded personnel, general cargo, ammunition and shelters.

d. Companion Trailers (JLTV-T): The companion trailers will provide addition payload carrying capacity commensurate with the specific Payload Category vehicles.

It also features a statement about Australia's participation in the program:

Although Australia is yet to make a formal commitment with regard to joining the US JLTV Program for the EMD Phase, the JLTV Program is seeking industry comment and feedback on a number of requirements that Australia has proposed for inclusion in the JLTV EMD PD. In particular, the Program is seeking industry comment on whether these Australian proposed requirements are design and/or cost drivers. The level of effort required to comply with these Australian proposed requirements is also sought. Industry feedback will be used by the Program in order to determine whether these Australian proposed requirements can be incorporated at no/minimal impact to the Program or if of significant impact, not incorporated at all.

And if you get way down in the weeds, you find stuff like this:

The cab of the vehicle shall be equipped with rugged, cup holders for the driver and co-driver that are capable of holding containers in the range of a standard 12 ounce aluminum soda pop can to a 24 ounce plastic soda pop bottle.

But don't worry:

The cup holders shall not interfere with combat operations.