The Insider

Veto Potential
By John Liang
November 29, 2012 at 8:07 PM

The White House Office of Management and Budget is threatening to recommend a presidential veto if portions of the Senate version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill remain unchanged.

In a statement of administration policy released this afternoon, OMB says:

While there are numerous areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration has serious concerns with provisions that: (1) depart from the President's FY 2013 Budget request; (2) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions consistent with the new defense strategy; and (3) limit key authorities of the Executive.  If the bill is presented to the President for approval in its current form, the President's senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.

Some additional excerpts:

Structure of the Air Force: The Administration strongly objects to Title XVII, which would place limitations on funding to be used to divest, retire, or transfer units of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve, in addition to creating a commission to study the appropriate makeup of the Air Force.  These provisions would force DOD to operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are in excess to national security requirements, as defined by the new defense strategy, and are not affordable in an austere budget environment. They also would impair the ability of the Secretary to manage the Department and, by retaining large numbers of under-resourced aircraft in the fleet in today's fiscally constrained environment, could contribute to a hollow force. . . .

Alternative Fuels: The Administration strongly objects to sections 313 and 2823, which would limit DOD's ability to procure alternative fuels for military applications.  Section 313 is overly broad and has the potential to restrict investments by making price the sole factor in determining if DOD could use an alternative fuel, without any consideration of military capability, mission, or circumstances contributing to long-term energy security.  Section 2823 would limit DOD's ability to contribute to the development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive advanced drop-in biofuels at a commercial scale.  Such a capability, pursued in collaboration with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, would help insulate the Nation, as well as the military, against potential supply disruptions.

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS): The Administration strongly objects to section 236, which would prohibit the use of funds for the MEADS program.  If the Congress does not appropriate FY 2013 funding, there is a high likelihood that this action would be perceived by our partners, Italy and Germany, as breaking our commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding.  This could harm our relationship with our allies on a much broader basis, including future multinational cooperative projects.  It also could prevent the completion of the agreed Proof of Concept activities, which would provide data archiving, analysis of testing, and software development necessary to harvest technology from U.S. and partner investments in MEADS.

View the full statement.

Dunford Confirmed
By John Liang
November 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee today confirmed Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford to become the next head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan as well as commander of the International Security Assistance Force.

Dunford's confirmation was one of 285 military nominations "approved by voice vote in a single en bloc vote," according to a committee statement, which adds: "All nominations were immediately reported to the floor following the committee's action."

Check out Dunford's responses to advance questions at his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

Biofuels Bill
By John Liang
November 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

The Senate voted yesterday to eliminate a measure in the pending fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that would have blocked the Defense Department from purchasing biofuels and other alternative fuels if they cost more than conventional fossil fuels, pushing back against an attempt to blunt the administration's high-profile initiative to bolster commercial deployment of cleaner fuels, according to a Clean Energy Report blog post:

With support from DOD, the Senate voted 62-37 to strike section 313 from the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, one of two controversial biofuels prohibitions in the bill.

Section 313, sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) during the Armed Services Committee mark-up of the bill, would have barred DOD from purchasing or producing alternative fuels if their cost exceeded the cost of producing or purchasing traditional fossil fuels, except in cases where DOD was purchasing limited quantities of alternative fuels to complete engine or fleet certification of 50/50 blends in research and development efforts.

But the provisions drew opposition from DOD, which has been a leader in the federal government in testing alternative fuels such as biofuels and moving toward their increased use. The Navy in particular has led the way, including among its priorities deployment of a "Great Green Fleet" in 2016.

Last month, DOD urged Congress to strip the language because it would "restrict the department's ability to contribute to the development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive advanced drop-in biofuels on a commercial scale, which is vitally important to our long-term national security." Its appeal added that "such a capability could increase the department's resilience against potential supply disruptions and price volatility of petroleum products."

In addition, a bipartisan group of 38 senators signed a Nov. 16 letter to Senate leadership, voicing their opposition to the two biofuels restrictions in the defense bill.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), who led the effort on the Senate floor to strike section 313, echoed the DOD arguments, saying the department's biofuels program gives the military flexibility and aids in national security, military readiness, and helps wean the country off of foreign oil and aids in job growth.

"Our military is on the cutting edge technologically, but much of our fighting capability relies on foreign fossil fuels and decades-old power systems. That dependence has very real human and economic costs," Udall said in a press statement immediately following the vote. "Today's strong bipartisan vote affirms that we should allow our military leaders to continue to develop and use advanced alternative fuels in order to bring down costs and improve mission capabilities."

"Energy security and national security are inseparable, and our military is taking a necessary leadership role in developing and employing new technologies," Udall said earlier in a statement on the amendment.

Senate environment committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) also sought to strike the prohibition, saying the military opposes the language and that it could even prevent DOD from purchasing commercial biofuels, such as E-85 ethanol.

"The Department of Defense has flex-fuel vehicles in its fleet that can run on E-85," she said. Further, "it would restrict DOD's efforts to develop technologies to generate fuel at tactical locations, including waste to energy. These are precisely the types of technologies the nation should be investing in."

But Inhofe and other supporters of section 313 argued that the department's biofuels plan is a misplaced and expensive clean energy agenda. "I fully support development and use of alternative fuels, including biofuels, but not at the expense of the military," said Inhofe, who is slated to become the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

He argued during the floor debate the Energy Department should be experimenting on biofuels, not the military. "With a military budget that continues to decrease, where is the Navy going to get additional funding to pay its biofuel bill?" he said, contending the cost of these fuels is four times or in some cases one hundred times the amount as other fuels.

And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who Inhofe is replacing as the military committee's ranking Republican, had argued in a July letter that it is inappropriate for the military to be using operations and maintenance funds provided by Congress to equip and train military personnel and operate and repair facilities to purchase costly biofuels for a "demonstration."

But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is slated to become the new chair of the energy committee, rejected GOP concerns about the DOD fuels program's costs, saying that the defense biofuels initiative was not an "either/or proposition because my view is that an investment in energy efficiency and in energy self-sufficiency is hugely important to protecting our country’s national security in a dangerous time."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) has said the conference process with the House would start immediately following the Senate's passage of the defense bill.

For more military fuel news, check out InsideDefense.com's Defense Energy Alert.

Staying On
By John Liang
November 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM

As expected, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) will keep the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee.

In a committee statement issued late this afternoon, the House Republican Conference decided to keep McKeon as panel chairman and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) as vice chairman.

"I am honored that my colleagues have chosen me to continue to lead one of the most productive and bi-partisan committees in the House. America's military faces unprecedented challenges around the world. Our troops bear a heavy burden, fatigued after a decade of tough fighting, while confronted with new security threats abroad and dwindling resources here at home," McKeon said in the statement. "Members of the Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, must come together next year to allocate appropriate resources to our national defense, meet future threats, ensure a stable and secure transition in Afghanistan, and honor our commitments to service members and their families."

"The Armed Services Committee has a long history of building a bi-partisan national security consensus. We have talented and energetic members on both sides of the aisle who lead their parties and the nation in defending our freedom. I look forward to working with Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) as we face these challenges together," McKeon continued.

JSF Talks
By Gabe Starosta
November 28, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Speaking in New York today, Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush suggested that the end of seemingly interminable negotiations between Lockheed Martin and the Defense Department on the fifth production lot of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft may finally be in sight.

Northrop is a major supplier to prime contractor Lockheed on the F-35 program, and Bush, appearing at a conference put on by investment bank Credit Suisse this morning, said that Lockheed and Northrop have come to a deal on their own relationship during LRIP 5. Bush did not specify how recently that agreement was signed.

LRIP 5 negotiations began almost two years ago, in December 2010, and the government and industry's inability to complete that arrangement has prevented progress on LRIP 6. It also led the program's incoming leader, Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, to criticize the relationship between the F-35 program office and Lockheed Martin.

Asked about contracting on the F-35 from a supplier's point of view, Bush said:

Lockheed is the prime obviously on F-35. We're a supplier to Lockheed, and just as when we are the prime, we like to make sure we've got our structure in place with our suppliers before we finalize the ultimate negotiations, and we want to be able to bring that full visibility to the extent we can to our customer community when we're finalizing negotiations.

We've reached agreement with Lockheeed on LRIP 5 and I think that was an important step to enable them to move forward in their process in reaching agreement with their customer community. I don't see anything unusual about that. I see that as sort of a typical process for this scale of activity.

InsideDefense.com has requested comment from Northrop Grumman and will provide more information as soon as it is available.

East Coast BMD (Updated)
By John Liang
November 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

With the Senate this week beginning debate on the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (D-HI) has filed an amendment proposing an East Coast national missile defense site:

SA 3003. Ms. AYOTTE (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, and Ms. Collins) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 3254, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

SEC. 238. MISSILE DEFENSE SITE ON THE EAST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Consideration of Location.--

(1) STUDY.--Not later than December 31, 2013, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study evaluating three possible locations selected by the Director of the Missile Defense Agency for a covered missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States.

(2) EIS.--The Secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for each location evaluated under paragraph (1).

(3) LOCATION.--In selecting the three possible locations for a covered missile defense site under paragraph (1), the Secretary should--

(A) take into consideration--

(i) the strategic location of the proposed site; and

(ii) the proximity of the proposed site to major population centers; and

(B) give priority to a proposed site that--

(i) is operated or supported by the Department of Defense;

(ii) lacks encroachment issues; and

(iii) has a controlled airspace.

(b) Plan.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall develop a plan to deploy an appropriate missile defense interceptor for a missile defense site on the East Coast.

(2) MATTERS INCLUDED.--In developing the plan under paragraph (1), the Director--

(A) shall evaluate the use of--

(i) two-stage or three-stage Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs);

(ii) Standard Missile-3 interceptors, including block IA, block IB, and for a later deployment, block IIA or block IIB interceptors; and

(iii) any other system the Director determines to be better suited to defend against future long-range missile threats;

(B) should consider both land and sea-based options; and

(C) shall develop cost estimates for each option considered.

(3) SUBMITTAL.--The plan shall be submitted to Congress together with the budget of the President for fiscal year 2014, as submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.

(c) Covered Missile Defense Site Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered missile defense site'' means a missile defense site that uses--

(1) Ground-Based Interceptors;

(2) Standard Missile-3 interceptors; or

(3) any other system the Director of the Missile Defense Agency determines to be better suited to defend against future long-range missile threats.

(UPDATE Thursday, Nov. 29, 11:30 a.m.: Ayotte has withdrawn her amendment.)

Buyer's Guide
By John Liang
November 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The Defense Department accounts for a large chunk of the government's purchasing, and most of those buys are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. So it's handy that the Congressional Research Service this month completed a primer on the FAR:

In particular, Members, committees, and staff may find themselves (1) considering or drafting legislation that would amend the FAR to save money, promote transparency, or further other public policies; (2) conducting oversight of executive agencies' performance in procuring goods and services; and (3) responding to questions from constituents regarding executive branch procurement activities. In addition, certain commentators have recently suggested that some or all FAR provisions should be withdrawn.

The FAR is a regulation, codified in Parts 1 through 53 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which generally governs acquisitions of goods and services by executive branch agencies. It addresses various aspects of the acquisition process, from acquisition planning to contract formation, to contract management. Depending upon the topic, the FAR may provide contracting officers with (1) the government’s basic policy (e.g., small businesses are to be given the “maximum practicable opportunity” to participate in acquisitions); (2) any requirements agencies must meet (e.g., obtain full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures); (3) any exceptions to the requirements (e.g., when and how agencies may waive a contractor's exclusion); and (4) any required or optional clauses to be included, or incorporated by reference, in the solicitation or contract (e.g., termination for convenience). The FAR also articulates the guiding principles for the federal acquisition system, which include satisfying the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered goods and services; minimizing operating costs; conducting business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and fulfilling public policy objectives. In addition, the FAR identifies members and roles of the "acquisition team."

The FAR is the result of a 1979 statute directing the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to "issue polic[ies] … for the purpose of promoting the development and implementation of [a] uniform procurement system." Partly in response to this directive, the FAR was issued in 1983, and took effect in 1984. It has been revised frequently since then, in response to legislation, executive orders, litigation, and policy considerations. These revisions are generally made by the Administrator of General Services, the Secretary of Defense, and the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space, acting on behalf of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council. However, the Administrator of OFPP also has the authority to amend the FAR in certain circumstances. FAR amendments generally apply only to contracts awarded after the effective date of the amendment.

While the FAR contains the principal rules of the federal acquisition system, it is not the only authority governing acquisitions of goods and services by executive branch agencies. Statutes, agency FAR supplements, other agency regulations, and guidance documents may also apply. In some cases, these sources cover topics not covered in the FAR, and sometimes the FAR addresses topics not expressly addressed in statute or elsewhere. In addition, it is the contract (not the FAR) that binds the contractor, although judicial and other tribunals may read terms required by the FAR into contracts which lack them.

Agencies subject to the FAR may deviate from it in certain circumstances, and agencies or transactions not subject to the FAR may be subject to similar requirements under other authority.

View the full CRS report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News.

GEOINT Doctrine
By John Liang
November 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

The Pentagon recently issued an updated doctrine document on the use of geospatial intelligence in joint operations.

The Oct. 31 publication "provides doctrine for cross-functional geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) support to joint operations. It discusses roles, GEOINT operational processes, planning, coordination, production, dissemination, existing architectures, and assessment of GEOINT."

The changes to the previous doctrine document published in 2007 include:

* Modifies the construct of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), which may consist of imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information.

* Adds Safety of Navigation reference of Global Positioning System (GPS) as the primary source of positioning, navigation, and timing information and describes the significance GPS plays in GEOINT information.

* Deletes reference to the Defense Intelligence Operations Coordination Center (DIOCC). DIOCC disestablishment occurred on 1 October 2011.

* Updates the support activities of US Strategic Command.

* Adds US Transportation Command's Unified Command Plan (UCP) responsibility for synchronizing planning for global distribution operations.

* Revises the US Transportation Command's subordinate command to include the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command.

* Updates US Special Operations Command's responsibilities based on UCP change.

* Provides an expanded summary of US Air Force support to GEOINT.

* Modifies wording of the US Coast Guard's surveillance mission.

* Includes features associated with cyberspace.

* Modifies phases of imagery exploitation.

* Replaces current remote replication services with former remote GEOINT services.

* Modifies GEOINT targeting support.

* Clarifies real-time meteorological and oceanographic (METOC) support and data.

* Updates Navy METOC center web pages and links.

View the full document.

Saudi Logistics
By John Liang
November 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress yesterday of a proposed $300 million Foreign Military Sale to Saudi Arabia "to provide funds for blanket order requisitions under the Cooperative Logistics Supply Support Arrangement, for spare parts in support of M1A2 Abrams Tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, equipment, support vehicles and other related logistics support."

Further, according to the DSCA statement:

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

This proposed sale will allow the Royal Saudi Land Forces Ordnance Corps to continue to purchase needed repair parts to maintain their fleet of M1A2S Abrams Tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), construction equipment, and support vehicles and equipment.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

There are no prime contractors involved with this sale. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

Watching China
By John Liang
November 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The Congressional Research Service recently issued an updated report on military contacts between the United States and China.

The Oct. 25 report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News and posted on the OpenCRS website -- "discusses policy issues regarding military-to-military (mil-to-mil) contacts with the People's Republic of China (PRC) and provides a record of major contacts and crises since 1993." Further:

Issues for Congress include whether the Obama Administration has complied with legislation overseeing dealings with the PLA and pursued contacts with the PLA that advance a prioritized set of U.S. security interests, especially the operational safety of U.S. military personnel. Oversight legislation includes the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 (P.L. 101-246) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65). Skeptics and proponents of military exchanges with the PRC have debated whether the contacts have achieved results in U.S. objectives and whether the contacts have contributed to the PLA's warfighting capabilities that might harm U.S. security interests. Some have argued about whether the value that U.S. officials place on the contacts overly extends leverage to the PLA. Some believe talks can serve U.S. interests that include conflict avoidance/crisis management; military-civilian coordination; transparency and reciprocity; tension reduction over Taiwan; weapons nonproliferation; nuclear/missile/space/cyber talks; counterterrorism; and POW/MIA accounting.

Additionally . . .

Policymakers could review the approach to mil-to-mil contacts, given concerns about crises. U.S. officials have faced challenges in cooperation from the PLA. The PLA has tried to use its suspensions of exchanges while blaming U.S. "obstacles" (including arms sales to Taiwan, legal restrictions on contacts, and the Pentagon’s reports to Congress on the PLA). The PRC's harassment of U.S. surveillance ships (in 2009) and increasing assertiveness in maritime areas have shown the limits to mil-to-mil talks and PLA restraint. Still, at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in July 2009, President Obama called for military contacts to diminish disputes with China. The U.S. military seeks to expand cooperation with the PLA. The NDAA for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) amended P.L. 106-65 for the annual report on PRC military power to expand the focus to security developments involving the PRC, add cooperative elements, and fold in another report on mil-to-mil contacts. However, the Administration was late in submitting this report in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Enacted as P.L. 112-81 on December 31, 2011, the FY2012 NDAA required reporting on cyber threats but did not require a change back to the original title, while adding a requirement for a report from the Defense Secretary before any waiver of a ban on defense procurement from PLA companies. H.R. 4310 and S. 3254, NDAA for FY2013, would strengthen the annual reporting on military and security challenges and mil-to-mil engagement.

View the full report.

MDA's New Chief
By John Liang
November 20, 2012 at 3:56 PM
The Missile Defense Agency yesterday held a formal change-of-command ceremony to mark Navy Vice Adm. James Syring's succession of Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly as the organization's ninth director.

O'Reilly had served as head of MDA since November 2008.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall presided over the ceremony held at MDA's headquarters at Ft. Belvoir, VA, according to an agency statement.

Javelin Sales
By John Liang
November 20, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Raytheon and Lockheed Martin's Javelin Joint Venture effort could be getting more business.

In a pair of statements issued yesterday afternoon, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced it had notified Congress of potential sales of Javelin anti-tank guided missiles to Oman and Indonesia that could be worth a cumulative $146 million.

If the sales go through, Oman would get 400 Javelins along with associated equipment worth $96 million and Indonesia would get 180 Javelins and supporting equipment worth $60 million, according to DSCA.

On the proposed sale to Oman, DSCA states:

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political and economic progress in the Middle East.

The proposed sale of the JAVELIN Anti-Tank Weapon System will improve Oman's capability to meet current and future threats and provide greater security for its critical oil and natural gas infrastructure. Oman will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense. Oman will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.

As for Indonesia:

The proposed sale provides Indonesia with assets vital to protect its sovereign territory and deter potential threats. The acquisition of the Javelin system is part of the Indonesia Army’s overall military modernization program. The proposed sale will foster continued cooperation between the U.S. and Indonesia, making Indonesia a more valuable regional partner in an important area of the world.

Coalition Warfare
By John Liang
November 19, 2012 at 6:27 PM

The Pentagon acquisition office recently released its updated "Coalition Warfare Management Plan" for fiscal years 2013-2014.

Coalition Warfare Program projects "enable Project Teams to move a technology into the next stage of development or prepare for transition to operational forces," the program's website states. Further:

These projects may also form the basis for future cooperation with our international partners.  CWP pursues projects that enhance and increase U.S. and coalition defense capabilities in support of technological or political objectives. Funded projects accelerate the delivery of high-quality solutions to warfighter problems, improve U.S. interoperability with its coalition partners, and strengthen global partnerships. CWP projects support DoD acquisition by:

*    Helping program offices convert U.S.-only projects into coalition solutions for the U.S. warfighter

*    Influencing coalition interoperability in major programs that will have far-reaching use by U.S. forces

*    Addressing requirements of combined operations early in a program’s development cycle to avert risks to joint/coalition operations and avoid costs associated with adding requirements later in the acquisition process

*    Enabling U.S. DoD access to leading-edge global technology

*    Providing significant cost savings to the DoD while maintaining a strong research and development base

As a research and development funding source in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, CWP strives to bridge the gap between the Combatant Commanders/operational components of the Services and the development and acquisition organizations.  CWP funding incentivizes the R&D community to build and sustain solutions to COCOM and operational component capability gaps.

View the FY-13/14 Coalition Warfare Management Plan.

Fighter Life
By Dan Dupont
November 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM

GAO has taken up the issue of Air Force and Navy plans to extend the service life of mainstay fighters in a new report, noting that the two plan to spend almost $5 billion to keep 300 F-16s and 150 F/A-18s around a lot longer.

Here's some of what GAO auditors found:

The Air Force’s and Navy’s cost estimates to upgrade and extend the service life of selected fighter aircraft exhibit some characteristics of a high-quality cost estimate but do not reflect all potential costs. The estimates were well-documented since they identified data sources and methodologies; accurate since they accounted for inflation and were checked for errors; and mostly comprehensive since they included the work planned and identified key assumptions. However, the estimates were not fully credible in part because they did not assess the extent to which the total costs could change if additional work is done or more aircraft are included in the programs.

And what they suggest:

GAO recommends that the Air Force and Navy follow all best practices to enhance the credibility of the cost estimates for the F-16 and F/A-18 upgrades and life extensions including an assessment of the potential range of costs and seeking independent cost estimates. DOD agreed with all four recommendations.

Dunford Testifies
By Christopher J. Castelli
November 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

U.S. and NATO forces have made little progress eliminating the safe havens that violent extremists have maintained in Pakistan, said Gen. Joseph Dunford, President Obama's nominee to be the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

The problem needs to be addressed over time, Dunford said this morning during questioning at his confirmation hearing.

Dunford, the Marine Corps assistant commandant, said corruption is the most significant strategic challenge in Afghanistan. Asked if U.S. and NATO forces are winning the war in Afghanistan, Dunford said progress is being made.

But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said if the Obama administration decides to draw down troop levels below 68,000, the war may not be worth continuing. "If we can't accomplish the mission, I'm not sure why we should stay," McCain said.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the committee, and McCain voiced support for Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, whose nomination to lead U.S. European Command is on hold.

Also during the hearing, Dunford praised section 841 of the fiscal year 2012 Defense Authorization Act, which gave U.S. Central Command new authorities to avoid contracting with the enemy.