The Insider

Party Platform
By John Liang
September 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM

With the Democratic National Convention kicking off tonight, here's an excerpt from the party's 2012 presidential platform document:

When President Obama took office in January 2009, our armed forces were engaged in two wars. Al- Qaeda, which had attacked us on 9/11, remained entrenched in its safe havens. Many of our alliances were strained, and our standing in the world had diminished. Around the world and here at home, there were those who questioned whether the United States was headed toward inevitable decline.

Under the leadership of President Obama and the Democratic Party, the tide of war is now receding, and America is looking ahead to a new future. We have responsibly ended the war in Iraq. We have struck major blows against al-Qaeda, bringing Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda leaders to justice, and putting the terrorist organization on the path to defeat. And we have reversed the momentum of the Taliban and established the conditions to draw down our forces in Afghanistan.

These actions have enabled a broader strategic rebalancing of American foreign policy. After more than a decade at war, we can focus on nation-building here at home and concentrate our resources and attention abroad on the areas that are the greatest priority moving forward. This means directing more energy toward crucial problems, including longstanding threats like nuclear proliferation and emerging dangers such as cyber attacks, biological weapons, climate change, and transnational crime. And it means a long-overdue focus on the world’s most dynamic regions and rising centers of influence.

As we rebalance our foreign policy, we have rebuilt our relationships around the world. From Europe and Asia to the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas, we have strengthened the alliances and partnerships that are so central to global security, and we have taken steps to reinvigorate international institutions. All the while, we have built the foundation for sustained American leadership by growing our economy, preserving our unrivaled military strength, and advancing our values.

President Obama and the Democratic Party know that there is no greater responsibility than protecting the American people. We also understand the indispensable role that the United States must continue to play in promoting international peace and prosperity. And because of the steps we have taken, the United States is leading once again, and America is safer, stronger, and more secure than it was four years ago.

To view the full national security-related excerpt, click here.

And to view the Republican version, click here.

Security Snafu
By John Liang
August 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the Energy Department's inspector general has excoriated the nuclear weapons complex in Oak Ridge, TN, for its failure to prevent an 82-year-old nun and two other antiwar activists from infiltrating the facility.

In a report released this morning, the IG states:

We initiated this inquiry to identify the circumstances surrounding the Y-12 National Security Complex breach because of the importance of ensuring the safe and secure storage of nuclear materials.  Our review found that the Y-12 security incident represented multiple system failures on several levels.  We identified troubling displays of ineptitude in responding to alarms, failures to maintain critical security equipment, over reliance on compensatory measures, misunderstanding of security protocols, poor communications, and weaknesses in contract and resource management.  Contractor governance and Federal oversight failed to identify and correct early indicators of these multiple system breakdowns.  When combined, these issues directly contributed to an atmosphere in which the trespassers could gain access to the protected security area directly adjacent to one of the Nation's most critically important and highly secured weapons-related facilities.  We noted that following the incident, Y-12 and the National Nuclear Security Administration took a number of actions designed to improve security at the site.  However, the successful intrusion at Y-12 raised serious questions about the overall security approach at the facility.

Given the unprecedented nature of this security event, prompt and effective corrective actions are essential.  Accordingly, we made several recommendations for corrective actions in the report.  NNSA management agreed to implement the report's recommendations and outlined a number of corrective actions it had initiated or completed.  Management's comments were responsive to the report and its recommendations.

View the IG report.

Curriculum Vitae
By John Liang
August 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Pentagon has decided to reestablish the charter for the National Defense University's board of visitors, according to a Federal Register notice published yesterday:

The Board shall provide independent advice and recommendations on the overall management and governance of the National Defense University in achieving its mission.

The Board shall report to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Defense through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President of the National Defense University. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may act upon the Board's advice and recommendations. The Board shall be comprised of no more than twelve members, who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense. The members are eminent authorities in the fields of defense, management, leadership, academia, national military strategy or joint planning at all levels of war, joint doctrine, joint command and control, or joint requirements and development. The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of Board members for one to four year terms of service, with annual renewals; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service. This same term of service limitation also applies to any DoD authorized subcommittees. Board members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not full-time or permanent part-time federal employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and to serve as special government employees. In addition, all Board members, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, shall serve without compensation. Each Board member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.

Inside the Pentagon reported last November that the Defense Department was facing shortfalls in the way it educates and trains military personnel for information operations designed to influence adversaries' decisions:

The Defense Department has "come up short" in training and educating information-operations personnel who can properly assess situations and advise leaders on how to affect enemies' decisions, Austin Branch, the Pentagon's director for information operations, said Monday at an Association of Old Crows symposium in Washington.

Branch said the United States has not generated the type of talent required in the information-operations arena.

"This is Ph.D. level work," Branch said. "We can't leave that up to amateurs, though we've had amateurs do it. So that's why we have to focus on the brain power of the people who are involved in putting this together and advising our senior leaders on what decisions we recommend them to make."

To correct this deficiency, the Pentagon has placed an increased focus on beefing up that capability through reviewing defense courses and curriculum, a defense official said on condition of anonymity. Leaders are also gearing up to finish and implement a specific force development policy, the official added.

DOD hopes to execute this policy within months, the official said. The official could not put a date on when it would be finished, but said it is "moving pretty quickly because we want to implement."

DOD has held a series of force-development seminars and meetings with the services and defense officials to "determine exactly what the requirements are, what have we already been doing. What's been effective or not, how do we improve this," the official said. "It's about getting super-smart folks trained and educated in this space instead of amateurs."

SAIC Spinoff
By John Liang
August 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Science Applications International Corp. plans to split itself in two, according to a company statement issued today.

"The spin-off is expected to occur in the latter half of next fiscal year, subject to final approval of the Board of Directors," the statement reads. The two companies would be structured this way:

A technical services business -- This business will focus on government technical services and enterprise IT businesses, and have a leaner and more efficient cost structure. As one of the largest, pure-play government services companies in the market, it will compete in a broad market space, leveraging its deep mission knowledge and customer relationships in a more competitive and agile organizational structure. It will be free of potential OCI restrictions caused by its current relationship with other SAIC business pursuits, specifically those involved in developing ISR solutions and products for the Department of Defense and Intelligence agencies. New opportunities due to the elimination of OCI are expected to include Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA), Cost & Financial Analysis, and Program Office Support. Likewise, we will be able to expand our offerings noted above to the Intelligence Community and Civil Agencies. Pro forma revenue for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2013 for the future technical services business is estimated at $4 billion.

A solutions-focused business -- This business will focus on delivering science and technology solutions in three high-growth markets that reflect high priority, long-term global needs -- national security, engineering and health. These three markets share an increasingly important convergence of the physical and digital worlds they represent. These markets operate in complex, data rich environments, and are foundational for securing the future of our families, our communities, and our world. We believe we have a unique opportunity to horizontally integrate our deep success in developing mission-critical systems, with SAIC's rapidly emerging technologies in cyber defense, together with our demonstrated solutions in big data analytics, to deliver the next generation of information security and performance in a cyber world. The elimination of OCI with SAIC's services business will allow this business to have unimpeded access to significant new business opportunities not available today. This includes science and technology opportunities in both Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) and Programs of Record (POR) in multiple Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4ISR) regimes, specifically Maritime ISR systems, US Navy Airborne programs, Battlespace Awareness, Maritime Domain Awareness, Electronic Warfare (EW), and Missile Warning, as well as Logistics, Readiness and Sustainment growth across a range of both US and International customers just to name a few. Pro forma revenue for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2013 for the future solutions-focused business is estimated at $7 billion.

For more info, click here.

Arms Control Challenge
By John Liang
August 30, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller this week announced an effort to crowd-source ideas to solve current proliferation problems.

In a blog entry posted on her department's website, Gottemoeller writes:

Through this Challenge, we will collect new ideas about how innovation and technological advancement can affect the implementation of arms control, verification, and nonproliferation treaties and agreements. Can innovation bring about creative ways to prevent "loose nukes" from falling into the hands of terrorists? Can smart phone and tablet apps be created for the purpose of aiding on-site inspectors in verifying and monitoring treaty commitments? How can we use commonly available technologies in new and creative ways to support our arms control policy efforts?

. . . As an arms control policy wonk and negotiator, I see great value in incorporating innovative ideas across the whole spectrum of our arms control initiatives. As we look to the future of arms control, new thinking to face the challenges of the 21st century is vital to our success.

This Challenge is an experiment in that thinking. It seeks creative ideas from across the general public, from garage tinkerers and technologists; to gadget entrepreneurs and students, to support the U.S. arms control and nonproliferation agenda. Are there new ways that we can use existing data, such as Twitter streams, to generate information that will be useful to arms control and nonproliferation verification and monitoring? Are there ways that we can help our inspectors to do their jobs better, by having better tools available? Are there ways that governments and citizens can work together to ensure better monitoring and verification of treaties and agreements?

These are the types of questions that we are asking contestants to consider. We are looking for creative ways to tackle the long-standing problems of arms control and nonproliferation verification and monitoring, keeping in mind the big challenges that come about as we move to reduce nuclear weapons to lower numbers, and look for ways to monitor smaller units of account, such as chemical munitions in storage facilities. No matter how big the challenges, when we attack problems with all the brainpower that is available, we can solve them more effectively together.

The contest is open until Oct. 26, and has a "guaranteed award" of up to $10,000, Gottemoeller writes.

For more info, click here.

Top Seller
By John Liang
August 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

When it comes to selling weapons overseas, the United States accounts for the lion's share of those sales, according to an Aug. 24 Congressional Research Service report.

The annual report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News -- states:

In 2011, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with over $56.3 billion or 78.7% of these agreements, an extraordinary increase in market share from 2010, when the United States held a 43.6% market share. In second place was Russia with $4.1 billion or 5.7% of such agreements.

In 2011, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $10.5 billion, or 37.6% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second in these deliveries at $7.5 billion or 26.8%.

In worldwide arms transfer agreements in 2011 -- to both developed and developing nations -- the United States dominated, ranking first with $66.3 billion in such agreements or 77.7% of all such agreements. This is the highest single year agreements total in the history of the U.S. arms export program. Russia ranked second in worldwide arms transfer agreements in 2011with $4.8 billion in such global agreements or 5.6%. The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide in 2011 was $85.3 billion, a substantial increase over the 2010 total of $44.5 billion, and the highest worldwide arms agreements total since 2004.

View the report.

Pending V-22 Contract
By Gabe Starosta
August 29, 2012 at 3:31 AM

The Defense Department is just days away from awarding a Bell-Boeing team a new contract to provide performance-based logistics and supply chain management services for the V-22 Osprey, Boeing officials said today.

Bell-Boeing, the Osprey tiltrotor's manufacturing team, is already working under a PBL arrangement that covers touch labor, spares and repair services, tech publication updates and a variety of other support activities known as Phase 1 of the V-22’s sustainment, and the companies are now in the fourth year of that five-year framework. But DOD and the companies have reached a "handshake" agreement to add supply chain and obsolescence management to that portfolio, Marty Anderson, Boeing’s V-22 sustainment director, told reporters at a company aircraft modification facility in Millville, NJ, this morning.

Those supply chain and obsolescence-management activities will be covered under a new deal known as the V-22's Phase 2 PBL, and its period of performance is set to begin this Saturday, Sept. 1. It is slated to run until December 2016, for a full duration of 51 months, and DOD and Bell-Boeing plan to extend the Phase 1 contract to cover that same time period, Anderson said. He added that the new agreement would provide demand forecasting and warehousing services, among a handful of new capabilities not covered under Phase 1.

Boeing officials declined to discuss the value of the Phase 2 contract, but its details could be revealed this week if the contract is signed by Friday as expected. Both PBL arrangements will cover logistical support for all of the V-22s in the field, regardless of operating service.

The vast majority of delivered Ospreys, 154 out of 181, are owned by the Marine Corps, and 26 are owned and operated by the Air Force, primarily its special operations forces. The remaining V-22 is used as a technology demonstrator.

For more information on the V-22’s forthcoming PBL announcement and details on Boeing’s plan to improve the quality and cost of Osprey sustainment into the future, be sure to check Friday’s issue of Inside the Air Force.

Missile Defense Advisers
By John Liang
August 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM

The Pentagon is renewing the charter for the Missile Defense Advisory Committee, according to a notice posted on this morning's Federal Register.

The committee's purpose is to provide "independent advice and recommendations on all matters relating to missile defense, including system development, technology, program maturity and readiness of configurations for the Ballistic Missile Defense System," the announcement reads.

The panel has three permanent subcommittees: technical, geopolitical and the "Agency Strategic Operations Subcommittee," according to the notice, which also spells out their duties:

a. The Technical Subcommittee shall be comprised of no more than seven members. The primary focus of the Subcommittee is to conduct independent reviews and assessments of topics deemed critical by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics including application of technology to improve missile defense capabilities and quality and relevance of missile defense science, engineering and technology programs; and system development. The estimated number of subcommittee meeting is up to four per year.

b. The Geopolitical Subcommittee shall be comprised of no more than six members. The primary focus of the Subcommittee is to conduct independent reviews and assessments of topics deemed critical by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics including issues central to missile defense strategic priorities and policy implications of United States defense strategies; program maturity and readiness of configurations; national defense policy and acquisition. The estimated number of subcommittee meetings is up to four per year.

c. The Agency Strategic Operations Subcommittee shall be comprised of no more than six members. The primary focus of the Subcommittee is to conduct independent reviews and assessments of quick reaction and ad hoc topics deemed critical by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and Director, Missile Defense Agency.

GOP On The NSS
By John Liang
August 27, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Before the GOP's convention this week in Tampa, FL, to nominate Mitt Romney for president, the Republican National Committee inadvertently posted a draft platform to its website on Friday. The draft was quickly pulled offline, but not before Politico was able to obtain it and post it.

Here's what a portion of the draft platform document had to say about the Obama administration's National Security Strategy:

The current Administration's most recent National Security Strategy reflects the extreme elements in its liberal domestic coalition. It is a budget-constrained blueprint that, if fully implemented, will diminish the capabilities of our Armed Forces. The strategy significantly increases the risk of future conflict by declaring to our adversaries that we will no longer maintain the forces necessary to fight and win more than one conflict at a time. It relies on the good intentions and capabilities of international organizations to justify constraining American military readiness. Finally, the strategy subordinates our national security interests to environmental, energy and international health issues, and elevates "climate change" to the level of a "severe threat" equivalent to foreign aggression. The word "climate," in fact, appears in the current President's strategy more often than Al Qaeda, nuclear proliferation, radical Islam, or weapons of mass destruction. The phrase "global war on terror" does not appear at all, and has been purposely avoided and changed by [t]his Administration to "overseas contingency operations."

To view the October 2010 strategy, click here.

Doing Business
By John Liang
August 27, 2012 at 9:14 PM

The Defense Business Board recently released a study titled "Linking And Streamlining The Defense Requirements, Acquisition And Budget Processes."

According to the report's executive summary:

The overarching goal outlined in the Terms of Reference was to streamline and link the three processes that together provide the capabilities required by the warfighter on time, at a reasonable cost, and in the quantities needed to accomplish the mission.

Retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro chaired the study. Other participants included former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim; retired Air Force Gen. Michael Carns; retired Navy Adm. Vernon Clark; and retired Army Gen. Paul Kern.

View the report's findings and recommendations.

Nuclear Report
By John Liang
August 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM

The director of national intelligence is required to submit a biennial report to lawmakers this week on the "nuclear aspirations of non-state entities, nuclear weapons and related programs in non-nuclear-weapons states and countries not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and certain foreign persons," according to congressional statute.

That report, due Sept. 1, should include:

(1) A statement of the number of nuclear weapons possessed by such country or non-state entity.

(2) An estimate of the total number of nuclear weapons that such country or non-state entity seeks to obtain and, in the case of such non-state entity, an assessment of the extent to which such non-state entity is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon or device or radiological dispersion device.

(3) A description of the technical characteristics of any nuclear weapons possessed by such country or non-state entity.

(4) A description of nuclear weapons designs available to such country or non-state entity.

(5) A description of any sources of assistance with respect to nuclear weapons design provided to or by such country or non-state entity and, in the case of assistance provided by such country or non-state entity, a description of to whom such assistance was provided.

(6) An assessment of the annual capability of such country and non-state entity to produce new or newly designed nuclear weapons.

(7) A description of the type of fissile materials used in any nuclear weapons possessed by such country or non-state entity.

(8) A) description of the location and production capability of any fissile materials production facilities in such country or controlled by such non-state entity, the current status of any such facilities, and any plans by such country or non-state entity to develop such facilities.

(9) An identification of the source of any fissile materials used by such country or non-state entity, if such materials are not produced in facilities referred to in paragraph (8).

(10) An assessment of the intentions of such country or non-state entity to leverage civilian nuclear capabilities for a nuclear weapons program.

(11) A description of any delivery systems available to such country or non-state entity and an assessment of whether nuclear warheads have been mated, or there are plans for such warheads to be mated, to any such delivery system.

(12) An assessment of the physical security of the storage facilities for nuclear weapons in such country or controlled by such non-state entity.

(13) An assessment of whether such country is modernizing or otherwise improving the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile of such country.

(14) An assessment of the industrial capability and capacity of such country or non-state entity to produce nuclear weapons.

(15) In the case of a country, an assessment of the policy of such country on the employment and use of nuclear weapons.

Omnibus Reprogramming
By John Liang
August 24, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Over the past fortnight, InsideDefense.com has reported on the House and Senate defense committees' responses to the Pentagon's fiscal year 2012 omnibus reprogramming request.

We now have the responses available online. And see below for our coverage of those responses.

House Committee Rejects $100M Reprogramming Request To Repair Miami
(Inside the Navy - 08/20/2012)

House Authorizers Want Army To Compete Future Interceptor Procurement
(Inside the Army - 08/20/2012)

House And Senate Push Back Against USAF's Reprogramming Request
(Inside the Air Force - 08/17/2012)

Congress Rejects F117 Funding Plus-Up As USAF Works To Reduce Cost
(Inside the Air Force - 08/17/2012)

House Authorizers Criticize, Approve Fuel-Shortfall Reprogramming
(Inside the Pentagon - 08/16/2012)

Lawmakers Leave Omnibus Reprogramming Request As Unfinished Business
(Inside the Army - 08/13/2012)

CSBA On Sequestration
By John Liang
August 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments this morning held a briefing on sequestration, with senior fellow Todd Harrison presenting "a comprehensive account-by-account and outlays analysis of its potential impact on" the Pentagon budget, according to the organization's website.

CSBA also released a "backgrounder" document that "discusses the overall direction of the budget request, its alignment with the new strategic guidance, and the details on how sequestration would be implemented.  It also evaluates the impact sequestration would have on different types of accounts and highlights some of the major budgetary issues facing the Department even if sequestration is avoided," the website states.

To view the CSBA backgrounder, click here.

And to be kept abreast of InsideDefense.com's coverage of Pentagon spending, check out our Defense Budget Alert email notification service.

GAO On Competitive Prototyping
By John Liang
August 23, 2012 at 9:20 PM

The Government Accountability Office issued a report today, weighing in on the Defense Department's decision to waive a competitive prototyping requirement for a subsystem of a classified Air Force satellite program:

The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, as amended (WSARA), requires that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program provides for competitive prototypes before Milestone B approval -- which authorizes entry into system development -- unless the Milestone Decision Authority waives the requirement. Competitive prototyping, which involves commercial, government, or academic sources producing early prototypes of weapon systems or critical subsystems, can help Department of Defense (DOD) programs reduce technical risk, refine requirements, validate designs and cost estimates, and evaluate manufacturing processes prior to making major commitments of resources. WSARA states that the Milestone Decision Authority may waive the competitive prototyping requirement only on the basis that (1) the cost of producing competitive prototypes exceeds the expected life-cycle benefits (in constant dollars) of producing such prototypes, including the benefits of improved performance and increased technological and design maturity that may be achieved through competitive prototyping; or (2) but for such a waiver, DOD would be unable to meet critical national security objectives. WSARA also directed us to review and assess DOD's rationale for competitive prototyping waivers.

On June 18, 2012, DOD notified us that it had waived the competitive prototyping requirement for the Control and Planning Segment (CAPS), a subsystem of the Air Force's Enhanced Polar System (EPS). EPS, which consists of two payloads hosted on classified satellites, a gateway to connect user terminals to other communication systems, and a control and planning segment to control the payloads and manage communications, will provide extremely high frequency, jam-resistant, and secure satellite communications to strategic and tactical forces in the polar region. According to DOD, this is the first waiver of WSARA's competitive prototyping requirement since it was enacted in 2009.

In this report, we assess (1) DOD's rationale for waiving the competitive prototyping requirement for CAPS and the analysis used to support it and (2) the acquisition strategy for CAPS in the context of the waiver. To conduct our assessment, we compared the rationale in the waiver to the WSARA requirement to determine the extent to which the waiver is consistent with the statute. In addition, we reviewed the Air Force's business case analysis, which provides the data and assumptions on which the waiver is based, the acquisition strategy, and other relevant documentation. We also submitted written questions to DOD, Air Force, and EPS program officials to clarify information in this documentation, as necessary.

GAO found the following:

DOD's rationale for waiving WSARA's competitive prototyping requirement for CAPS covered both bases provided in the statute; however, DOD did not provide complete information about the potential benefits of competitive prototyping or support for its conclusion that prototyping would result in schedule delays. In the waiver, DOD found reasonable the Air Force's conclusion that the additional $49 million cost of producing competing prototypes exceeded the negligible expected life-cycle benefits because minimal opportunities exist to increase CAPS technological and design maturity through competitive prototyping. The Air Force's conclusions about CAPS technical and design risk are supported by its market research, but its cost-benefit analysis was incomplete because neither the waiver nor the business case analysis supporting it provided an estimated dollar value for the expected benefits. Further, the Air Force's cost estimate of competitively prototyping CAPS was based on a program office estimate, which has not been independently reviewed by DOD's Office of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation. DOD also did not provide support in the waiver for its conclusion that implementing competitive prototyping will delay EPS's initial operational capability and result in DOD being unable to meet critical national security objectives. Finally, the CAPS acquisition strategy anticipates the use of a cost-reimbursement contract for designing and building the system; however it may be difficult for DOD to meet the requirements for justifying the use of a cost-type contract for development, given the low design and development risk described in the waiver.

View the full GAO report.

MV-22 Redux
By John Liang
August 23, 2012 at 2:32 PM

On Friday, InsideDefense.com reported on the results of an investigation into the causes of a crash of an MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft in Morocco this past April:

A fatal MV-22 Osprey crash in Morocco this past spring was due largely to pilots' mistakes, but wind was also a key factor, according to a Marine Corps investigation report, which recommends no disciplinary action against the pilots and concludes the aircraft's flight manual had inadequate guidance for the circumstances involved.

On April 11, the pilots "made a decision to turn and take off with a tail wind so that they wouldn't endanger any of the folks that were in the rest of the landing zone," Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, the Marine Corps' top aviation official, told reporters today. With the wind at his tail, the pilot began to rotate the nacelles forward from helicopter mode to airplane mode, which moved the Osprey's center of gravity forward.

"So what happens now is that the aircraft turns; the nacelles roll forward; it begins to pitch forward; the wind catches the tail here, exacerbates the motion and pitches the nose down," Schmidle said. "While all that is happening, the control stick doesn't have enough movement at this point to move . . . the horizontal stabilizer on that tail up enough to get the nose positioned to come up. So what happens then is the aircraft now is committed, and it flies into the ground." Two Marines in the rear of the aircraft were killed. The pilot and copilot were seriously injured.

A significant factor in the crash was the pilots' failure to follow the flight manual's procedures for hovering in helicopter-mode and conducting low-speed flight, the report states, citing the 180-degree hover turn that placed the aircraft directly into a tail wind. The failure to correct for a nose-down attitude during the hover-turn made the situation more severe, the report states. Investigators also found the aircraft's nacelles were moved too far forward.

"The mishap aircraft co-pilot failed to adjust stick control margin during the pedal turn, preventing him from having enough aft cyclic stick control margin to overcome the effects of a nose-down attitude and transitioning to aircraft mode with a significant tail wind," the investigating officer wrote. The commanding general of the 2nd Marine Air Wing later recommended revising that wording to say the co-pilot "failed to adjust nacelles aft during the pedal turn."

We originally only had a 27-page version of the redacted report, but have since obtained a much more detailed analysis -- more than 400 pages -- that includes many enclosures.

Click here to view the more-detailed, 20-megabyte report.