The Insider

By John Liang
May 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Pentagon yesterday afternoon announced a modification to the multibillion-dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter low-rate initial production contract.

Here are the details, according to the Defense Department contract announcement:

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $237,740,000 modification to the previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee (firm target) F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Low Rate Initial Production IV contract (N00019-09-C-0010) for changes to the configuration baseline hardware or software resulting from the JSF development effort.  This modification increases the concurrency cap for the U.S. Marine Corps and United Kingdom short take-off vertical landing aircraft; Air Force and Netherlands conventional take-off and landing aircraft; and Navy carrier variant aircraft.  The concurrency cap establishes the threshold at or under which the contractor is obligated to incorporate government-authorized changes.  Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to span multiple years.  Contract funds in the amount of $222,600,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract modification combines purchases for the Navy ($153,200,000; 64.5 percent); Air Force ($69,400,000; 29 percent); the United Kingdom ($8,200,000; 3.5 percent); and the Netherlands ($6,940,000; 3 percent).  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

For more news on the concurrency issue, check out InsideDefense.com's recent coverage:

DOD Expects Fourth JSF Production Batch To Exceed Target Cost By $534 Million (DefenseAlert, April 18)

The price tag for the Joint Strike Fighter's fourth production run could be $534 million higher than originally expected, a 12.5 percent increase propelled by an estimated $289 million in additional costs to correct deficiencies uncovered during F-35 flight testing, according to the Defense Department.

In testimony prepared for Congress last month, senior Pentagon acquisition officials -- including acting acquisition chief Frank Kendall and Vice Adm. David Venlet, director of the F-35 program office -- disclosed less than half the potential costs DOD expects will be required to procure the low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 4 aircraft.

Their testimony, submitted for a March 20 hearing of a House Armed Services air and land subcommittee, acknowledged $245 million in projected cost overruns to build the aircraft but provided no estimate for concurrency costs -- must-pay bills to address shortcomings identified during flight tests. Lawmakers did not ask about concurrency costs during the hearing.

In response to questions from InsideDefense.com, the F-35 Joint Program Office outlined potential costs beyond the original $3.4 billion deal with prime contractor Lockheed Martin for LRIP Lot 4, a batch of 32 aircraft -- including one jet each for Great Britain and the Netherlands.

"For LRIP [4], the concurrency estimate is currently $289M," program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova wrote in an email. The production run -- using funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 -- is 57 percent complete, he added. The government is responsible for all LRIP Lot 4 concurrency costs, an arrangement the Pentagon is working to change in the Lot 5 contract that is still being negotiated with Lockheed Martin.

The projected concurrency costs plus the forecast cost overruns would total $534 million.

Asked why Pentagon officials did not mention this figure to Congress last month, Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said, "We don't have a budget quality estimate of concurrency costs for LRIP 4. We have indicated to Congress that there will be additional costs for concurrency."

Concerns about concurrency costs were "a major basis" for the Pentagon's decision in February to defer production of 179 F-35 aircraft beyond the fiscal year 2013 to 2017 spending plan, she said. . . .

Pentagon Finds $258 Million To Buy Back Two F-35 Jets Cut Last Fall (DefenseAlert, April 16)

The Pentagon on Friday announced a $258 million contract to buy two additional F-35 aircraft using money found during an end-of-fiscal-year-budget review, a sum nearly equal to the Defense Department's $263 million reprogramming request last summer denied by Congress that aimed to siphon funds from other Navy and Air Force accounts to finance F-35 cost growth.

The purchase of the two additional aircraft, one Air Force conventional-takeoff-and-landing variant and one Navy aircraft-carrier variant, partially reinstates four jets cut in October from the planned 34-aircraft fifth production lot (DefenseAlert, Oct. 26, 2011). Those reductions were made to help finance a $771 million bill tabulated last year to pay "over-target and concurrency" costs for the first three Joint Strike Fighter early production runs.

"In the fall of 2011, estimates for over-target and concurrency costs originally indicated the government could afford to procure 30 aircraft; however, as the program received greater fidelity on cost overruns and conducted its end-of-fiscal-year budget reviews, there were enough funds to procure two additional F-35s," Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office, said today in response to questions from InsideDefense.com.

The revised profile for the fifth low-rate production lot -- LRIP Lot 5 -- is 22 F-35A conventional-take-off-and-landing variants, three F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variants, and seven F-35C aircraft-carrier variants.

The Pentagon and F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin are expected in "late spring" to definitize terms for the fifth production run contract; DOD is working for the first time to get Lockheed to assume greater responsibility for F-35 concurrency costs. . . .

DOD To 'Dial' Back F-35 Production Unless Lockheed Demonstrates Progress (DefenseAlert, March 21)

The Pentagon wants a contractual framework for the next two rounds of F-35 purchases from Lockheed Martin that increase government leverage, limiting the sixth production run to 26 jets -- 20 percent below the 31 authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2012 -- until the prime contractor demonstrates progress on specific criteria.

In joint testimony prepared for the March 20 hearing of the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee, the three senior Pentagon officials responsible for the Joint Strike Fighter program disclosed that the notional contract structure for lots 6 and 7 of Joint Strike Fighter low-rate initial production will allow the Defense Department to increase aircraft orders as rewards for improved contractor performance.

"This strategy provides a means to have control -- a 'dial' -- on production that is informed by demonstrated development performance against the 2012 plan and concurrency cost risk-reduction," according to the prepared statement of Frank Kendall, the acting under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics; David Van Buren, the Air Force acquisition executive; and Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program office director.

"We believe our plan for negotiations for LRIP 6 and 7 will allow us to control production quantity based on the performance of the development program," they wrote. "It is important that Lockheed Martin demonstrate performance and help us to establish the confidence that the F-35 is a stable and capable platform." . . .

By Christopher J. Castelli
May 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Today's visit to the Pentagon by China's minister of national defense, Gen. Liang Guanglie, marks the first time in nine years that a Chinese defense minister has visited the building, a senior defense official told reporters. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will meet with Liang, the official said, calling it a "very important visit" and not merely symbolic.

The official said the talks are aimed at boosting cooperation, building trust and reducing differences between the two countries. North Korea is likely to come up in discussions about regional security, the official said, noting potential U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and cybersecurity are also likely discussion topics. The official declined to provide an overview of the specific agenda for the session. Panetta and Liang will also dine together.

On May 5, Liang visited a naval base in San Diego, CA. He is also slated this week to visit U.S. Southern Command headquarters, FL; Camp Lejeune, NC; Ft. Benning, GA; Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC; and the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY.

Panetta looks forward to visiting Beijing, the senior defense official said.

By Sebastian Sprenger
May 7, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Six Republican lawmakers sent a letter to House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) late last month asking to fund the Medium Extended Air Defense System at the requested level of $400 million in fiscal year 2013.

The missile defense system is under scrutiny by House authorizers who have voted to nix all MEADS funding for FY-13 in their pending legislation. Senate authorizers could follow suit later this month, given their past resistance to the program. (Whether they actually will remains to be seen. “[I]t is too early to guess what will happen in mark-up,” Senate Armed Services Committee spokeswoman Tara Andringa told us.)

House appropriators are expected to mark up the FY-13 defense spending bill this week. In their letter to Young, the six lawmakers didn't make any arguments in favor of MEADS that Pentagon leaders haven't already made. But their public show of support is noteworthy because it goes against the appearance of a program widely rejected on Capitol Hill.

The signatories on the April 20 letter are Michael Rogers (R-MI), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Martha Roby (R-AL). Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor for MEADS, operates a facility in Huntsville, AL.

More MEADS news from this week's Inside the Army:

MEADS Report To Congress Triggers Release Of $300 Million In FY-12 Funds

Defense officials wasted no time last Monday in releasing almost $300 million for the Medium Extended Air Defense System following the submission of a congressionally mandated report only days before.

By John Liang
May 4, 2012 at 8:09 PM

The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee plans to hold a pair of closed hearings next week on the fiscal year 2013 budget requests for U.S. Central, Africa and Pacific commands, according to a just-released appropriations committee statement.

CENTCOM chief Gen. James Mattis and AFRICOM chief Gen. Carter Ham will both appear before the subcommittee on Wednesday, May 9, and PACOM chief Adm. Samuel Locklear will testify on Thursday, May 10, according to the statement.

Both closed hearings will take place at 10:30 a.m. in Room 217 of the Capitol Visitor Center.

By John Liang
May 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Ellen Tauscher, the Obama administration's special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense, gave a speech yesterday during a conference in Moscow. In it, she outlined what the United States was willing -- and not willing -- to do to foster missile defense cooperation with Russia:

Sharing of sensor data, working on developing common pre-planned responses, conducting a joint analysis of missile defense systems, and working together on missile defense exercises will allow Russia to see how we do missile defense. Russia has observed our intercept tests in the past and the invitation to observe a future test still stands. By cooperating with us on missile defense, you will be able to see that the European Phased Adaptive Approach is directed against regional threats. Limited regional threats from outside of Europe… not Russia.

Right now, there are six years until Phase 3 of the EPAA becomes operational in 2018. During those six years, we will be testing an Aegis BMD site in Hawaii (that sounds to me like a nice place to visit). We will be developing and testing the SM-3 Block IIA and IIB interceptors. We will also be working with our NATO Allies to ensure how to best protect NATO European populations and territory. Beginning cooperation now will give Russia a chance to see… with their own eyes… what we are doing. And it will give us time to demonstrate how our missile defense systems operate.

I realize it takes time to build confidence. During that time, if you don’t like what you have learned from your experiences working side-by-side with us, then walk away. At least this way, you will be able to make decisions based on data you have collected and observed directly rather than on assumptions and perceptions developed from afar.

As it is, Russia today is in a position of strength that should allow you to explore cooperation. Our missile defense systems are not directed against Russia’s sophisticated nuclear deterrent force. We do not seek an arms race with Russia; we seek cooperation that can help convince you that your national security and strategic stability is not threatened. While Russia talks about countermeasures as a hedge against our defensive system, we hope that instead, through cooperation and transparency, Russia will conclude such development is unnecessary. So join us now, in the missile defense tent.

One of the best ways to build that confidence would be to work with us on NATO-Russia missile defense Centers where we can share sensor data and develop coordinated pre-planned responses and reach agreement on our collective approach to the projected threat. This will give us collectively a common understanding and foundation. Furthermore, we have seen the positive benefit this cooperation could have on missile defense effectiveness at the recent NATO-Russia Council Theater Missile Defense Computer Aided Exercise.

While we undertake this missile defense cooperation, our two governments could do even more to prevent the proliferation of ballistic missile technology. We already cooperate in the Missile Technology Control Regime and in the Proliferation Security Initiative. We are working together in the UN to counter Iran and North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Just last month, we worked together in the UN Security Council to strongly condemn the DPRK’s missile launch and placed additional sanctions on transfers of nuclear and ballistic missile technology to and from North Korea. Working together on missile defense would also send a strong message to proliferators that Russia, NATO and the United States are working to counter their efforts.

Tauscher also drew a line at what the United States is not willing to do:

But let me be clear. While we can work cooperatively together, we cannot agree to the pre-conditions outlined by the Russian Government. We are committed to deploying effective missile defenses to protect the U.S. homeland and our Allies and partners around the world from the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

We will not agree to limitations on the capabilities and numbers of our missile defense systems. We cannot agree to a legally binding guarantee with a set of “military-technical criteria,” which would, in effect, limit our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems against regional threats such as Iran and North Korea.

We cannot accept limitations on where we deploy our Aegis ships. These are multi-mission ships that are used for a variety of missions around the world, not just for missile defense.

The United States and NATO also cannot agree to Russia's proposal for "sectoral" missile defense. Just as Russia must ensure the defense of its own territory, NATO must ensure the defense of its own territory.

Tauscher and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon held a conference call with reporters the previous day in advance of the missile defense conference. In that call, Creedon said the Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation office would complete a cost analysis of the Obama administration's proposed missile defense effort in Europe by this summer.

"We're hoping that we will have all of this wrapped up fairly soon -- sometime this summer is the hope," Creedon said. Further, as InsideDefense.com reported:

According to language included in last week's mark-up of the House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, the CAPE office was supposed to have provided a briefing to lawmakers on its initial findings in March. "That briefing was not provided," the committee states.

During her teleconference this afternoon, however, Creedon said such an analysis isn't as simple as it looks. "Very often, when CAPE does a cost estimate, it's a cost estimate of a . . . specific program," she said. "And because the [European Phased Adaptive Approach] is not in DOD parlance a program, what CAPE is doing is looking at the cost of each of the individual programs that will be utilized to build the EPAA. So for instance, they are looking at the cost of the [Standard Missile]-3IA, they're looking at the cost of the SM-3IB, they're looking at all of the costs of all of the various increments that will be utilized not only in EPAA, but also in other phased adaptive approaches as we move towards other areas of the world.

"So as a result, it sounds like it's a simple tasking, but . . . it's actually far more complicated," Creedon continued.

That CAPE estimate will factor into a report House authorizers want the Defense and State departments to jointly submit on how the administration plans to share with NATO the costs of the proposed land-based missile defense system in Europe.

By John Liang
May 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Capitol Hill proponents of directed-energy weapons have some new ammunition. In an op-ed piece published in this morning's Wall Street Journal, Andrew Krepinevich and Mark Gunzinger from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments write:

Recent dramatic advances in solid-state laser technology (meaning lasers that create a lethal beam of light using solids or fibers, not liquids or gases) have yielded impressive power levels at a very low cost-per-shot, especially when compared to traditional missile interceptors that can cost over $10 million each. Experts in the U.S. Navy state that within six years, using technologies already developed and demonstrated in test firings, they could field solid-state lasers on warships with sufficient power to counter anti-ship cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft, and fast-attack "swarm" craft like those of Iran. These lasers could reduce the need for warships to carry bulky -- and expensive -- defensive munitions, while freeing space for other weaponry.

Like solid-state lasers, new chemical lasers can generate much greater power outputs than their predecessors, enabling them to engage a wide range of air and missile threats, including long-range ballistic missiles. Also within six years, and using technologies developed for the Airborne Laser, the Air Force and the Army could field ground-based, megawatt-class chemical lasers to help protect key bases in the Persian Gulf and Western Pacific.

To be sure, laser weapons have limitations. Bad weather reduces their effectiveness (as it does many other weapons), and killing very hard targets such as ballistic missile warheads will require multiple megawatts of laser power. But combined with suppression attacks and traditional defenses, high-power lasers could provide a major boost to our military's defenses and at a reduced cost, while also complicating an enemy's planning.

Other states -- especially Russia and China -- see the game-changing potential of these weapons and are investing aggressively in them. Yet the Pentagon plans to cut research funding in this area, even though it currently invests a little over $500 million in it annually, compared to well over $10 billion in traditional air and missile defenses. This imbalance is particularly worrisome considering the need to impose costs on our competitors while reducing our own costs.

The Defense Department has said that it is serious about retaining its technological edge, declaring in its new strategic guidance the "imperative to sustain key streams of innovation that may provide significant long-term payoffs." Unfortunately, absent a push from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or from Congress, it appears unlikely that high-power lasers will make the jump from the laboratory to the field anytime soon. If not, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, American forces will find themselves again reacting to a threat rather than anticipating it.

By John Liang
May 2, 2012 at 3:43 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee just released its mark-up schedule for the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill. Unlike their House counterparts, Senate subcommittee members will mark up most of their portions in closed sessions according to the following schedule:

Tuesday, May 22, 2012:

9:30 a.m. ----- Subcommittee on Seapower.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

11:00 a.m. ----- Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support.  OPEN.  Room SD-G50.

2:00 p.m. ----- Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

3:30 p.m. ----- Subcommittee on Airland.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

5:00 p.m. -----Subcommittee on Personnel.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012:

9:30 a.m. ----- Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

The full committee will then mark up the bill in closed session via the following schedule, according to the statement:

Wednesday, May 23, 2012:

2:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Full Committee.  CLOSED.  Room SR-222.

Thursday, May 24, 2012:

9:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. [with a break for lunch]

Full Committee.  CLOSED.  Room SR-222.

If markup is not completed on Thursday, May 24, then:

Friday, May 25, 2012:

9:30 a.m. - Completion

Full Committee.  CLOSED.  Room SR-222.

The order of Subcommittee reports and consideration of General Provisions will be as follows:

-- Seapower Subcommittee

-- Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee

-- Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee

-- Airland Subcommittee

-- Personnel Subcommittee

-- Strategic Forces Subcommittee

-- General Provisions

By Christopher J. Castelli
May 2, 2012 at 3:01 AM

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress April 30 of a possible foreign military sale to Japan of an initial four F-35 Joint Strike Fighter conventional-takeoff-and-landing aircraft, with an option to buy 38 more of the same variant, according to a May 1 agency statement. The estimated cost is $10 billion, the agency announced.

"Japan is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key ally of the United States in ensuring the peace and stability of this region," the agency statement notes. "The proposed sale of aircraft and support will augment Japan’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-35’s are added to the inventory. Japan will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces."

InsideDefense.com reported on March 23 that in February, Japan signed a $6 million contract for studies led by the Defense Department and two JSF contractors that would outline options for how Japanese companies could manufacture components and play a role in assembling the 42 F-35s that Tokyo plans to buy.

By John Liang
May 1, 2012 at 5:53 PM

The biggest "long-term" and "acute" challenge to quelling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is that country's neighbor and erstwhile U.S. ally, Pakistan, according to a just-submitted Pentagon report to Congress:

The Taliban-led insurgency and its al Qaeda affiliates still operate with impunity from sanctuaries in Pakistan. The insurgency's safe haven in Pakistan, as well as the limited capacity of the Afghan Government, remain the biggest risks to the process of turning security gains into a durable and sustainable Afghanistan. The insurgency benefits from safe havens inside Pakistan with notable operational and regenerative capacity. The insurgency remains a resilient and determined enemy and will likely attempt to regain lost ground and influence this spring and summer through assassinations, intimidation, high-profile attacks, and the emplacement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Additionally, the Afghan Government continues to face widespread corruption that limits its effectiveness and legitimacy and bolsters insurgent messaging.

By Christopher J. Castelli
April 30, 2012 at 6:40 PM

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program was on the agenda today when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Italian Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola at the Pentagon to discuss mutual defense interests.

“Secretary Panetta reiterated the United States commitment to developing the Joint Strike Fighter and the technology advancements both nations will receive as a result of fielding this 5th generation fighter,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement. Panetta also noted the F-35C short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant recently came off probation “after catching up to the other variants' testing milestones,” Little said.

Also on the agenda of today’s session was the upcoming NATO Summit, Afghanistan and the Arab spring, Little said, adding that Panetta “reaffirmed the strong U.S.-Italian bilateral defense relationship and lauded Italy as a trusted partner and ally.” Panetta thanked Italy for its contributions to the NATO mission in Afghanistan, noting the causalities Italy has suffered to defeat al Qaeda and prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists.

By John Liang
April 30, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Inside the Army reports this morning about a Pentagon report to Congress on the Medium Extended Air Defense System, specifically on how the Defense Department plans to spend upwards of $2 billion on beefing up Patriot, which MEADS was designed to replace:

Kendall's April 26 report is a response to a reporting requirement in the fiscal year 2012 Defense Authorization Act. Lawmakers wanted to know how DOD would finish developing MEADS with FY-12 funds one year earlier than planned, and what the air and missile defense portfolio would look like without the trinational system.

MEADS is a co-development effort involving the United States, Germany and Italy. A 2004 memorandum of understanding forms the basis for the partnership.

"The Army's Patriot modernization strategy is critical given U.S. plans to end participation in the MEADS program," Kendall wrote in his report. "Modernization includes upgraded Patriot launchers and radars, the PAC-3 [Missile Segment Enhancement] missile, net centric communication, and software upgrades."

The total required funding for a "Preplanned Patriot Product Improvement" program, a "Patriot MODS" program, a spares-related effort and development associated with PAC-3/MSE totals $400 million annually from FY-13 to FY-17, according to the report. Requirements upward of $500 million annually are on the books for procurement of the MSE, which is also used by MEADS, it adds. . . .

We now have the report (marked "for official use only"). Click here to view it.

. . . And here's some further background on the issue:

Sen. Begich: Continuing To Fund MEADS 'Makes No Sense' (Inside Missile Defense, April 4)

Continuing to fund the trinational Medium Extended Air Defense System "makes no sense," according to Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK).

"Last year, this committee unanimously agreed to get rid of the funding for MEADS, but you have now presented again in your budget to fund it -- almost a half a billion dollars," Begich said during a March 29 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to confirm a number of Defense Department appointees, including Frank Kendall to become Pentagon acquisition chief. "It makes no sense," he said. . . .

Senate Authorizers Mobilize Against MEADS; Decry DOD Budget Request (Inside the Army, March 26)

Nine members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week voiced their opposition to the trinational Medium Extended Air Defense System, arguing the Defense Department's fiscal year 2013 request of $400 million for the program runs counter to the law.

McCain Questions Panetta On MEADS Funding; Says DOD 'Ignored' Law (DefenseAlert, March 22)

Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John McCain (R-AZ) today alleged Pentagon leaders chose to "ignore the law" by requesting $400 million for the Medium Extended Air Defense System in the fiscal year 2013 budget request.

. . . and some related docs:

Sen. McCain's 3/22/2012 Letter To DOD On MEADS

Senators' 3/21/2012 Letter On MEADS Funding

U.S., German Defense Officials' 2/16/2012 Briefing At The Pentagon

By Maggie Ybarra
April 27, 2012 at 9:30 PM

The heads of two state governors' groups are calling a revised force-structure proposal issued by the Defense Department this week a failure "to address state concerns," citing remaining issues with manpower cuts and other reductions.

In a letter released today, the Council of Governors and National Governors Association declare that their attempt to find common ground with the Air Force regarding what is in the best interest of the states' Air National Guard units has not been fruitful, yielding only a small margin of improvement over the previous proposal, which included the elimination of more than 60 A-10 aircraft and the retirement of 65 C-130s.

The letter is addressed to the leaders of the House and Senate defense committees.

The Pentagon's new offer recommends keeping 24 of those 65 C-130s in operation and retaining 2,200 personnel positions that the Air Force had proposed cutting.

"The proposal outlined by [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta this week is essentially the same as an Air Force proposal rejected by governors more than five weeks ago," the letter states, adding:

While we greatly appreciate the willingness of the [defense] secretary to adjust the Air Force's budget request to restore some organic ANG airlift capacity, the package still fails to address state concerns regarding remaining ANG manpower cuts and fighter aircraft and other ANG unit reductions.

The force-structure cut that lowers the number of aircraft and manpower available to the Guard is a part of the service's fiscal year 2013 budget request.

Council of Governors co-Chairs Terry Branstad (R-IA) and Chris Gregoire (D-WA), as well as National Governors Association Chairman David Heineman (R-NE) and Vice Chairman Jack Markell (D-DE) signed the letter.

The Council of Governors is a 10-person bipartisan organization with a rotating membership. The National Governors Association is an organization that includes all the states' governors.

The governors' letter states that Panetta's offer to work with governors early in the budget process is a "critical step" toward incorporating the domestic duties and operational capabilities of the Guard into the overall budget of the Air Force. But that offer to negotiate the force-structure balance appears to have limits, according to the letter, which adds:

Governors, through our Adjutants General and the Council of Governors (CoG), have worked diligently with the Air Force and the U.S. Department of Defense to rectify the surprising and disproportionate cuts facing the ANG as part of the U.S. Air Force's Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget request. Unfortunately those negotiations have not produced an agreement; it is therefore critical that Congress address the deficiencies in the Air Force's budget request.

By John Liang
April 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Inside the Air Force is reporting this morning that the service has officially certified 100 percent of its aircraft to operate on a 50-50 blend of petroleum fuel and an alternative fuel known as Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene, according to a service official:

The Fischer-Tropsch fuel is a synthetic fuel that can be derived from coal or natural gas, and on April 16, the Air Force's alternative fuels certification office received notice that its Fischer-Tropsch process is complete, Jeff Braun, the certification office's director, told Inside the Air Force in an April 25 interview. The last aircraft to be certified, the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned platform, finished testing in the fall, but Braun said his office had to wait for various reports to be completed before the Reaper could be formally approved to use the 50-50 fuel.

That blend is the first alternative to Jet Propellant 8 (JP8) that the Air Force has tested across its various aircraft types, and for that reason, Braun's office certified each aircraft in the service's inventory to ensure it could operate on the Fischer-Tropsch fuel just as it does on JP8. For future alternatives to JP8, the Air Force is pursuing a "certification by similarity" approach that, for instance, would evaluate the C-17 as a representative of all cargo aircraft rather than testing the fuel on each aircraft in that fleet type.

Despite completing the Fischer-Tropsch certification, the Air Force cannot move forward on purchasing large quantities of the fuel yet because of an outstanding environmental requirement, Braun said. The service is required to demonstrate that alternative fuels are "no less environmentally friendly" than petroleum-based fuels before buying them in operational quantities. Proving that quality is difficult because of the challenge of measuring greenhouse gas emissions, but also because the coal-based Fischer-Tropsch fuel may in fact not meet the standard, according to Braun.

"Right now the fuel that's available is the coal-based fuel and the natural-gas-based fuel," Braun said. "I know the coal-based fuel has some issues with it as far as its ability to meet the environmental requirements. I think the natural gas is a lot cleaner, but we have to work through those issues first. Once we can show that these fuels are in fact no worse than petroleum, then it's just a matter of the Air Force going out and instructing [Defense Logistics Agency] to make the purchases."

On the positive side, Braun said the price and quantity available of the synthetic blend are not major issues, Braun said. The Fischer-Tropsch fuel currently costs about the same as JP8, and the service believes it could purchase hundreds of millions of gallons annually. The Air Force uses about 2.5 billion gallons of fuel per year and the alternative fuel could not be procured in quite that quantity, according to Braun, but it would be available to offset at least a portion of the JP8 used each year. . . .

That certification has been a long time coming, as our coverage of the issue can attest:

Air Force Officials Still Reviewing Report On MQ-9 Alternative Fuel Test ITAF, Jan. 27)

Air Force Completes Tests For Two Alternative Fuels Using MQ-9 Reaper (ITAF, Dec. 2, 2011)

Air Force Fleet 99 Percent Certified On SPK Blend, But Fuel Issues Remain (ITAF, July 22, 2011)

Air Force Evaluating At Least Four Alternative Fuels For Potential Use (ITAF, June 3, 2011)

Air Force Needs To Complete One Test To Certify Alternative Fuel Blend (ITAF, May 20, 2011)

By John Liang
April 26, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Looks like the Airborne Laser isn't the only diminished program House authorizers want the Missile Defense Agency to revive.

In their mark of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill approved this afternoon, House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee members are striving to upgrade the Sea-based X-band radar's deployment capability. The subcommittee's portion of the bill includes the following brief language:

This section would require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to ensure that the sea-based X-band radar is maintained in a status such that the radar may be deployed in less than 14 days and for at least 60 days each year.

In February, Inside Missile Defense reported that the Pentagon had announced plans to downgrade SBX's operational status beginning in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013.  Further:

According to the Missile Defense Agency's FY-13 research, development, test and evaluation budget justification document, SBX "will be placed in a limited test support status, recallable to active operational status when indications and warnings indicate [a] need for enhanced discrimination."

Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall called SBX "a large X-band research development radar, primarily." He told reporters during a Feb. 13 press briefing that the radar system is "very expensive to keep and operate," and officials thought other systems could get similar results for less money. "It's largely an affordability issue where we have other sensors that can fill in the gap," he added.

Accordingly, MDA has recommended subtracting nearly $163 million from the program for FY-13, budgeting instead $9.7 million, according to the agency's justification document. That reduction "reflects a realignment of Department of Defense priorities," the document reads. Additionally, the agency has renamed the SBX project number from "MD46" to "MX46."

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, "by maintaining the SBX radar as a test asset rather than terminating it, the administration saves at least $500 million over five years while also retaining the ability to recall it to an active, operational status if and when it is needed."

By John Liang
April 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Yesterday evening, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) gave a preview of his chamber's version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill.

"We were presented a budget from the administration that takes a knife to the defense budget, while growing the size and scope of the federal government," the lawmaker said in a speech to the Hamilton Society. "As defense continues to be crowded out of the picture, we have to be extraordinarily careful in choosing where we allocate the military's funding."

Consequently, McKeon outlined six things the government -- in his opinion -- must do:

* Have an honest conversation about our present course to debt and decline in the midst of the most dangerous and complex security environment in memory;

* Offer bold solutions that cut spending, keep taxes low, reduce the deficit, pay off debt over time, limit the size of government, and grow the private sector;

* Restore the foundations of American military power to meet the threats of the 21st century;

* Fulfill our number one constitutional duty -- provide for the common defense;

* Call on constitutional conservatives who care about enumerated powers to look to the first one;

* Make national security and the men and women who protect it our top priority; [and]

* Stave off sequestration, roll back the Budget Control Act's defense cuts, and most importantly, restore the American military.

Click here to read the full text of McKeon's speech.