The Insider

Panetta on Flournoy
By Christopher J. Castelli
December 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced today that Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy is stepping down. Here's his statement:

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy has today announced her intention to step down and return to private life. In her discussions with me, Michèle made clear that her decision to leave is motivated by personal and family considerations. I am very pleased that she has agreed to stay on until early next year to enable a smooth transition.

Michèle has been an invaluable advisor to me during my six months as secretary of defense, and has been an outstanding departmental leader for nearly three years at a time of great consequence for our nation's defense. From guiding our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, to helping set the department's priorities and global posture through the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review as well as the strategy review that has been underway this year, Michèle has made a strong and lasting positive imprint on this department and on our nation's security.

Michèle is a treasured colleague, and the entire Department of Defense will be sad to see her go, but she has built an incredible team that is a testament to her leadership. I will personally miss her valued counsel, but I understand the stresses and strains that holding senior administration positions can have on families. I look forward to having the opportunity to paying full tribute to Michèle and wish her and her family all the best in the next stage of their lives. I'm confident that she will have many years of service in her future.

Striking a Deal
By Gabe Starosta
December 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM

The Defense Department announced on Friday that it has come to an agreement with Lockheed Martin for the fifth lot of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and that lot -- which will include 30 planes -- will cost DOD about $4 billion. In a contract announcement, DOD states that Lot 5 of F-35 low-rate initial production will be made up of 21 conventional-takeoff-and-landing jets for the Air Force, six carrier variants for the Navy and three short-takeoff-vertical-landing aircraft for the Marine Corps. The contract also includes mission support equipment, flight test instrumentation for those 30 aircraft and flight test equipment for the United Kingdom.

Two-thirds of the work to be performed under Lot 5 will be done in Fort Worth, TX, where Lockheed has its primary F-35 production line. The rest of the work will take place at several locations around the United States, except for a small portion to be done in the United Kingdom by BAE Systems. The Lot 5 work “is expected to be completed in January 2014,” the announcement states.

DOD says $2.6 billion of the contract value, or about 66 percent, will come from Air Force accounts; $937 million, more than 23 percent, from Navy accounts; and $426 million, close to 11 percent, from the Marine Corps. The United Kingdom is also paying a tiny fraction of the contract value, around $4 million.

The estimated cost of the non-aircraft portion of the Lot 5 contract is unknown, but a simple division of $4 billion by 30 aircraft would give the Joint Strike Fighter's fifth production lot a unit cost of more than $133 million. The actual cost -- assuming no cost or schedule overruns -- is likely to be slightly less than $133 million because of the inclusion of mission-support equipment in the contract.

Save The ICBMs!
By John Liang
December 9, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Montana's two senators are calling on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to ensure that the 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles based in their state will not be subjected to budget cuts.

In a Dec. 7 letter to Panetta, Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jon Tester (D-MT) call for the ICBMs at Malmstrom Air Force Base -- which houses 150 out of the 450-missile ICBM fleet -- to be left intact. The senators wrote in response to a Nov. 14 missive Panetta sent to Congress that outlined the significant cuts that would take place if the bipartisan "supercommittee" failed to agree on trimming billions of dollars from the government budget. One of the victims would be the nation's ICBM fleet.

In their letter this week, the senators write:

We believe eliminating the ICBM wing would be disastrous for national security and fail to deliver significant budget savings over the next ten years. We hope to work with you to make the cuts required by our nation's financial constraints without jeopardizing national security or gutting critical national assets such as the ICBM force and we urge you to include robust funding for the ICBM wing in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget.

We appreciate the fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense in the coming years, but ICBM reductions are not a smart way to achieve budget savings. ICBMs are by far the most cost-efficient leg of the nuclear triad. The ICBM fleet provides a critical deterrent because of its considerable survivability. Unlike an attack on the submarine or bomber leg of the triad, an enemy would be required to strike deep within the continental United States in order effectively eliminate ICBM strike capability. Such a visible, highly dispersed force creates a powerful disincentive for any adversary while also providing clear reassurance to our allies, many of whom have chosen not to pursue their own nuclear arsenal because of the security provided by America's nuclear umbrella.

Also, the ICBM force is in the final stages of a decade-long modernization effort. It will be extremely cost effective to maintain the Minuteman III fleet through 2030 as is now planned. It is doubtful that the Department could achieve $8 billion in savings -- as estimated in your November 14th letter -- by eliminating the ICBM force. The large costs associated with closing down large installations, such as environmental remediation and other costs associated with dismantling nuclear infrastructure, would likely offset most potential savings.

In a statement accompanying the letter, Baucus and Tester said:

"Cutting Malmstrom's ICBM force is a no-go in my book, and I'll keep fighting to make sure we keep our ICBMs," Baucus said. "We must make smart budget cuts to get our fiscal house in order, but cutting our ICBM force would jeopardize our national security, and wouldn't make a scratch on the surface of our national deficit. I'll keep pushing on Secretary Panetta and the Department of Defense to include funding for our ICBMs in the 2013 budget."

"Malmstrom's ICBMs are part of our nation's most powerful and cost-efficient nuclear deterrent. If the Defense Department is serious about identifying meaningful ways to save taxpayer dollars, it needs to look at our decades-old overseas bases we no longer need," said Tester, who is spearheading an effort in the Senate to close obsolete overseas bases. "This nation needs real solutions to get our deficit under control, but eliminating a cost-efficient military asset that keeps our nation safe isn't the way to go."

Munitions Reform
By John Liang
December 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Two senior administration officials this week publicly drove home the point that the ongoing export control reform initiative aimed at streamlining the United States Munitions List (USML) is on track to be completed by late next year, and that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta supports the effort as strongly as his predecessor Robert Gates, Inside U.S. Trade reports today. Further:

Anthony Aldwell, deputy director of the Defense Technology Security Administration, told a Dec. 6 session of an export control conference organized by the Practicing Law Institute that Panetta has not been as visible as Gates on the initiative, but that he fully backs the effort.

Aldwell said that Panetta made a "very strong statement that he is fully behind" the export control reform initiative in a meeting he recently held with "prominent" chief executive officers of U.S. companies and Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Eric Hirschhorn.

He also said Panetta will be more public about his support in the near term. "I think you will see him a little more active [on the export control reform initiative] as we get into the new year," Aldwell said.

Gates unveiled the export control reform initiative in an April 2010 speech. In his remarks, he emphasized that the administration would safeguard critical military items, but also wants to facilitate increased trade in defense items with close allies and move away from controlling items that are widely available.

A day earlier at the same conference, Kevin Wolf, assistant secretary of Commerce for export administration, said Panetta is "equally on board" with the national security vision of the export control reform initiative as Gates. "He's expressed his support for [the initiative] equally," Wolf said.

Private-sector sources speculated that a more active role by Panetta will help quell objections from members of Congress who fear that the reform effort will compromise U.S. national security through easing controls. Some lawmakers have objected to scaling back the USML on these grounds.

China Watching
By John Liang
December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Fluornoy is in Beijing this week holding talks with her Chinese counterparts. Those discussions "have been going in a very positive direction," Navy Captain John Kirby, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, said at a Pentagon briefing this afternoon.

"This is a country that we have been trying very hard to develop a good, constructive military relationship with," Kirby said, adding: "We're taking steps in the right direction, and it is moving in the right direction."

Inside the Pentagon reports this morning about a new high-level document in which Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warns that the U.S. armed services must achieve unprecedented synergy to ensure access to contested waters, skies, land, space and networks in the face of emerging weapons.

Dempsey's admonition comes in the Defense Department's new Joint Operational Access Concept, which names no adversary but focuses on "anti-access" and "area-denial" threats -- terms that DOD associates closely with China. The threats include advanced long-range weapons designed to keep forces away and short-range arms designed to limit freedom of action. ITP further reports:

Inside the Pentagon obtained an unsigned copy of version 1.0 of the 75-page concept document, dated Nov. 22, which was recently blessed by senior military leaders and is due to be signed by Dempsey.

The concept casts the access problem as global, underscoring the growing importance of the Pentagon's AirSea Battle initiative, which aims to counter anti-access and area-denial threats. The proliferation of these weapons, changes in the U.S. overseas defense posture and the emergence of space and cyberspace as contested domains will drive "future enemies, both states and nonstates," to favor using anti-access and area-denial strategies against the United States, the document states.

Inside the Army reported last month that the service has turned to its red-teaming experts at Training and Doctrine Command to kick off what could turn into an existential debate about the Army's role in dealing with China and its reported arsenal of capabilities for keeping U.S. influence in the region at bay, according to officials. ITA further reports:

The request to study the issue comes as the Obama administration is putting in place a wholesale reorientation of its defense posture toward China and its environs following the planned drawdown of forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Depending on who is asked in defense circles, the reason for the new focus is a either an intricate line of arguments concerning so-called "anti-access, area-denial" capabilities and the need to operate freely in the "global commons," or it's fears about Chinese military prowess that could curtail U.S. ambitions.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in October that the future of U.S. national security in this century will be determined largely in the Asia-Pacific region, where the American military must maintain its presence despite China's development of new weapons that threaten U.S. power projection capabilities. As InsideDefense.com reported:

In what was billed by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars as Panetta's first policy speech since taking office in July, the defense secretary called for a greater focus on the region to remain competitive with a rising China, echoing a key theme from his recent classified planning guidance.

"And then we must contend with rising powers, and rapidly modernizing militaries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region -- where the security and economic future of our nation will largely rest in the 21st century," Panetta said. "The rise of China will continue to shape the international system, and we will have to stay competitive and reassure our allies in the region. That means continuing to project our power and maintaining forward-deployed forces in the Asia-Pacific region."

Left unsaid by Panetta but stated in the prepared version of his speech was a reference to long-range weapons that could challenge U.S. power-projection capabilities in the Western Pacific: "Yet our traditional approach to power projection, in that region and elsewhere, is being threatened by the spread of new military capabilities that would deny military forces freedom of action."

Inside the Pentagon reported Sept. 29 that the Defense Department would likely boost investment in Air Force and Navy capabilities associated with countering China in accordance with the classified Defense Planning Guidance that Panetta signed in late August. DOD's latest annual report to Congress on the Chinese military warns that China is "pursuing a variety of air, sea, undersea, space counterspace, information warfare systems and operational concepts" to achieve anti-access and area-denial capabilities. The Air Force and Navy are developing an AirSea Battle concept to address that challenge. The Navy also recently launched a review to identify warfighting investments that could counter Chinese military methods for disrupting key battlefield information systems.

In Conference
By John Liang
December 7, 2011 at 8:40 PM

House and Senate appropriators will hold a joint conference committee meeting on the remaining fiscal year 2012 spending bills -- including defense -- tomorrow at 10:30 a.m., according to a House Appropriations Committee statement.

"This bicameral, bipartisan Conference Committee is the next step in completing all Appropriations work for the year. Members and Senators of both parties are working hard together to craft a package that funds the federal government in a responsible and timely fashion, and good progress is being made. It is our hope and expectation that we will have an agreement on this critical, must-pass legislation by the end of next week," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) said in the statement.

The meeting will probably last about 20 minutes if all goes as planned, according to a committee spokeswoman. Actual deliberations will be behind closed doors, and no announcement or results are anticipated before early next week, she said, adding that conferees want to file the bills either Monday or Tuesday, so results could be disclosed at that time.

The conferees, according to Rogers' statement, will be:

Republicans:

Appropriations Full Committee Chairman Hal Rogers

Rep. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman Emeritus

Rep. Jerry Lewis, Chairman Emeritus

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen

Rep. Robert B. Aderholt

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson

Rep. Kay Granger

Rep. Mike Simpson

Rep. John Culberson

Rep. Ander Crenshaw

Rep. Denny Rehberg

Rep. John R. Carter

Democrats:

Appropriations Ranking Member Norm Dicks

Rep. Peter Visclosky

Rep. Nita Lowey

Rep. Jose Serrano

Rep. Rosa DeLauro

Rep. James Moran

Rep. David Price

Rep. Sanford Bishop

Range Contamination
By John Liang
December 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM

The Air Force is revising its position on contamination found at its operational ranges, calling for the cleanup of contaminants where warranted rather than waiting until pollution migrates off-range, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning.

At the same time, the revision does not alter positions the military has taken on EPA and the Defense Department's cleanup authorities for such properties, according to an Air Force official. DEA further reports:

Air Force Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment & Logistics Terry Yonkers said at a Nov. 29 forum that he committed to reassessing the Air Force's position on operational range contamination during discussions with EPA last year over a lengthy, ongoing debate on a cleanup accord for Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. The Air Force has had a policy of monitoring for contaminants and addressing pollutants only when they reach a range's boundaries, he said.

"I committed to reevaluating our position on our operational ranges. It really made little sense to me to wait for the contamination to reach the range boundary before reacting," he said in a keynote speech at the DOD-sponsored annual Partners In Environmental Technology Technical Symposium in Washington, DC.

Yonkers said he has directed cleanup managers to "close the loop" on ongoing preliminary assessments and site investigations and move to cleanup in cases where it is warranted. "This includes monitoring for perchlorate, RDX and other residuals from military munitions that may be migrating off our range boundaries," he added.

In a follow-up interview, Yonkers said the service has not been as methodical as in its other cleanup programs in investigating contamination on operational ranges. "The idea is to find what we can find and then clean it up, and not wait for it to migrate off the base boundary," he said.

At the same time, the Air Force is not altering its general positions on cleanup authorities or changing written policy, a second Air Force official said during the interview.

Open Source
By John Liang
December 6, 2011 at 4:07 PM

The Defense Department announced this week that it plans to host "a public meeting to initiate a dialogue with industry regarding the use of open-source software in DOD contracts." The meeting is set for Jan. 12, 2012.

In a Dec. 5 Federal Register notice, the Pentagon states:

DOD is interested in obtaining input from the public with regard to the risks to the contractors and the Government associated with using open source software on DOD contracts in the following areas:

What are the risks that open source software may include proprietary or copyrighted material incorporated into the open source software without the authorization of the actual author, thereby exposing the Government and contractors who use or deliver the open source software to potential copyright infringement liability?

Are contractors facing performance and warranty deficiencies to the extent that the open source software does not meet contract requirements, and the open source software license leaves the contractors without recourse?

To what extent should the DFARS be revised to specify clearly the rights the Government obtains when a contractor acquires open source software for the Government, and why?

In August, InsideDefense.com reported that the office of the director of national intelligence had launched a new research project to boost the intel community's ability to anticipate everything from political crises to resource shortages by developing new tools that fuse data from a wide range of open sources, including issues trending on Twitter, Internet search engines and the financial markets. Further:

The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency (IARPA) last week initiated the Open Source Indicators program, publishing a broad agency announcement on Aug. 23 soliciting “innovative research proposals” from industry and academia for technologies powerful enough to anticipate events before the media reports them.

"OSI’s methods, if proven successful, could provide early warnings of emerging events around the world," Jason Matheny, OSI program manager at IARPA, said in an Aug. 24 statement.

Changes in communication, consumption and movement can precede -- as well as follow -- "significant societal" events, according to the announcement. Such shifts can be indirectly observed in publicly available sources such as Internet search engine queries, blogs, micro-blogs, Wikipedia edits, financial markets and even traffic webcams, the BAA states.

"Published research has found that some of these data sources are individually useful in the early detection of events such as disease outbreaks, political crises, and macroeconomic trends," according to the announcement.

The Open Source Indicators program will be focused on the development of methods for "continuous, automated analysis of publicly available data in order to anticipate and/or detect significant societal events, such as political crises, humanitarian crises, mass violence, riots, mass migrations, disease outbreaks, economic instability, resource shortages, and responses to natural disasters."

At its core, the research program is geared toward specific technical challenges, including how to identify a change in population behavior from public data; developing new data extraction processes; and utilizing statistical analysis to connect the dots between data that generate an event warning.

The program will focus on Latin America, excluding the Caribbean, an area that includes 21 nations, has "abundant publicly available data" and "timely reporting of events."

Iraq's New F-16s
By Jason Sherman
December 5, 2011 at 11:33 PM

The Pentagon, on behalf of Iraq, today awarded Lockheed Martin an $835 million contract to build 18 F-16C/D Block 52 fighter aircraft, consummating a deal that has been in the works for more than a year.

The Pentagon full contract announcement issued this evening stated:

Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $835,000,000 firm-fixed-price, time-and-material and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a Foreign Military Sales Program which will provide the government of Iraq with the following: 18 F-16 C/D Block 52 Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (12C models and 6 D models); support equipment; technical orders; integrated logistics support; and contractor logistics support. The location of the performance is Fort Worth, Texas. Work is expected to be completed May 30, 2018.  ASC/WWMK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-12-C-6012).

On Sept. 10, 2010, the Pentagon notified Congress of the potential deal, which at the time it valued at $4.2 billion:

The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by enhancing the capability of Iraq. The proposed aircraft and accompanying weapon systems will greatly enhance Iraq’s interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO nations, making it a more valuable partner in an important area of the world, as well as supporting Iraq’s legitimate need for its own self-defense.

The proposed sale will allow the Iraqi Air Force to modernize its air force by acquiring western interoperable fighter aircraft, thereby enabling Iraq to support both its own air defense needs and coalition operations. The country will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its armed forces.

Ground Pounding
By John Liang
December 5, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean the United States shouldn't have ground forces permanently deployed in Europe, according to an issue paper published this week by the Association of the United States Army.

The document "discusses the benefits of U.S. forces based outside the continental United States, and notes how the transformed [U.S. Army Europe] uniquely extends American national security interests by building relationships," an AUSA statement reads.

USAREUR "is a critical component of the Army's global force," the issue paper states, adding:

The retention of an effective land force in Europe directly affects the United States' ability to execute national strategic imperatives and appropriately share the burden of collective security. U.S. forward-deployed forces are not vestiges of the Cold War. They are available, relevant and experienced forces that provide combat power, crisis response capability and -- just as critical -- allied-nation training and partnerships. As the United States broadens its focus to prevail against future hybrid threats, the Army's ability to provide depth and versatility to the joint force and respond quickly to a contingency with trained and ready allies will only become more critical. U.S. Army Europe is one of the premier instruments for rapid, multinational power projection. Maintaining this force at an effective level is not a cost; it is an investment in the enduring security of the United States and the world.

Taiwan Redux
By John Liang
December 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM

While enacting a bill that would call on the president to sell F-16C/D fighter jets to Taiwan "would affect direct spending," a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis "estimates that those effects would be insignificant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues and would have insignificant effects on spending subject to appropriation." Further, according to CBO:

Under current law, sales of U.S. defense articles and services to foreign governments are carried out under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program -- a direct spending program administered by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Once the Department of State has approved a sale, DSCA enters into an agreement with the foreign government to procure the necessary items. The foreign government pays the full cost of all items and a fee to cover DSCA's administrative costs.

Taiwan is eligible for sales under the FMS program and has requested new F-16 jets to replace older models they currently own. In September, the Administration decided against selling those F-16s to Taiwan and instead offered to refurbish the existing jets. Under the bill, the President would be required to sell Taiwan the jets it requested. Because Taiwan would pay the full cost of the jets plus a fee to cover DSCA's administrative costs, CBO estimates that enacting bill would have no significant effect on direct spending. CBO also expects that any costs incurred by the Department of State to approve the sale would be less than $500,000, assuming availability of appropriated funds.

On Nov. 17, the House Foreign Relations Committee marked up the bill. Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said in a statement that day that "this is straightforward legislation." Furthermore:

It simply requires that the president carry out the sale of no fewer than 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft to Taiwan. As Members are aware, under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act the U.S. is obligated to make available defense articles and services necessary for Taiwan's self-defense. In order to meet this requirement, the U.S. must provide Taiwan with equipment necessary to help the island nation defend its own airspace.

While the recent agreement by the U.S. to upgrade Taiwan's existing fleet of F-16s is a step in the right direction, Taiwan also urgently needs new advanced combat aircraft to help meet the growing menace from communist China. Accordingly, it is long past due for the Executive Branch to cease its dithering on this issue and sell Taiwan the new F-16s it has sought since 2006.

Budget Blues
By John Liang
December 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta this week said he was worried that Americans had lost their trust in the government in the wake of a congressional supercommittee's inability to rein in government spending. In a speech at the National Press Club yesterday, Panetta said: "Today I worry that in many ways we have lost the trust of the American people in that system of government because they are not seeing that dedication, that hard work, that sense of sacrifice that is important to our democracy." Further, according to his prepared remarks:

I've been railing about the threat of budget sequestration.  I know the challenges of the budget.  I've worked with the budget.  I know what budgets are all about.  But when there's a mechanism like sequestration, which is this kind of blind meat-axe approach to putting that in place if you don't do the right thing, there's something wrong.  There's something wrong if you have to fall back on that kind of mechanism.  And I’ve said that if it happens, it could do lasting damage, obviously, to defense policy in this country.  And it will.

But I also have to tell you that sequester is not a good thing for the domestic side of the budget either.  I mean, the fact is, if you want to be secure in this country, it isn't just about national defense.  It isn't just about weapons.  It's also about the quality of life that you have in this country.  And if we are not investing in that quality of life, ultimately that impacts on our ability to have strong national security.

So the failure of the super committee to come together and to make the decisions that should have been made is a failure that can result in damaging this country and damaging that dream that all of us have for a better life for our children.

Having worked on confronting these budget challenges for much of my life, there is no question we have to confront the deficit.  There is no question that we have to provide the kind of compromises that will result in dealing with reducing the deficit and trying to ensure that we have the resources we need in order to invest in the areas that count for the future.  This is a time really for statesmanship and it’s a time not for partisanship, but for statesmanship.  It’s a time for real dedication to what this country needs to do and not just sound bites and politics.  This is a time for very tough choices.

InsideDefense.com reported yesterday from New York that the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal will be cut by at least $40 billion, followed by cuts of roughly $50 billion annually for a decade, to comply with spending caps Congress and the White House agreed to in August:

Michael McCord, the Pentagon's deputy comptroller, also said the White House Office of Management and Budget has issued "pass-back" fiscal guidance to the Defense Department for FY-13, setting the stage for a final round of high-level decisions about which programs and force structure elements will be preserved and which will be cut in the new budget proposal.

"We're getting to that point now where the secretary is making the major funding decisions," McCord said, referring to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in remarks following an address to investors and financial analysts at a conference sponsored by Credit Suisse, an investment bank.

He said the new budget would propose "tailored" force-structure reductions that "will be controversial" and "painful."

In addition, the Pentagon's No. 2 budget official said Panetta has presented President Obama with draft versions of the Pentagon's new strategy guidance that proposes a recalibration of the U.S. military in accordance with plans to cut defense spending by more than $450 billion over the next decade. Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has said the cuts could be about $490 billion.

Fighting Fakes
By Christopher J. Castelli
November 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

The Senate on Tuesday approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill that would “strengthen protections against a flood of counterfeit electronic parts coming into the defense supply system,” the Senate Armed Services Committee announced in a statement that sums up the new protections this way:

* Prohibits contractors from charging the Defense Department for the cost of fixing the problem when counterfeit parts are discovered.

* Requires the department and its contractors whenever possible to buy electronic parts from original component manufacturers and their authorized dealers or trusted suppliers who meet established standards for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts.

* Requires military officials and contractors who learn of counterfeit parts in the supply chain to provide written notification to the contracting officer, the Department of Defense Inspector General and to the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program.

* Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a methodology for the enhanced inspection of electronic parts after consulting with the Secretary of Defense as to the sources of counterfeit parts in the defense supply chain.

* Requires large defense contractors to establish systems for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts, and authorizes reductions in contract payments to contractors who fail to do so.

* Requires DOD to adopt policies and procedures for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts in its direct purchases, and for assessing and acting on reports of counterfeits.

* Adopts provisions of a bill sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI) to toughen criminal sentences for counterfeiting of military goods or services.

* Requires DOD to define the term “counterfeit part,” and at a minimum to include in that definition previously used parts represented as new.

DTAG: Are You It?
By John Liang
November 29, 2011 at 9:03 PM

The Defense Trade Advisory Group is looking for a few good members.

The DTAG provides the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs "a formal channel for regular consultation and coordination with U.S. private sector defense exporters and defense trade specialists on issues involving U.S. laws, policies, and regulations for munitions exports," according to a recent Federal Register notice.

The pol-mil bureau "is interested in applications from subject matter experts from the United States defense industry, relevant trade and labor associations, academic, and foundation personnel," the Nov. 25 notice states. Further:

The DTAG advises the Bureau on its support for and regulation of defense trade to help ensure that impediments to legitimate exports are reduced while the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States continue to be protected and advanced in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended. Major topics addressed by the DTAG include (a) policy issues on commercial defense trade and technology transfer; (b) regulatory and licensing procedures applicable to defense articles, services, and technical data; (c) technical issues involving the U.S. Munitions List (USML); and (d) questions relating to actions designed to carry out the AECA and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Members are appointed by the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs on the basis of individual substantive and technical expertise and qualifications, and must be representatives of United States defense industry, relevant trade and labor associations, academic, and foundation personnel. In accordance with the DTAG Charter, all DTAG members must be U.S. citizens, DTAG members will represent the views of their organizations. All DTAG members shall be aware of the Department of State's mandate that arms transfers must further U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. DTAG members also shall be versed in the complexity of commercial defense trade and industrial competitiveness, and all members must be able to advise the Bureau on these matters. While members are expected to use their expertise and provide candid advice, national security and foreign policy interests of the United States shall be the basis for all policy and technical recommendations.

DTAG members' responsibilities include:

Service for a consecutive two-year term which may be renewed or terminated at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs (membership shall automatically terminate for members who fail to attend two consecutive DTAG plenary meetings).

Making recommendations in accordance with the DTAG Charter and the FACA.

Making policy and technical recommendations within the scope of the U.S. commercial export control regime as mandated in the AECA, the ITAR, and appropriate directives.

Please note that DTAG members may not be reimbursed for travel, per diem, and other expenses incurred in connection with their duties as DTAG members. An individual who is currently registered, or was registered at any time during the period of January 1, 2010 to the present, as a Federal lobbyist is not eligible to serve on the DTAG.

How to apply: Applications in response to this notice must contain the following information: (1) Name of applicant; (2) affirmation of U.S. citizenship; (3) organizational affiliation and title, as appropriate; (4) mailing address; (5) work telephone number; (6) email address; (7) resume; (8) summary of qualifications for DTAG membership and (9) confirmation that you have not been registered as a Federal lobbyist at any time from January 1, 2010 to the present.

This information may be provided via two methods:

Emailed to the following address: SlyghPC@state.gov. In the subject field, please write, "DTAG Application."

Send in hardcopy to the following address: Patricia C. Slygh, PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-0112.

All applications must be postmarked by December 15, 2011.

MALD-J Begins LRIP
By John Liang
November 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

The Air Force has authorized Raytheon to begin low-rate initial production on the jammer variant of the Miniature Air Launched Decoy, the company announced this morning.

The service "also exercised a contract option and awarded Raytheon $5 million to convert Lot 4 MALD production of the baseline to the MALD-J variant," the Raytheon statement reads.

Inside the Air Force reported in September that MALD-J had completed its first simulated operational test over the summer.

Raytheon said that month in a statement that the test was the most complex and rigorous yet conducted with the MALD-J, and it proved that the decoy's electronic attack capabilities were able to "render radar ineffective," ITAF reported at the time. Jeff White, the company's MALD business development manager, said the test took place in late June or early July and lasted several hours. ITAF further reported:

"Multiple MALD-Js in free flight and multiple captive-carry MALD-Js conducted electronic attack missions and demonstrated MALD-J's ability to operate in a dynamic environment with a manned aircraft strike package," the release states.

The successful completion of the test was not announced until this week while Raytheon awaited Air Force approval, and many of the details of the test, such as the location and the number of MALDs involved, are classified. But White stressed that the confirmation that a MALD can act as an electronic attack device in addition to a decoy, and that it was able to coordinate with other manned and unmanned platforms using a popular mission-planning device called the Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS), was a major step for the program.

"What happens is now you have to plan your MALD mission in the JMPS machine to be compatible with what the strike package is," White said. "[In the mission plan], you've got a section there on what the UAS are doing, you've got a section on the bombers, the tankers, the AWACS, all that stuff, so now we demonstrated against a very high threat -- the airplanes are going to be at A, B, C, D and E and the MALDs are going to be at A, B, C, D and E -- that the jammers are going to turn on to protect. If any of those things doesn't work right, now the airplanes are seen on the bad guy radar, so that had not been demonstrated before."

White declined to state exactly which manned aircraft the MALD-Js were dropped from during the test, but MALDs are only integrated on two Air Force planes, the B-52 bomber and F-16 fighter aircraft.

The MALD-J is expected to enter operational testing in the near future, with a low-rate initial production decision expected in the fall of 2012, White said. That operational test process should be fairly straightforward because of the Air Force's experience using the baseline MALD -- the two devices share a body but have different payloads, meaning that MALD-J operational testing can focus on the payload, according to White. Additionally, an FCA to be conducted later on the jammer variant could be reduced in scope because of the characteristics MALD and MALD-J share, Raytheon spokesman Mike Nachshen wrote in a Sept. 7 email.

Looking further into the future, White said the Air Force has asked Raytheon to look into an enhanced version of the MALD-J, called MALD-J Increment II, which is currently in the study phase. MALD-J Increment II is not yet a program of record.

"The question is, what could you do to MALD to make it more adaptable to future threats?" White said. "So obviously you would want more jamming power out, you would want a better receiver sensitivity, and you'd probably want to protect it against certain other threats like GPS jammers."