The Insider

Defense Environment Alert is reporting today that a recent change in federal law has prompted the Defense Department to launch an aggressive push to tackle the backlog of wind and solar projects across the country that have are seen as potentially in conflict with military activities, according to a DOD energy official. Specifically:

The effort to review the military's potential conflicts with more than 290 renewable energy projects proposed by wind and solar energy developers responds to amendments passed in the Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Authorization Act that require DOD to preliminarily review within 180 days renewable-energy project applications sent to the Transportation Department, in order to assess potential adverse impacts on the military.

The legislation, signed into law by President Obama Jan. 7, sets out new tools for the department to use to identify potential conflicts early on with renewable-energy projects and quickly remedy them. The tools include developing an integrated review process with other agencies to ensure timely notification and consideration of renewable-energy projects, developing procedures for early outreach to parties carrying out projects, and developing a comprehensive strategy to address military impacts of renewable-energy projects filed with the Transportation Department.

The law also states that only certain senior Pentagon officials can file objections with the DOT over a renewable-energy project, and can do so only after fully considering mitigation actions and determining that the project nonetheless poses unacceptable risk to national security.

In response, DOD is undertaking efforts to narrow the backlog of potentially conflicting projects.

The military launched the effort two weeks ago with a two-day conference at Hill Air Force Base, UT, where subject matter experts from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff and the services, along with the Bureau of Land Management, convened to review the backlogged projects -- those in which the military had raised an objection to a project with BLM or the Federal Aviation Administration within the past few years, according to the director of DOD's energy siting clearinghouse, David Belote, in a March 9 interview. Belote and a North American Aerospace Defense Command official co-hosted the conference.

The analysis entailed reviews by three groups of subject matter experts. One panel examined impacts of each project to military test and evaluation capabilities, a second group looked at impacts to readiness and training capabilities, and a third considered impacts to long-range radar and border surveillance, according to Belote. The groups reviewed about 170 of the approximately 291 projects, he said.

The groups applied the coordinates of proposed wind and solar projects against military areas such as military training routes, bases and special use airspace, according to Belote.

Within 30 days, DOD expects to publish a list, following further review, of those projects where DOD has no objections so the FAA, BLM and developers will know which ones are free of military hazards. At this point, Belote said, of the 170 reviewed, roughly 80 may not warrant an objection. More study is needed for some, while four of the reviewed projects would likely cause a significant impact to military capabilities, he added.

The changes passed into the FY-11 defense authorization law "made it very clear that the burden of proof is on us" to do a significant amount of work looking at the potential conflicts, Belote said. While the new law recognizes the serious issues that might arise with a project, it calls on DOD to be aggressive about doing its "homework" before blocking any renewable energy projects, he said.

Congress also is requiring DOD to report by March 15 of every year through 2015 on actions it has taken the previous year to implement the provisions of the amendments. This includes reporting on the results of its reviews of any renewable-energy projects filed with the Transportation Department that DOD determines pose a national security risk and should be flagged as a hazard.

The amendments address a growing issue for the military, as the construction of renewable-energy projects in the private and public sector rise. While DOD has been a strong proponent of alternative and renewable-energy development, including for its own needs, it has faced significant conflicts over some civilian projects involving wind and solar energy due to feared interference with military activities, such as radar interference. In response, DOD established the central clearinghouse headed by Belote within OSD to evaluate whether proposed renewable-energy siting projects will interfere with mission capabilities across the department.

NASA is looking for information on whether interested contractors could design and develop a prototype command and control communications system for unmanned aircraft.

According to a request for information posted on Federal Business Opportunities last week, "[t]his command C2 system prototype will be designed to operate in the 5,030 5,091MHz and/or 976 MHz bands, while following draft industry performance requirements currently under consideration in RTCA SC-203 and ASTMF 38. Even though both terrestrial and satellite based solutions are under consideration in the standards bodies, the focus of this effort is on a terrestrial system.

"This prototype radio hardware is being designed and developed in order to validate and verify draft performance requirements by collecting performance data in relevant laboratory and flight environments," the notice continues. "The results of this testing may necessitate the modification of the prototype radio(s) and/or proposing modifications to the draft performance requirements. The prototype design and development process will be one which follows a proven path to certification."

The possible effort between NASA and one or more industry partners would jointly "develop the design(s) to meet the requirements, develop prototype radio hardware, perform laboratory testing, and execute flight testing of the prototype radio system in a relevant environment," according to the notice. "This prototype radio system is targeted for use in all UAS classes, from those weighing less than 55 lbs flying below 3,000 ft. up to and including those weighing greater than 1,320 lbs flying above 18,000 ft. The primary focus is operations within the U.S. National Airspace System, but these systems should be capable of operations outside the U.S."

NASA wants the proposed system "to support control and non-payload communications (CNPC) between the Unmanned Aircraft (UA) and the UA control station. This could include the following types of information/traffic types: telecommands; non-payload telemetry; navaid data; ATC voice relay; ATS data relay; sense and avoid data relay; airborne weather radar data; and non-payload situational awareness video."

Comments or questions are due no later than March 30, according to the notice.

Inside the Pentagon reported last November that federal agencies that use unmanned drones have been instructed to complete detailed studies laying out and prioritizing their operational needs to fly the aircraft in U.S. skies:

A joint plan released by a committee led by the Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration called for DOD, the Department of Homeland Security and NASA to each conduct "a detailed shortfall analysis that identifies, defines and prioritizes their operational needs" to fly unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace.

These defined needs would help shape the committee's recommendations to develop procedures, standards and policy to integrate drones into the national airspace.

"This evaluation will establish a basis for estimating program costs and benefits during later steps in the process and will be considered during decision-making processes when establishing solutions to meet mission needs," states the October plan, which was obtained by ITP.

The plan was penned by the National Airspace System Access Working Group, which was created by and reports to an executive committee comprised of representatives from DOD, FAA, DHS and NASA. Titled "National Airspace System Access Plan for Federal Public Unmanned Aircraft Systems," the congressionally mandated plan was recently submitted to Capitol Hill as an attachment to DOD's final report on national airspace access.

The plan comes as there is an increased demand to fly drones at home to complete missions ranging from training and testing and evaluation to surveillance and homeland security. The number of requests to fly drones in the national airspace has increased 900 percent since 2004, the plan notes.

The plan instructs the executive committee members to conduct their reviews in a manner that allows the panel to make comparisons across the different agencies and to easily group similar characteristics and needs. The evaluations should examine requirements and resources necessary to fulfill the needs, challenges that could crop up, and "realistic and economic alternative solutions" to address them.

"Identifying common needs will provide for broader consideration across organizations and enable the development of joint solutions and activities that meet the needs of multiple agencies," the plan states.

Naval Air Systems Command recently made official its decision to award Northrop Grumman a single-source contract for a common controller for Global Hawk and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles. Northrop is the primary contractor for Global Hawk.

In a March 11 Federal Business Opportunities notice, NAVSEA states it is awarding Northrop a 20-month contract worth nearly $25.6 million for the "Global Hawk and Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) common, autonomous airborne sense and avoid initial design efforts."

According to the purchase justification document appended to the notice:

The ABSAA system must be designed and developed as a subsystem for integration into the Global Hawk and BAMS UAVs. As the sole weapon system designer, developer, and integrator for both the BAMS and Global Hawk systems, only Northrop Grumman has the necessary technical information, tooling, facilities and personnel to successfully design a common system at the requisite TRL. Additionally, the BAMS UAS is still in the SDD phase and has not completed CDR. As such, the overall design configuration of the BAMS UAS is not stable enough to procure technical data. Therefore, it is not feasible to procure accurate technical data to provide a contractor other than Northrop Grumman to complete this ABSAA design task.

Inside the Navy reported last month that it may be some time before the Navy can create a common controller for unmanned vehicles that covers the aerial and underwater domains. Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, the service's director of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, at an industry conference on Feb. 3 described the UXV control station as a platform that would treat control programs for new vehicles like applications on an iPhone. Further:

Klunder said he expects the controller to take on systems like Fire Scout, as well as vehicles like the Medium-Range Unmanned Aerial System and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aerial Surveillance System.

"Right now we are building into the requirements and the specifications to ensure that those control stations should be able to service all of those platforms," he said.

He acknowledged that legacy systems will likely need patches to become compatible with the controller.

However, he noted, "That domain exchange between undersea and air is tough. I don't want to oversell."

He said the Navy is working on creating a system that can bridge the gap between the domains, adding, "I don't want to tell you right today at this hour that I'm as confident on branching through that yet. We're striving for it."

Australia wants to buy a C-17A Globemaster cargo aircraft, according to a recent Defense Security Cooperation Agency statement. The aircraft, along with "associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support," has an estimated value of $300 million, the DSCA statement reads. Further:

Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia’s efforts in operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations have made a significant impact on regional, political, and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.

Australia currently has a heavy airlift capability comprised of four C-17As. This additional C-17 will further improve Australia’s capability to rapidly deploy in support of global coalition operations and will also greatly enhance its ability to lead regional humanitarian/peacekeeping operations such as its current response to the Queensland flooding, cyclone aftermath and the New Zealand Earthquake.

Australia has the ability to absorb and employ the additional C-17. The C-17 fleet is based at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Amberley. RAAF Base Amberley is the primary base for airlift and tanker aircraft and is currently undergoing the infrastructure upgrades required to support the C-17 and other large aircraft Australia already received or is under contract to purchase.

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

The prime contractor will be the Boeing Company in Long Beach, California. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

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

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

Last month, the Defense Department asked Congress for permission to sell a decade's worth of maintenance services to Australia to sustain 24 MH-60R helicopters, a deal that could be worth up to $1.6 billion. As InsideDefense.com reported at the time:

According to a Feb. 2 Defense Security Cooperation Agency statement, the 10-year, "Through-Life-Support" (TLS) sustainment contract would "include spare and repair parts provisioning, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support." . . .

Because Australia already has S-70B helicopters in its inventory, the country "will have no difficulty performing the actions necessary to properly sustain these additional helicopters," according to DSCA.

Stratford, CT-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Owego, NY-based Lockheed Martin, Lynn, MA-based General Electric and Raytheon's Portsmouth, RI, facility will be the prime contractors, the statement reads, adding: "There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale."

Lockheed Martin just released a statement to InsideDefense.com confirming reports of a suspension in F-35 flight operations:

AF-4, one of 10 F-35 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft currently in flight test, experienced a dual generator failure and oil leak during flight operations on Wednesday, March 9, at Edwards AFB, Calif. The jet returned safely to base. As a routine safety precaution, the Joint Program Office (JPO) has temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations until a team of JPO and LM technical experts determines the root cause of the generator failure and oil leak. Once the cause is known, the appropriate repairs and improvements will be made before flight operations resume.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier today sought to buck up NATO member states under pressure by their citizens to withdraw forces from Afghanistan, warning alliance defense ministers in Brussels of his "very serious concern" that progress made in that country could be threatened by "ill-timed, precipitous, or uncoordinated national drawdowns." Further:

I am very concerned that if we do not maintain the unity and commitment to success we expressed at Lisbon, the progress we now see could be threatened. Unfortunately, some of the recent rhetoric that is coming from capitals on this continent is calling into question that resolve.  Frankly, there is too much talk about leaving and not enough talk about getting the job done right. Too much discussion of exit and not enough discussion about continuing the fight. Too much concern about when and how many troops might redeploy, and not enough about what needs to be done before they leave.

Now, I say this while recognizing the intense pressure that many nations face to reduce their commitment. We have all made extraordinary contributions to this effort, in the face of fiscal austerity and political pressure. The U.S. has surged 30,000 new troops in the past year for a total of nearly 100,000, and we have tripled our civilian commitment. We are spending $120 billion a year to sustain this effort and are seeking $12.8 billion to build the Afghan Army and Police in 2012. We, like many of you, suffered more casualties in 2010 than in any previous year of the war. These are the tragic costs of success, but we bear them because it is in our shared security interests to do so. And in order to ensure that these sacrifices are not squandered, we need to keep our focus on succeeding in our missions, and not get pulled away prematurely.

When President Obama ordered the 30,000 U.S. surge forces, he said the United States would begin a responsible drawdown in July 2011. Thanks to the progress we have made, we are setting the right circumstances to begin to reduce some of those U.S. surge forces in July, but we will do that based on conditions on the ground and in coordination with NATO and our allies.  We will not sacrifice the significant gains made to date, or the lives lost, for a political gesture.

In return, we expect the same from your nations. Let me be clear – uncoordinated national drawdowns would risk the gains made to date. Considerations about any drawdown of forces must be driven by security conditions and the ISAF commander’s operational needs, and not by mathematical calculation shaped by political concern.

Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn told the Senate Budget Committee this morning there are three reasons sticking with the current continuing resolution for the rest of the year would harm the Defense Department.

Lynn's said this would cut DOD's funding by $23 billion compared with the request, leaving "inadequate funding to carry out our national security commitments properly."

Second, a yearlong CR would leave the funding DOD does get in the wrong places, he noted.

And third, a yearlong CR robs DOD of the flexibility to start new weapons programs and boost production rates, he said.