The Insider

SM-3 Shootdown
By John Liang
May 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.

A Standard Missile-3 Block 1B interceptor successfully shot down a target missile early this morning over the Pacific Ocean, according to a Missile Defense Agency statement.

This was the second intercept test of the SM-3 Block 1B. In September, the system failed to intercept the target.

Here's the MDA statement:

At 8:18 p.m. Hawaiian Standard Time (2:18 a.m. EDT May 10) the target missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, located on Kauai, Hawaii. The target flew on a northwesterly trajectory towards a broad ocean area of the Pacific Ocean. Following target launch, the USS LAKE ERIE detected and tracked the missile with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar. The ship, equipped with the second-generation Aegis BMD 4.0.1 weapon system, developed a fire control solution and launched the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB interceptor.

The USS LAKE ERIE continued to track the target and sent trajectory information to the SM-3 Block IB interceptor in-flight. The SM-3 maneuvered to a point in space, as designated by the fire control solution, and released its kinetic warhead. The kinetic warhead acquired the target, diverted into its path, and, using only the force of a direct impact, engaged and destroyed the threat in a hit-to-kill intercept.

Today's event, designated Flight Test Standard Missile-16 (FTM-16) Event 2a, was the first successful live fire intercept test of the SM-3 Block IB interceptor and the second-generation Aegis BMD 4.0.1 weapon system. Previous successful intercepts were conducted with the Aegis BMD 3.6.1 weapon system and the SM-3 Block IA interceptor, which are currently operational on U.S. Navy ships deployed across the globe.

Aegis BMD 4.0.1 and the SM-3 Block IB interceptor improve the system's ability to engage increasingly longer range and more sophisticated ballistic missiles that may be launched in larger raid sizes. The SM-3 Block IB interceptor features a two-color infrared seeker, which improves sensitivity for longer-range target acquisition and high-speed processing for target discrimination. The SM-3 Block IB interceptor also features an upgraded onboard signal processor and a more flexible throttleable divert and attitude control system to maneuver the IB interceptor to intercept.

Initial indications are that all components performed as designed. Program officials will conduct an extensive assessment and evaluation of system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.

FTM-16 Event 2a is the 22nd successful intercept in 27 flight test attempts for the Aegis BMD program. Across all Ballistic Missile Defense System programs, this is the 53rd successful hit-to-kill intercept in 67 flight test attempts since 2001.

InsideDefense.com reported earlier this week that lawmakers had approved a Pentagon request to shift more than $300 million between missile-defense accounts to support immediate needs, including funding required to avoid a stop-work order on the Next Generation Aegis Missile -- a weapon that figures prominently in the Obama administration's plan to defend Europe from Iranian missiles. Further:

On April 6, Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale sent lawmakers a $311.5 million reprogramming request to shift fiscal year 2012 missile defense funding "in support of higher-priority items based on unforeseen military requirements." Lawmakers trimmed the proposal by $5 million, allowing the Missile Defense Agency to proceed with $306.5 million of the requested account transfers.

The reprogramming will also forestall a stop-work order the Pentagon warned could come this month for the SM-3 Block 1B missile development program, which needed an additional $149 million.

Richard Lehner, a Missile Defense Agency spokesman, said the threatened stop-work orders have been avoided. "We received approval from the four committees to reprogram funds for the two programs," Lehner told InsideDefense.com in a statement today.

Three of the four defense committees that reviewed the reprogramming request denied $5 million of the Pentagon's proposal to shift $20 million to advanced technology development funding for the Next Generation Aegis Missile.

In April 2011, the Pentagon awarded Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon contracts worth roughly $42 million each to begin early work on developing draft missile configurations and conducting studies on a Standard Missile-3 Block IIB, dubbed the Next Generation Aegis Missile.

Last fall, Congress dramatically trimmed the Pentagon's $123.5 million FY-12 request for the program to just $13.4 million, transferring the balance to other missile projects. "The intent [of the transfer] was to leave enough funding in the Next Generation Aegis Missile program for three contractors to support" the ongoing concept definition and program planning effort, the reprogramming states.

"A recent assessment determined that the remaining funding is insufficient to sustain three contractor teams in accordance with the approved acquisition strategy," it continues. "Funds are required by May 1, 2012, to avoid a stop-work." Lawmakers approved the reprogramming of $15 million for this effort.

MDA requested $244 million for the SM-3 Block IIB program in FY-13, a down payment on planned investments of $1.9 billion for Next Generation Aegis Missile development through FY-17. The Obama administration wants the hit-to-kill missile -- designed to destroy "first-generation" intercontinental ballistic missiles early in flight -- fielded in the "2020 time frame." The missile is envisioned to be deployed as part of the final stage of the United States' European Phased Adaptive Approach to defending against Iranian missiles.

Lawmakers also approved a $149 million transfer to the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense research and development account. According to the reprogramming, the funds "are required for the return-to-flight testing for the SM-3 Block IB missile." A flight-test failure of the SM-3 Block IB last September prompted Pentagon officials to suspend a planned production decision for the missile until it returns to flight.

"Funds are required on May 1, 2012, in order to avoid a stop-work situation and continue the re-work and testing of the SM-3 IB missile to support return-to-flight," the reprogramming states.

Two more intercept attempts are scheduled for this calendar year, according to John Rood, vice president of business development for Raytheon, the company that builds the SM-3 system. As Inside Missile Defense reported last month:

Rood said during a March 21 press briefing they were "pleased" at the way the throttling divert and attitude control system (TDACS) performed during the test. TDACS and a seeker are both new additions to the SM-3.

"We learned . . . a number of other things about the system," he said.

SM-3 Block IB is part of the second phase of the Obama administration's European Phased Adaptive Approach -- the plan for defending the continent from ballistic missiles. It is part of the Aegis Ashore program, which combines Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System with a ground-launched SM-3.

There will be three FTMs this year: one in the second, third and fourth quarters.

As part of phase four of the PAA, SM-3 Block IIB will counter regional, intermediate-range ballistic missiles. It will be integrated in the Aegis Weapon System using Aegis BMD 5.1.

SM-3 Block IIB will be deployed from both land and at sea in the initial operating configuration, Rood said. Raytheon is one of three contractors competing in the SM-3 Block IIB competition. In a Jan. 30 Federal Business Opportunities notice, MDA stated it will issue a request for proposals for the missile product development phase.

Clean Energy
By John Liang
May 10, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) will look to include provisions of a military-focused clean energy bill in the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill when the measure is marked up in the Senate Armed Services Committee later this month, according to a story in InsideEPA.com's Clean Energy Report:

The senator discussed the Department of Defense Energy Security Act (DODESA) at a May 9 gathering of industry and government officials hosted by the American Council for Renewable Energy (ACORE).

ACORE is hosting a series of forums over the next six to 12 months as part of a discussion with the military to devise recommendations that allow industry to accelerate the deployment of clean energy using DOD as a means of commercializing and expanding the use of renewable energy.

Udall said DODESA would augment the ACORE effort by expanding the use of renewables on bases through studies and pilot programs, while establishing efficiency mandates through programs such as "net-zero" energy buildings, which blend aggressive energy efficiency standards with the deployment of renewable power generation.

Udall is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Energy & Natural Resources Committee. He said that he will be offering the bill -- or select portions of it -- as amendments during the May 22-23 Armed Services Committee markup.

Udall told ACORE members that recent GOP attacks on DOD support for renewables are "slowing down our efforts" to address clean energy and energy security -- which he said is not only about cleaner air, but also about saving lives in the field. He warned that some in Congress want to pull back funds from the military efforts to increase efficiency and clean energy.

Nevertheless, "while Congress drags its feet . . . the military is charging ahead," he said, investing in biofuels and focusing on "non-petroleum" fuels.

Udall last year introduced DODESA to assist the military in meeting its goal of eliminating its dependence on fossil fuels through the deployment of solar energy, aggressive efficiency practices at bases and installations, and the use of fuel-efficient vehicles and biofuels.

Udall urged ACORE members to urge lawmakers to support the energy provisions of DODESA as the NDAA is being marked up this month.

Separately, the House Armed Service Committee on May 9 began marking up its version of the NDAA. It was unclear at presstime if the House companion version of Udall's bill would be offered as an amendment by its sponsor, Armed Services ranking member Adam Smith (D-WA).

Support For Production Tax Credit

ACORE president -- and former Navy vice admiral -- Dennis McGinn told reporters that his organization will continue to support legislation that extends the production tax credit (PTC) for renewables before it runs out at the end of the year. He said Congress also needs to re-institute the 1603 Treasury grant program for renewables, which was phased out under the stimulus law but was responsible for doubling the amount of renewable energy on the grid in the last two years.

Udall said it is important to extend the PTC before the end of the year to match industry construction timelines that look at six- to12-month planning horizons.

Udall also said Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) plans to hold a hearing on his bill to establish a clean energy standard (CES). He called the bill a "marker," and said it will be something to consider in 2013. He said there are problems in the bill that still must be worked out, including how efficiency can be counted toward the CES targets. He said he does not see it moving forward without the efficiency fix.

In related news, the House Armed Services Committee yesterday voted to ban the Defense Department from buying or producing alternative fuels if they cost more than fossil fuels. As InsideDefense.com reported:

The amendment, which was approved during the full committee's consideration of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, would ban "any alternative fuel if the cost . . . exceeds the cost producing or purchasing a traditional fossil fuel that would be used for the same purpose."

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) offered the amendment, saying the Navy was spending too much money on developing biofuels for the "Great Green Fleet." He cited comments by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus suggesting that it would cost $5 million to fuel F/A-18 Hornets during the upcoming Rim of the Pacific exercise.

Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) called the proposed move a short-term money saver that would take away the Navy's ability to control its energy usage and spending well into the future. "In the short term, yes, those options cost more money," Smith said, but "in the long term you're continuing the addiction to something that’s going to drive up cost."

Following Seas
By John Liang
May 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday stumped on behalf of ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Here's an excerpt from a speech he gave at a symposium in Washington:

The time has come for the United States to have a seat at the table, to fully assert its role as a global leader, and accede to this important treaty.  It is the bedrock legal instrument underpinning public order across the maritime domain.  We are the only permanent member of the U.N. Security Council that is not a party to it.  China, France, Russia, other countries, Germany, India, 161 countries have approved this treaty.  We are the only industrialized country in the world that has not approved it.

This puts us at a distinct disadvantage, particularly when it comes to disputes over maritime rights and responsibilities when we have to engage with the 161 countries, including several rising powers, which are party to that treaty.

In years past, several Senate committees have examined the Convention and its various elements in hearings, and earlier Committee votes were approved by large bipartisan majorities.

Accession also has broad support among major U.S. industries.  This is an important point.  This is something that is not just supported by the diplomatic community or the environmental community.  This is also supported by the business community.  Companies that are dealing with offshore energy, shipbuilding, commercial shipping, communications companies, on and on and on.  Industries that have to deal with our offshore resources.  They need this treaty in order to be able to do their business and to effectively accomplish their goals.  The same is true for national security.

You have already heard the importance that Chairman Marty Dempsey attaches to U.S. ratification of the treaty.  His views are echoed by the senior leadership through the department of Defense: the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard Commandant.

. . . And here's an Inside the Navy story from last year on the Law of the Sea:

Obama Administration To Push Law Of The Sea Treaty In Senate This Year

U.K. F-35 Switch
By Christopher J. Castelli
May 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

British defense minister Phillip Hammond is slated to announce Thursday that the United Kingdom will drop plans to buy the F-35C aircraft-carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and opt instead for the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant, according to published reports. The Daily Telegraph reported today that Hammond "will claim the decision will save hundreds of millions of pounds" and help the U.K. military.

The potential for such a switch had been widely reported in recent weeks as British officials grew concerned about the cost of converting one of the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers to handle the F-35's carrier variant. In March, Peter Luff, the U.K. minister for defense equipment acknowledged the government was "assessing the time and cost implications" of the previous British decision to opt for the F-35C rather than the F-35B.

Iron Dome Redux
By John Liang
May 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to mark up the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill today. Included in that legislation is $680 million in funding for the Israeli Iron Dome anti-rocket and -artillery system, according to a statement released yesterday afternoon by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA). As Berman says in the statement:

Only weeks ago, a massive barrage of rockets was fired from Gaza at Israeli population centers by Islamic Jihad and other terrorists. But unlike previous incidents where terrorists targeted Israel, the Iron Dome anti-missile system -- funded in part by the United States -- changed the rules of the game. In fact, Iron Dome intercepted a remarkable 90 percent of incoming rockets aimed at once-defenseless population centers.

Israel has three operational Iron Dome batteries in Israel, "but more are needed to protect all of Israel's citizens," according to Berman's statement.

On March 5, Berman and Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) introduced a bill that would "express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the president to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes." The legislation will be introduced on the House floor today, according to Berman.

Game On (Updated)
By Maggie Ybarra
May 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Hawker Beechcraft is taking a public swing at the Air Force, saying that it is "profoundly disappointed" that the service has allowed "antiquated pilot accommodation standards" to plague a revised request for proposals that would supply 20 aircraft to Afghanistan.

In a May 8 statement, the company strikes out at the new RFP, which was issued on May 4. The Air Force reissued the RFP for the $355 million Light Air Support (LAS) contract after Hawker Beechcraft filed a lawsuit against the Air Force with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in late December. Hawker filed the lawsuit after the service eliminated it from the competition for the contract in November. The service initially awarded the contract to the team of Sierra Nevada Corp. and Brazilian company Embraer but promptly revoked it after the lawsuit was launched, citing issues with its source-selection process.

Hawker Beechcraft's concern over the ejection-seat standards has cropped up within the past month. Company Chairman Bill Boisture discussed the issue of substandard ejection seats with Inside the Air Force in mid-April, saying the ejection-seat safety requirements for the 20 aircraft were lower than what they have been for "every other fixed-wing solicitation the Air Force has put out."

"We are profoundly disappointed to see in the amended RFP that the [Air Force] continues to permit antiquated pilot accommodation standards for ejection seat equipped aircraft which can place both [the Air Force] and partner nation pilots at unnecessary and higher risk," today's statement reads. "Those standards were developed by the [Air Force] to protect their own male and female pilot population, and every aircraft acquired by the [Air Force] should meet those modern safety standards."

In early April, House Armed Services Committee member Tim Griffin (R-AR) sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley seeking to confirm that the Air Force had plans "to meet modern anthropometric accommodation requirements for LAS ejection seats."

UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy declined to comment.

UPDATE (3:45 p.m.): Here's the text of Rep. Griffin's just-released statement:

After a careless selection process, the Obama Administration was forced to reverse its award decision, yet it continues to allow a pilot ejection seat requirement that is below DOD's own standard.  I believe that we should provide the very best light attack platform, including the same ejection seat safety standards we expect in our other front line Air Force aircraft.

MEADS Nixed
By Sebastian Sprenger
May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

It's beginning to look dicey for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, after House defense appropriators yesterday zeroed out the administration's $400 million request for the program. That means a request by six lawmakers, forwarded in an April 20 letter to House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman Bill Young (R-FL), apparently fell on deaf ears.

Pentagon leaders want one more year of MEADS funding to bring development to a close. An intercept test with MEADS, scheduled for November, will take place regardless of what Congress ultimately decides to do with the program's fiscal year 2013 budget, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman has said.

Concurrency Contract
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." . . .

DOD-China Meeting
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.

MEADS Show of Support
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.

COCOM Hearings
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.

BMD Carrots & Sticks
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.

Laser Focus
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.

Senate Mark-Up Schedule
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

Japan and the F-35
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.