The Insider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . and some related docs:

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

Senators' 3/21/2012 Letter On MEADS Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABL Redux?
By Thomas Duffy
April 25, 2012 at 6:32 PM

When the Obama administration sent its fiscal year 2010 defense budget request to Congress three years ago, it did not include money to continue development of the Airborne Laser program, citing costs, technological problems and a concern for the system's long-term operational role.

The Defense Department shipped the ABL -- a Boeing 747-400 cargo aircraft that carried a chemical laser and a production price tag of $1 billion to $1.5 billion per copy -- from the Missile Defense Agency to the office of the director of defense research and engineering.

Now the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, led by Chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), wants DOD to take another look at ABL and its possible use in a real-world event. In the subcommittee's mark of the FY-13 defense authorization bill, released today, the panel states:

The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by July 31, 2012, on the costs involved with returning the Airborne Laser aircraft to an operational readiness status to continue technology development and testing, and to be ready to deploy in an operational contingency, if needed, to respond to rapidly developing threats from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

When he went to Capitol Hill to defend the president's budget, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained why he didn't think the ABL would work. In testimony before the strategic forces subcommittee -- chaired at the time by then-Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) -- on May 13, 2009, Gates said:

For example, the operational concept of the Airborne Laser would have required that the aircraft orbit, let's say the target was Iran, would have required an orbit almost entirely within the borders of Iran. This is probably a little problematic.

At the same hearing, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said he felt the ABL "has been a flawed concept for years."

As for a possible North Korean scenario involving the ABL, the intelligence community told Congress earlier this year that's not very likely. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 16, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said:

The Intelligence Community assesses Pyongyang views its nuclear capabilities as intended for deterrence, international prestige, and coercive diplomacy. We judge that North Korea would consider using nuclear weapons only under narrow circumstances. We also assess, albeit with low confidence, Pyongyang probably would not attempt to use nuclear weapons against U.S. forces or territory, unless it perceived its regime to be on the verge of military defeat and risked an irretrievable loss of control.

MEADS Shot Down
By Sebastian Sprenger
April 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM

House authorizers are proposing to defund the Medium Extended Air Defense System, according to the panel's just-released mark of the fiscal year 2013 defense bill. The Obama administration had requested $400 million for the program as a last payment to finish development of the system.

The panelists' report included a message for co-developers Germany and Italy, where government leaders want the United States to continue funding the program for FY-13 in accordance with a trinational pact. “The committee urges the [Defense] Department to remind the representatives of Germany and Italy that only Congress can commit the United States to the expenditure of taxpayer funds,” lawmakers wrote.

Marked Up
By Dan Dupont
April 25, 2012 at 4:26 PM

In the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee's mark of the FY-13 defense budget, released today, panel members raise the issue of cracks in Navy ships -- and cite our own Inside the Navy for its reporting on the issue:

Items of Special Interest

Shipbuilding material comparison

In a recent article published in "Inside the Navy", it was reported that, “superstructure cracking in several classes of surface combatants is being addressed, but in some cases is proving costly”. The committee is aware that three materials have been used in the deckhouses of surface combatants: steel, aluminum, and most recently for the deckhouse of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class, composite material.

The committee is also aware that there is a cost differential in both up-front procurement and production and in lifecycle maintenance cost for these materials.

The next opportunity that the Navy will have to influence a design will be with Flight III of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees with delivery of the fiscal year 2014 budget request, comparing the estimated construction costs for a deckhouse made of each of the three materials, or even a possible hybrid of two or all three, and then compares the estimated lifecycle costs for the designed life of the ship.

Here's the top of the story the subcommittee is citing, published in the April 16 issue:

Naval Sea Systems Command is telling Congress that superstructure cracking in several classes of surface combatants is being addressed, but is in some cases proving costly.

Cracking problems on the CG-47 Ticonderoga-class cruisers "appears to be the most pervasive as it extends to all ships of the class," according to the March 5 document, "Report to Congress: Surface Combatant Topside Superstructure Cracking," which was recently reviewed by Inside the Navy.

In addition to facing fatigue cracks, "stress corrosion cracking is also pervasive and affects widespread areas of the superstructure." Four of the last five ships in the class also saw higher sensitization -- a process that changes the aluminum and makes it more susceptible to corrosion -- in a shorter period of time.

"Costly repairs resulting in extended maintenance availabilities have been executed or are planned, subject to availability of funding," the report continues, noting that a CG-47 Superstructure Cracking Task Force has developed a repair plan that requires $4 million in spending from the Navy's research and development budget and another $270 million from the operations and maintenance budget to fix cracks and develop mitigation techniques and tools. Of that amount, $152 million would be spent between fiscal years 2013 and 2017.

Unfunded Needs Eyed
By Christopher J. Castelli
April 25, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), James Inhofe (R-OK), Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Cornyn (R-TX) are pressing not only the armed services but also the combatant commands to submit unfunded requirements lists to Congress for fiscal year 2013.

On April 23, the senators fired off letters to the service chiefs asking them to “reconsider” their decisions not to submit such lists, which have been routinely provided to Capitol Hill for years in response to requests from the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. But the senators are also casting a wider net in pursuit of the department's unfunded needs. The same day, the senators also sent requests for such lists to the combatant commanders, noting these generals and admirals have a “crucial role in translating national-level strategy into operations” within their areas of responsibility.

Inside the Pentagon first reported in March that the military's unfunded requirements lists could disappear amid the fiscal crunch facing the DOD and other government agencies. Last year, the unfunded requirements submitted by the department exceeded $1 billion.

And InsideDefense.com reported this month that a new consolidated list of combatant commanders’ priorities has been developed to shape the FY-14 budget process.

Earnings Week
By John Liang
April 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM

This week marks the beginning of the quarterly earnings season for defense contractors.

United Technologies Corp.'s earnings per share during the first quarter of 2012 were up 24 percent from the same quarter last year, according to a company statement released yesterday.

Quarterly net sales for its Sikorsky helicopter segment were $1.3 billion, compared to nearly $1.6 billion the previous year, however. And UTC's Pratt & Whitney engine segment reported $3 billion in sales compared to nearly $2.9 billion the same quarter the year before, according to the company.

As for the top five U.S. defense contractors, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics are scheduled to release their earnings statements today; and Lockheed Martin and Raytheon on Thursday.

GAO On Urgent DOD Needs
By John Liang
April 25, 2012 at 12:00 PM

A new Government Accountability Office report on urgent warfighter needs, released yesterday, recommends that the Pentagon "reduce the time spent on identifying and contracting for off-the-shelf solutions, devise methods for providing early funding to research laboratories and engineering centers, require that initiative decision memorandums be prepared for all initiatives, and require acquisition organizations to communicate with the Central Command and other combatant commands about plans for fielding capabilities."

GAO found that "opportunities exist to expedite development and fielding of joint capabilities," and that 26 out of 30 initiatives reviewed by the congressional watchdog agency "met, or expected to meet, the Department of Defense's (DOD) expectation for fielding a capability in response to joint urgent operational needs within 2 years."

That said, the report notes that "performance in meeting schedule estimates varied, and more than half of the initiatives experienced schedule delays."

$519.22 Billion for Defense
By John Liang
April 24, 2012 at 5:50 PM

The House Appropriations Committee has determined the topline funding allocation for the fiscal year 2013 defense-spending bill, according to a just-released panel statement.

The defense subcommittee has been allocated $519.22 billion in "302(b)" spending for FY-13, out of a total $1.03 trillion budget allocation, the statement reads.

"The levels provided for each of the 12 Appropriations bills will continue to demonstrate how seriously this House takes its charge to rein in extraneous and unnecessary spending, encourage economic competitiveness and job growth, help strengthen the nation's infrastructure, and ensure a strong national security for the protection of all Americans," committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said in the statement.

"These allocations will allow us to move forward with the Appropriations process. We are committed to working together across the aisle and across both chambers to ensure continued funding for important government programs, projects, and services that the American people expect and deserve. Fulfilling this basic duty of Congress is our highest priority," Rogers added.

IT Oversight
By Thomas Duffy
April 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, issued a memo last Thursday that updates the Defense Department's major automated information system oversight list. The memo lists the 42 programs that will be monitored and the 23 programs that had been included on the previous list that was published in 2007.

Click here to view the memo.

NNSA Money
By John Liang
April 24, 2012 at 3:44 PM

The Senate Appropriations energy and water development subcommittee today marked up its portion of the fiscal year 2013 spending bill, including $11.5 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

That figure "is $511 million above fiscal year 2012, for national security activities," according to a just-released subcommittee statement, which adds: "The bill provides funding to accelerate efforts to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials by December 2013 and to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile." This funding includes:

* $7.577 billion, which is $363 million above fiscal year 2012, for Weapons Activities to extend the life of three nuclear weapons systems, upgrade aging infrastructure, and invest in science, technology, and engineering activities,

* $2.459 billion, which is $163 million above fiscal year 2012, for Nuclear Nonproliferation to meet the four year goal to secure vulnerable nuclear materials and accelerate the conversion of reactors that still use weapons-grade uranium,

* $1.089 billion, which is $9 million above fiscal year 2012, for Naval Reactors to continue research and development of a new reactor for the Ohio-class submarine, and

* up to $150 million across the agency's accounts to fund a research, development, and demonstration project for domestic enrichment technologies.

New Joint Pubs
By John Liang
April 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM

The Pentagon has released an updated version of its joint doctrine on countering air and missile threats.

According to the March 23 document, which "provides doctrine for joint counterair operations and protection against air and missile threats across the range of military operations," the changes made since it was previously released in February 2007 include:

* Introduces and defines integrated air and missile defense in countering air and missile threats.

* Adds protection to the definition of counterair.

* Characterizes air and missile threats as air-breathing (aircraft and cruise missiles) and ballistic missiles.

* Provides considerations for operations that cross geographic combatant commander area of responsibility boundaries.

* Discusses the global perspective of ballistic missile defense.

* Defines the term air and missile defense.

* Defines global ballistic missile defense.

* Deletes the definition of theater missile.

* Adds appendix on global ballistic missile defense synchronization.

Additionally, the Pentagon recently released its joint doctrine On "Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Operations."

The March 20 document "provides doctrine for joint electromagnetic spectrum management operations organization, planning, preparation, execution, and assessment in support of joint operations." Specifically, it:

* Gives an Overview of Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Operations

* Covers International Electromagnetic Spectrum Management

* Addresses National Defense Electromagnetic Spectrum Management

* Discusses Organizing for Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations

* Explains Planning for Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations

* Describes Conducting Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations

* Provides Considerations for Multinational Operations.