The Insider

Choke Point
By Thomas Duffy
March 22, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has opposed the U.S. involvement in Libya from the start, wants to cut off funding for the operation. Today Kucinich sent out the following letter to other House members:

Dear Colleague:

A few days ago, the United States and our allies began conducting United Nations-sanctioned, U.S.-led military operations against Libya. The establishment of a no-fly zone by the U.S. and our allies, billed as an act to protect civilians in Libya, is an act of war. Yet the President committed the U.S. to military intervention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war.

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the initial costs of a no-fly zone could cost the U.S. between $400 and $800 million, or $30 to $100 million per week. We have already spent trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which descended into unwinnable quagmires. Now, the President is plunging the United States into yet another war we cannot afford. While the Administration assures us that that the U.S. will hand-off its lead role to coalition partners within days, we have not been notified of long-term plans or goals following initial air strikes in the country. The timeline the President gave to Congress was summarized with one word: “limited.”

I intend to offer an amendment to the forthcoming Continuing Resolution or Omnibus Appropriations bill that would prohibit funding for U.S. involvement in military operations in Libya. I urge you to support this amendment.

DAWG Brief
By Thomas Duffy
March 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

A senior Pentagon group will receive a briefing this week on the results of a recently completed study of the force requirements needed for the Obama administration's missile defense plan.

Rear Adm. Archer Macy, the director of the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization, said at a missile defense conference in Washington today that the results of the Joint Capabilities Mix Study III will be briefed to the deputy secretary of defense's advisory working group -- affectionately known as the 'DAWG" -- sometime this week.

Testifying last December before the House Armed Service strategic forces subcommittee, Macy explained what the study would cover:

JCM III is examining our missile defense strategy in the PAA to inform decisions on the number and types of sensors, launchers, and interceptors we require. In order to determine force needs at this level of granularity we have to take into account how the Combatant Commands intend to employ them, what the threats are, and generally how the threat will be expected to be employed. Historically, a lot of these types of studies make assumptions about all these factors based on what other studies have used. We chose not to do this. Instead, we went to the experts. For operational employment information, like asset laydowns and shot doctrine we went to each of the Combatant Commands. We are using how they will conduct BMD operations within their Area Of Responsibility (AOR). For system performance, we went to the experts at the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). In order to keep it all in perspective we set up a joint analysis and review process.

"While this could appear to be a rather laborious structure, in reality it worked quite smoothly, and we found it was very effective in getting the combatant commands, the services and system developers" together, Macy said today. "It helped keep our efforts coherent and complete as we worked through the factors."

Operational Update
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 21, 2011 at 6:38 PM

The possibility that Libyan ruler Col. Moammar Gadhafi might use surrogates to launch terrorist attacks in the United States or elsewhere in retribution for U.S. and allied airstrikes against his military is a "very, very legitimate concern," Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, told Pentagon reporters today via satellite from AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

Ham said he has not seen anything specific to indicate Gadhafi plans to launch terrorist attacks, but he added, "We must operate under the assumption that he would like to see that happen. And so we must necessarily keep our guard and our vigilance very high." Officials must also ensure al Qaeda and its affiliates do not capitalize on the situation in Libya by gaining a foothold there, he said.

"There is no higher priority for this command than the protection of America, Americans and American interests from terrorist attack, and we watch that very closely," Ham said.

Gadhafi might remain in power, the general said. "I do see a situation where that could be the case," Ham said. "It's perhaps easier for me to address that than it is for others, because I have a very discrete military mission. And so I could see accomplishing the military mission . . . which has been assigned to me and the current leader would remain the current leader. Is that ideal? I don't think anyone would say that is ideal, but I could envision that as a -- as a possible situation at least for the current mission that I have."

Ham reiterated he has no mission to attack Gadhafi. "And we are not doing so," he said. "We are not seeking his whereabouts or anything like that. We think we have been very effective in degrading his ability to control his regime forces. And we think we are seeing that play out at various parts of the country." Asked about an attack on a facility in Gadhafi's compound, Ham noted the compound is a "pretty big place" and that the building attacked with "tremendous precision" was a command-and-control facility. The strike was conducted to "degrade the regime's ability to control its military forces . . . in the attack of civilians," he said. "So we think there is a very, very direct relationship in the attack on that target and the mission that we have."

U.S. and allied forces are expanding the no-fly zone in Libya. "Our actions today are focused on extending the no-fly zone southward, then westward from Benghazi," he said. "With the growing capabilities of the coalition, I anticipate the no-fly zone will soon extend to Brega, Misurata and then to Tripoli. That's about 1,000 kilometers, so it's a pretty wide area."

But Ham said he is not concerned about mission creep. "The military mission here is pretty clear -- it is very clear, frankly, and what is expected of us to do: to establish this no-fly zone; to protect civilians; to . . . get the withdrawal of regime ground forces out of Benghazi. And so I don't -- I don't have a sense at all that there is mission creep."

To date, the forces involved are generally achieving the intended objective, he said. The mission is not intended to destroy all of Libya's military, he added. "We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces," Ham noted. "We protect civilians." Distinguishing between opposition and regime forces can be very difficult, particularly when they are in very close contact, he noted.

Ham said he has seen no evidence to suggest other governments are now providing support to Gadhafi.

Order of Battle
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Warships armed with cruise missiles, tactical fighters, stealth bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles are among the American military assets involved in U.S. and allied forces’ attacks on the Libyan government, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, told reporters over the weekend.

On Saturday afternoon, French fighter jets launched air strikes in Libya. Then, more than 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from both U.S. and British ships and submarines, striking more than 20 integrated air defense systems and other air defense facilities ashore. It was a mixture of old Tomahawks and the newer Tactical Tomahawks, Gortney said. The latter have the capability to loiter above the battlefield until being assigned a target, but “in this particular mission we use them as we have just as one of the older Tomahawks,” he said. By Sunday, the number of Tomahawks launched rose to 124, he said.

Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyers Stout (DDG-55) and Barry (DDG-52) and submarines Providence (SSN-719), Scranton (SSN-756) and Florida (SSGN-728) participated in the strike. Other ships in the joint task force include the amphibious ships Kearsarge (LHD-3) and Ponce (LPD-15) as well as the command ship Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC-20).

Global Hawks will be used for bomb damage assessment, Gortney said.

On Sunday, he said three B-2 stealth bombers -- launched from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri -- dropped Joint Direct Attack Munitions on military facilities and aircraft from an airfield at Ghardabiya, not far from Misrata.

“In addition to the B-2 strikes, coalition tactical fighters also began hitting the ground forces of Colonel Gadhafi on the outskirts of Benghazi,” he said.

“Fifteen U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft participated in these attacks, as well as aircraft from France and Great Britain,” he added. “They were backed up by U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers providing electronic warfare support.” The Air Force fighters involved flew from bases in Europe, Gortney said, declining to be more specific.

In the coming days, the U.S. military would like to hand over leadership of the joint task force to a coalition that is led either by the British and French or NATO, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said March 20 while enroute to Russia. U.S. naval and air assets “have clearly played an important role here at the front end and we will continue to play a role, but we will be one of a number of partners beginning, I hope, in a few days,” he said.

Petraeus On Iran
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 18, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Iran's role in Afghanistan is bipolar, according to Gen. David Petraeus. Here's an exchange the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan had this morning at the Newseum with National Journal moderator Major Garrett:

GARRETT: We have two questions along this line. I want you to address it. What is the nature of Iran's role in Afghanistan? Is it entirely malignant, or are there opportunities for cooperation? There are two questions along these lines and --

PETRAEUS: Yeah, let me answer that, because I think what you see with Iran in Afghanistan is a degree of confliction, almost bipolarity. You have on the one hand the security services of Iran, which have of course been greatly strengthened in recent years as a result of the supreme leader having to turn to them in such a significant way to put down the riots and demonstrations in the wake of the hijacked elections a year and a half ago. And so you have these security services, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Qods Force foremost among them, providing training, equipping, funding and so forth to the Afghan Taliban.

And of course we publicly announced the seizure of 48 122-millimeter rockets just across the border in southwestern Afghanistan after they were seized in a joint ISAF-Afghan special operation. It wasn't a coincidence that we were there, and it wasn't a coincidence that those elements were there. These rockets are more than double the range of the 107s that we've seen in the past, double the payload and double the bursting radius. So that's a big concern.

There's also an effort to use soft power, of course, to influence various political figures. I mean, it was remarked on that the chief of staff to President Karzai was provided a gift as he left the country. I think President Karzai was pretty astute in saying we'll take money from anybody who will give it to us and we'll put it to use for the Afghan people. But that happens covertly as well, and it happens with various Afghan political figures.

And then there's the use of soft power, the cutoff of the fuel to Afghanistan a couple of months ago, as a reminder of how important access to that is. And yet there's also no desire on the part of Iran to see the Afghan Taliban return to power. Let's remember, Iran is a Shia-majority state. They don't want to see Sunni ultra-conservative, you know -- akin to -- or supportive of extremists on their soil, as the Taliban was when al-Qaida was there, coming back to power in Afghanistan.

And so you have this dynamic. That does give you some common ground. So does their keen desire to reduce the illegal narcotics- industry activity that has enslaved quite a substantial number of young Iranians. So again, quite some similar interest. And then to get Afghan refugees who have indeed returned to Afghanistan in very large numbers in recent years from Iran, Pakistan and others, but to get more of those home as well, they would -- they would applaud also.

101st Goat-Borne?
By Cid Standifer
March 17, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) encouraged Army and Marine Corps officials to get creative about taking supplies off the backs of warfighters at a congressional hearing this morning, and offered a suggestion of his own.

After noting that he grew up on a farm, Bartlett suggested that dismounted warriors could keep goats on hand for logistics help.

"If you want a pack animal, I would suggest that a neutered male goat would do a really great job," he said. "They're tough animals. If you bottle-feed them, they will follow you around like your best dog for the rest of their life. If you're looking for something to carry for you, you couldn't do better."

Bartlett noted that goats are already common in Afghanistan, so they have proven themselves survivable in an austere environment.

He also commended military units that have already adopted innovative ways to transport supplies.

"I'm very pleased to note that 4th Brigade 101st Airborne is kind of thinking outside the box," he said. "They now employ six donkeys to serve as pack animals."

Spinning Off
By John Liang
March 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM

On Tuesday, InsideDefense.com reported that the Navy had officially blessed Northrop Grumman's decision to spin off two of its shipyards into a new entity called Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

The company announced that day that its board had approved the spin-off, which will consist of its Huntington yard in Newport News, VA and the Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, MS. Northrop has said it plans to close its third yard, Avondale, near New Orleans, LA, though there had been media reports that a buyer has expressed interest in the facility. Further, according to our Tuesday story:

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Sean Stackley issued a statement this evening endorsing the move.

"Our support of the spin-off is based on having carefully reviewed key financial assumptions for HII, which include proprietary forward-looking projections," he wrote. "Ultimately, with appropriate adjustments made by NGC, captured within an agreement with the Navy, we have been able to resolve our concerns about the risk involved to this important segment of the shipbuilding industrial base, and we are confident that HII is well postured to build affordable ships into the future."

Now that the spin-off question is resolved, Stackley noted, the Navy can finalize negotiations with the new entity and award contracts for LPD-26 and DDG-113.

Asked in February if the Navy could prevent the spin-off, Stackley said the Navy is Northrop Shipbuilding's only customer.

According to Northrop Grumman's press release, the spin-off will become formal at the end of the month.

This afternoon, the Navy released a statement that included the above Stackley quote plus this:

The Navy's concern with HII's credit rating, driven by its initial debt, has been offset by NGC's agreement to relieve HII of first quarter 2011 debts, to provide a starting cash balance of $300 million, and not to recoup retentions, performance incentives, and economic price adjustment payments that the Navy might owe under current shipbuilding contracts with Northrop Grumman Ship Building from HII.

"The Navy evaluated the extent of considerations made by NGC as appropriately addressing the risk of this spin to Navy shipbuilding," said Stackley.

V-22 News
By John Liang
March 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Inside the Pentagon is reporting this morning that the Marine Corps is now committed to putting cockpit voice recorders on its fleet of MV-22 Ospreys for the first time since the requirement became law more than a decade ago, according to Lt. Gen. Terry Robling, the service's top aviation official. Moreover:

In a March 15 interview with Inside the Pentagon, Robling said he issued verbal guidance last week directing Marine Corps officials to program $10.3 million in the service's fiscal year 2013 budget plan for the technology. That new guidance from Robling, who became the deputy commandant for aviation in January, marks the first time the service has agreed to fund the capability since Congress mandated it for all Ospreys in October 2000.

ITP reported last December that the Defense Department had left the requirement unfunded for years and that the head Air Force investigator of the April 9, 2010, Osprey crash in Afghanistan said such a device could have helped conclusively prove the cause of the disaster. That prompted the House Armed Services Committee in recent days to press the Marine Corps and the Air Force to meet the statutory requirement.

"It's one of those [where] if you don't ask the question, you don't know what the problem is," Robling said, noting the problem came to light "based on the press article given to the members here. And we looked back and said yeah, there's a requirement."

In the decade since the need for the cockpit voice recorders became law in the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, the requirement did not successfully compete against other priorities in the military's long-term budget process, Robling said, adding there was "no forcing function" to make it happen. But now that the Marine Corps is funding the requirement, it could still take years to implement.

Assuming the $10.3 million makes it into the final version of the Pentagon's FY-13 budget request and that Congress approves the request, the Osprey program would start including cockpit voice recorders in new MV-22s in FY-17, Robling said.

Staffers on the House Armed Services Committee recently provided background and potential questions for tactical air and land forces subcommittee members regarding a March 14 hearing on fiscal year 2012 Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps combat aviation programs. And it's clear, as above, that Inside the Pentagon's reporting is driving this effort forward:

The fiscal year 2012 request continues the MV-22 procurement in the fifth year of a five year multi-year contract. A second multi-year is being pursued to complete procurement of the program of record. The MV-22 Osprey continues to prove highly effective and survivable in combat in Afghanistan. The Marine Corps continues to replace its UH-1N and AH-1W helicopters with H-1 Upgrades aircraft, the AH-1Z and UH-1Y. According to the Marines, the deployment of the UH-1Y in combat has been extremely successful, and the AH-1Z achieved Initial Operational Capability on 25 February 2011. First deployment of the AH-1Z will occur with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) in November 2011, which will also be the first time the UH-1Y and AH-1Z deploy together.

A recent news article in Inside Defense highlighted the fact that the Department of Defense may have failed to put cockpit voice recorders on all its V-22s a decade after Congress put the requirement to do so in law. Section 129 of the Floyd D. Spence National Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 states that "The Secretary of Defense shall require that all V-22 Osprey aircraft be equipped with a state-of-the-art cockpit voice recorder and a state-of-the-art flight data recorder each of which meets, at a minimum, the standard for such devices recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board." Committee staff has engaged with the Marine Corps and Air Force to determine each service's plan going forward to meet the statutory requirement of equipping the MV-22 and CV-22 with voice and data recorders.

Here's related coverage from last week's issue of ITP:

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, plans to investigate why the Defense Department has failed to put cockpit voice recorders on all its V-22 Ospreys a decade after Congress put the requirement in law.

His inquiry comes after a December 2010 report by Inside the Pentagon that the department left the requirement unfunded for years and that the head Air Force investigator of the April 9, 2010, Osprey crash in Afghanistan said such a device could have helped conclusively prove the cause of the disaster.

"Based on your question, we will look into it," McKeon told ITP in a brief March 3 interview.

"Chairman McKeon and members of the committee are concerned about the lack of voice data recorders in our nation's fleet of V-22s," Josh Holly, McKeon's spokesman, added March 9. "The chairman has asked the committee's professional staff to engage with the Marine Corps and Air Force to determine each service's plan going forward to meet the statutory requirement of equipping the MV-22 and CV-22 with voice data recorders. That effort is currently under way."

Senate authorizers are also unhappy that the requirement has not been met. A congressional source said DOD had failed to comply with the law and that is a concern. The defense secretary "fell down on the job," the source said, griping that DOD was supposed to be "watching over this."

. . . And here's a snippet from the story that originally broke the news:

When an Air Force CV-22 Osprey loaded with troops crashed in Afghanistan eight months ago it lacked a required cockpit voice recorder that could have helped investigators conclusively prove the cause of the disaster:

The deadly crash came seconds after a heated conversation in the cockpit and a decade after Congress directed the Defense Department to equip all Ospreys with cockpit voice recorders. But Ospreys lack that capability today because DOD left the requirement unfunded for years, Inside the Pentagon has found. And while the Air Force recently made plans to put voice recorders on its CV-22s next year, the Marine Corps -- which flies most of DOD's Ospreys -- has no similar plans for its MV-22s, a Marine Corps spokesman said.

The April 9 crash killed four, injured 16 and destroyed a multimillion-dollar aircraft. In the darkness of early morning, the Osprey rolled on its landing gear for about 45 feet before the nose hit a small, two-foot deep, natural drainage ditch that flipped the aircraft tail over nose. The Accident Investigation Board, led by now-retired Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel, could not pinpoint the crash's cause. The CV-22's flight data recorder, which tracks aircraft parameters but not cockpit audio, was presumed destroyed when Air Force personnel unaware of its existence failed to retrieve it before bombing the wreckage on the battlefield. It would have been the best item to recover for the mishap investigation, Harvel told ITP in an interview.

But cockpit voice recordings, he added, could have turned the investigation into a "slam dunk" by revealing whether the pilot's final conversation concerned unexpected mechanical problems. The board concluded that engine trouble, crew errors and weather contributed to the mishap. Harvel maintains mechanical problems likely surfaced just before the crash, but Lt. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, who oversaw the investigation, disagrees.

"Having a cockpit voice recorder, I think, would have really shed some light on if that discussion was related to an aircraft mechanical problem that they were working, or if it was related to them being really fast and having this tailwind and discussing possible options on whether they needed to go around and reset up for the approach," Harvel said. "It would have definitely tilted [the investigation findings] either toward pilot error, loss of situation awareness or a mechanical malfunction that they were working. It would have been an absolute slam-dunk solution."

Eye on Japan
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 17, 2011 at 12:40 PM

U.S. military forces remain in Japan and the United States has “full capability to fulfill our alliance commitments to defend Japan and maintain peace and security in the region,” but upon request the Defense Department will evacuate family members of military personnel living there, according to Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan.

Last night, the State Department “authorized the voluntary departure (including relocation of safe areas within Japan) for family members and dependents of U.S. government officials who wish to leave Northeast Japan,” Lapan said, noting DOD will implement this voluntary departure for eligible DOD dependents.

“These measures are temporary, and dependents will return when the situation is resolved,” he added. “Eligible DoD dependents will be given travel instructions by their local commands.” The U.S. government is also “working to facilitate the departure” of private U.S. citizens from a 50 mile radius around the Fukushima reactor, he said.

Counterfeit Countermeasures
By John Liang
March 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM

A new Aerospace Industries Association report is warning that the volume of counterfeit parts in the supply chain is climbing, and mitigation plans need to be developed and implemented.

"The use of counterfeit parts in the aerospace industry may have life or death consequences," AIA President and CEO Marion Blakey said in a statement. "Reducing their proliferation and potentially harmful effects requires increased diligence and active control measures from both industry and government." The statement further reads:

While the prevalence of counterfeit parts in the supply chain is difficult to quantify, in fiscal 2009, the Customs and Border Protection Service seized nearly $4 million in counterfeit critical technology components, including networking equipment and semiconductor devices that the aerospace industry uses. Counterfeit Parts: Increasing Awareness and Developing Countermeasures, seeks to raise awareness of the issues associated with counterfeit parts.

"Regardless of how counterfeit parts enter the aerospace and defense supply chain, the ramifications can be significant," said Blakey. "They can jeopardize the performance, reliability and safety of our products."

While profit is the primary incentive for counterfeiting, the long lifecycle of aerospace products also contributes to conditions that make aerospace and defense equipment susceptible to counterfeiting. Aircraft developed in the 1950s, such as the B-52, are still in active inventory while parts from original equipment, component manufacturers or authorized aftermarket manufacturers or distributors may no longer be available.

The report has more than 20 recommendations for industry and government that encourage further discussion among stakeholders on how to most effectively reduce counterfeit parts in the supply chain. The recommendations were prepared by AIA’s Counterfeit Parts-Integrated Project Team and include:

* Scrutinize the purchasing process to limit the use of automated systems, which increases the risk of counterfeit products.

* Develop an Approved Suppliers list for use by government and industry.

* Conduct training for employees in the areas of procurement, detection, reporting and disposition of counterfeit parts.

* Create standards in the area of mechanical parts and materials.

"Our industry makes the best aerospace products available and has an unsurpassed safety record," said Blakey. "We feel the recommendations will allow industry and government to address the issue before it threatens that record."

Read the full report here.

The Senate Armed Services Committee last week launched an investigation into counterfeit electronic parts in the Defense Department's supply chain. Further, according to a committee statement:

Counterfeit electronic parts pose a risk to our national security, the reliability of our weapons systems and the safety of our military men and women. The proliferation of counterfeit goods also damages our economy and costs American jobs. The presence of counterfeit electronic parts in the Defense Department’s supply chain is a growing problem that government and industry share a common interest in solving. Over the course of our investigation, the Committee looks forward to the cooperation of the Department of Defense and the defense industry to help us determine the source and extent of this problem and identify possible remedies for it.

InsideDefense.com reported at the end of last year that lawmakers -- after objections from the Pentagon -- dropped a proposal that would have required the defense secretary to appoint a senior official as the executive agent for preventing counterfeit microelectronics from entering the defense supply chain. During 2010, the House passed a version of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill that called for the executive agent. However, according to the Dec. 28 story:

Senate authorizers included no such proposal in their version. Following objections from the Defense Department, lawmakers omitted the provision from the final version of the bill passed this month by the House and Senate.

The proposal would have put the executive agent in charge of developing a strategy, implementation plan and fiscal blueprint to "identify, mitigate, prevent, and eliminate counterfeit microelectronics from the defense supply chain." The official also would have assessed trends in counterfeit microelectronics.

Energy Backlog
By John Liang
March 15, 2011 at 8:04 PM

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.

Nominations Approved
By John Liang
March 15, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Before beginning its hearing on the situation in Afghanistan this morning, the Senate Armed Services Committee via voice vote approved the nominations of Michael Vickers to become the top Pentagon intelligence official and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey to become his service's next chief of staff.

C2 For NASA UAVs
By John Liang
March 15, 2011 at 2:53 PM

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.

JSF Test Update
By Dan Dupont
March 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM

The Joint Strike Fighter program office just out the following update on F-35 flight testing:

AF-4, a F-35 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft, experienced a dual generator failure and oil leak while conducting flight test operations March 9 at Edwards AFB, CA. The test pilot was able to return the jet safely back to Edwards AFB. As a safety precaution, a Suspension to Operations (STOP) was issued on March 10 until the root cause of this occurrence was determined.

Since the incident, the F-35 Joint Program Office, Air Force and Navy System Commands and Lockheed Martin have collaborated to determine the root cause. The failed generators from AF-4 were inspected over the weekend. On the basis of that effort, and in combination with flight test data from the incident, it was determined that the dual generator failure was the result of a design artifact unique to a newer configuration of the generator.

The current F-35 fleet has two generator configurations. The newer generator had production initiated on AF-4, BF-5, and CF-1. As a result of our understanding of what system failed and the contributing factors, the Joint Program Office has rescinded the STOP today for aircraft flying the older generator configuration (AF-1/2/3, BF-1/2/3/4). The Suspension to Operations continues for the balance of the SDD fleet and all Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft in flight ops configured with the newer generator.

Determination of root cause and potential mitigating actions has the highest priority on the F-35 Team. Impact to SDD execution and production ops is being assessed.

Common Controller
By John Liang
March 14, 2011 at 8:40 PM

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."