The Insider

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, told reporters today that he does not know “where we're going to come out as a committee” regarding the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program, but buying at least some EFVs is a possibility.

Akin voiced concern over Defense Secretary Robert Gates' announcement last week that the Pentagon would ax the troubled program due to its high cost, but he said following his address at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium that the Marine Corps appears to be in favor of the decision and not simply doing as told.

“We've been convinced they genuinely think it's too much money for what their budget can handle,” he said.

Akin said his panel would consider buying at least some EFVs or completely resubmitting the program “because the engineering is 20 years old at this point.”

The Marine Corps said it will completely cease production of EFVs and will issue a request for proposals soon to find a follow-on program to fill the capability. The Marines will upgrade legacy vehicles and use a mix of other existing capabilities to bridge the gap, according to Gates.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a former Marine and member of the subcommittee, told Inside the Navy last week that members of the panel were “standing firm . . . that this is the most needed product in the United States Marine Corps.”

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos today pledged to use his position and prestige to independently monitor the development of the troubled F-35B, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week put on a two-year probation in a bid to ensure the service acquires the Joint Strike Fighter short-takeoff-and-landing variant.

In a statement issued today, Amos -- the first pilot to lead the Marines -- said:

I personally met with top leadership within the F35 program, to include our industry partner, and communicated that I intend to personally track the progress of our airplane over the next two years. I will track every pound of weight growth, required engineering fixes, and every test point completed.

This strikes a different chord than that of his predecessor, Gen. James Conway, who 13 months ago asserted that the word of Robert Stevens, chief executive officer of JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin, was good enough for him.

On Dec. 15, 2009, Conway was asked during a Pentagon press conference whether -- in light an independent assessment panel's assertion that more time and money were required to develop the F-35B -- he was confident the Marine Corps would be able to fulfill its plan to field its first JSF unit in 2012.

I just saw Bob Stevens last week, you know, and we stood closer than you and I are, and I asked him that question, okay. So -- and he's not a BS kind of guy. You know, he tells me he's got his A team on it, he still thinks he can make 2012, and all, you know, focuses are in that direction. So I got to take the man at his word.

Days after Conway's statement, the Pentagon committed to the first installment of what now amounts to $7.4 billion in remedial funding to be pumped into the program over the next five years, a sum paid for by slashing 246 aircraft from the Defense Department's JSF production plans through FY-16.

Here's the full exchange from the late 2009 press briefing.

Q    Let me ask about the Joint Strike Fighter, too. There's a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on this tomorrow. What's your level of concern these days, contrasted with earlier this year when you were fairly enthusiastic about the STOVL'S purported performance? You know, it hasn't flown yet, the full envelope, but we're still waiting, sir. What's your level of concern?

GEN. CONWAY:  Yeah. We have the first test aircraft at Pax [Patuxent] River. The second one, I think, is going to be there before the end of the year.

My focus . . . is on the promise that the contractor has made to us that we will have IOC [initial operational capability] of our first squadron -- and by the way, I think you know we're the first service to get an operational squadron -- in 2012. That is an important period to us because the British and the Italians, who are buying the same version that we are, are keenly interested in that. We have accepted risk now for a number of years not buying fourth-generation airplanes, such as the Navy has done, to await the arrival of this aircraft. We've got a small bathtub out there, a vulnerability with regard to attack and fighter aircraft.

So all of our planning is 2012 backwards. And when we ask that question, we get the same answer: We're going to make 2012 for you; it may be December of calendar year 2012, but we're going to make 2012 for you.

And what the contractors tell us, and in fact it's validated by the program manager, is that the ground test birds that we have used are going to be tremendously more impactful than they have been in the past, and that a lot of things that we're going -- that we could see when we start flying the experimental aircraft in the vertical takeoff mode will be less problematic for us.

I still fully expect to get an invitation in the spring of next year to go watch the first vertical flight at Pax River.

And if that happens, again, the contractors and the program manager tell me that we will be generally on the schedule that they think we need to follow.

Q     What does your BS meter tell you, though? I mean, you've heard this from the companies and the program manager before, that the thing is on schedule, it's going to do this, it's going to do that. I mean, are you getting more skeptical or are you --

GEN. CONWAY:  Well, I'm a -- I'm an unapologetic optimist, okay, I got to tell you that at the outset, I guess.  But, you know, I -- we are very concerned about it. We register that concern, okay. I just saw Bob Stevens last week, you know, and we stood closer than you and I are, and I asked him that question, okay.  So -- and he's not a BS kind of guy.  You know, he tells me he's got his A team on it, he still thinks he can make 2012, and all, you know, focuses are in that direction. So I got to take the man at his word. And so I think everybody understands how important it is and that we're not going to -- we're not going to let up.

Q     What are concerned about?  I don't -- this will be my last question.  What are you concerned about at this point, though?  That they may not make the '012 date, or that the program is just slipping too much?

GEN. CONWAY:  Our focus is 2012, okay.  And I think they're related. So long as that -- as that doesn't slip, then I -- I'm not going to be critical of the other things that they have in some of the areas of the program, okay. Cost rise and all that, that's someone else's concern, at least at this point, although we're watching it in a per-unit kind of consideration. But our focus is that we want to get those planes in and operational so we can start doing the same thing with the F-35 that we -- that we have done with Osprey.

Last evening the Marine Corps sent out an e-mail notifying reporters that the service's top combat development and integration officer would sit down Wednesday morning and talk about the recent cancellation of the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and what lies ahead for the service's amphibious warfare mission.

The subject line on the e-mail was "Signature Mission Intact, Marines Plot The Way Ahead For New Amphibious Vehicle." The message is as follows:

Please join Lt General George J. Flynn, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, for a print media roundtable discussion (on the record) here at Marine Corps Base Quantico. The discussion will take place Wednesday January 12 at 9:00 AM. Topics will include the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle's cancellation and the way ahead--to include both interim and long-term investment strategies and plans.

Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the EFV was being canceled. The program, kicked off during the Reagan administration, has eaten up $3 billion and would cost another $12 billion to field a fleet of slightly more than 500 vehicles.

Gates made the point that the cancellation does not call into question the Marine Corps amphibious assault mission. He noted the Defense Department will "develop a more affordable and sustainable amphibious tractor to provide the Marines a ship-to-shore capability into the future."

Flynn should provide some specifics on that plan tomorrow morning.

With the Pentagon planning to implement a five-year, $78 billion cut imposed on military spending by the White House (while at the same time allowing the services to retain $100 billion in efficiencies garnered since June), Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month set a firm date for when Pentagon officials should begin including the price tag of any new program or initiative when it is formally proposed.

Last week, Gates announced the results of the efficiencies initiative he launched last year, as well as key elements of the Defense Department's fiscal year 2012 budget request. Part of Gates' efficiencies push involves a requirement that any new proposal or initiative, regardless of its size, come with a specific estimate of how much that new program would cost.

In a Dec. 27 memo, Gates wrote that guidance and support tools to help Pentagon officials calculate those costs were made available that month.

He adds:

I urge you to begin using these tools now. I am directing that, effective February 1, 2011, all of these tools be used to calculate costs associated with the aforementioned business activities in the department. After this date, every new proposal or initiative shall come with a cost estimate, and every report or study shall include the cost of that study on the front cover.

All DOD components are required to comply with this directive and are expected to fully support and cooperate with the guidance to ensure that costs are routinely considered in decision-making throughout the Department.

The Missile Defense Agency this morning released a request for proposals for an effort to upgrade the agency's modeling and simulation efforts. According to a Federal Business Opportunities notice on the proposed "Objective Simulation Framework":

The current frameworks (the Digital Simulation Framework [DSA] and the Single Stimulation Framework [SSF]) integrate models from each of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) program elements into a system that accurately represents the performance of fielded BMDS equipment against a variety of threats in realistic environments. The desired framework, hereafter called the Objective Simulation Framework (OSF), will leverage existing or mature capabilities, develop common interfaces, or propose a combination of both, to join digital and hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) representations into a modular, scalable, reconfigurable, and compose-able system.

The MDA OSF contract includes: the development, deployment and sustainment of an OSF Modeling & Simulation (M&S) framework that will replace the existing digital (DSA) and hardware-in-the-loop (SSF) systems; the sustainment of the legacy framework/architecture as required until OSF is deployed, and; other requirements as detailed within the Request for Proposal (RFP) package.

MDA anticipates the award of a single OSF Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee, Fixed-Priced-Incentive (Firm Target) and Firm-Fixed-Price pricing arrangements to occur by July 2011. The contract is expected to have a five (5) year period of performance without any option periods.

Northrop Grumman and Boeing announced last September that they intended to compete together for the contract, according to a statement the two companies released at the time:

"The MDA has an essential need to more efficiently validate Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) performance through the increased use of modeling and simulation," said Karen Williams, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems for Northrop Grumman's Information Systems sector. "This partnership will provide the MDA with the best value and lowest risk approach to successfully develop and apply a comprehensive simulation framework toward that objective.

"Our team brings unsurpassed expertise across the full-spectrum of modeling and simulation domains, a comprehensive knowledge of the BMDS and experience in applying modeling and simulation tools across all the OSF use cases. The strategic partnership will allow us to bring our combined strengths, synergies and focus to this critical MDA program," added Williams.

In leading the Northrop Grumman-Boeing team, Northrop Grumman will draw on its experience as a leader of the modeling and simulation community for the MDA since 1995. As the prime contractor of the Joint National Integration Center Research and Development Contract (JRDC), Northrop Grumman has led a world-class team to conduct BMDS-level modeling and simulation, ground and flight tests, wargames, exercises, analysis and operational training in Colorado Springs, Co., Huntsville, Ala., and other locations. Boeing brings decades of experience in developing modular, scalable, maintainable and reconfigurable missile defense modeling and simulation products that focus on satisfying the full range of MDA and warfighter requirements.

"This partnership builds on our well-established relationship successfully executing the Groundbased Midcourse Defense program over the past 12 years as well as our years of experience in modeling and simulation development and execution," said Greg Hyslop, vice president and general manager of Boeing Strategic Missile and Defense Systems. "We look forward to working side by side with Northrop Grumman to deliver this important capability to our MDA customer."

A day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates promised to cancel the Marine Corps F-35 Joint Strike Fighter short-take-off, vertical-landing variant in two years if problems with the program aren't resolved, Lockheed Martin released a bit of good news: Test aircraft BF-2 accomplished its first vertical landing yesterday, the first time that an aircraft other than BF-1 had done so.

John Kent, a Lockheed spokesman, said today that BF-2 performed one flight and four sorties for one hour, including a vertical landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. The aircraft performed one conventional takeoff, three short takeoffs, three slow landings, two hovers and one vertical landing, and it performed similarly to BF-1, according to Kent.

BF-1's problems have largely been the reason the program has been behind, as it has been relied upon to expand the flight envelope before the other aircraft -- BF-2, BF-3 and BF-4 -- can follow suit.

The Navy is about to revive the long-dormant position of deputy assistant secretary for research and development as a result of a recent Naval Research Advisory Committee study, according to the head of the Office of Naval Research.

Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told reporters this morning that he's heard “that person will probably be announced in the near future.”

“I'd say less than months,” he added.

The September 2010 NRAC study, done at the behest of the Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, was a wide-ranging critique that recommended consolidating control of the naval research community, bringing more science and technology in-house rather than contracting it out, and cultivating the kind of pie-in-the-sky science projects that dreams are made of even if they don't have any immediate application.

Carr said that he wouldn't speak for the secretary's office on how those recommendations might be implemented, but he said he's received thorough funding support for basic research even as efficiencies squeeze the rest of the Defense Department.

“It's the hardest portion of my budget to protect because you can't see what it does,” he said, “and that's why the strong support at high levels in the Navy and at [Office of the Secretary of Defense] have been very helpful.”

He said there have been cutbacks in contractors and administrative support at ONR, but those efficiencies have been “internally driven.”