The Insider

Times are tough all over. Boeing and SAIC, lead contractors on the Future Combat Systems program, announced today they are taking steps to cut personnel in the wake of the Pentagon's decision to cancel the FCS ground vehicles.

From Boeing's statement:

Due to the decision by the Pentagon directing the U.S. Army to restructure the FCS program, as well as related funding reductions anticipated in fiscal year 2010, Boeing and its partner SAIC will be reducing their combined work force by approximately 30 percent. Boeing will begin issuing 60-day advance layoff notices to its employees today, July 17, at several sites nationwide. Approximately 70 Boeing employees will receive notices today. Additional notices are expected to be issued on July 31.

Boeing and SAIC are committed to preserving as many jobs as possible for these valued, highly skilled employees and the companies are taking aggressive steps to lessen the impact of the funding reductions. These steps include making every effort to redeploy FCS personnel to other programs within Boeing and SAIC, as well as reassessing contract labor requirements. The companies will work with affected employees to help them through this transition by offering career services and other assistance.

Boeing and SAIC are committed to working closely with their Army customer to implement required changes to the program in a timely and efficient manner. They will continue to support the Army in delivering these important networked capabilities to soldiers as soon as possible.

Much more on FCS can be found on our Combat Vehicles page, and in next week's Inside the Army.

Pentagon officials are still trying to figure out how the U.S. defense bureaucracy must change to account for the fact that potential adversaries can easily and inexpensively arm themselves with commercial technology.

The technology need not be sophisticated to be effective, as recent operations have shown. In the case of improvised explosive devices, violent extremists used cell phones, garage door openers and other devices to serve as crude triggers.

The amount of effort the IED threat has sparked at DOD, monetarily and organizationally, has been astounding. Many officials have described the fight as a true poster child for "asymmetric warfare" -- the kind of conflict defense leaders believe is here to stay.

In recent years, officials have kicked around several suggestions for how to react. The discussion has centered around two essential questions: Does DOD need one organization in charge of rapidly fielding asymmetric countermeasures, or does it need many?

Opponents of the consolidation option fear the gains in fielding speed generated by one organization in charge could quickly evaporate as that organization grows in size and bureaucratic overhead.

Those advocating a centralized rapid-fielding shop argue the current multitude of offices, initiatives and programs produces too much overlap and misses out on potential synergies.

A new Defense Science Board report could provide ammunition for those favoring a single organization in charge. As we reported yesterday, the document proposes a Rapid Acquisition and Fielding Agency (RAFA), whose three-star director would report directly to the Pentagon acquisition chief.

The idea, and even the acronym, may sound familiar to our readers. In a separate DSB study, published in the spring and titled "Capability Surprise," panel members called for a Rapid Capability Fielding Office, or RCFO, with similar goals.

University of Maryland Professor Jacques Gansler, a former DOD acquisition chief and frequent Pentagon consultant, was task force chairman for the DSB study released this week. He was a member of the "Institutional Process Change" working group during the panel's study of capability surprise, as we noted in February.

Every year, minority lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee ask the Defense Department to produce a list of programs that did not get full funding in the department's annual budget request. This year, however, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sought to shake up that long-standing budget ritual by asserting his prerogative, as Pentagon chief, to review any unfunded requirements lists the services might prepare before transmitting them to Congress.

The Cooperative Threat Reduction program co-managed by the Defense and Energy departments has not been included in past unfunded priorities lists, but at least one lawmaker would like to see it on the list.

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing today on threats from weapons of mass destruction, Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) asked Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Michael Nacht what the CTR program could do with additional funds above and beyond what is vetted by DOD and DOE. Here's the ensuing exchange:

NACHT: I think additional funds could help, but . . . we've been very careful not to go to the committee or the Congress for requests for funds that we know we can't use effectively. . . . So we don't have a list, really, of unfunded priorities . . . but if you're urging us to do it, we could develop it.

MARSHALL: That would be great if you would develop it; we may not fund it, but it would be nice to know what additional steps -- where would you go from where you are right now.

NACHT: Sir, we'll follow up on that with ((DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration)).

A vote on Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill that would remove funding for F-22A purchases has been delayed until tomorrow, at the earliest.

Senate Armed Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) had wanted the chamber to reach a verdict on the amendment by noon today; however, all votes have been suspended to accommodate those lawmakers attending the Major League Baseball All Star Game in St. Louis this evening.

McCain, the committee's ranking member, introduced the amendment during floor debate on the authorization bill yesterday. President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen sent letters to Levin and McCain urging them to remove the Raptor procurement money from the bill.

The House and Senate Armed Services committees have passed authorization bills including money to purchase more of the fifth-generation fighters; Obama has threatened to veto any defense spending bill that includes money for more F-22As. (And the president will be in St. Louis tonight, too, throwing out the game's first pitch.)

Levin said he is trying to schedule a vote on McCain's amendment tomorrow.

Historic health care reform will have to wait at least until the fall, according to House Energy & Commerce chair Henry Waxman.

Officials at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency want to be able to spot nuclear materials from far away -- very far away.

In a July 10 request for information, agency officials said they are looking for technologies capable of detecting "special nuclear materials" at a distance of 5 kilometers or more.

The idea is to detect and locate "containerized" special nuclear material, either stationary or on the move, in "outdoor environments," the RFI reads.

"The overall time to detect need not necessarily occur in a short time frame; however the integration time for readout should be on the order of minutes (less than or equal to 10 min)," it adds.

Military officials and blogs have not always mixed well, but lately, there have been multiple examples of officers engaging with the Army's most senior leaders through service blogs.

The topics covered range from the trivial to the profound. For example, on June 17, a commenter on the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center Blog expressed his dismay that CAC coins were being made in China instead of the United States and asked what it would take to have them made here.

None other than Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, commander of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, KS, responded to the reader's question.

"We did place our order for these coins with an American supplier who was the low bid," writes Caldwell. "How that supplier then subcontracts is a decision that they make. However, absolutely understand the point you are making and appreciate the feedback."

As for more weighty matters: In a July 6 post, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli wrote a long essay on the future of Army training and, more specifically, the importance of the Mission Essential Task List.

"Today, a precise understanding of the true nature of the Mission Essential Task -- balanced against ‘full spectrum operations’ -- is more important than ever," writes Chiarelli.

The entry is prompting comments from civilians and officers alike. In response, Chiarelli writes, "Team -- great points that merit serious consideration. . . . Keep the conversation going. I'm learning from you every day."

Finally, in a real display of open debate, the Army is utilizing wiki software, the same that Wikipedia uses, to update its doctrine, allowing anyone with an Army Knowledge Online account to edit selected manuals by submitting changes through the wiki system.