The Insider

By
June 29, 2009 at 5:00 AM

In some alternate universe, the military acquisition system is working just fine, Air Force Maj. Dan Ward, who works in the service's acquisition branch, writes in the July/August edition of the Defense AT&L newsletter. Now, that's according to a "12-star general" puffing cigars in his secret, wood-paneled Pentagon office.

Ward's article is posted on the Defense Acquisition University Web site.

-- Sebastian Sprenger

By
June 26, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee announced with some fanfare plans to create a National Defense Panel in the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill whose members would critique the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Senators, in their version of the bill so far, made no such requirement.

The issue never even came up during Senate Armed Services Committee deliberations this week, committee spokeswoman Tara Andringa tells us.

"The issue wasn't discussed during markup so we can't speak as to why the committee didn't include it," she wrote in an e-mail. "We can point out, however, that the law already requires the secretary of defense to establish an 'independent panel' to review the QDR's report," she wrote.

Of course, this doesn't mean the National Defense Panel will never become a reality. But it shows that the need for the group is at least debatable among lawmakers.

-- Sebastian Sprenger

By
June 25, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Ashton Carter, the Pentagon's chief for acquisition, technology and logistics, issued a short June 23 memo implementing organizational changes consistent with the new Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act.

Within the defense research and engineering directorate (DDR&E), which reports to Carter, the memo says the Defense Department created two "new" offices: director of systems engineering (SE) and director of developmental test and evaluation (DT&E). The new law required DOD to create the positions under Carter's purview.

According to a briefing from the Defense Acquisition University, there were already positions in the acquisition shop with “basically the same functions required by the legislation,” but the law codifies the SE and DT&E organizations in Title 10 and requires more reports to Congress.

Also reporting to DDR&E will be the director of research and the director of rapid transition, according to Carter's memo.

The office of systems and software engineering and the joint advanced concepts office will be “reallocated within” the acquisition and technology shop “and to” DDR&E, the missive adds.

Further details on the changes will be “announced later,” Carter writes.

-- Chris Castelli

By
June 25, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Among the amendments approved this morning by House lawmakers considering the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill is a provision requiring new reviews about the Pentagon's use of subcontractors.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and blessed by the full House, would require the Defense Department to conduct a study on the total number of subcontractors used on “the last five major weapons systems in which acquisition has been completed” and determine if fewer subcontractors could have been more cost effective.

The DOD report would be due March 1, 2010. Also, the Government Accountability Office would have to complete a review of DOD's study by May 1, 2010.

-- Chris Castelli

By
June 25, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Air Force officials are looking for a contractor to put together a "comprehensive AF/PAK strategic communication plan" for U.S. Central Command, according to a recent notice on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site.

The term AF/PAK is Washingtonese shorthand for "Afghanistan and Pakistan."

The strategic communication plan is needed amid "the on-going conflict in Afghanistan and unrest in Pakistan," the June 18 solicitation reads.

The document defines strategic communication thusly:

Strategic Communication supports the command’s obligation to facilitate information capabilities in order to keep the American people, regional and international audiences informed of ((CENTCOM)) operations that lead to defeating our adversaries, improving regional stability, and promoting and protecting U.S. interests in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

Notably, the soliciation identifies some of the key U.S. government AF/PAK-related players the contractor will have to work with. There is an "Inter-Agency AF/PAK Framework Development Operational Planning Team," and also an "AF/PAK Strategic Framework Project," according to the solicitation.

-- Sebastian Sprenger

By
June 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Marking up the defense authorization bill behind closed doors is not something that has sat well with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). According to an e-mail received yesterday from her spokeswoman:

This may not come as a surprise to some of you, but Sen. Claire McCaskill is causing a ruckus again this year in the Senate Armed Services Committee mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The committee traditionally closes its mark-up of the annual defense policy bill to the public and press, but for the third year in a row, McCaskill is trying to open up committee deliberations to bring new transparency and accountability to the process. In an attempt to keep the mark-up open, McCaskill will continue to object to the motion to close each of the subcommittee and full committee meetings, which requires the consent of a majority of the committee members.

The Armed Services Committee has said that it holds its meeting behind closed doors to enable free discussion of classified information, but the reality is that a large majority of the material included in the legislation is unclassified and that the committee is free to move into a closed, classified setting at any time. Furthermore, the House Armed Services Committee considers the same legislation publically, and the Senate bill is traditionally considered by the full Senate in open session.

The committee began its work on the legislation earlier today, and will continue through Thursday.

-- John Liang
 

By
June 23, 2009 at 5:00 AM

In a draft white paper first reported here yesterday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey makes the case for moving the Army's "aim point" away from traditional warfare toward hybrid warfare, the oft-cited blend of high-intensity combat and guerrilla-style conflict.

The idea, Casey argues, is that a focus on the middle ground between peacetime operations and high-intensity warfare would enable the Army to do both better.

"Shifting our aim is not exchanging one 'Either-Or' position for another.  Aiming more towards the center of the conflict spectrum will enable us to respond quickly and effectively to hybrid threats across the spectrum, as the situation and mission dictate."

We ran Casey's view by counterinsurgency expert John Nagl, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and president of the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

In a brief interview yesterday, Nagl called the chief's thinking a "move in the right direction."

"The interesting question is whether the Army, in fact, needs two aim points; whether some forces should be optimized for high-end conflicts -- peer and near-peer threats -- and other forces should be optimized for counterinsurgency or hybrid war. If you're going to go with single aim point, then hybrid is the right aim point, without a doubt."

-- Sebastian Sprenger

By
June 23, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Defense secretaries past and present have long complained about the amount of reports Congress requires the Pentagon to submit. This year, for instance, just on missile defense, House authorizers, in their report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, want eight reports from DOD to be submitted within the next year. Inside Missile Defense will be tracking the following:

A report on the U.S.-Israeli Arrow-3 program:

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is currently negotiating a project agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defense for the Arrow-3 program. Given the high-risk nature of Arrow-3, the committee understands that the Arrow-3 project agreement will contain clear knowledge points (i.e., technical benchmarks) and a schedule that will govern the development of the program. Future decisions about the program should be based on the Arrow-3 system’s ability to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by April 15, 2010, that describes the agreed knowledge points and schedule, and assesses whether the Arrow-3 program is meeting the agreed knowledge points and schedule. The committee further directs that the report include a discussion of alternative paths the Department is examining to assist Israel in developing an upper-tier missile defense capability, such as the land-based version of the Standard Missile-3 (SM–3), should the Arrow-3 program fail to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule.

A report on the recently canceled KEI and MKV programs:

The committee recognizes that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program have completed research and development of certain technologies that could be beneficial to other defense programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2010, on the feasibility of completing development of certain technologies that were in the process of being developed through the KEI and MKV programs and could have additional useful defense applications.

A report on the planned Precision Tracking Space Sensor (PTSS) constellation:

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the defense committees not later than March 1, 2010, providing a description of the PTSS long-lead, risk-reduction activities to include: (1) payload design, prototyping and laboratory characterization; (2) continuing work on consolidated ground processing of overhead sensor feeds; and (3) implementation of the C2BMC interface.
On the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Sustainment and Modernization Program:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a sustainment and modernization program to ensure the long-term reliability, availability, maintainability, and supportability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to protect the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks, whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees outlining the Department of Defense’s long-term sustainment and modernization plan for that system.

Missile defense in Europe:

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from acquiring (other than for initial long-lead procurement) or deploying operational missiles of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to the congressional defense committees a report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be deployed as part of such a missile defense system has demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner and the ability to accomplish the mission.

Ascent phase missile defense:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees outlining a strategy for ascent phase missile defense within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Foreign ballistic missile intelligence analysis:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct an assessment of foreign ballistic missile intelligence analysis gaps and shortfalls, and prepare a plan to ensure that the appropriate intelligence centers have sufficient analytical capabilities to address such gaps and shortfalls. The committee is aware of certain intelligence gaps and shortfalls in foreign ballistic missile activities, in particular emerging longer-range ballistic missile activities, as noted by the Missile Defense Agency.

This section would also require a report by February 28, 2010, on the results of the assessment, the plan to ensure sufficient analytical capabilities, and a description of the resources required to implement such plan.

A U.S.-Russian joint missile defense data exchange center:

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Government of the Russian Federation, to expand the United States-Russian Federation joint center for the exchange of data from early warning systems for launches of ballistic missiles, as established pursuant to section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), to include the exchange of data on missile defense-related activities.

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on plans for expansion of the joint data exchange center to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

-- John Liang

By
June 22, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The House Armed Services Committee is focusing on safety in Army tactical wheeled vehicles, calling for increased egress enhancements and a report on fire suppression systems.

Citing the potential threat of heavy armor doors on vehicles like the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, the report on the committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill calls for the Army secretary to “pursue mature technologies that provide some level of armor door power-assist, to allow military personnel to quickly egress tactical combat vehicles in emergencies.”

The report notes that, in some cases, the armor door on a tactical combat vehicle can weigh more than 400 pounds, “making it very difficult for the warfighter to rapidly egress the vehicle during emergencies such as vehicle rollovers.”

In a second, the committee praises tactical wheeled vehicle fire suppression systems, which it says “provide a proven capability for force protection against improvised explosive devices that use fire accelerants to increase lethality and injury to the warfighter.”

Yet, the report says, the systems are a required performance specification only for some TWV platforms. Accordingly, the panel directs the defense secretary “to conduct a capability-based performance assessment of fire suppression system technology for TWVs.”

More specifically, the committee dictates, the assessment -- due by March 15, 2010 -- should consider fuel tank, tire, engine and crew compartment fire suppression systems.

“The Secretary should determine the advisability and feasibility of requiring fire suppression systems on all current and future tactical wheeled vehicle platforms and provide relative cost assessments,” the report adds.

-- Marjorie Censer
 

By
June 19, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill aims to make some small, but significant, tweaks to the law governing special operations.

The bill modifies the section of Title 10 spelling out what activities fall under the special operations label and are therefore core missions for U.S. Special Operations Command.

The legislation introduces a couple of newcomers: information operations, counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, security force assistance and counterinsurgency operations.

Departing the canon of warfighting areas listed in the statute are "direct action," humanitarian assistance and theater search and rescue.

"Strategic reconnaissance" would get reworded to read "special reconnaissance."

Unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, civil affairs operations, counterterrorism and psychological operations remain on the list.

-- Sebastian Sprenger

By
June 19, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, made public today, spells out what committee members have in mind for the National Defense Panel, which would be charged with critiquing the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.

As envisioned in the bill, the panel will consist of 12 "recognized experts" in national security matters. The House and Senate Armed Services committee chairmen will each appoint three members; the committees' ranking members each get to pick two. The defense secretary also may appoint two members.

The NDP's first meeting must be no later than 30 days after all the commission members are appointed, according to the legislation. The meeting would still take place if the defense secretary's appointment slots are unfilled at that time, the bill states.

An initial report outlining "findings" is due to Congress and the defense secretary by April 15, 2010, according to the legislation. A final report -- with findings plus recommendations -- is due by Jan. 15, 2011.

One month later that year, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must file a report with "comments" on the NDP's final product.

As for data sharing between the Pentagon and the commission, the bill authorizes panel members to "secure directly from ((DOD)) . . . such information as the panel considers necessary to carry out its duties," the legislation reads. Information must be provided "promptly," it adds.

One of the NDP's duties is to dissect the intellectual backdrop against which Pentagon leaders are conducting the QDR, according to the bill. Members also should assess findings, assumptions, strategies and cost implications outlined in the QDR report, paying "particular attention" to the issue of risk.

The panel must critique any force structure proposals included in the QDR report and offer an "independent assessment of a variety of possible force structures." It is unclear from the bill text who would bring these alternatives into play.

Finally, panel members must estimate the cost of any force structure moves -- either those advanced by DOD through the QDR, or any alternatives.

-- Sebastian Sprenger

By
June 19, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Get ready for round two of the V-22 hearing involving the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Marine Corps officials.

On May 21, the panel's chairman, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), accused the Pentagon of stonewalling his request for V-22 documents and vented his displeasure by abruptly ending the hearing after mere minutes, telling a three-star Marine general to return in two weeks. The Pentagon denied the accusation, insisting it was diligently working to provide the information.

It took a month to sort things out. But now the committee has rescheduled its V-22 Osprey hearing for the afternoon of Tuesday, June 23. The agenda, according to lawmakers, is the future of the V-22, including "costs, capabilities, and challenges.” Stay tuned.

-- Chris Castelli

By
June 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Kenneth Baer, the Office of Management and Budget's associate director for communications and strategic planning, today corrected information given to us previously by one of his subordinates about the Pentagon's fiscal year 2011 budget plan.

We asked OMB's public affairs folks last Friday whether the Defense Department is exempt from having to prepare a budget estimate assuming a) a freeze at FY-10 levels, and b) a 5 percent cut to the FY-11 figure included in the FY-10 outyear tables.

A June 11 memo from OMB Director Peter Orszag suggested some agencies are not affected by the requirement.

(We posed the same question in an e-mail to DOD spokesman Geoff Morrell, but never heard back.)

An OMB spokeswoman, who asked to remain anonymous, sent us an e-mail late Friday replying simply "Yes" to our question.

Turns out that was only half true.

"DoD has been exempted from considering a 5% cut to the FY-11 budget figure listed in the outyear tables accompanying the FY-10 request," Baer told us today. "However, DoD has not been exempted from the nominal freeze alternative," he added.

The Pentagon's budget submission, including the "freeze" alternative, is due to OMB by Sept. 14.

So, how would the two different scenarios compare anyway, you ask?

"((A)) freeze would be higher than a 5% cut, in principle," Gordon Adams, a former OMB official, tells us. "The question is a freeze with or without inflation. Either way, it is below what I am sure DOD wants to come back with in the fall," he wrote in an e-mail.

Our updated story is here.

-- Sebastian Sprenger

By
June 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Senate Armed Services Committee today confirmed the following nominations in a roll call vote, en bloc, according to a panel statement:

Gordon S. Heddell to be Inspector General, Department of Defense;

Zachary J. Lemnios to be Director of Defense Research and Engineering; and

Jamie M. Morin to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller, as well as 1,543 pending military nominations in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. All nominations were immediately reported to the floor following the committee’s action.

-- John Liang
 

By
June 17, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The House Armed Services Committee's just completed fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill calls for an additional 30,000 increase in active-duty end strength for the Army in FY-11 and F-12.

In the meantime, with the Senate’s mark-up of the FY-10 budget request a week away, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee, told Army generals yesterday that he planned on mounting “a serious effort” to increase the service's active force end strength by 30,000 service members.

“There may be a requirement for us to have a temporary authorization of additional soldiers to fill some of the holes we have in our formations and to take the stress off the force in what is going to be a critical 12- to 18-month period," Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli told the subcommittee.

This may signal a change in the Army's tune. Just last month, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said a further increase in troops wasn't necessary.

Though he did not reject outright the idea of a temporary increase, Casey said what he's “not ready to sign up for just yet is whether we need to increase the active Army beyond 547,000,” he said.

“It comes down to it's about a billion dollars to have that increase, and that's a lot of money,” Casey said.

-- Kate Brannen