The Insider

The Government Accountability Office has released a report validating the cost analysis used in the Air Force's justification for proposing the cancellation of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program.

The May 29 GAO report validated a separate study completed earlier this year by the Institute for Defense Analyses, which was used by the Air Force to support its desire to cancel C-130 AMP and pursue a lower-cost option -- a move that Congress has denied twice and appears poised to reject a third time based on legislation proposed by the House and Senate armed services committees and the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Global Hawk prime contractor Northrop Grumman has released more information on the number of hours being flown by the Air Force's fleet of RQ-4s as Congress considers the service's plan to keep the aircraft in while retiring the U-2 spy plane.

The service's main argument for keeping Global Hawks instead of U-2s involves a significant reduction in the average cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) for the unmanned platform, driven mostly by increases in the number of hours flown across the entire fleet.

According to a May 28 company statement, Northrop's total fleet of high-altitude long-endurance systems (HALE) -- including the Global Hawk and its Navy and NASA derivatives -- logged a record 665 hours during the week ending Feb. 23, flying operational and exercise missions. That's the equivalent of four aircraft flying around the clock for an entire week.

The company said in 2013 the Global Hawk fleet flew an average of 434 hours per week.

The statement said the company's HALE family of unmanned aircraft has accumulated more than 110,000 flight hours since its introduction, with more than 87 percent of those hours logged by Air Force Global Hawks.

InsideDefense.com reported in March that the average CPFH of the Air Force's RQ-4 fleet was $24,000 in the 2013 reporting period compared to $32,000 a year earlier -- when the service wanted to divest the Global Hawk fleet in favor of keeping the significantly older U-2s.

The Air Force's Global Hawk fleet is due to increase its average number of flight hours through 2017 as new aircraft are delivered and the Air Force completes the establishment of a Global Hawk forward operating base in Japan. The service is also developing a weather radar for the platform to increase its availability rate.

Northrop is slated to deliver the last Global Hawk to the Air Force in late FY-17.

The U-2 has significant support among lawmakers in the House and Senate, and it appears unlikely that Congress will authorize the Air Force to divest the fleet as intended.

The Air Force has 32 Global Hawks in its inventory as of May 28, according to Northrop spokeswoman Elizabeth Malloy.

House and Senate authorizers are at odds over the fate of the Navy's proposal to save money by placing 11 of the 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, along with three amphibious ships, in reduced status while they are being modernized, Inside the Navy reports this week:

Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the Navy's plan to modernize cruisers and amphibious ships while avoiding a permanent loss of force structure and ship years. However, the House Armed Services Committee in its mark of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill agreed to an amendment offered by House Armed Service seapower and projection forces subcommittee Chairman Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) to prohibit the Navy from "laying up" these ships. Forbes' amendment includes language that requires the Navy to begin hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) upgrades, as well as combat systems modernizations on two cruisers in FY-15.

The Navy defends its position in a May 6 information paper obtained by Inside the Navy. The subject of the paper is "CG/LSD Phased Modernization Restrictive Language," referring to language in the House authorizers mark.

"This plan provides the means to retain the best Marine expeditionary lift capabilities through the 2030s and Air Defense Commander capabilities in the 2040s, and paces the threat through the installation of the latest technological advances in combat systems and engineering in CGs 63-73 and LSDs 41-42 & 46," the paper reads. "As a result of the modernization investment, the Navy will extend the operational service life of these ships and ensure they remain relevant and reliable until they retire."

To view the paper, click here.

The Senate Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill recommends adding $57.5 million for the Marine Corps' crisis response units, InsideDefense.com reported this morning:

The Marines submitted a request this spring to Congress of $47 million in its unfunded priority list for special-purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force crisis response units supporting both U.S. Central Command and U.S. Southern Command.

Gen. John Paxton, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, told Inside the Navy on March 26 that these units are purely "aspirational" given funding and manpower constraints.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have previously shown support for the special crisis-response units, spurred by the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 and the absence of a Marine Expeditionary Unit in the Mediterranean due to fiscal constraints. Last summer, House appropriators and authorizers each approved amendments to increase funding for the unit in U.S. Africa Command.

"Hopefully, the verbal and vocal support will translate into money," Paxton said, referring to the funding needed for the two additional units moving forward.

To view the committee's summary of the bill, click here.

House lawmakers have approved the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill by a 325-98 vote.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) released a statement on the bill's passage:

For the 53rd consecutive year, Republicans and Democrats have come together to pass the legislation that provides vital authorities and resources for our men and women in uniform. This is solid legislation, built after many long months of intensive oversight work. But, it is not perfect legislation. We had to make too many cuts, too many hard tradeoffs, and too many reductions to bring this bill in with $30 billion less than we gave DoD last year. I fear these will leave our war fighters fewer tools to succeed. Nevertheless, this year we were able to hold off disaster. Unless something changes, the choices next year will be brutal.

Some have characterized the FY15 NDAA as a sop to parochial interests. That is a lazy dismissal of a long, arduous process that still leaves many holes in our defense and few good choices. Thanks to intense efforts by a bipartisan group of members and staff, we were able to successfully do as the law compels — make the tough decisions that put the troops first.

I welcome passage of this year's bill and I’m eager to start work with the Senate. It is my hope that we get this done before the November election, so that our new House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairmen will have time to do the hard work and preparation for 2015 and the defense challenges ahead.

Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) also issued a statement, saying it was "the closet I've ever come to voting against the bill and I only voted in favor because we still have time to fix the bill. But we must fix the bill."

Smith continued:

This bill does not make any of the hard choices necessary to confront our fiscal challenges. Congress forced the Department of Defense to craft a budget within the confines of a limited amount of resources. The department made difficult choices. It did what we asked of it, and then Congress simply undid all of the department's cost-saving measures and slashed readiness accounts without offering alternatives.

From the Navy's request to lay up 14 ships to BRAC to the A-10 to the U-2 and the Guard and Reserve helicopter changes to personnel costs, Congress said "no" to the Department of Defense without offering alternatives. It is not our job to accept the department's budget as is, but if we are to reject the Pentagon's cost-saving measures we need to offer alternatives. We didn't. We ducked every difficult decision. We played accounting games and cut readiness as we stand by and wait for a miracle. We owe our troops more.

I am deeply concerned about cutting readiness to $1.2 billion below the President's budget request. This committee has relentlessly and correctly pointed out the negative effect that across-the-board budget cuts have had on military readiness, yet this bill slashes readiness accounts by $1.2 billion below what was requested by the President. That is unacceptable. Certainly, given the congressionally mandated spending caps, this year's budget is far more difficult than past years, but that is no excuse to further undermine the readiness of our forces.

On many of these issues, Congress wasn’t even allowed a vote. The Rules Committee ruled the vast majority of the difficult votes out of order. We dodged the difficult issues by not even allowing a vote. I had an amendment to restore the Navy's plan for the cruisers and dock landing ships and another amendment that would allow the military to execute a BRAC. Neither was even given a vote.

Additionally, the bill maintains the congressional barriers to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We must close this expensive international eyesore. But again, Congress simply said no without offering an alternative.

Ultimately, I voted in favor because I believe in our oversight role and I believe that we still have time to fix this bill. But, in the end, if our bill simply becomes about protecting parochial interests, then we are not doing our job.

So as we go into conference and as we go forward, it is the obligation of this Congress to say: What is our plan? Right now our plan is hope. We are hoping that the money will appear. We are hoping for a miracle. We are hoping that somehow we magically won't have to make tough decisions. I heard very early on in my time on the Armed Services Committee one of the sayings in the military is "hope is not a strategy." We must heed that advice. We must do better.

As we move to conference with the Senate, we must address these issues.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is due to begin marking up its version of the bill this afternoon in a closed session.

(UPDATE 7:30 p.m.: The Senate Armed Services Committee completed its mark-up of the bill late this afternoon. Click here to read the story.)

The Navy is working closely with the Chinese navy to continue a close military-to-military relationship, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told reporters on May 21.

Greenert recently met with his Chinese counterpart, Adm. Wu Shengli, and the two officials decided on several initiatives for the navies to grow a closer partnership. These initiatives include student exchanges at the midshipman level as well as at higher levels, Greenert said during a breakfast in Washington.

The navies also plan to exchange medical officers to work in various humanitarian assistance and disaster relief roles, he said. "Our folks go to China and their folks come here," Greenert said.

On May 19, the United States charged five Chinese military officers and accused them of cyber espionage. However, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said on May 20 that the degree to which these indictments will affect the U.S.-Chinese military relationship is up to China.

Kirby said the Chinese navy is still invited to participate in the Navy's Rim of the Pacific Exercise.

This summer, during RIMPAC, U.S. sailors will work on a Chinese ship and Chinese sailors will work on U.S. ships. The Chinese sailors will work on the Mercy (T-AH-19), he said.

Greenert and Shengli are looking to cut red tape when conducting military exercises. Their solution is to build "exercise modules" that sailors can perform at sea without the need for prior approval from top defense officials in each country.

Greenert said the two countries are making sure things stay "cool" in the South China Sea.

On May 19, the United States charged five Chinese military officers and accused them of cyber espionage. However, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said on May 20 that the degree to which these indictments will affect the U.S.-Chinese military relationship is up to China.