The Insider

By Christopher J. Castelli
January 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the incoming ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, met yesterday with former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and said he would not support Hagel's nomination to succeed Leon Panetta as defense secretary. Inhofe released a statement on the nomination last evening. Earlier on Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he would support Hagel's nomination.

Here is Inhofe's prepared statement:

Chuck Hagel is a good person, and it was a pleasure to serve with him in the United States Senate. I am so very appreciative of the sacrifices he and his brother made to serve this country during the Vietnam War. We had a very cordial meeting today in which we discussed his nomination.

Unfortunately, as I told him during our meeting today, we are simply too philosophically opposed on the issues for me to support his nomination.

One of my biggest concerns is avoiding Obama’s sequestration that, as Secretary Panetta has said, would be devastating to our military. However, Senator Hagel’s comments have not demonstrated that same level of concern about the pending defense cuts.

Senator Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement. At a time when North Korea is threatening our allies with their nuclear capabilities and Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, the security of our own nation and that of our allies requires us to be vigilant with our own nuclear weapons and defense systems. This administration has already put us in a more vulnerable position by drastically cutting our nuclear defense budget and eliminating our Third Site missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

On Iran and Israel, Senator Hagel’s record concerns me as well. In 2000, he was one of just four senators who refused to sign a letter affirming U.S. solidarity with Israel. In 2001 he was one of just two Senators who voted against extending the sanctions against Iran. A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization. Given the current tension in the Middle East that is largely being instigated by the Iranian regime, I am concerned with Senator Hagel’s views.

Although we are opposed on issues, we are still friends. This is one of those rare times when policy differences don’t stand in the way of personal relationships.

By John Liang
January 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM

House Armed Services Committee members new and old today adopted the rules that will govern the panel's activities during the 113th Congress.

The rules contain three changes, committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) said this morning. "First, the proposed rules include one change made by the new rules of the House, which now require the committee to submit two activity reports per Congress instead of four," he said.

The new rules also update the jurisdiction of certain subcommittees, according to McKeon, who said:

For three subcommittees, the proposed rules would add jurisdiction over sustainment accounts associated with weapons systems for which each subcommittee already oversees procurement. This change would apply to the subcommittees on tactical air and land forces, seapower and projection forces and strategic forces. Readiness jurisdiction remains unchanged from the previous Congress and retains jurisdiction of overall readiness to include weapon sustainment.

The last subcommittee modification would be to the subcommittee on intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities, which was formerly known as the subcommittee on emergent threats and capabilities. The jurisdiction of the subcommittee remains relatively unchanged except for the addition of intelligence policy, including coordination of military intelligence programs, national intelligence programs excluding the national intelligence space programs and DOD elements that are part of the intelligence community.

View the full text of the committee's new rules.

By John Liang
January 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is looking for ideas from industry for a new concept that would allow remotely piloted vehicles to be placed in pressure-proof containers at the bottom of the sea near potential future flashpoints. Those vehicles -- with their intelligence-gathering payloads -- would then be deployed if a crisis took place in a particular region where regular assets would take longer to arrive on station, according to the Jan. 11 Federal Business Opportunities notice.

To that end, DARPA plans to host a "Proposers' Day Conference" for what the agency has labeled the "Upward Falling Payload" program on Friday, Jan. 25. The event will take place at DARPA's conference center in Arlington, VA, the notice states, adding: "The purpose of this conference is to provide information on the UFP program; promote additional discussion on this topic; and to address questions from potential proposers."

The notice further states:

Cost and complexity limit the number of ships and weapon systems the Navy can support in forward operating areas. This concentration of force structure is magnified as areas of contested environments grow. A natural response is to develop lower-cost unmanned and distributed systems that can deliver effects and situation awareness at a distance. However, power and logistics to deliver these systems over vast ocean areas limit their utility. The Upward Falling Payload (UFP) program intends to overcome these barriers. The objective of the UFP program is to realize a new approach for enabling forward deployed unmanned distributed systems that can provide non-lethal effects or situation awareness over large maritime areas. The approach centers on pre-deploying deep-ocean nodes years in advance in forward areas which can be commanded from standoff to launch to the surface. The UFP system is envisioned to consist of three key subsystems: (1) The ‘payload' which executes waterborne or airborne applications after being deployed to the surface, (2) The UFP ‘riser' which provides pressure tolerant encapsulation and launch (ascent) of the payload, and (3) The UFP communications which triggers the UFP riser to launch. A multi-phase effort is envisioned to design, develop, and demonstrate UFP systems.

By John Liang
January 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

U.S. and British Navy and Air Force officials plan to participate together in a war game at the U.S. Naval War College this week, according to a college statement released this morning:

The five-day event, co-hosted by the Pentagon's Air-Sea Battle Office and the UK Maritime Warfare Centre, will study how to conduct combined operations in order to achieve operational access in a future maritime anti-access/area denial (A2AD) environment.

The wargame is intended to inform emerging joint operational access doctrine, such as the Air-Sea Battle Concept, potential force structure, and how combined operations mitigate risk in a disputed maritime environment. It will also enhance combined operations and synergy of command relationships associated with U.S.-UK operations.

The game is designed to be highly experiential to allow players to identify insights with U.S.-UK integration associated with conducting joint operational access operations and will help identify risk associated with conducting joint operational access operations.

More than 68 operators from across warfare disciplines will join NWC's War Gaming Department for the game. In addition to helping refine doctrine concerning joint operational access, the game will help identify how UK and U.S. forces integrate to conduct combined operations.

The game will use innovative gaming mechanics to put players in the role of operational commanders in order to explore how a given plan can be executed, its associated risk, and how to mitigate that risk. Furthermore, the game will employ functional teams of operators to explore the range of missions and desired effects associated with maritime anti-access/area denial environments. Participants will also examine capabilities needed and the role of information dominance for achieving operational access.

Check out InsideDefense.com's recent coverage of the Air-Sea Battle concept:

Card: Navy, Air Force Must Work On Air-Sea Battle Information Dominance
Inside the Navy - 12/03/2012

CNO Report: Navy To Revise Maritime Strategy, Amphibious Ops Concepts
DefenseAlert -- 31 October 2012

Dempsey's New Vision For 2020 Joint Force Sparks Mixed Reactions
Inside the Pentagon - 10/04/2012

Marine Corps War Game On A2/AD Threats Uncovers 'Numerous Gaps'
Inside the Navy - 08/27/2012

By John Liang
January 14, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Director Richard Ginman wants to make sure military officials know whom to contact when it comes to improving acquisition through strategic sourcing.

To that end, Ginman, in a Jan. 11 memo, provides contact information for the service officials responsible for strategic sourcing, whose support "is clearly needed in the participation and execution of any strategic sourcing initiative."

View the memo.

By Christopher J. Castelli
January 11, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said today that the Defense Department would deploy the Air Force's special operations variant of the V-22 Osprey, known as the CV-22, to Japan -- but his comments, made during a question-and-answer session with reporters, later prompted Pentagon Press Secretary George Little to issue a clarification of the Pentagon's plans.

Asked if there is any plan to deploy the CV-22 to Okinawa or any other place in Japan, Donley replied, "Yes." When pressed on specific locations, he added, "I think I'll beg off on that for now. But the answer is yes." Asked about the time line, he said, "Let me see if I can get you a more detailed answer afterwards."

DOD, however, later deleted the exchange -- with the exception of the initial question -- from its transcript of the press briefing. In the place of the deleted text was an "editor's note" for "correction to the record: There have been no decisions made about the deployment of the Air Force CV-22 aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region," it stated. "As part of the planning process, the Department of Defense evaluates a range of possible basing options for our forces. That process is currently ongoing."

By day's end, Little had issued a statement titled "clarification on the Air Force CV-22 aircraft," which noted DOD has not officially told Japan about CV-22 deployment plans "because we have not made a basing decision."

Here's Little's statement:

The Department of Defense continuously assesses its worldwide force posture. We are seeking a force posture in the Asia-Pacific that is geographically distributed, operationally focused, and politically sustainable.

As part of the planning process, the Department of Defense evaluates a range of possible basing options for our forces. That process is currently on-going and includes multiple locations in the Asia-Pacific region.

Any deployment of the Air Force CV-22 to the Asia-Pacific region is years away and no construction has begun to support such a deployment. The CV-22 is a Special Operations variant of the Osprey; as a Special Operations platform the demands for this capability are fluid and constantly changing to react to world events.

The United States has not notified the Government of Japan about the CV-22 because we have not made a basing decision.

The U.S.-Japan Alliance, supported by a robust U.S. military presence which includes the U.S. Air Force, continues to provide the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of peace, security and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

By John Liang
January 11, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Inside the Air Force reports today that the service's intercontinental ballistic missile community this winter completed a successful operational test and is planning to award a broad ICBM sustainment contract. Also, most recently, the service issued an initial solicitation for white papers on the future of the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad:

The Minuteman III is the lone operational ICBM in the Air Force's arsenal and is programmed to remain in service until 2030. To that end, the service recently announced the successful completion of a November test from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, while at the same time moving ahead on more forward-looking acquisition initiatives.

The Air Force has yet to decide whether to modernize the Minuteman III to keep it viable past 2030 or replace it altogether, and to gather ideas on both possibilities, the service issued a Jan. 7 broad agency announcement calling for white papers from industry. At this early stage, a future ICBM solution is being referred to as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD.

"This BAA initiates a request for analysis, refinement, and technical amplification of concepts designed to satisfy the GBSD capabilities with an operational life of 2025-2075 time frame," the document states. "Concepts are requested to address the GBSD weapon system-of-systems, to include the payload delivery vehicle, warhead integration, basing, and nuclear command, control and communications starting at message receipt. Underlying considerations should be a modular, open systems architecture ('Plug and Play') and commonality with Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), Submarine-launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM), Prompt Global Strike/Conventional Strike Missile, and space launch vehicles."

Based on previous interaction with industry and internal research, the Air Force has created five broad classes of concepts for future ICBMs. They are: the continued use of today's Minuteman III with "no deliberate attempt" to close capability gaps; the "current fixed" concept, which would modernize existing missiles and continue using current silos; "new fixed," which would develop a replacement missile to be kept in a new, super-hardened silo; "mobile," which would develop a new ICBM to be employed off of a mobile platform called a transporter erector launcher; and "tunnel," described in the BAA as a subway system for launching ICBMs.

White papers are due Feb. 8, and contract awards -- multiple awards are possible -- are anticipated in late March. The Air Force has $3 million available for this GBSD BAA, and awardees will have six months to perform their studies, according to the document.

House and Senate authorization conferees had language on strategic delivery systems in the final version of the fiscal year 2013 defense policy conference bill that President Obama signed into law last week:

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1071) that would require the President to certify to the congressional defense committees whether plans to modernize strategic delivery systems are funded at a level equal to or more than that outlined in the November 2010 update to the plan found in section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). If the level of funding is less than that referred to in the November 2010 update, then the President must submit as part of the reporting requirements under section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), his assessment of whether a lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability. If the President determines that the lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability, he must submit with the section 1043 report a plan to preserve or retain the capability that would be lost, and a report that assesses the impact of the lack of full funding and a description of the funding required to restore the capability.

The House bill contained a similar provision (sec. 1055) that would require the President to certify annually whether plans to modernize or replace strategic delivery systems are fully resourced and being executed at a level equal to or more than the levels set forth in the November 2010 update to the plan referred to in section 1251 of Public Law 111-84. The section would further prohibit the use of funds to reduce, convert, or eliminate strategic delivery systems as a result of the New START treaty or otherwise unless the President is able to issue the required certification.

The House recedes with an amendment that would require the President to certify annually to the congressional defense committees whether plans to replace or modernize strategic delivery systems are funded at levels equal that under the November 2010 update to section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). If before fiscal year 2020, the President reports that the plan to modernize the strategic delivery systems is not fully funded according to the November 2010 update, the President shall include with the report to Congress under section 1043 of Public Law 112-81 a determination whether the lack of funding will result in a loss of military capability as compared to the November 2010 update. If the determination is made that a lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability, the President shall include with the report under section 1043 of Public Law 112-81, a plan to preserve the military capability that would be lost, an assessment of the impact of the lack of full funding on the strategic delivery systems, and a description of the funding required to restore military capability. The President must certify a commitment to accomplishing the modernization and replacement of strategic delivery systems and the political obligations concerning nuclear modernization as set forth in declaration 12 of the Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the New START treaty.

The amendment also requires that the President make the certification regarding full funding for the strategic delivery systems under the November 2010 update to the section 1251 plan not less than 60 days before the date on which the President carries out any proposed reduction to the strategic delivery systems along with any additional reporting matters described in this section. In addition, the President must certify to the congressional defense committees that the Russian Federation is in compliance with its arms control obligations with the United States.

By John Liang
January 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM

The Chinese government this week said it is "deeply disappointed and dissatisfied" that recent U.S. defense legislation relaxing export controls on satellites and related items excluded any benefit for China, according to a Jan. 6 statement by Ministry of Commerce spokesman Shen Danyang. As China Trade Extra reported yesterday:

In the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama signed into law on Jan. 2, a provision gives back to the president the authority to move all satellites and related items from the U.S. Munitions List (USML), where even commercial satellites are considered military items, to the less-stringent Commerce Control List (CCL), provided they are not exported, re-exported or transferred directly or indirectly to China, North Korea or any country listed as a state-sponsor of terrorism.

The law also prohibits any satellite or related item to be launched from China or any restricted country or as part of a launch vehicle owned by the governments of one of these countries. The restrictions against China and other countries can be waived by the president if it is determined to be in the national interests of the United States.

Shen argued that China is "always exclude[d]" from the benefits of the U.S. export control reform initiative and the new measures will continue to "restrict China-U.S. Cooperation [in the] civil satellite field."

However, observers have said it would have been politically impractical to not exclude China from the NDAA provision due to the fact that a 1998 illegal diversion scandal involving China was the reason Congress revoked the president's authority over satellites in the first place.

Getting Congress to return the president's authority over satellites is one piece of the broader reform effort, which aims to move thousands of less significant items off the USML, primarily parts and components, to the CCL where they can be more easily exported to close allies.

The Obama administration has stressed that China will only benefit from the reform effort insofar as the export of a an item transferred to the CCL does not violate a rule that prohibits the sale of a dual-use item if it is intended entirely or in part for a military end use. There is a blanket prohibition on the export of any USML item to China.

U.S. officials have argued that the benefits China receives from the reform effort will be limited because most items transferred to the CCL will be “specially designed” for military end items on the USML, but not critical enough to remain under tighter USML controls. As a result, most of these items will not have a civilian end use and will not be eligible for export to China.

Despite this argument, Shen, in his statement, said the Chinese government hopes the U.S. can "change the discriminatory conducts against China, and pay attention to and address China's concerns and materially relax export control against China in its export control reform."

By John Liang
January 9, 2013 at 8:17 PM

The U.S. intelligence community believes with "moderate confidence" that there is likely a "coordinated strategy" to acquire U.S. companies involved with critical technologies by one or multiple foreign companies or governments, according to the latest unclassified annual report of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). As China Trade Extra reports this morning:

This is the first time that CFIUS has made this particular finding, although it has long been required by law to report on whether such a coordinated strategy to acquire critical technologies exists, according to CFIUS sources. CFIUS examines transactions that transfer control of a U.S. company to a foreign person to ensure they do not pose a national security risk.

Among the items considered to be critical technologies under the CFIUS statute are defense goods and services controlled on the U.S. Munitions List, certain items on the Commerce Control List, specially designed nuclear equipment and toxins.

The unclassified version of the report does not provide information on which specific entities are engaged in this coordinated strategy, although such a list is likely included in the classified version, according to a CFIUS lawyer. This lawyer said the finding could affect future transactions from the identified companies or governments, which could conceivably include China.

However, China was only linked to four planned and completed transactions involving critical technologies during 2011 out of a total of 120 such transactions that year, according to statistics published in the unclassified version of the report released Dec. 20. The United Kingdom had the most such transactions at 30.

View CFIUS' annual report to Congress.

By John Liang
January 9, 2013 at 6:43 PM

How do you define "homeland security?" The Congressional Research Service isn't so sure, according to a new report:

Ten years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. government does not have a single definition for "homeland security." Currently, different strategic documents and mission statements offer varying missions that are derived from different homeland security definitions. Historically, the strategic documents framing national homeland security policy have included national strategies produced by the White House and documents developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to the 2010 National Security Strategy, the 2002 and 2007 National Strategies for Homeland Security were the guiding documents produced by the White House. In 2011, the White House issued the National Strategy for Counterterrorism.

Having more than one definition for homeland security "may impede the development of a coherent national homeland security strategy, and may hamper the effectiveness of congressional oversight," CRS warns, adding:

Definitions and missions are part of strategy development. Policymakers develop strategy by identifying national interests, prioritizing goals to achieve those national interests, and arraying instruments of national power to achieve the national interests. Developing an effective homeland security strategy, however, may be complicated if the key concept of homeland security is not defined and its missions are not aligned and synchronized among different federal entities with homeland security responsibilities.

View the CRS report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News.

By John Liang
January 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Members of the National Governors Association and the Council of Governors are urging President Obama to include state National Guard representation on the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force.

A provision in the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by the president last week, mandated that representation.

"As you consider appointments, the nation's governors urge you to include senior National Guard leaders to represent states on the commission," the letter reads.

View the letter.

By John Liang
January 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

The Commerce Department's Industry and Security Bureau plans to hold a meeting of its Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) later this month, according to a notice published this morning in the Federal Register.

The SITAC, which will meet on Jan. 29 at 9:30 a.m., "advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology," the notice states. The meeting's agenda is as follows:

Public Session

1. Welcome and Introductions.

2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.

3. Industry Presentations.

4. New Business.

Closed Session

5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

Inside U.S. Trade reported in December that the Obama administration's export-control reform initiative will gain a boost -- with respect to satellite controls and the notification requirements for the removal of items from the U.S. Munitions List (USML) -- from the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that President Obama signed last week:

On satellites, the NDAA gives back to the president the authority to move all satellites and related items from the USML to the Commerce Control List (CCL), provided they are not exported, re-exported or transferred directly or indirectly to China, North Korea or any country listed as a state-sponsor of terrorism.

It also precludes any satellite or related item to be launched from any of these countries or as part of a launch vehicle owned by the governments of one of these countries. The president, however, can waive this prohibition on a case-by-case basis if he determines it is in the national interests of the U.S. to make the export and notifies the appropriate congressional committees about his determination.

Regarding the notification requirements, the final NDAA drops the language in the House version of the NDAA that would have required the administration to enumerate "to the extent practicable" the items it wants to move off the USML. The administration has long criticized this language as making it impossible to implement its overall export control reform initiative, and demanded that it be removed from the final NDAA bill.

The U.S. satellite industry supports the satellite language in the conference report, which was the result of negotiations that occurred among the administration and congressional staff in the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

The legislation essentially repeals a provision in the NDAA for fiscal year 1999 that took the authority over satellite export control away from the president in the wake of a diversion scandal and returned all satellites and related items that had been transferred to the CCL back to the strict controls of the USML.

By Christopher J. Castelli
January 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would be the first person of enlisted rank to serve as secretary of defense, one of the few secretaries who've been wounded in war and the first Vietnam veteran to lead the Defense Department, President Obama said today when nominating Hagel to succeed Leon Panetta as defense secretary.

"As a successful businessman, he also knows that even as we make tough fiscal choices, we have to do so wisely, guided by our strategy, and keep our military the strongest fighting force the world has ever known," Obama said. "Most importantly, Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction. He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud -- that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. My frame of reference, he said, is geared towards the guy at the bottom who's doing the fighting and the dying."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), who will oversee Hagel's confirmation hearing, praised the nomination. “Senator Hagel is well qualified to serve as secretary of defense with his broad experience in national security affairs," Levin said in a statement. "He was a decorated soldier and an effective member of the Senate, and he is a strong advocate for the men and women of our military. The Armed Services Committee will give prompt and careful consideration to Senator Hagel’s nomination for this critical position.”

Earlier today, committee member Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) issued a statement praising Hagel: “Chuck Hagel will make an outstanding Secretary of Defense. He is highly qualified and his record of service to this country as a decorated combat veteran, successful CEO, senator, and statesman is extraordinary. Chuck is a man of uncommon independence and integrity. Chuck Hagel’s candor, judgment, and expertise will serve him well as our next Secretary of Defense. I fully support his confirmation.”

In a separate statement, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the panel's top Republican, praised Panetta's leadership at the Pentagon but did not endorse Hagel. "In the months and years ahead, the Defense Department will be confronted with significant challenges from budget issues to Afghanistan policy," he said. "I worked with Senator Chuck Hagel in the Senate, and his nomination deserves to be fully vetted. The Armed Services Committee has a time-tested process to consider nominations, and I am committed to upholding that process. I am aware of the serious concerns about some of his policy positions, his record, and some of his comments that have been publically reported. I will be seeking clarification from him about these concerns as his nomination proceeds."

Regarding Obama's nomination of counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to head the CIA, Inhoffe said the administration "has an abysmal record of national security and intelligence leaks when it benefits the President’s agenda. And, the tragedy in Benghazi still pose many questions that have not been adequately answered for those of us in Congress and for the American people. As John Brennan’s nomination goes forward, the American people expect us to get answers on these and other subjects related to his nomination. I will be looking into his record more closely in the weeks ahead."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who recently ended his tenure as the panel's top Republican, released his own statement on Hagel's nomination: “Chuck Hagel served our nation with honor in Vietnam and I congratulate him on this nomination. I have serious concerns about positions Senator Hagel has taken on a range of critical national security issues in recent years, which we will fully consider in the course of his confirmation process before the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

On Brennan’s nomination, McCain said, “I appreciate John Brennan’s long record of service to our nation, but I have many questions and concerns about his nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, especially what role he played in the so-called enhanced interrogation programs while serving at the CIA during the last administration, as well as his public defense of those programs. I plan to examine this aspect of Mr. Brennan’s record very closely as I consider his nomination.”

By John Liang
January 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM

The Pentagon released a statement late last year announcing it had notified Congress of a proposed $1.2 billion sale to South Korea involving four Northrop Grumman-built Global Hawk aircraft and associated equipment.

According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency statement:

The Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of four (4) RQ-4 Block 30 (I) Global Hawk Remotely Piloted Aircraft with the Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite (EISS). The EISS includes infrared/electro-optical, synthetic aperture radar imagery and ground moving target indicator, mission control element, launch and recovery element, signals intelligence package, an imagery intelligence exploitation system, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.2 billion.

The Republic of Korea is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in that region.

The Republic of Korea needs this intelligence and surveillance capability to assume primary responsibility for intelligence gathering from the U.S. led Combined Forces Command in 2015. The proposed sale of the RQ-4 will maintain adequate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and will ensure the alliance is able to monitor and deter regional threats in 2015 and beyond. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these systems into its armed forces.

For more unmanned systems news, check out InsideDefense.com's Unmanned Systems Alert.

And here are some more DSCA announcements that were released the same day:

DSCA Statement On Proposed $406M HIMARS, ATACMS, GMLRS Sale To Qatar
In a Dec. 24, 2012, statement, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces it has notified Congress of a proposed $406 million foreign military sale of rocket and missile systems to Qatar.

DSCA Statement On Proposed $140M Sidewinder Missile Sale To Turkey
In a Dec. 24, 2012, statement, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces it has notified Congress of a proposed $140 million foreign military sale of Sidewinder missiles to Turkey.

DSCA Statement On Proposed $125M VSAT Ops, Maintenance Sale To Iraq
In a Dec. 24, 2012, statement, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces it has notified Congress of a proposed $125 million foreign military sale of Very Small Aperture Terminal operations and maintenance services to Iraq.

By Gabe Starosta
January 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Helicopter builder Sikorsky has decided to bid for the Air Force's Combat Rescue Helicopter program with a version of its H-60 aircraft, the likely favorite to win the competition.

Bids for the long-delayed CRH acquisition effort were due yesterday, and Sikorsky spokesman Frans Jurgens told InsideDefense.com today that the company has indeed responded to the solicitation. "I can confirm that Sikorsky submitted a bid for CRH. We are offering a fully compliant H-60 variant," he said in an email.

The Air Force plans to buy 112 CRH helicopters as a replacement for the aging, Sikorsky-made HH-60G Pave Hawk.

The company is very likely to be the only prime contractor to turn in a bid for CRH, as its top rivals announced last month that they would sit out the competition. Boeing, EADS-North America and a Northrop Grumman-AgustaWestland team all announced on the same day their decisions not to bid on the program, which is worth a maximum of $6.8 billion.