The Insider

Budget Bear
By John Liang
January 2, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services is still bearish on its credit outlook for U.S. defense contractors despite the passage of a bill last night that would delay sequestration by two months.

In a statement released today, S&P finds:

We believe that Congress will not implement the full amount of sequestration cuts, but it's possible an additional $100 billion to $200 billion of reductions will be part of any final agreement. We expect these cuts and the $487 billion of reductions already planned will result in flat to declining revenues and earnings for most U.S defense contractors for the next several years. However, defense contractors will likely only gradually feel the additional cuts over the next year as they are to "appropriations" (the amount the military is allowed to spend), not to "outlays" (what it actually spends in any period from funds already appropriated). In addition, funds already appropriated are often allowed to be spent over two to three years. The most immediate impact will likely be lower purchases of products and services funded through the operations and maintenance (O&M) portion of the budget. O&M funds tend to be more fungible than those for procurement and research and development, which are tied more directly to specific programs. O&M funds could also be used to fund the costs of the war in Afghanistan if a separate supplemental appropriation is not passed.

We do not expect to take industrywide rating actions, even if Congress implements the full amount of sequestration cuts. We expect that large defense contractors, which generally have diverse weapons programs, will continue to generate good cash flow. The bigger risk to credit quality would be if firms respond to poor earnings growth prospects by materially increasing share repurchases, dividends, or debt-financed acquisitions. For example, this was one of our concerns when we revised our rating outlook on Lockheed Martin Corp. (A-/Negative/A-2) to negative from stable in February 2012. Smaller contractors' operations are generally less diversified, and they have fewer financial resources, so we could lower ratings if the defense budget cuts cause material deterioration in credit quality. However, we would likely need further detail on what programs will be cut before taking any rating actions solely on that basis.

InsideDefense.com reports this morning that the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget roll-out could be delayed by last night's fiscal cliff deal:

The Defense Department faces significant uncertainty in early 2013 given a two-month deferment of sequestration approved in this week's fiscal-cliff deal, as well as other factors that could delay the Pentagon's budget process, according to defense sources.

The release of the president's fiscal year 2014 budget request could be delayed beyond February, a senior defense official tells InsideDefense.com.

"It's entirely possible that the normal budget roll-out timing could be affected by ongoing discussions on sequester, the debt ceiling and continuing resolutions," the official said.

Sequestration is unlikely to be implemented as written in the current law, but the deferment sets up a new round of "gritty" debate on debt reduction in January and February that will certainly address defense spending, Wall Street analyst Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners writes today in a report.

View the full story.

View InsideDefense.com's full budget coverage.

Intel Inside
By John Liang
January 2, 2013 at 5:15 PM

The fiscal year 2013 intelligence authorization bill has been approved by both chambers of Congress and forwarded to the president for his signature, according to a joint statement released yesterday by the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

The bill "is significantly below last year's enacted budget, but also up slightly from the President's budget request," the statement reads, adding:

The House Intelligence Committee unanimously voted to report the FY13 bill to the full House on May 17, 2012 and it originally passed the House on May 31 with overwhelming bipartisan support.  The Senate passed its version of the authorization bill on December 28, 2012, after extensive negotiation between the House and Senate committees.  With today's vote, the House approved the version approved by the Senate and has sent the legislation to the President for signature.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Feinstein said, "This bill marks four straight years of Congress passing an intelligence authorization bill.  This bill provides important oversight provisions while authorizing funding for critical national security programs.  The bill has been carefully negotiated between the two committees, our House and Senate colleagues, and the executive branch, and I look forward to the president signing it into law."

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss said, "I am pleased that Congress has passed this annual intelligence authorization bill, which allows the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to provide comprehensive oversight of the nation's intelligence community. It is imperative that Congress provide oversight to hold the intelligence community accountable for its fiscal and legal responsibilities."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rogers said, “The current challenging fiscal environment demands the accountability and financial oversight of our classified intelligence programs that can only come with an annual intelligence authorization bill.  This important bill reaffirms to the hard-working men and women in the intelligence community that Congress is united in ensuring they have the tools they need in order to do the very difficult and dangerous work of keeping America safe."

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger said, "It is our responsibility on the Intelligence Committee to give our intelligence professionals the resources, capabilities and authorities they need to keep our country safe.  This bill does this while keeping costs in check. It invests in personnel and programs that are working and cuts things that aren't.  I look forward to the President signing this bill to make it law."

Read the Senate committee's manager's report.

SATCOM Services
By John Liang
December 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM

The Defense Business Board plans to hold a meeting later this month to discuss commercial satellite communications services, applying best business practices within the Pentagon and veterans issues, according to a notice published in this morning's Federal Register.

In a Sept. 3 memo, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter called on the DBB to conduct a review to determine how to better take advantage of commercial satellite communications services:

Members of the satellite commercial sector often approach the Department of Defense (DoD) with opportunities to provide highly desirable and time-sensitive commercial satellite communication capabilities. Some propositions require a DoD commitment to take service when available, sometimes on an annual basis, while others may require a commitment of up-front dollars covering services for a multi-year period. DoD has been unable to take advantage of these ideas due to either existing processes (i.e., the Federal Acquisition Regulations, Joint Capabilities Integration Development System, and Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution) or a DoD culture that appears to resist dependence on commercial providers for satellite services.

Some obstacles, like congressional funding and other statutory restrictions (such as the Competing in Contracting Act 10 U.S.C. 2304), are beyond our control; however, there may be some changes in existing regulations processes that could allow DoD to take advantage of these operationally useful, yet fleeting opportunities. Consistent with the National Security Space Strategy and National Space Policy, and to meet the capability need of the Combatant Commanders, we must take action to assess whether it is possible to realize the potential benefits offered by the commercial satellite communications sector.

View more of InsideDefense.com's space coverage.

NNSA Chief Retiring
By John Liang
December 21, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Thomas D'Agostino, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, has decided to retire. Here's the note he wrote to NNSA staff:

After more than 36 years of service -- including the last five and a half years as the NNSA Administrator and Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, and two years as Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs -- my wife Beth and I have decided the timing is right for me to leave Federal service. This was a difficult decision for me as I am committed to serving our country, committed to the missions of the NNSA, the Environmental Management Organization, the Office of Legacy Management, and I am committed to you in carrying out this mission.

However, I have an equally important commitment to my wife and family and I am a strong believer that organizations are healthier when leadership changes on a periodic basis. The time is right for this change and I will step down from this position on 18 January 2013, at the end of the first term of the Obama Administration.

The ability to serve our nation is a privilege and I have been blessed to be able to do so for many years. You should consider yourselves blessed as well. Whether you are a federal civilian, military service member, a laboratory or production plant employee, or support service contractor, you are all serving our nation in an important way. What makes a great job? I think there are a few essential ingredients. These ingredients include the ability to serve, the ability to work in an area that has an impact with real meaning and national significance, and finally the ability to work with exceptional and committed professionals. All of us are very fortunate to have this opportunity in the work we do every day. In the hustle of the work that we do on a day to day basis, it is easy to forget that we are blessed to have jobs that possess these ingredients. Take the time to remember what you have in your work and the value you bring to your country.

Finally, I want to thank you for your support to me over the nearly eight years in these positions. I deeply appreciate your commitment to the mission, for keeping an eye on what is important, and for taking care of each other. As Beth frequently reminds me, take the time and effort to make a real difference in someone’s life each and every day, a philosophy that I have found to help guide me and maintain a sense of personal and professional balance. It has been truly an honor and privilege to serve with you and to serve the country in the wide variety of roles and opportunities I have been presented. I will cherish the many memories and relationships that have been forged during our time working together.

Until the time when a fully confirmed Administrator and Undersecretary is in place, I ask that you give your full support to Neile Miller as she takes on the role of acting Administrator and acting Undersecretary for Nuclear Security.

Do not forget what you do. You Serve. Press on with the nation’s work. May God richly bless you. Tom

ATEC Assessment
By John Liang
December 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Next Monday's Inside the Army -- available today -- is reporting that while the Army has concerns over how a commercial off-the-shelf analyst tool, made by the California software company Palantir, will work with its own Distributed Common Ground System-Army, the service is not attempting to block the use of Palantir's technology in theater and is working to address how it might be incorporated into the Army's intelligence analysis framework:

At issue is a debate that has erupted in the last year over the extent to which the Army should use Palantir, software designed to track positions of roadside improvised explosive devices, over DCGS-A. The Army last year was accused of preventing units that wanted Palantir from receiving the software in theater and manipulating an Army Test and Evaluation Command operational assessment report about Palantir to downplay the software's performance and criticisms of DCGS-A (Inside the Army, Sept. 3). The Army was cleared of wrongdoing on the ATEC report, according to the results of an investigation -- laid out in an Oct. 17 memo obtained by ITA -- that was ordered by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno.

Service officials last week took pains to explain the Army's position. "We are not fighting Palantir," Maj. Gen. Harold Greene, deputy for acquisition and systems management, told reporters in a Dec. 20 roundtable. "The Army leadership is very clear on what the job of those of us in the acquisition community is and it's to get the best of the breed for our soldiers with the resources that the taxpayers give us."

In working with Palantir software, "we have a concern about the interoperability and we are working to do the best we can to mitigate that challenge," Greene said.

Through a cooperative research and development agreement with Palantir, the Army is exchanging information between Palantir and DCGS-A. "We've had some initial success in the laboratory and we are looking at how we would build upon that. We are looking at how we can make all this work together so we can leverage the goodness that people have seen in Palantir," Greene stated.

We now have the Oct. 17 ATEC assessment (marked "for committee use only//unclassified//FOUO//LIMDIS").

View the full Dec. 24 ITA story.

New Appropriations Chair
By John Liang
December 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) will be the next chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Mikulski, selected by her Democratic Caucus colleagues this afternoon, is the first woman and the first senator from Maryland to head the committee, according to a statement. She succeeds Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who died on Monday.

Whether Mikulski will also replace Inouye as chair of the defense subcommittee remains to be seen.

"Subcommittee assignments will be announced once the new Senate has organized (hopefully in January)," a committee spokeswoman told InsideDefense.com in an email.

Satellite Controls
By John Liang
December 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM

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 final version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that emerged from conference on Dec. 18, which Congress is expected to pass by the end of this week, Inside U.S. Trade reports this morning:

On satellites, the [National Defense Authorization Act] 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.

"Going back to the source and repealing [the 1999 NDAA] is a very clean way of doing it," said Patricia Cooper, president of the Satellite Industry Association.

Industry sources said this was a more desirable outcome than the House NDAA language, which tried to establish a new definition of which satellites and components the president could control. The House language referred to “commercial satellites and related components and technology” and defined them as communications satellites that do not contain classified components, including remote sensing satellites with performance parameters below thresholds identified on the USML. This language could have been interpreted to exclude authority over scientific, research and other types of satellites.

The language in the conference report gives the president nearly unrestricted authority over all satellites and related items, which are found in Category XV of the USML.

View the conference report.

IAMD Memo
By John Liang
December 19, 2012 at 9:59 PM

In June, Inside the Army reported on a Pentagon decision made in February to allow the Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense Program to increase its inventory:

While the Army's cornerstone missile-defense program has cleared a critical design review in recent months, service officials are keeping the results of a new cost estimate, mandated by a February acquisition decision memorandum, under wraps.

The Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense program has undergone significant changes in recent years, leading to an increase in the Army's acquisition objective -- from 285 systems to 431 -- last summer. Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall approved the change in a Feb. 1 ADM.

The program represents the Army's contribution to a Defense Department-wide missile-defense network. At its heart lies a battle command system (IBCS), designed to enable a modular, "plug-and-fight" capability for commandeering sensors and interceptors.

Both the IBCS portions and the IAMD effort as a whole cleared design reviews this spring, moving the program into the second phase of engineering and manufacturing development, according to Army spokesman Matthew Bourke. Reviewers were said to be "pleased" with the program's progress, and a new cost estimate approved on April 24 led the service to consider the endeavor as "affordable," Bourke wrote in an email.

But what that means is unclear; service officials declined several requests for comment on what the Army's new cost estimate amounts to in dollars. That information is "pre-decisional and under a rolling review," said Bourke.

According to a June 11 statement by IBCS contractor Northrop Grumman, the design review showed that the program is "technically realistic and attainable." Moreover, it meant the program can meet performance requirements and is mature enough to proceed to "full-scale fabrication," assembly, integration and testing, the statement reads.

View the full story.

View the February ADM -- marked "for official use only".

Parting Shots
By John Liang
December 19, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Outgoing Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl didn't mince any words during his farewell speech on the Senate floor today, particularly in his criticism of the Obama administration's missile-defense policies:

First, over the past four years, the Obama administration has consistently reduced funding for missile defense. Second, it has refocused funding on regional missile defenses at the expense of protecting the homeland and developing future technologies.

Third, the administration has scaled back the number of ground-based interceptors protecting the homeland from 54 to only 30 -- numbers that do not meet the standard established by the Missile Defense Act of 1999, which required a defense capable of addressing accidental and unauthorized attacks from any source. And, fourth, the administration has no plans to modernize interceptors that are more than 20 years old and therefore unlikely to keep pace with future threats.

And there is, as I said, very little funding devoted to new, breakthrough technologies that could provide even more effective defenses for the United States, such as lasers and space-based interceptors.

We must remember, as NORTHCOM commander General Jacoby has explained to Congress, that ‘no homeland task is more important than protecting the United States from a limited ICBM attack ...’

Finally, one of the greatest challenges we face today stems from Russian attempts to limit the development and deployment of U.S. and allied missile-defense systems. The United States cannot allow Russia to dictate to us limits on the capabilities of U.S. missile defenses. If they could be effective against a Russian launch, so be it. That’s what it means to protect Americans from potential threats. If the Russians argue that they pose no possible threat, then our missile defense should be irrelevant to them.

From negotiations on the New START treaty to threatening the United States and NATO in an attempt to limit our planned deployments in Europe, the Russians have never abandoned their goal of limiting the effectiveness of U.S missile defense. The answer is not ‘reset,’ but recommitment to the principle that the most moral way to protect the American people from missile attacks is by missile defense.

View the full national security-related excerpts from Kyl's farewell speech.

Alternative Fuels
By John Liang
December 19, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report that "provides background information and identifies issues for Congress regarding Department of Defense (DOD) alternative fuel initiatives, a subject of debate at congressional hearings on DOD's proposed FY2013 budget."

In the Dec. 14 report, CRS notes that the military services "have spent approximately $48 million on alternative fuels, and the Navy has proposed a $170 million investment in biofuel production capacity. By comparison, DOD purchases of petroleum fuels totaled approximately $17.3 billion in FY2011."

According to a Senate Armed Services Committee summary of the FY-13 defense authorization conference report agreed to last night, the legislative language:

* Does not include a provision of the House-passed bill that would have prohibited fiscal year 2013 funding for the production or purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost of producing or purchasing the alternative fuel exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuel, with limited exceptions.

* Requires DOD to issue guidance for financing renewable energy projects.

* Authorizes $150.0 million for the Energy Conservation Investment Program.

* Authorizes $200.0 million in funding for the Defense Research and Development (R&D) Rapid Innovation Program to aid in technology transition across a broad spectrum of technologies, including those which will improve energy efficiency, enhance energy security, and reduce the Department's dependence on fossil fuels.

View the CRS report.

View the full FY-13 defense authorization conference report.

Nixing F-16s To Egypt
By John Liang
December 18, 2012 at 9:59 PM

With Egypt in political turmoil, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to halt the planned delivery of 20 F-16 fighter jets to that country beginning early next year.

In a statement released today, Inhofe said:

The Obama Administration should not be putting top-of-the-line aircraft in the hands of a government that is perpetuating instability in its region and showing aggression towards our ally, Israel. While this agreement for the F-16s was forged two years ago, Egypt's leadership has since changed hands, leaving open the question as to how this equipment might be used.

The first four jets are scheduled for delivery on Jan. 22, according to a Dec. 17 letter Inhofe sent to Clinton. He adds:

In light of the ongoing instability, aggression towards Israel, [Egyptian] President [Mohammed] Morsi's dictatorial decree, and absence of a constitution and parliament, this delivery should be stopped and subject to further review.

Until Egypt is able to establish [a] democratic parliament and ensure stability in the country, the delivery of F-16s to Egypt should be postponed for further review. I look forward to your response.

Bearish On Defense
By John Liang
December 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM

At least one Wall Street analysis firm isn't too bullish on the defense sector next year.

In a "2013 Aerospace & Defense Outlook" released today, Credit Suisse analysts note that during 2012, "defense has outperformed aerospace (19.3 percent vs 2.1 percent), driven by high cash returns to shareholders at defense primes, a beat and raise trend, and the view by many that defense offered a relative safe-haven against wider economic uncertainty."

As for next year, however:

In 2013, we think defense will eventually succumb to more tangible pressure on topline by 2014, even without Sequester. As such, we favor aerospace, as do investors, according to our latest buyside survey. We specifically prefer [original equipment] suppliers [Precision Castparts], [Triumph Group Inc.] and [BE Aerospace] over [Boeing] as the latter could lag if orders slow, along with Q1 strike risk. Inside we review expectations for each end market, and draw on results from our new 2013 Investor Sentiment Survey.

And:

Defense -- Market Yet to Recognize CY14 Downside: Many defense names are at-or-near 52-week highs having waved off budget worries on the view that major cuts are too extreme to proceed, or that strong defense yields trump poor economic visibility elsewhere. We think this view could hold into H1’13 until the fiscal cliff issue is resolved. Thereafter, we expect the market to refocus on the greater relative downside to CY14 topline and so we look for a correction in defense in H2’13. We favor RTN for its higher electronics & int'l exposure, solid execution & bookings trends, stable mgmt. and well balance cash return strategy.

To view the full Credit Suisse analysis, click here.

Partnership Program
By John Liang
December 17, 2012 at 9:09 PM

The Pentagon last week issued a policy document outlining how a U.S. state National Guard would enter into a partnership with a foreign military. Specifically, the Dec. 14 memo defines such a "State Partnership Program" like this:

A DoD security cooperation program under which a military-to-military relationship is established between the National Guard of a U.S. State and a partner nation's military forces for the complementary purposes of promoting mutual understanding; interoperability; furtherance of the Combatant Commander's theater security cooperation program objectives by building enduring relationships with, and, to the extent authorized by law, the capacity of, partner nation military forces; and promoting the readiness of U.S. National Guard forces.

Inside the Army reported last month that a debate had begun to emerge within the Pentagon about giving reserve forces unique missions, indicating that an explicit division of labor between the ground service components may be in the works. Specifically:

"We are on a little bit of a broader quest right now" to figure out what should be in the active component and what should be in the reserve component, a defense official told Inside the Army. Unlike the Air Force, the Army does not "have a good way to think about it. They take the [active component] and [reserve component] end strengths as given, then try to build the best AC and the rest goes in RC. It is more art than science," the official said.

As the Army tries to shape its future active and reserve components, the California adjutant general, Maj. Gen. David Baldwin is concerned that the active-duty Army is assuming more missions traditionally carried out by reserve forces. The two-star referred to "poaching" when describing what he perceived to be a trend by the active-duty Army to take these missions, which have included peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Sinai, according to minutes from a Reserve Forces Policy Board meeting held in September (ITA, Oct. 15).

A National Guard Bureau spokesman declined to say whether the NGB shared Baldwin's position.

The Guard, for its part, is considering what unique missions it might be suited for, with cyberspace operations being a candidate. NGB spokesman Jon Anderson noted that many members of the Guard have strong technical skills gained through private sector job experience that could be put to good use especially in such missions as cyber security.

Unlike Baldwin, Army Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Talley is "not concerned" that the active force will take the missions that Reserve forces would traditionally perform. The issue "really doesn't apply to the Army Reserve component because [the active component] has to come to us for all those enablers," Talley said during a Nov. 14 Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.

View the full Dec. 14 policy memo.

View more of InsideDefense.com's coverage of Reserve and National Guard issues.

Arctic Agreement
By John Liang
December 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Senior U.S. and Canadian officials recently signed an agreement on cooperation in the Arctic.

According to a Dec. 11 statement, Army Gen. Charles Jacoby, head of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD, and Lt. Gen. Stuart Beare, head of the Canadian Joint Operations Command, signed the "Tri Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation" during a Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense meeting in Colorado Springs, CO. Further:

The Tri-Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation acknowledges the Arctic is not a region of conflict and the Canadian and U.S. militaries will support other departments and agencies in response to threats and hazards in the region when requested and directed. In that context, the goal of the Framework is to promote enhanced military cooperation in the Arctic and identify specific areas of potential Tri-Command cooperation in the preparation for and conduct of safety, security and defense operations. It strengthens an already unique and mature partnership where coordination and cooperation occurs on a regular basis. The Tri-Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation document is not a plan but rather outlines a process that supports the identification of opportunities for potential cooperation in the Arctic. Areas that continue to be improved, particularly in the Arctic, include planning, domain awareness, information-sharing, training and exercises, operations, capability development, and science and technology.

The NORAD and USNORTHCOM Commander and the CJOC Commander both have portions of the Arctic within their respective areas of operation and areas of responsibility. The Commands have complementary missions and work closely together to meet their individual and collective responsibilities as part of a whole-of-government effort in the Arctic. Given the safety and security challenges in the region, the commands often act in support of civilian authorities.

Inside the Navy reported in October that the service was looking to predict weather changes in the Arctic just like the service does in other regions through a next-generation fully coupled ocean atmosphere and arctic prediction system:

The system is important as the Navy plans an increase in operations in the Arctic, Rear Adm. Jonathan White, Navy oceanographer and navigator, said Oct. 23 at the Office of Naval Research's Naval Science and Technology Partnership Conference in Arlington, VA.

Between 2014 and 2040, the Arctic will allow for one month of ice-free operations, he said. Over the next eight years, the Navy wants a new prediction system to replace legacy systems, Frank Herr, ONR ocean battlespace sensing department director, said during the conference.

For polar regions, snow and ice have an immense impact on weather conditions, yet no current models incorporate atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere data into the models, Navy spokesman Robert Freeman wrote in an Oct. 25 email.

Weather Doctrine
By John Liang
December 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

The Pentagon recently released a document that "sets forth the joint doctrine for the planning and execution of meteorological and oceanographic operations in support of joint operations throughout the range of military operations."

The joint doctrine document released this week "updates space weather information and its impacts on operations."

Inside the Air Force reported earlier this month that the service had awarded Northrop Grumman additional funds to facilitate an adjusted launch schedule for the last two remaining satellites in the service's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Specifically:

The service issued the contract modification on Nov. 16, providing an extra $36 million to the company to prepare the sensors on the last remaining satellites, DMSP-19 and DMSP-20. According to Gilbert Chan, Northrop's lead on DMSP, the company's original contract specified a 2010 time frame for both satellites -- a schedule that has since been moved to January 2014 for DMSP-19 and October 2014 for DMSP-20.

Chan said he's been given direction from the Air Force that the DMSP-20 launch will be moved to the latter part of the decade -- no earlier than 2016. However, the company's contract does not yet reflect that change. The funds provided through this modification will be used to recalibrate crucial sensors on both satellites.

"The majority of the work is that we are re-accepting the sensors and making sure that they are acceptable for launch in the 2014 time frame," Chan told Inside the Air Force during a Nov. 30 interview. "And in addition, the infrastructure that is required to provide the re-delivery of the sensor is what is also getting extended into the end of 2014."

The Air Force is early in the process of acquiring a new space-based weather capability, the Weather Satellite Follow-on (WSF), to replace the legacy DMSP, which launched its first satellite in 1962. A past effort to replace the system, the Defense Weather Satellite System, was canceled in 2011.

These last two DMSP satellites -- which were built in the 1990s with six-year design lives and have spent close to 20 years in storage -- will be utilized until WSF is operational.

Other updates from the September 2008 version of the joint doctrine document include:

* Eliminates information on weather observations taken by Army intelligence personnel as a nontraditional source of meteorological and oceanographic (METOC) data.

* Updates nontraditional sources of METOC data for the Army to include further information on tactical weather data.

* Updates nontraditional sources of METOC data for the Navy to include subsurface METOC data and astronomy, geophysics, and precise time.

* Updates Figure III-1, Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations Support Community.

* Establishes a senior meteorological (SMO) and joint meteorological and oceanographic officer planning checklist.

* Updates information on Marine Corps METOC forces.

* Updates information on special operations component METOC forces.

* Clarifies SMO designation in multinational operations.

* Clarifies SMO designation and relationship between the National Weather Service and Department of Homeland Security as it relates to interagency operations within the United States.

* Establishes a new vignette on METOC during Operation TOMODACHI.

* Establishes a new vignette on METOC in riverine operations.

* Replaces the term "Marine air traffic control squadron" with "Marine air control squadron."

* Replaces the term "civil support" with "defense support of civil authorities."