The Insider

An advisory committee to the Commerce Department related to sensors and instrumentation plans to hold a "partially closed" meeting next week, according to a notice published in this morning's Federal Register:

The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on November 8, 2012, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee 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 first portion of the meeting will be open to the public and include remarks from Commerce Department Industry and Security Bureau officials as well as industry presentations, with a closed session to follow, according to the notice.

Inside the Pentagon reports this week that Commerce has completed a night-vision industrial base review to inform the White House's export-control reform efforts amid calls from industry to permit more foreign sales of U.S. night-vision systems:

The "critical technology assessment," dated October, examines night-vision focal plane arrays (FPAs), sensors and cameras. Such reviews assess the impact of export controls on key existing or emerging technologies that are subject to the Commerce Department's export administration regulations.

The study -- based on a survey of 45 night-vision component and equipment manufacturers, divisions and sellers -- aims to determine the nature of night-vision sensor parts and imaging gear manufactured for military-use-only and dual-use (for both commercial and military use). The effort is intended to inform the Obama administration's push to create a single export control list. There are now two primary control lists, one overseen by the Commerce Department and another tied to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

About 38 percent of survey respondents sold some military-use-only night-vision parts and gear to the Defense Department, the report states. The largest number of companies sold military-use-only cooled infrared cameras to DOD.

Roughly 36 percent of survey respondents sold DOD some dual-use night-vision parts and gear. The largest number of companies sold dual-use image intensification tube (IIT) imagers to DOD.

And about 27 percent of survey respondents received some DOD research and development funding for recent night-vision products.

The number of companies selling night-vision components and gear to the Pentagon, coupled with the low levels of military-use-only exports, shows that most end-users are "not predominately or exclusively military," the report states. A former defense official said this finding reflects the widespread availability of low-level night-vision systems. The night-vision industry sees the ITAR as too vague and restrictive, the source said, noting there is an understanding that the most-capable systems should remain restricted but industry wants to be able to export more mid-level technology akin to what foreign defense contractors already market worldwide.

View the full story.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) has more questions regarding White House assertions about the military response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

In an Oct. 29 letter to President Obama, McKeon writes:

There appears to be a discrepancy between your directive and the actions taken by the Department of Defense. As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief. Therefore, could you please clarify:

* To whom did you issue this first directive and how was this directive communicated to the military and other agencies – verbally or in writing?

* At any time on September 11, 2012, did you specifically direct the military to move available assets into Libya to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel in Benghazi? If so, which assets did you order to Libya?

* At any time on September 11, 2012, other than ISR assets, did you provide the authority for the military to take any and all necessary measures to secure U.S. personnel, including specifically the authority to enter Libyan airspace?

* Did you have any communication with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any Commanders of regional Combatant Commands regarding military support to U.S. personnel in Benghazi on September 11th? If so, could you please describe any recommendations provided to you regarding available military support and any orders you gave to them?

The Army recently released its annual weapon systems handbook, which states:

The goal of our acquisition initiatives is to work with our industry and academic partners to more efficiently develop and deliver capabilities needed by the Soldier. A key aspect of this is an effort to identify and address inefficiencies discovered in the acquisition process.

A system-of-systems approach is vital to these ongoing efforts to transform business practices. The Army will continue to look at developing, managing, and acquiring technologies in the most efficient way possible, an approach which includes the need to understand the interdependencies among systems. We place an emphasis upon maturing the capability to synchronize programs and integrate schedules, deliveries, and other developments across the acquisition process.

As a result of these and other practices, the acquisition community remains acutely aware of its need to further the transformation of its business efforts. These initiatives help the Army transform as an institution and ensure that the best value possible is provided to the taxpayer and the Soldier -- who is at the very center of these efforts.

View the full document.

The Army's latest air and missile defense strategy defines the "networked mission command" concept as "a single, common air and missile defense command and control system operating via an open modular architecture integrated into Army mission command and Joint engagement architectures." The document further states:

This capability will reside at all AMD mission command nodes and will include common interfaces for sensors and weapons. It will provide AMD forces the ability to integrate air and missile defense engagement and force operations and present decision-makers at all levels with tools that help them manage the aerial fight.

Army Secretary John McHugh and Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno signed the strategy last month.

In related news, Inside the Army reports this morning that the document likely will do little to settle the debate on whether to favor the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system over the soon-to-be-abandoned Medium Extended Air Defense System:

On one hand, the document describes the U.S. decision to abandon MEADS as a "complicating" factor in adapting Army capabilities to emerging threats. At the same time, it states that the program's planned 360-degree engagement capability could be approximated with Patriot hardware and new software.

"[R]ather than creating a new MEADS program, IBCS [the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System] will allow Patriot to integrate a new radar with the existing omni-directional launchers on the network, creating a 360-degree capability that also leverages non-organic Army and joint data," the document reads.

According to the Army's AMD strategy, service officials envision "initial fielding" of AIAMD, the service's key program for achieving a networked force of sensors and interceptors, in 2016, through the deployment of IBCS. By 2020, officials expect integration of Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system through the integration of their command-and-control systems -- IBCS for Patriot and the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications for THAAD.

In 2028, "complete" fielding of IBCS would lead to a "fully integrated and networked family of AMD systems that additionally integrates other Army capabilities (aviation, intelligence, fires) and joint and coalition contributions," the strategy states.

Patriot, conceived in the 1970s and upgraded several times since it was first fielded, remains a fixture in the new Army strategy. The document calls for "pre-planned product improvements" to be fielded by 2016 and the provision of 15 Patriot battalions through at least 2020.

The document includes no cost projections for new development work necessary to implement the strategy. However, the complexity of the work proposed -- particularly in the historically risky area of large-scale software projects -- suggests the price tag could rise to the tens of billions of dollars.

View the rest of the ITA story.

View the full "Air And Missile Defense Strategy".

The Defense Department and the defense industry as a whole will soon be facing a shortage of qualified cybersecurity and intelligence workers, according to a report released today by the National Academy of Sciences.

The report notes the long training time needed for science, technology, engineering and mathematics workers and warns that shortages today, combined with the aging of the current STEM workforce and needs in areas like cybersecurity and intelligence, are only going to grow worse.

One way to mitigate those shortages, the report states, would be to offer higher pay to convince students to enter STEM fields in general and the defense sector in particular. The report also calls on DOD to replicate the culture of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division, which focuses on interesting and complex problems and endorses out-of-the-box problem solving.

The report is the final version of a study published in interim form in June. The recommendations are largely the same, but the final version discusses more issues in greater depth.

The report's authors discuss the difficulty of predicting exactly which types of STEM workers DOD will need in the future given the rapidly changing nature of technology.

The report also notes that the DOD workforce as a whole is expected to shrink, and the defense industry is reducing its numbers as well. Given these trends, the report says, the STEM worker shortage may be less severe than expected, except in fields like cybersecurity.

Northrop Grumman executives painted a worst-case scenario for their investors today after being asked about what sequestration would mean for the company's 2013 earnings.

During a conference call on Northrop's 2012 third-quarter earnings, investors asked how the company planned to proceed under the shadow of sequestration and what the financial fallout would be from an across-the-board cut of about $500 billion from the Pentagon's budget. Sequestration, which was carved out in the 2011 Budget Control Act, was designed to motivate Congress to work with the White House on trimming the budget. Congress has so far been unable to chisel out a financial plan for how to curb the deficit, which means the policy could be implemented in less than 70 days.

Wes Bush, chairman, president and CEO of Northrop, and Jim Palmer, the company's corporate vice president and chief financial officer, told investors that while Northrop -- and the Defense Department -- would feel the effects of sequestration rather quickly, so would a broad range of government agencies.

"This is a broader set of national issues and national concerns than just the defense community," he said.

Northrop Grumman would be hit hard by sequestration because the contracting base of the military services has a higher turnaround rate, prompting those services to spend their obligated amounts within a set time frame, Bush said.

"Long-term, I don't think I have to speculate in saying the impacts would be profound and very, very negative," he said.

The uncertainty about whether sequestration will happen has made it difficult for Northrop to prepare the way ahead, Bush said. "We all know there is a substantial deficit situation and there are some tough decisions that lie ahead regarding the outcomes for each component of that budget," he said. "So it's a little unclear today from where we are to predict how that's going to go."

Jim McNerney, Boeing's president and CEO, said during his company's third-quarter earnings call this morning  that if sequestration does not hit, Boeing would still not see the same level of defense business in 2013 as in 2012. The company this year has seen large growth in its international defense portfolio, with 38 percent of its current $71 billion backlog representing sales outside of the United States.

"Even without sequestration, it would be hard to beat that next year," McNerney said. "It would be a challenge because of the absolute strength of this year."