The Insider

By John Liang
September 12, 2012 at 4:07 PM

During a speech earlier this month at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller touched on the success of the Open Skies Treaty, which allows certain countries the ability to conduct short-notice intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights over foreign territories and collect data on military activities:

This year, we are celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty and the tenth anniversary of the Treaty's entry into force. The Treaty itself remains a solid regime. The observation flights -- more than 800 to date -- serve to enhance military transparency. They also provide an opportunity for our governments -- in most cases, military personnel -- to regularly and effectively work together.

The biggest single challenge we face for the continued success of the Treaty is the future availability of resources. The Treaty will only be as good as the States Parties make it, and we cannot make it as effective with old aircraft and sensors. For its part, the United States has recently completed an internal review of future implementation plans. The key development involves a U.S. commitment to transition from the film-based cameras we use today to digital sensors. We urge all parties to also redouble their efforts to modernize the Treaty to allow for the use of these sensors and ensure sufficient assets for future operations.

The United States has proposed a number of ways to improve Treaty implementation, while bearing in mind the budgetary constraints that are a reality in the U.S. and across Europe. One thing we believe has been underutilized is the possibility of sharing Open Skies assets among States Parties. This is the type of creative thinking we need to do to continue to advance European security in the current fiscal environment.

Inside the Air Force reported in June that Lockheed Martin has been looking to grow the number of roll-on capabilities its international customers carry as militaries around the world re-examine their purchasing power and size of their force structure:

Jim Grant, vice president of air mobility business development, told Inside the Air Force during a June 19 interview that countries looking to cut back on their defense spending might be able to save money by investing in roll-on capabilities for their C-130 cargo aircraft.

A roll-on capability is a self-contained capability that is transferable from C-130 to C-130. The capability makes it possible for a cargo aircraft to perform a mission other than refueling or lifting heavy cargo. The more roll-on capabilities a C-130 has, the more missions it is capable of, Grant said. . . .

International customers who own and fly C-130s and are looking to cut back on defense spending could do something similar if they are privy to the Open Skies Treaty, which allows certain countries the ability to conduct short-notice ISR flights over foreign territories and collect data on military activities, Grant said.

By John Liang
September 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM

The "advisory and assistance services" contracts for the Precision Tracking Space System have been extended by three months, the Missile Defense Agency announced in a Federal Business Opportunities notice issued today.

The notice states:

This provides notification of the Missile Defense Agency's intent to extend contracts HQ0006-10-C-0004 and HQ0006-10-C-0005, Advisory and Assistance services for the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) for a period of three (3) months. These contracts were previously extended under J&As No. 12-0016 and 12-0017. Due to unanticipated delays in the re-procurement process, the new Task Order under the Missile Defense Agency Engineering and Support Services (MiDAESS) program will not be awarded in time. The three-month contract extensions will bridge the gap and allow completion of the procurement process under the MiDAESS contract. Additionally, the contract extensions will incorporate an option period of three (3) months. Dependent upon the timing of the award of the new MiDAESS Task Order, the Government may or may not exercise the three-month option.

The extensions will be performed by the incumbent contractors, Vanguard Research, Inc., 1235 S Clark St STE 501, Arlington, VA 22202 and Winter, Donald C., Sole Proprietor, McLean, VA 22102, respectively. The period of performance extensions on these contracts are needed to avoid a break in service until the follow-on procurement efforts for these services are completed.

PTSS was one of five MDA programs cited by the Government Accountability Office in a July report that run the risk of incurring delays and inefficiencies because their schedules do not meet best practices. As InsideDefense.com reported:

"These results are significant because a reliable schedule is one key factor that indicates a program is likely to achieve its planned outcomes," the GAO report, addressed to MDA Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, stated. "Our analysis suggests that estimated time frames and costs of these programs are either not reliable or the program is missing information that could make it more efficient. The MDA schedule results are similar to those of other agencies that GAO has analyzed. We are recommending actions that would better ensure compliance with schedule best practices for the five programs reviewed as well as for the long-term MDA program."

In addition to the PTSS effort, GAO looked at the Standard Missile Block IIA, Aegis Ashore, Ground-based Midcourse Defense and the Extended Medium-Range Ballistic Missile Target programs, according to the July 19 report.

"Overall, none of the five programs had an integrated master schedule for the entire length of acquisition as called for by the first best practice, meaning the programs are at risk for unreliable completion estimates and delays," the report states.

By Gabe Starosta
September 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Raytheon will have about 10 months and $70 million to compete with Boeing for the future of the Family of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight Terminals program, the Defense Department said in a contract announcement yesterday afternoon. In an effort to drive down cost and risk on the long-delayed communications terminal program, the Air Force decided late last year to bring on a competitor to prime contractor Boeing. Raytheon was the only company to bid, as Inside the Air Force reported this summer, and the company received a formal contract for that work this week.

The complete contract announcement from DOD is below:

The Raytheon Co., Network Centric Systems, Marlborough, Mass. (FA8307-12-C-0013), is being awarded a $70,000,000 firm fixed price contract for development, testing and production of engineering development models of air (E-4, E-6), ground fixed and transportable Command Post Terminals with Presidential and National Voice Conferencing (PNVC) for the Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals. The location of the performance is Marlborough, Mass. Work is to be completed by July 2013. The contracting activity is AFLCMC/HSNK, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass.

FAB-T is designed to be fully compatible with the Air Force's new Advanced Extremely High Frequency line of communications satellites, as well as with the legacy Milstar constellation. In addition to the command post terminals portion of FAB-T mentioned in the contract announcement, the program is also meant to include airborne terminals aboard the Air Force's bomber aircraft, but the service has not committed to a schedule for production of those devices.

By Jordana Mishory
September 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM

The defense industry is struggling to determine the impact of sequestration because of a dearth of guidance from the Obama administration, according to recent letters industry leaders sent to lawmakers that deride the potential defense cuts but in many cases are short on requested details.

Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) released the letters from industry today. He and six colleagues requested details in June from 15 companies on how sequestration cuts would impact their employees, partners and suppliers; when the firms expected to issue layoff notices; and whether they have experienced a slowdown in new contract awards due to funding uncertainty. Two letters, from ATK and CSC, are still pending.

In several of the letters, defense industry officials note that they expect a reduction in contracts that corresponds with the across-the-board percentage cut expected by the Pentagon.

L-3 for example said that it anticipates the loss of about $1.1 billion in annual sales, based on the approximate 12 percent across the board annual reduction to contracts and subcontracts supporting DOD if sequestration is enacted. But the company doesn't anticipate any full contract terminations as a result of sequestration, although "partial contract terminations are possible and perhaps likely," states the Aug. 21 letter from Chairman, President and CEO Michael Strianese.

The companies were asked what the impact would be of terminating or restructuring contracts as a result of sequestration. EADS North America Chairman and CEO Sean O'Keefe states in his July 18 letter that a 15 percent reduction in revenues may "eliminate the business case for continuing the contract" and lead to termination. In comparison, a 10 percent reduction could require "redefining the business case" so the company could continue to execute the contract. He anticipates that every one of its nearly 20 DOD or Homeland Security contracts could potentially require restructuring.

O'Keefe specifically noted that EADS has made "significant, self-funded investments" to compete for the Armed Aerial Scout program. If sequestration leads to this program's cancellation, the company would have "invested tens of millions of precious research and development dollars in AAS that could have been spent creating jobs in other market sectors," he writes.

Many of the letters noted sequestration would have a detrimental impact on national security, expressing concern about how the cuts would affect the supply chain. Several of the companies noted contract awards are being delayed because of uncertainty and lack of guidance regarding sequestration implementation. Raytheon's Chairman and CEO William Swanson stated that the "consequences of sequestration are already beginning to manifest themselves."

The defense leaders urge Congress to find a solution to prevent sequestration from taking effect

Honeywell Aerospace President and CEO Timothy Mahoney writes in his July 19 letter that the company would like to see a "more thoughtful decision-making process, which prioritizes the must-have systems for the Department of Defense with deeper cuts in less critical programs, informed by the mid- and long-range defense strategy and changing threat landscape."

Lawmakers are waiting on a congressionally mandated report from the White House detailing how it would implement the cuts in fiscal year 2013.

By Dan Dupont
September 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will "headline" the National Guard Association of the United States' 134th "general conference and exhibition" this week in Reno, NV, NGAUS noted today.

"Romney will address the conference at 11:15 a.m. on Tuesday,"  the organization said in a statement.

The full agenda includes:

• Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, chief of staff of the Army - Monday at 1 p.m.;

• Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command - Monday at 1:45 p.m.;

• Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, chief of staff of the Air Force - Tuesday at 8:20 a.m.;

• Gen. Frank J. Grass, chief of the National Guard Bureau - Tuesday at 9:15 a.m.

Most speakers will address the conference theme, The National Guard: Hometown Force, Global Reach, or any of a number of military and homeland security issues affecting the Guard. These include overseas operations, domestic missions and the impact of the current fiscal challenges on the defense budget.

By John Liang
September 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

The Obama administration is preparing a report to Congress "on the effect of existing foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations," according to a Federal Register notice published this morning.

Consequently, the Commerce Department's Industry and Security Bureau "is requesting public comments to conduct consultations with U.S. industries," the notice reads. Further:

Section 6 of the Export Administration Act (EAA) requires BIS to consult with industry on the effect of such controls and to report the results of the consultations to Congress. Comments from all interested persons are welcome. All comments will be made available for public inspection and copying and included in a report to be submitted to Congress.

Commerce has set the following criteria to determine whether to extend U.S. foreign policy-based export controls, according to the notice:

1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve their intended foreign policy purposes, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology proposed for such controls;

2. Whether the foreign policy objective of such controls can be achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;

3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United States and with overall U.S. policy toward the country subject to the controls;

4. Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy interests;

5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and

6. The ability of the United States to effectively enforce the controls.

In particular, the Industry and Security Bureau wants industry to comment on "the economic impact of proliferation controls," as well as information on:

1. Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (i.e., those countries not targeted by sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospective customers regarding U.S. foreign policy-based export controls.

2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners. For example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?

3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy based export controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, and requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).

4. Suggestions for bringing foreign policy-based export controls more into line with multilateral practice.

5. Comments or suggestions to make multilateral controls more effective.

6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the controls.

7. Data or other information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on overall trade at the level of individual industrial sectors.

8. Suggestions for measuring the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade.

9. Information on the use of foreign policy-based export controls on targeted countries, entities, or individuals. BIS is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy-based export controls.

By John Liang
September 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM

With lawmakers returning from their August recess, the Congressional Research Service released a report yesterday -- originally obtained by Secrecy News -- that outlines the issues surrounding the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization and appropriations bills. Here's an excerpt:

President Obama's $613.9 billion FY2013 budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD) is $31.8 billion less than was appropriated for the agency in FY2012. The end of U.S. combat in Iraq and the declining tempo of operations in Afghanistan account for the bulk of the overall reduction: The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) -- DOD activities in those two countries -- is $88.5 billion, which is $26.6 billion less than was provided for those operations in FY2012.

However, the Administration's $525.4 billion request for DOD's so-called "base budget" -- funds for all DOD activities other than OCO -- is $5.2 billion less than was provided for FY2012 and $45.3 billion less than the FY2013 base budget the Administration had projected a year earlier, in February of 2011. The proposed reduction in the base budget -- and planned reductions of more than $50 billion per year through FY2021, compared with the FY2011 projection -- reflects the Administration's effort to reduce federal spending as required by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). All told, the Obama Administration's current projection would reduce DOD budgets by $486.9 billion over a 10-year period (FY2012-FY2021), compared with its February 2011 plan. . . .

According to the Administration, the FY2013 DOD budget request is consistent with the initial spending caps set by the BCA. However, both H.R. 4310, the version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization passed by the House on May 18, 2012, and H.R. 5856, the companion DOD appropriations bill for FY2013, reported by the House Appropriations Committee on May 25, 2012, would exceed the Administration request -- by $3.7 billion in the case of the authorization bill and by $3.1 billion in the case of the appropriation bill.

On the other hand, S. 3254, the version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) reported June 4, 2012, by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the version of the DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5856) reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 2, 2012, would keep FY2013 DOD funding within the initial BCA caps.

The House and Senate versions of the authorization bill would add several billion dollars and overturn several cost-cutting initiatives incorporated in the Administration's budget, including proposed reductions in the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard. However, the House version would go further in rejecting the proposed savings. Similarly, while both versions of the authorization bill would add funding for programs Congress historically has favored (such as missile defense and equipment for reserve and National Guard forces), the Senate bill is more generous in this regard. . . .

In general terms, the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5856) parallel the House and Senate versions of the NDAA, respectively. . . .

View the report.

View InsideDefense.com's compilation of national security-related CRS reports.

By John Liang
September 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM

With summer unofficially over, House lawmakers are getting back to work. The House Armed Services Committee yesterday released its hearing schedule for the next week:

Full Committee

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 –10:00am –2118 Rayburn – Open

The committee will meet to receive testimony on a framework for building partner capacity programs and authorities to meet 21st Century challenges.

Witnesses:

Mr. Michael Sheehan

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict

U.S. Department of Defense

Lieutenant General Terry Wolff, USA

Director, Strategic Plans & Policy (J5), Joint Staff

U.S. Department of Defense

Ms. Janet St. Laurent

Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team

U.S. Government Accountability Office

 

Full Committee

Wednesday, September 12, 2012 –10:00am –2118 Rayburn – Open

The committee will meet to receive testimony on Operational Contracting Support: Learning from the Past and Preparing for the Future.

Witnesses:

Honorable Alan F. Estevez

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness

Brigadier General Craig C. Crenshaw, USMC

Vice Director, J-4, Joint Staff

Mr. Moshe Schwartz

Specialist in Defense Acquisition

Congressional Research Service

Mr. Tim DiNapoli

Acting Director for Acquisitions and Sourcing

U.S. Government Accountability Office

 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 –2:00pm –2212 Rayburn – Open

The subcommittee will meet to receive testimony on Navy shipbuilding and impacts on the defense industrial base in a time of fiscal uncertainty.

Witnesses:

The Honorable Sean J. Stackley

Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Research, Development and Acquisition

Rear Admiral Thomas J. Eccles, USN

Chief Engineer and Deputy Commander for Naval Systems Engineering

Naval Sea Systems Command

 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

Thursday, September 13, 2012 –10:00am –2118 Rayburn – Open

The subcommittee will meet to receive testimony on F-22 pilot physiological issues.

Witnesses:

General Gregory S. Martin, USAF (ret)

Aircraft Oxygen Generation Study Chair

USAF Scientific Advisory Board

Major General Charles W. Lyon, USAF

Director of Operations, Headquarters Air Combat Command

U.S. Air Force

Mr. Clinton H. Cragg

Principal Engineer

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Engineering and Safety Center

 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Thursday, September 13, 2012 –11:30am –2212 Rayburn – Open

The subcommittee will meet to receive testimony on the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

Witness:

Ms. Pamela S. Mitchell

Acting Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program

U.S. Department of Defense

 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

Thursday, September 13, 2012 –2:00pm –2118 Rayburn – Open

The subcommittee will meet to receive testimony on Y-12 Intrusion: Investigation, Response, and Accountability.

Witnesses:

The Honorable Daniel B. Poneman

Deputy Secretary of Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

The Honorable Neile L. Miller

Principal Deputy Administrator

National Nuclear Security Administration

 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Friday, September 14, 2012 –9:00am –2118 Rayburn – Open

The subcommittee will meet to receive testimony on Department of Defense Auditability Challenges.

Witnesses:

Ms. Elizabeth A. McGrath

Deputy Chief Management Officer

U.S. Department of Defense

Mr. Robert F. Hale

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

U.S. Department of Defense

The Honorable Gladys J. Commons

Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Financial Management and Comptroller

U.S. Department of the Navy

Dr. Mary Sally Matiella

Assistant Secretary of the Army

Financial Management and Comptroller

U.S. Department of the Army

Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas

Deputy Assistance Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller

U.S. Department of the Air Force

By John Liang
September 5, 2012 at 4:23 PM

The Defense Information Systems Agency this week released its 2013-2018 strategic plan. In the document's foreword, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronnie Hawkins, the agency's director, writes:

DISA will support the Department's priority to rebalance our communications and services in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as "Operate Effectively in Cyberspace," and will play a critical role in the Department's efforts to provide modern armed forces with reliable information and communications networks and assured access to the cyber domain. DISA is a Combat Support Agency, and our number one priority is enabling information superiority for the Warfighter. We know we cannot obtain information superiority on our own, but we are proud of the capabilities we bring forward to enable the DoD to reach their goals.

Hawkins writes that he intends to focus his initial efforts on:

Global Defense Posture

Cyber Command and Control (C2)

Nuclear Command, Control,

and Communications (NC3)

Joint Information Environment

DoD Cloud Services

Mobility

Acquisition Agility

DISA First

View the document.

Read all the latest developments on military information technology, sensors, intelligence and advanced technology initiatives.

By John Liang
September 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM

With the Democratic National Convention kicking off tonight, here's an excerpt from the party's 2012 presidential platform document:

When President Obama took office in January 2009, our armed forces were engaged in two wars. Al- Qaeda, which had attacked us on 9/11, remained entrenched in its safe havens. Many of our alliances were strained, and our standing in the world had diminished. Around the world and here at home, there were those who questioned whether the United States was headed toward inevitable decline.

Under the leadership of President Obama and the Democratic Party, the tide of war is now receding, and America is looking ahead to a new future. We have responsibly ended the war in Iraq. We have struck major blows against al-Qaeda, bringing Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda leaders to justice, and putting the terrorist organization on the path to defeat. And we have reversed the momentum of the Taliban and established the conditions to draw down our forces in Afghanistan.

These actions have enabled a broader strategic rebalancing of American foreign policy. After more than a decade at war, we can focus on nation-building here at home and concentrate our resources and attention abroad on the areas that are the greatest priority moving forward. This means directing more energy toward crucial problems, including longstanding threats like nuclear proliferation and emerging dangers such as cyber attacks, biological weapons, climate change, and transnational crime. And it means a long-overdue focus on the world’s most dynamic regions and rising centers of influence.

As we rebalance our foreign policy, we have rebuilt our relationships around the world. From Europe and Asia to the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas, we have strengthened the alliances and partnerships that are so central to global security, and we have taken steps to reinvigorate international institutions. All the while, we have built the foundation for sustained American leadership by growing our economy, preserving our unrivaled military strength, and advancing our values.

President Obama and the Democratic Party know that there is no greater responsibility than protecting the American people. We also understand the indispensable role that the United States must continue to play in promoting international peace and prosperity. And because of the steps we have taken, the United States is leading once again, and America is safer, stronger, and more secure than it was four years ago.

To view the full national security-related excerpt, click here.

And to view the Republican version, click here.

By John Liang
August 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the Energy Department's inspector general has excoriated the nuclear weapons complex in Oak Ridge, TN, for its failure to prevent an 82-year-old nun and two other antiwar activists from infiltrating the facility.

In a report released this morning, the IG states:

We initiated this inquiry to identify the circumstances surrounding the Y-12 National Security Complex breach because of the importance of ensuring the safe and secure storage of nuclear materials.  Our review found that the Y-12 security incident represented multiple system failures on several levels.  We identified troubling displays of ineptitude in responding to alarms, failures to maintain critical security equipment, over reliance on compensatory measures, misunderstanding of security protocols, poor communications, and weaknesses in contract and resource management.  Contractor governance and Federal oversight failed to identify and correct early indicators of these multiple system breakdowns.  When combined, these issues directly contributed to an atmosphere in which the trespassers could gain access to the protected security area directly adjacent to one of the Nation's most critically important and highly secured weapons-related facilities.  We noted that following the incident, Y-12 and the National Nuclear Security Administration took a number of actions designed to improve security at the site.  However, the successful intrusion at Y-12 raised serious questions about the overall security approach at the facility.

Given the unprecedented nature of this security event, prompt and effective corrective actions are essential.  Accordingly, we made several recommendations for corrective actions in the report.  NNSA management agreed to implement the report's recommendations and outlined a number of corrective actions it had initiated or completed.  Management's comments were responsive to the report and its recommendations.

View the IG report.

By John Liang
August 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Pentagon has decided to reestablish the charter for the National Defense University's board of visitors, according to a Federal Register notice published yesterday:

The Board shall provide independent advice and recommendations on the overall management and governance of the National Defense University in achieving its mission.

The Board shall report to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Defense through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President of the National Defense University. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may act upon the Board's advice and recommendations. The Board shall be comprised of no more than twelve members, who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense. The members are eminent authorities in the fields of defense, management, leadership, academia, national military strategy or joint planning at all levels of war, joint doctrine, joint command and control, or joint requirements and development. The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of Board members for one to four year terms of service, with annual renewals; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service. This same term of service limitation also applies to any DoD authorized subcommittees. Board members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not full-time or permanent part-time federal employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and to serve as special government employees. In addition, all Board members, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, shall serve without compensation. Each Board member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.

Inside the Pentagon reported last November that the Defense Department was facing shortfalls in the way it educates and trains military personnel for information operations designed to influence adversaries' decisions:

The Defense Department has "come up short" in training and educating information-operations personnel who can properly assess situations and advise leaders on how to affect enemies' decisions, Austin Branch, the Pentagon's director for information operations, said Monday at an Association of Old Crows symposium in Washington.

Branch said the United States has not generated the type of talent required in the information-operations arena.

"This is Ph.D. level work," Branch said. "We can't leave that up to amateurs, though we've had amateurs do it. So that's why we have to focus on the brain power of the people who are involved in putting this together and advising our senior leaders on what decisions we recommend them to make."

To correct this deficiency, the Pentagon has placed an increased focus on beefing up that capability through reviewing defense courses and curriculum, a defense official said on condition of anonymity. Leaders are also gearing up to finish and implement a specific force development policy, the official added.

DOD hopes to execute this policy within months, the official said. The official could not put a date on when it would be finished, but said it is "moving pretty quickly because we want to implement."

DOD has held a series of force-development seminars and meetings with the services and defense officials to "determine exactly what the requirements are, what have we already been doing. What's been effective or not, how do we improve this," the official said. "It's about getting super-smart folks trained and educated in this space instead of amateurs."

By John Liang
August 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Science Applications International Corp. plans to split itself in two, according to a company statement issued today.

"The spin-off is expected to occur in the latter half of next fiscal year, subject to final approval of the Board of Directors," the statement reads. The two companies would be structured this way:

A technical services business -- This business will focus on government technical services and enterprise IT businesses, and have a leaner and more efficient cost structure. As one of the largest, pure-play government services companies in the market, it will compete in a broad market space, leveraging its deep mission knowledge and customer relationships in a more competitive and agile organizational structure. It will be free of potential OCI restrictions caused by its current relationship with other SAIC business pursuits, specifically those involved in developing ISR solutions and products for the Department of Defense and Intelligence agencies. New opportunities due to the elimination of OCI are expected to include Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA), Cost & Financial Analysis, and Program Office Support. Likewise, we will be able to expand our offerings noted above to the Intelligence Community and Civil Agencies. Pro forma revenue for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2013 for the future technical services business is estimated at $4 billion.

A solutions-focused business -- This business will focus on delivering science and technology solutions in three high-growth markets that reflect high priority, long-term global needs -- national security, engineering and health. These three markets share an increasingly important convergence of the physical and digital worlds they represent. These markets operate in complex, data rich environments, and are foundational for securing the future of our families, our communities, and our world. We believe we have a unique opportunity to horizontally integrate our deep success in developing mission-critical systems, with SAIC's rapidly emerging technologies in cyber defense, together with our demonstrated solutions in big data analytics, to deliver the next generation of information security and performance in a cyber world. The elimination of OCI with SAIC's services business will allow this business to have unimpeded access to significant new business opportunities not available today. This includes science and technology opportunities in both Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) and Programs of Record (POR) in multiple Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4ISR) regimes, specifically Maritime ISR systems, US Navy Airborne programs, Battlespace Awareness, Maritime Domain Awareness, Electronic Warfare (EW), and Missile Warning, as well as Logistics, Readiness and Sustainment growth across a range of both US and International customers just to name a few. Pro forma revenue for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2013 for the future solutions-focused business is estimated at $7 billion.

For more info, click here.

By John Liang
August 30, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller this week announced an effort to crowd-source ideas to solve current proliferation problems.

In a blog entry posted on her department's website, Gottemoeller writes:

Through this Challenge, we will collect new ideas about how innovation and technological advancement can affect the implementation of arms control, verification, and nonproliferation treaties and agreements. Can innovation bring about creative ways to prevent "loose nukes" from falling into the hands of terrorists? Can smart phone and tablet apps be created for the purpose of aiding on-site inspectors in verifying and monitoring treaty commitments? How can we use commonly available technologies in new and creative ways to support our arms control policy efforts?

. . . As an arms control policy wonk and negotiator, I see great value in incorporating innovative ideas across the whole spectrum of our arms control initiatives. As we look to the future of arms control, new thinking to face the challenges of the 21st century is vital to our success.

This Challenge is an experiment in that thinking. It seeks creative ideas from across the general public, from garage tinkerers and technologists; to gadget entrepreneurs and students, to support the U.S. arms control and nonproliferation agenda. Are there new ways that we can use existing data, such as Twitter streams, to generate information that will be useful to arms control and nonproliferation verification and monitoring? Are there ways that we can help our inspectors to do their jobs better, by having better tools available? Are there ways that governments and citizens can work together to ensure better monitoring and verification of treaties and agreements?

These are the types of questions that we are asking contestants to consider. We are looking for creative ways to tackle the long-standing problems of arms control and nonproliferation verification and monitoring, keeping in mind the big challenges that come about as we move to reduce nuclear weapons to lower numbers, and look for ways to monitor smaller units of account, such as chemical munitions in storage facilities. No matter how big the challenges, when we attack problems with all the brainpower that is available, we can solve them more effectively together.

The contest is open until Oct. 26, and has a "guaranteed award" of up to $10,000, Gottemoeller writes.

For more info, click here.

By John Liang
August 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

When it comes to selling weapons overseas, the United States accounts for the lion's share of those sales, according to an Aug. 24 Congressional Research Service report.

The annual report -- originally obtained by Secrecy News -- states:

In 2011, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with over $56.3 billion or 78.7% of these agreements, an extraordinary increase in market share from 2010, when the United States held a 43.6% market share. In second place was Russia with $4.1 billion or 5.7% of such agreements.

In 2011, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $10.5 billion, or 37.6% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second in these deliveries at $7.5 billion or 26.8%.

In worldwide arms transfer agreements in 2011 -- to both developed and developing nations -- the United States dominated, ranking first with $66.3 billion in such agreements or 77.7% of all such agreements. This is the highest single year agreements total in the history of the U.S. arms export program. Russia ranked second in worldwide arms transfer agreements in 2011with $4.8 billion in such global agreements or 5.6%. The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide in 2011 was $85.3 billion, a substantial increase over the 2010 total of $44.5 billion, and the highest worldwide arms agreements total since 2004.

View the report.