The Insider

British defense minister Phillip Hammond is slated to announce Thursday that the United Kingdom will drop plans to buy the F-35C aircraft-carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and opt instead for the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant, according to published reports. The Daily Telegraph reported today that Hammond "will claim the decision will save hundreds of millions of pounds" and help the U.K. military.

The potential for such a switch had been widely reported in recent weeks as British officials grew concerned about the cost of converting one of the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers to handle the F-35's carrier variant. In March, Peter Luff, the U.K. minister for defense equipment acknowledged the government was "assessing the time and cost implications" of the previous British decision to opt for the F-35C rather than the F-35B.

Hawker Beechcraft is taking a public swing at the Air Force, saying that it is "profoundly disappointed" that the service has allowed "antiquated pilot accommodation standards" to plague a revised request for proposals that would supply 20 aircraft to Afghanistan.

In a May 8 statement, the company strikes out at the new RFP, which was issued on May 4. The Air Force reissued the RFP for the $355 million Light Air Support (LAS) contract after Hawker Beechcraft filed a lawsuit against the Air Force with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in late December. Hawker filed the lawsuit after the service eliminated it from the competition for the contract in November. The service initially awarded the contract to the team of Sierra Nevada Corp. and Brazilian company Embraer but promptly revoked it after the lawsuit was launched, citing issues with its source-selection process.

Hawker Beechcraft's concern over the ejection-seat standards has cropped up within the past month. Company Chairman Bill Boisture discussed the issue of substandard ejection seats with Inside the Air Force in mid-April, saying the ejection-seat safety requirements for the 20 aircraft were lower than what they have been for "every other fixed-wing solicitation the Air Force has put out."

"We are profoundly disappointed to see in the amended RFP that the [Air Force] continues to permit antiquated pilot accommodation standards for ejection seat equipped aircraft which can place both [the Air Force] and partner nation pilots at unnecessary and higher risk," today's statement reads. "Those standards were developed by the [Air Force] to protect their own male and female pilot population, and every aircraft acquired by the [Air Force] should meet those modern safety standards."

In early April, House Armed Services Committee member Tim Griffin (R-AR) sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley seeking to confirm that the Air Force had plans "to meet modern anthropometric accommodation requirements for LAS ejection seats."

UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy declined to comment.

UPDATE (3:45 p.m.): Here's the text of Rep. Griffin's just-released statement:

After a careless selection process, the Obama Administration was forced to reverse its award decision, yet it continues to allow a pilot ejection seat requirement that is below DOD's own standard.  I believe that we should provide the very best light attack platform, including the same ejection seat safety standards we expect in our other front line Air Force aircraft.

The Pentagon yesterday afternoon announced a modification to the multibillion-dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter low-rate initial production contract.

Here are the details, according to the Defense Department contract announcement:

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $237,740,000 modification to the previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee (firm target) F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Low Rate Initial Production IV contract (N00019-09-C-0010) for changes to the configuration baseline hardware or software resulting from the JSF development effort.  This modification increases the concurrency cap for the U.S. Marine Corps and United Kingdom short take-off vertical landing aircraft; Air Force and Netherlands conventional take-off and landing aircraft; and Navy carrier variant aircraft.  The concurrency cap establishes the threshold at or under which the contractor is obligated to incorporate government-authorized changes.  Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to span multiple years.  Contract funds in the amount of $222,600,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract modification combines purchases for the Navy ($153,200,000; 64.5 percent); Air Force ($69,400,000; 29 percent); the United Kingdom ($8,200,000; 3.5 percent); and the Netherlands ($6,940,000; 3 percent).  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

For more news on the concurrency issue, check out InsideDefense.com's recent coverage:

DOD Expects Fourth JSF Production Batch To Exceed Target Cost By $534 Million (DefenseAlert, April 18)

The price tag for the Joint Strike Fighter's fourth production run could be $534 million higher than originally expected, a 12.5 percent increase propelled by an estimated $289 million in additional costs to correct deficiencies uncovered during F-35 flight testing, according to the Defense Department.

In testimony prepared for Congress last month, senior Pentagon acquisition officials -- including acting acquisition chief Frank Kendall and Vice Adm. David Venlet, director of the F-35 program office -- disclosed less than half the potential costs DOD expects will be required to procure the low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 4 aircraft.

Their testimony, submitted for a March 20 hearing of a House Armed Services air and land subcommittee, acknowledged $245 million in projected cost overruns to build the aircraft but provided no estimate for concurrency costs -- must-pay bills to address shortcomings identified during flight tests. Lawmakers did not ask about concurrency costs during the hearing.

In response to questions from InsideDefense.com, the F-35 Joint Program Office outlined potential costs beyond the original $3.4 billion deal with prime contractor Lockheed Martin for LRIP Lot 4, a batch of 32 aircraft -- including one jet each for Great Britain and the Netherlands.

"For LRIP [4], the concurrency estimate is currently $289M," program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova wrote in an email. The production run -- using funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 -- is 57 percent complete, he added. The government is responsible for all LRIP Lot 4 concurrency costs, an arrangement the Pentagon is working to change in the Lot 5 contract that is still being negotiated with Lockheed Martin.

The projected concurrency costs plus the forecast cost overruns would total $534 million.

Asked why Pentagon officials did not mention this figure to Congress last month, Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said, "We don't have a budget quality estimate of concurrency costs for LRIP 4. We have indicated to Congress that there will be additional costs for concurrency."

Concerns about concurrency costs were "a major basis" for the Pentagon's decision in February to defer production of 179 F-35 aircraft beyond the fiscal year 2013 to 2017 spending plan, she said. . . .

Pentagon Finds $258 Million To Buy Back Two F-35 Jets Cut Last Fall (DefenseAlert, April 16)

The Pentagon on Friday announced a $258 million contract to buy two additional F-35 aircraft using money found during an end-of-fiscal-year-budget review, a sum nearly equal to the Defense Department's $263 million reprogramming request last summer denied by Congress that aimed to siphon funds from other Navy and Air Force accounts to finance F-35 cost growth.

The purchase of the two additional aircraft, one Air Force conventional-takeoff-and-landing variant and one Navy aircraft-carrier variant, partially reinstates four jets cut in October from the planned 34-aircraft fifth production lot (DefenseAlert, Oct. 26, 2011). Those reductions were made to help finance a $771 million bill tabulated last year to pay "over-target and concurrency" costs for the first three Joint Strike Fighter early production runs.

"In the fall of 2011, estimates for over-target and concurrency costs originally indicated the government could afford to procure 30 aircraft; however, as the program received greater fidelity on cost overruns and conducted its end-of-fiscal-year budget reviews, there were enough funds to procure two additional F-35s," Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office, said today in response to questions from InsideDefense.com.

The revised profile for the fifth low-rate production lot -- LRIP Lot 5 -- is 22 F-35A conventional-take-off-and-landing variants, three F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variants, and seven F-35C aircraft-carrier variants.

The Pentagon and F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin are expected in "late spring" to definitize terms for the fifth production run contract; DOD is working for the first time to get Lockheed to assume greater responsibility for F-35 concurrency costs. . . .

DOD To 'Dial' Back F-35 Production Unless Lockheed Demonstrates Progress (DefenseAlert, March 21)

The Pentagon wants a contractual framework for the next two rounds of F-35 purchases from Lockheed Martin that increase government leverage, limiting the sixth production run to 26 jets -- 20 percent below the 31 authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2012 -- until the prime contractor demonstrates progress on specific criteria.

In joint testimony prepared for the March 20 hearing of the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee, the three senior Pentagon officials responsible for the Joint Strike Fighter program disclosed that the notional contract structure for lots 6 and 7 of Joint Strike Fighter low-rate initial production will allow the Defense Department to increase aircraft orders as rewards for improved contractor performance.

"This strategy provides a means to have control -- a 'dial' -- on production that is informed by demonstrated development performance against the 2012 plan and concurrency cost risk-reduction," according to the prepared statement of Frank Kendall, the acting under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics; David Van Buren, the Air Force acquisition executive; and Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program office director.

"We believe our plan for negotiations for LRIP 6 and 7 will allow us to control production quantity based on the performance of the development program," they wrote. "It is important that Lockheed Martin demonstrate performance and help us to establish the confidence that the F-35 is a stable and capable platform." . . .

Six Republican lawmakers sent a letter to House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) late last month asking to fund the Medium Extended Air Defense System at the requested level of $400 million in fiscal year 2013.

The missile defense system is under scrutiny by House authorizers who have voted to nix all MEADS funding for FY-13 in their pending legislation. Senate authorizers could follow suit later this month, given their past resistance to the program. (Whether they actually will remains to be seen. “[I]t is too early to guess what will happen in mark-up,” Senate Armed Services Committee spokeswoman Tara Andringa told us.)

House appropriators are expected to mark up the FY-13 defense spending bill this week. In their letter to Young, the six lawmakers didn't make any arguments in favor of MEADS that Pentagon leaders haven't already made. But their public show of support is noteworthy because it goes against the appearance of a program widely rejected on Capitol Hill.

The signatories on the April 20 letter are Michael Rogers (R-MI), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Martha Roby (R-AL). Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor for MEADS, operates a facility in Huntsville, AL.

More MEADS news from this week's Inside the Army:

MEADS Report To Congress Triggers Release Of $300 Million In FY-12 Funds

Defense officials wasted no time last Monday in releasing almost $300 million for the Medium Extended Air Defense System following the submission of a congressionally mandated report only days before.

Ellen Tauscher, the Obama administration's special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense, gave a speech yesterday during a conference in Moscow. In it, she outlined what the United States was willing -- and not willing -- to do to foster missile defense cooperation with Russia:

Sharing of sensor data, working on developing common pre-planned responses, conducting a joint analysis of missile defense systems, and working together on missile defense exercises will allow Russia to see how we do missile defense. Russia has observed our intercept tests in the past and the invitation to observe a future test still stands. By cooperating with us on missile defense, you will be able to see that the European Phased Adaptive Approach is directed against regional threats. Limited regional threats from outside of Europe… not Russia.

Right now, there are six years until Phase 3 of the EPAA becomes operational in 2018. During those six years, we will be testing an Aegis BMD site in Hawaii (that sounds to me like a nice place to visit). We will be developing and testing the SM-3 Block IIA and IIB interceptors. We will also be working with our NATO Allies to ensure how to best protect NATO European populations and territory. Beginning cooperation now will give Russia a chance to see… with their own eyes… what we are doing. And it will give us time to demonstrate how our missile defense systems operate.

I realize it takes time to build confidence. During that time, if you don’t like what you have learned from your experiences working side-by-side with us, then walk away. At least this way, you will be able to make decisions based on data you have collected and observed directly rather than on assumptions and perceptions developed from afar.

As it is, Russia today is in a position of strength that should allow you to explore cooperation. Our missile defense systems are not directed against Russia’s sophisticated nuclear deterrent force. We do not seek an arms race with Russia; we seek cooperation that can help convince you that your national security and strategic stability is not threatened. While Russia talks about countermeasures as a hedge against our defensive system, we hope that instead, through cooperation and transparency, Russia will conclude such development is unnecessary. So join us now, in the missile defense tent.

One of the best ways to build that confidence would be to work with us on NATO-Russia missile defense Centers where we can share sensor data and develop coordinated pre-planned responses and reach agreement on our collective approach to the projected threat. This will give us collectively a common understanding and foundation. Furthermore, we have seen the positive benefit this cooperation could have on missile defense effectiveness at the recent NATO-Russia Council Theater Missile Defense Computer Aided Exercise.

While we undertake this missile defense cooperation, our two governments could do even more to prevent the proliferation of ballistic missile technology. We already cooperate in the Missile Technology Control Regime and in the Proliferation Security Initiative. We are working together in the UN to counter Iran and North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Just last month, we worked together in the UN Security Council to strongly condemn the DPRK’s missile launch and placed additional sanctions on transfers of nuclear and ballistic missile technology to and from North Korea. Working together on missile defense would also send a strong message to proliferators that Russia, NATO and the United States are working to counter their efforts.

Tauscher also drew a line at what the United States is not willing to do:

But let me be clear. While we can work cooperatively together, we cannot agree to the pre-conditions outlined by the Russian Government. We are committed to deploying effective missile defenses to protect the U.S. homeland and our Allies and partners around the world from the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

We will not agree to limitations on the capabilities and numbers of our missile defense systems. We cannot agree to a legally binding guarantee with a set of “military-technical criteria,” which would, in effect, limit our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems against regional threats such as Iran and North Korea.

We cannot accept limitations on where we deploy our Aegis ships. These are multi-mission ships that are used for a variety of missions around the world, not just for missile defense.

The United States and NATO also cannot agree to Russia's proposal for "sectoral" missile defense. Just as Russia must ensure the defense of its own territory, NATO must ensure the defense of its own territory.

Tauscher and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon held a conference call with reporters the previous day in advance of the missile defense conference. In that call, Creedon said the Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation office would complete a cost analysis of the Obama administration's proposed missile defense effort in Europe by this summer.

"We're hoping that we will have all of this wrapped up fairly soon -- sometime this summer is the hope," Creedon said. Further, as InsideDefense.com reported:

According to language included in last week's mark-up of the House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, the CAPE office was supposed to have provided a briefing to lawmakers on its initial findings in March. "That briefing was not provided," the committee states.

During her teleconference this afternoon, however, Creedon said such an analysis isn't as simple as it looks. "Very often, when CAPE does a cost estimate, it's a cost estimate of a . . . specific program," she said. "And because the [European Phased Adaptive Approach] is not in DOD parlance a program, what CAPE is doing is looking at the cost of each of the individual programs that will be utilized to build the EPAA. So for instance, they are looking at the cost of the [Standard Missile]-3IA, they're looking at the cost of the SM-3IB, they're looking at all of the costs of all of the various increments that will be utilized not only in EPAA, but also in other phased adaptive approaches as we move towards other areas of the world.

"So as a result, it sounds like it's a simple tasking, but . . . it's actually far more complicated," Creedon continued.

That CAPE estimate will factor into a report House authorizers want the Defense and State departments to jointly submit on how the administration plans to share with NATO the costs of the proposed land-based missile defense system in Europe.

The Senate Armed Services Committee just released its mark-up schedule for the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill. Unlike their House counterparts, Senate subcommittee members will mark up most of their portions in closed sessions according to the following schedule:

Tuesday, May 22, 2012:

9:30 a.m. ----- Subcommittee on Seapower.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

11:00 a.m. ----- Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support.  OPEN.  Room SD-G50.

2:00 p.m. ----- Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

3:30 p.m. ----- Subcommittee on Airland.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

5:00 p.m. -----Subcommittee on Personnel.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012:

9:30 a.m. ----- Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.  CLOSED.  Room SR-232A.

The full committee will then mark up the bill in closed session via the following schedule, according to the statement:

Wednesday, May 23, 2012:

2:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Full Committee.  CLOSED.  Room SR-222.

Thursday, May 24, 2012:

9:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. [with a break for lunch]

Full Committee.  CLOSED.  Room SR-222.

If markup is not completed on Thursday, May 24, then:

Friday, May 25, 2012:

9:30 a.m. - Completion

Full Committee.  CLOSED.  Room SR-222.

The order of Subcommittee reports and consideration of General Provisions will be as follows:

-- Seapower Subcommittee

-- Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee

-- Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee

-- Airland Subcommittee

-- Personnel Subcommittee

-- Strategic Forces Subcommittee

-- General Provisions

The biggest "long-term" and "acute" challenge to quelling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is that country's neighbor and erstwhile U.S. ally, Pakistan, according to a just-submitted Pentagon report to Congress:

The Taliban-led insurgency and its al Qaeda affiliates still operate with impunity from sanctuaries in Pakistan. The insurgency's safe haven in Pakistan, as well as the limited capacity of the Afghan Government, remain the biggest risks to the process of turning security gains into a durable and sustainable Afghanistan. The insurgency benefits from safe havens inside Pakistan with notable operational and regenerative capacity. The insurgency remains a resilient and determined enemy and will likely attempt to regain lost ground and influence this spring and summer through assassinations, intimidation, high-profile attacks, and the emplacement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Additionally, the Afghan Government continues to face widespread corruption that limits its effectiveness and legitimacy and bolsters insurgent messaging.