The Insider

Two of the Air Force's biggest priorities will take up an increasing share of the service's research, development, test and evaluation budget in the coming years, Air Force officials said today. Between the service's next-generation bomber and the KC-46 refueling tanker, the Air Force plans to spend $11.7 billion in RDT&E funding over the future years defense plan.

In budget briefings given today by Air Force officials, and in justification documents released by the service tonight, the Air Force revealed that its FYDP, spanning fiscal year 2013 through FY-17, includes a request for $5.4 billion in RDT&E funding for the KC-46 tanker.

At this time last year, the service announced plans to put $3.2 billion toward KC-46 development between fiscal year 2012 and 2016. This year, the service is saying it now plans to invest $5.9 billion over five years.

RDT&E funding for the tanker will actually peak in FY-13, with a request of $1.8 billion, and progressively shrink from there as the program moves into procurement.

At a budget briefing today, Air Force Deputy for Budget Marilyn Thomas said the program's funding profile has been “rephased” because Boeing was awarded its KC-46 development contract later than anticipated, but she did not directly address the rising RDT&E price tag.

“There has not been a restructure of the tanker program,” Thomas said. “The contract award occurred later than we had originally expected, so the funding profile has been rephased some, but the program has not been restructured.”

Service officials also announced today that the new budget request projects $6.3 billion in funding or the next-generation bomber, referred to in the budget documents as “Long Range Strike,” over the FYDP. The service received $294 million from Congress in fiscal year 2012 for formal research on the program, and the Air Force plans to request $292 million in FY-13.

Looking forward, the bomber funding profile increases rapidly, going over $1 billion in FY-15 and up to $2.7 billion in FY-17.

Travis Sharp, a fellow with the Center for a New American Security, argues in a policy paper released this morning that allowing the defense budget to go into sequestration would be a really bad idea:

Sequestration is an irresponsible way to reduce defense spending for three reasons. First, the large amount of cuts imposed by sequestration will make it difficult for the U.S. military to pursue its longstanding and generally successful strategy of global engagement. Second, the sudden and inflexible process for implementing cuts under sequestration will unnecessarily damage U.S. defense capabilities. Third, sequestration already has failed to achieve its sole purpose, which was to encourage the "super committee" to compromise.

For these reasons, Congress should pass bipartisan legislation to repeal sequestration as soon as possible, and President Obama should sign it. Congress and President Obama should replace sequestration with a bipartisan process to negotiate a comprehensive deficit-reduction package. This type of process has failed before and probably will not make much progress during a presidential election year. Nevertheless, it is the most responsible framework for pursuing changes to federal budgetary priorities. In the meantime, the Budget Control Act's $487 billion level of defense cuts should stand. If Congress and the president decide to make further defense cuts beyond that level, they should implement those cuts gradually and flexibly, while remembering that they must accept more national security risk as the amount of cuts increases.

The Navy intends to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to evaluate the consequences of building and operating a live-fire training range on the Pacific island of Guam, where the service plans to relocate troops now based on the Japanese island of Okinawa, according to a Federal Register notice issued this morning:

The proposed action that will be analyzed in the SEIS is to construct and operate a live-fire training range complex that allows for simultaneous use of all firing ranges to support training and operations on Guam for the relocated Marines. The DoN has preliminarily identified five alternatives for the range complex: two are adjacent to Route 15 in northeastern Guam, and three are located at or immediately adjacent to the Naval Magazine (NAVMAG), also known as the Naval Munitions Site. The SEIS will also consider the No Action Alternative.

The purpose and need for the proposed action is to ensure that the relocated Marines are organized, trained, and equipped as mandated in section 5063 of Title 10 of the United States Code, and to satisfy individual live-fire training requirements as described in the Guam and CNMI Military Relocation Final EIS and associated Record of Decision (ROD).

The live-fire training range complex will consist of a Known Distance (KD) rifle range, KD pistol range, Modified Record of Fire Range, nonstandard small arms range, Multipurpose Machine Gun range, and a hand grenade range. The proposed action also includes associated roadways and supporting infrastructure.

The DoN encourages government agencies, private-sector organizations, and the general public to participate in the NEPA process for the training range complex. Because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will have to approve airspace associated with the training range complex at any of the five preliminary alternatives being considered, the DoN will invite the FAA to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS.

Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear, nominee to become the next head of U.S. Pacific Command, was asked about Guam in questions posed in advance of his nomination hearing today:

How does the planned relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam improve U.S. security in the region?

Our commitment to the security of Japan is unshakeable. I understand the planned changes in the Asia-Pacific region will result in force posture that is geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable. Guam’s strategic location supports our ability to operate forces from a forward location.

Planned posture shifts result in greater geographic distribution of our forces in the region, enhancing our ability to respond to contingencies and meet treaty obligations in Asia. It demonstrates our commitment to allies and to fulfilling our agreements with allies and partners. . . .

Is the cost-sharing arrangement between the United States and Japan to pay for the relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam and to cover the costs associated with the continued presence of U.S. forces in Japan equitable and appropriate? Why or why not?

I believe the cost-sharing arrangements with the Government of Japan (GOJ) to be among the best we have. Under the terms of the 2006 Realignment Roadmap and the 2009 Guam International Agreement, Japan committed to providing up to $6.09B (in FY08 dollars) for the relocation of Marines to Guam. For the GOJ this was an unprecedented step, funding the construction of facilities for the use of U.S. forces on U.S. sovereign territory. To date, the GOJ has provided $834M towards fulfillment of that commitment. For relocations within Japan, the GOJ is paying the lion’s share of the costs to develop new facilities. In April 2011, we entered into a new, five-year host nation support agreement with Japan that maintained the overall level of support we receive from Japan for labor and utilities, while for the first time putting a floor on the amount the GOJ provides for facilities construction.

"The media" turned out to be a favored topic of conversation at the National Defense Industry Association's annual special operations conference in Washington this week, thanks to the forceful voice of retired Army Lt. Gen. James Vaught of Operation Eagle Claw fame.

On Tuesday, he demanded to know from Rear Adm. Sinclair Harris, head of the Navy Irregular Warfare Office, why the service wasn't more forcefully confronting Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. "Blow these bastards out of water," he shouted into the microphone, which clearly wasn't calibrated to handle such an outburst. The suggestion netted applause from the audience, which to that point had been entertained only by an abstract debate about strategies for integrating Special Forces with general-purpose forces.

No can do, responded Harris, offering three letters as an explanation -- "CNN." By that he meant that news about anyone being blown out of any water these days likely would end up on the evening news. Oh, and there are also rules of engagement to be considered, Harris added.

Vaught had made news earlier that day, too. In what is now an international story, he confronted Special Operations Command chief Adm. William McRaven about the wisdom of publicizing sensitive operations like the one that led to the killing Osama bin Laden. (ABC News has footage of the exchange.)

In setting up his piece of advice -- "Get the hell out of the media" -- he brought to light this somewhat puzzling nugget recalling the capture of Iraq's former leader:

Back when my special operators extracted Saddam [Hussein] from the hole, we didn’t say one damn word about it. We turned him over to the local commander and told him to claim that his forces dug him out of the hole, and he did so. And we just faded away and kept our mouth shut.

Vaught's account could not be immediately verified, as they say in the media. According to a SOCOM official, however, the retired three-star "had no role" in the operation in question, having retired two decades prior. (It is possible that Vaught was referring to his special operators in an endearing way, as a former commander might do.)

As for the rest of the information, perhaps the history books of the Iraq war must be rewritten? There is a public record of how the capture was announced to the world. It was during a -- wait for it -- press conference, the one that then-Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer opened with the now-famous words, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him."

The event transcript, courtesy of CNN, is available here. (Hint: Special operators did get public kudos at the time. And: The local commander Vaught was referring to has since made his way up the Army ranks and became the chief of staff.)

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), the renewable sector's largest umbrella group, is working with the military through a series of private forums to create a public-private partnership to advance renewable energy deployment, according to senior ACORE officials and others involved in the effort. In a story published Monday on Inside EPA's Clean Energy Report:

ACORE held a closed meeting between its members and Department of Defense (DOD) officials the week of Jan. 27, as the first in a four-part series of forums meant to resolve barriers to better industry-to-government cooperation on renewable energy advancement. Officials with the Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) also participated in the forum, according to the officials.

ACORE plans to hold a separate set of forums later in the year to examine opportunities for renewable energy through the implementation of EPA utility rules and other regulatory factors, say the sources.

The meetings follow President Obama's announcement in his State of the Union address of a new effort to advance clean energy by leveraging the renewable energy policies of the Navy and DOD. ACORE sources say the recent meeting and the president's announcement were unrelated, and that the administration has not yet coordinated with industry on the president's initiative. Nevertheless, ACORE officials say administration leadership is needed to build on DOD's history of spurring innovation.

The first meeting between senior DOD officials and industry featured a number of panel discussions on renewable energy deployment at installations, the use of renewables at forward deployed bases, the use of renewable energy for transportation and overcoming technology gaps for advanced energy, says an ACORE official.

Permitting, siting and funding were also key concerns discussed at the forum, says the source. The next forum, to be held in the coming months, will focus on military acquisitions, says the official, dealing with DOD authority to purchase or acquire renewable energy services and fuels.

A senior ACORE official says the forums will continue throughout the year, resulting in a series of recommendations that will be assembled into a report.

ACORE has teamed up with other organizations to advance this effort, announcing Jan. 26 a partnership with the Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), a business federation representing the entire advanced energy industry. Both industry groups believe there is a role for the private sector in DOD's effort to deploy renewable energy to mitigate energy security threats, according to sources with the groups.

The groups want to make themselves available as a resource to help DOD discern the right technologies for the right mission, based on an installation's geographic area and what sources of energy are most available, say the sources. The groups believe the military is prepared to purchase more clean energy services, but it is not always aware of the available technologies, say the sources. ACORE and AEE will work to close the information gap on renewable technology availability and increase coordination between DOD and industry.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey today released his "Strategic Direction To The Joint Force," a pamphlet outlining his thoughts on where he plans to focus his efforts as chairman. According to his introductory cover letter:

First, we must achieve our national objectives in our current conflicts. For as long as we have America's sons and daughters in harm's way we, will not be distracted. Al-Qa'ida remains in our sights, and our forces in Afghanistan remain in a tough fight.

At the same time, we are creating the military of our future. We must develop a Joint Force for 2020 that remains ready to answer the Nation’s call -- anytime, anywhere. We need to offset fewer resources with more innovation.

We also must confront what being in the Profession of Arms means in the aftermath of war. Each of us must be a leader of consequence beyond our battalion, our squadron, our ship, and our unit.

Above all, we have to keep faith with our Military Family -- Active, Guard, Reserve, and Veteran. They have endured much and need support now more than ever. They are our heart and must remain our priority despite pressure to do otherwise.