The Insider

DOD-DOE 'Test Bed'
By John Liang
May 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM

The Obama administration is touting joint demonstration projects between the Defense and Energy departments as a "test bed" for integrating renewable energy resources into the military and leveraging federal energy expertise to advance both DOD and national clean energy policy goals, Defense Environment Alert reports this week. Further:

The demonstration projects are part of an energy security initiative the Pentagon, separate branches of the military -- including the Navy as the largest contributor -- and five DOE national labs are participating in, according to the officials. The "Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security" (SPIDERS) projects are aimed at making military installations both self-sufficient "islands" apart from the commercial power grid while also enabling the bases to act as clean energy suppliers to the local grid.

Administration officials are framing the projects as measures within a broader push to advance clean energy technologies from the research and development (R&D) phase to commercialization, using DOD's sheer size to reduce the cost of the technologies through both deployment and increased scalability, according to the officials.

The clean energy technologies being eyed for advancement through the enhanced DOE-DOD collaboration include renewable resources, energy storage and lithium battery technologies, advanced vehicles and smart grid, according to officials and a DOE analysis detailing project goals.

Speaking at an April 26 White House event on the DOD-DOE joint energy strategy, DOE Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman said the department has dispatched advisers to several military commands to help the branches advance their energy policy goals. Among the goals are the development of super-efficient "net-zero" energy buildings, advanced biofuels and so-called "drop-in" replacements for gasoline and diesel and smart grid deployment. The SPIDERS projects are a key piece in coordinating the development of these clean energy technologies to integrate and protect DOD's energy supplies, Poneman said.

A DOE spokesperson in an e-mail says the department "has energy advisers in the following commands: Central Command; Southern Command; European Command; and African Command. We will also be bringing on an energy adviser in the Pacific Command."

"These energy advisers serve as wide-ranging energy experts for the Commands, providing support to Command staff and leadership as various energy issues arise," says the spokesperson. "This can include providing expertise on energy infrastructure projects underway, operations planning, or implementing strategic energy objectives, among other things."

The SPIDERS demos are focused on developing more resilient and efficient electricity systems called "micro grids" for both generating and distributing electricity, said Poneman in his remarks at the forum. The projects will also put in place advanced metering and smart grid systems to protect the grid from cyber attack, according to DOE.

Fighter Fundamentals
By John Liang
May 10, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Three Oklahoma lawmakers are questioning the Air Force's decision to eliminate "Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals" training units at Vance Air Force Base in Enid, OK, and Laughlin AFB, TX.

In a letter sent yesterday to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, Oklahoma Sens. James Inhofe (R), Tom Coburn (R) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R) ask the service leaders to provide "a detailed business case analysis for the proposed IFF move to include specific cost and efficiency data," claiming the decision "goes against the detailed recommendations of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) as well as Congressional intent."

In a statement, Inhofe said:

Although I fully support the Air Force's ongoing efforts to reduce costs during hard economic times, I remain skeptical that the proposed consolidation will lower costs and improve efficiency. The Air Force has cited a number of reasons for this consolidation, yet few details have been provided that prove moving IFF training from Vance and Laughlin AFB will save money and improve training.  This current decision by the Air Force runs counter to the conclusions contained in the 2005 BRAC Recommendations that were based on detailed analysis and modeling of all DoD missions and installations.  While I did not favor conducting the 2005 BRAC, it was approved by Congress meaning this Air Force decision could be at odds with the purpose of the BRAC Act and Congressional intent. I look forward to seeing the detailed business case analysis that explains how the 2005 BRAC data and savings are now no longer valid.

In the same statement, Lucas said:

The consolidation of the IFF mission away from Vance Air Force Base represents not only a significant deviation from the original BRAC 2005 recommendations, but also a departure from its intended function of reducing costs and maximizing efficiency. The IFF program at Vance AFB is renowned for its usage of unencumbered airspace that provides an exceptional training experience for pilots. That the IFF program at Vance is somehow so inefficient that it merits removal outside the auspices of BRAC warrants a serious congressional inquiry. For this reason, I join my colleagues in requesting that the Air Force provide the detailed information that demonstrates the most cost-effective basing alternative, and I look forward to their comprehensive response.

Delivered
By Jason Sherman
May 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM

The Defense Department last week took delivery of the first Joint Strike Fighter production aircraft from Lockheed Martin, the company said in a statement, a milestone that was previously slated to occur last November. Congress authorized funding for the first JSF production aircraft in fiscal year 2007.

“This first aircraft is the beginning of the modernization of U.S. Air Force, Marine and Naval Air power and for our coalition partners around the world,” said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. “The F-35 family of aircraft will bring an incredible increase in capability that our men and women defending us deserve. Today we begin to fulfill the vision of our government and international customers.”

The aircraft, AF-7, flew to Edwards Air Force Base, CA, on Friday to begin its flight-testing program, according to Lockheed.

Concerned that production F-35 aircraft were not ready for prime time, the Pentagon last fall directed six additional months of testing for the first Joint Strike Fighters off the assembly line, which pushed pilot testing until late summer of 2011, InsideDefense.com reported last November.

Instead of delivering the first two production aircraft to a training unit at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, at the end of 2010, as previously planned, the Pentagon directed Lockheed Martin to equip the initial Joint Strike Fighters production variants with testing instrumentation and directed them to Edwards Air Force Base, CA, for testing.

Debt Threat
By Jason Sherman
May 9, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, today proposed a fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill including a provision that, if enacted, would require the defense secretary -- in consultation with the director of national intelligence -- to “carry out an assessment of the national security risks posed to the United States and United States allies as a result of the federal debt liability owned to China and the amount of interested determined to have been paid by the United States to China.”

In addition, the provision would direct the Congressional Budget Office to “determine and make public” how much the United States has paid China in interest over the past five years for funds Beijing has lend the U.S. government.

Early last year, two senior Chinese military officers -- Major Generals Zhu Chenghu and Luo Yuan and Senior Colonel Ke Chunqiao -- suggested dumping U.S. government bonds to retaliate against Washington's offer to sell Taiwan $6.7 billion in new weaponry, according to a Feb. 10 Reuters report.

In February, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, issued a new National Military Strategy that called the growing national debt a “significant security risk.”

Last week, the House Armed Services emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, in its mark of the Pentagon's fiscal year 2012 authorization bill, directed the Pentagon to prepare a study on economic warfare threats.

Naming Names
By Cid Standifer
May 9, 2011 at 5:30 PM

The House Armed Services Committee mark-up of the fiscal year 2012 defense budget calls for the Department of the Navy to be renamed the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

The mark-up, which was released today, would also change the position of Navy secretary to the secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.

“This section would formally recognize the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps’ status as an equal partner with the Navy.,” the mark-up states.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing last fall that he believed the time was ripe for a name change.

“Where we are in 2010 today, because of where we have evolved, we are a pretty formidable force for our nation,” he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September. “And I think just viscerally . . . the average fleet Marine would look at the secretary [of the Navy] and say, 'Yeah, I'd like him to be called the secretary of the Navy and the secretary of the Marine Corps.'"

He added: "We paid a pretty healthy price in the last nine to 10 years of combat and we feel pretty relevant right now."

The debate over whether to rename the department has been ongoing in Congress for several years.

Raytheon Radar
By John Liang
May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM

The Missile Defense Agency plans to issue a sole-source solicitation to Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems business unit, which it wants to build and deliver up to two AN/TPY-2 Forward-Based X-Band early-warning radars, according to a recent Federal Business Opportunities announcement.

Raytheon will also be required to include "initial spares for each AN/TPY-2 Radar system, March Order and Emplacement Trainers, a Radar Support Trailer, deployment package equipment, and options for Radar components to support fleet refurbishment and technical data," the notice states, adding: "Radars are required to be delivered not later than 3QFY14 and 4QFY14."

MDA said it doesn't want to compete the contract:

The proposed acquisition will be sole-source to Raytheon pursuant to the authority of FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) as the resulting contract is for highly specialized supplies and services where it is likely that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost and unacceptable delays of the requirement. Raytheon has developed and manufactured seven AN/TPY-2 radars (with an eighth currently in production) as either the primary subcontractor for radar production on the THAAD Development contract (DASG60-00-C-0072) or as the prime sole-source contractor on the BMDS Radar contract (HQ0006-03-C-0047). No other company has manufactured the AN/TPY-2 radar or integrated the radar for operations in a forward-based or THAAD weapon system configuration. Only Raytheon is capable of such manufacturing and integration without substantial duplication of cost and unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's delivery requirements.

The proposed contract action is for supplies or services for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with only one source under the authority of FAR 6.302. This notice of intent is not a request for competitive proposals. All responsible sources may submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation, within 15 days after publication of this notice which shall be considered by the agency. A determination by the Government not to compete this proposed contract based upon responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. Information received will normally be considered solely for the purpose of determining whether to conduct a competitive procurement.

Congressional Intervention
By Tony Bertuca
May 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Nearly 140 members of Congress have signed a May 6 letter to Army Secretary John McHugh, urging him to reconsider the service's plans to cease buying Abrams tanks for three years.

“The cost of shutdown and restart of Abrams tank production appears to be more than the cost of continued limited production,” the letter states.

The lawmakers recommend that the Army purchase tanks at the rate of 70 per year between 2013 and 2016 to sustain the defense industrial base. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), whose district is adjacent to the Lima, OH, plant where the Abrams is produced, did not sign the letter, though his office has said he planned on asking McHugh to reexamine the issue.

General Dynamics Land Systems, the contractor for the Abrams, has been lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to change the Army's strategy for several months, saying a three-year shutdown is a threat to the defense industrial base.

While the name of Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-OH), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, does not appear on the letter, he recently advocated keeping the Abrams production line open during a May 5 speech at the Heritage Foundation.

“Shutting down production then restarting at a later date costs more than just keeping the lines open,” he said. “This is a no-brainer.”

But the Army is arguing just the opposite, however, saying that shutting the line down for three years and restarting it again would cost only $800 million, as opposed to the $1.3 billion contractor General Dynamics Land Systems has proposed to keep it operating. But the service is revisiting its figures and has commissioned the Institute for Defense Analyses for a study that will deliver interim results in July and be completed in December.

SBIRS Launch Scrubbed
By John Liang
May 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM

An Air Force spokesman just tweeted that today's scheduled launch of the first Space-Based Infrared System geosynchronous orbit satellite has been scrubbed.

The satellite was to have launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, using a United Launch Alliance Atlas V launch vehicle sometime today between 2:14 to 2:54 p.m., according to a ULA statement. The ULA is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

GEO-1 will be the first in the constellation to provide scanning and staring infrared sensor data while flying over the equator, according to a Lockheed Martin statement. The satellite system will support critical national security missions that include missile defense, technical intelligence and battlespace awareness.

Inside Missile Defense reported this week that the Air Force plans to put about $555 million toward purchasing two SBIRS satellites in fiscal year 2013.

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter recently said the Defense Department needs to make changes concerning its space programs because they are too expensive:

"On space programs, we're paying too much," Carter said April 20 at the Heritage Foundation. "You'll see us doing a lot with the management of space programs coming up because there's way too much cost structure built into our space programs."

Carter said that these changes can be found with the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellites, where DOD is looking "very aggressively" at the cost structure and considering the possibility of block buys. DOD is also looking at the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.

As Inside the Air Force reported last month:

The success of the GEO-1 launch is critical because it is a follow-on program to the Defense Support Program (DSP), which is projected to have difficulties in the near future, said Gen. William Shelton, the commander of Air Force Space Command.

The new system will replace DSP, which has provided early warning for intercontinental ballistic missile launches since 1960.

Shelton said the Air Force has statistical projections for gaps in DSP service in the near future but would not discuss them. SBIRS is an expensive satellite system that has experienced several delays but it is important for officials to properly execute the program in May, he said during a Feb. 17 media roundtable at an Air Force Association conference in Orlando, FL.

GEO-1 will be the first in the constellation to provide scanning and staring infrared sensor data while flying over the equator, according to a Lockheed Martin statement. The satellite system will support critical national security missions that include missile defense, technical intelligence and battlespace awareness.

Lockheed On F-22 (Updated)
By John Liang
May 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Here's a Lockheed Martin statement on the F-22 stand-down:

Lockheed Martin is aware of the F-22 stand-down.  We deployed a five-person engineering team to Elmendorf AFB today to provide technical expertise and information to our USAF partner.

As we noted here yesterday, possible F-22 Raptor oxygen-system malfunctions prompted Air Combat Command this week to indefinitely stand down the entire stealth fighter fleet and investigate the matter.

UPDATE 2:30 p.m.: A Lockheed spokeswoman just told InsideDefense.com that the above statement was issued Wednesday.

F-22 Stand Down
By Jason Sherman
May 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Reports of possible F-22 Raptor oxygen-system malfunctions prompted Air Combat Command this week to indefinitely stand down the entire stealth-fighter fleet and investigate the matter, Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. John Haynes told InsideDefense.com. Gen. William Fraser, ACC commander, ordered the precautionary move on May 3 to examine the reports "and ensure crews are able to safely accomplish their mission," Haynes said.

START Compliance
By John Liang
May 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM

The Pentagon is still working on how to make heavy bombers -- especially aircraft destined only for conventional, non-nuclear missions -- compliant with the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, senior Defense Department officials told lawmakers this week.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), during a May 4 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing on implementing the New START Treaty, asked Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, head of U.S. Strategic Command, how heavy bombers are being modified to make them compliant with the pact. Kehler responded:

Senator, you have to think about heavy bombers, I think, in three contexts. There is the context of those that are in the boneyard, essentially, that we don't want to have counted against any limits in the treaty, and that we will just take destructive measures to deal with.

Then there is the category of heavy bombers that will be dual-capable, nuclear-capable bombers that will also be available for conventional missions.

Then there is the category of them that we will not have nuclear-capable at all, but will be available for conventional purposes. That is the category that I think you are talking about. In that case, we will propose, for our own compliance review group, a series of steps that we would take that would make it clear that the bomber was not capable of carrying or delivering nuclear weapons, but still retained its full capability as a platform to deliver conventional weapons, to include precision-guided weapons that are conventional.

So we haven't gotten to the complete end of that string yet about approvals to represent it that way with the Russians. That is pending, and we believe we have a good way to do that that still allows them to be capable for conventional missions.

Principal Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller, who also testified at the hearing, added the following:

As Gen. Kehler said, we are not at the end of that process yet, in particular for the B-52Hs that would be converted to conventional-only, which we plan to do. We are still working through exactly how that will be done and have not yet done an exhibition of that to the Russians.

We did do an exhibition of the B-1B bomber because we have been, as General Kehler knows as well, undertaking conversions of those to conventional for some time. And that first exhibition of the B-1 bomber, that will allow them to be non-accountable. That occurred just a few weeks ago.

As Inside Missile Defense reported in November:

New START allows each country to have 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, with each deployed, nuclear-capable heavy bomber counting as one warhead toward that limit.

Under the treaty, each heavy bomber would be assigned a unique identification number that would be included in the paperwork both countries' share with each other that can be confirmed during inspections, according to a State Department fact sheet.

"The rationale for this 'discounted' attribution of one weapon for each heavy bomber is based on the fact that bombers are not fast-flying, first-strike weapons, and are thus considered to be stabilizing systems," according to a State Department "article-by-article" analysis of the treaty.

"What people have lost sight of is that the intrusiveness of the bomber inspections is also considerable and it actually is more intrusive in some ways than" this treaty's predecessor, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation Rose Gottemoeller told attendees of a Nov. 8 Arms Control Association forum.

"We have not had our bombers on strip alert for many years, [and] in fact our heavy bombers are largely devoted to long-range conventional missions," Gottemoeller said. "That's another reason that we felt confident that the bomber counting rule was an adequate representation of the continuing nuclear mission that is tasked to the bombers, but on a day-to-day basis, they don't really carry nuclear weapons at all."

Under New START, the verification regime for bombers "is very intrusive and allows for objects inside the bomb bay to be checked with radiation-detection equipment," according to Gottemoeller. "So, we can basically confirm on bomber inspections that the Russian bombers are not carrying nuclear objects, and it's the same, of course, for the Russian Federation -- at our bomber bases, they can use the same radiation-detection equipment and check our bombers as well. "It's kind of lost in the noise a bit, that the bomber inspections are very intrusive as well as the reentry vehicle on-site inspections," she continued.

Bearing All Costs
By Jason Sherman
May 5, 2011 at 6:07 PM

GE spokesman Rick Kennedy issued the following statement on the GE/Rolls Royce Fighter Engine Team's offer to foot the bill for continued JSF alternate engine development:

The Fighter Engine Team (FET) today announced it has committed to bear all costs for continued development of the competitive F136 fighter engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) through the end of fiscal year 2012.

This unique offer requires no appropriated government funding in fiscal year 2012, nor does it hinge upon any financial commitment from the government in 2013 or beyond. Under this agreement, the FET would be provided access to the engines, components, and testing facilities to continue development work.

The Fighter Engine Team believes that at a time of enormous fiscal stress, competition is essential to saving taxpayer dollars. The independent Government Accounting Office has estimated competition would save $20 billion over the life of the program.

A competing engine is also important to insure we have the best technology for our armed forces. The FET proposal would preserve the $3 billion taxpayer investment in the competing engine, which is 80% complete, while requiring no additional costs to taxpayers.

This is the third time the FET has offered proposals to drive acquisition reform. The first two proposals involved fixed-priced concepts for early production JSF engines. Leaders of the House Armed Services Committee have recognized the unique opportunity that this self-funded F136 development program presents in driving meaningful acquisition reform, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations has called the F136 engine a “near model program.” This is in sharp contrast to the performance of the other JSF engine, which has had $3.4 billion in cost overruns.

GE Aviation CEO David Joyce stated, “Real acquisition reform requires a contractor commitment to invest, compete, and be measured on the merits of your performance. Our proposal accomplishes these important objectives.”

General Electric Company CEO Jeff Immelt said, “We believe so strongly in our engine and the need for competition in defense procurement that we have committed to self-fund F136 development costs for this fiscal year and next. Competition is vital to rein in defense spending and will produce long-term savings.”

The Fighter Engine Team realizes this is a bold move, and there are those who will mischaracterize this commitment based on their own parochial interests.

This commitment is consistent with acquisition reform policy, and will drive competition, improve contractor behavior, and reduce costs. We hope this is the beginning of eliminating sole-source contracting while driving contractor accountability.

Engine Alternatives (updated)
By Jordana Mishory
May 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke at the Heritage Foundation this morning about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s alternate engine program, an initiative that the Pentagon has long sought to cancel:

GE and Rolls Royce are aware of the current stresses on the defense budget and the taxpayer. So I'm pleased to announce that instead of being part of the problem, they have decided to be part of the solution. Instead of lobbying for the final 20 percent needed to finish the engine, the GE team has committed to funding the engine for fiscal year 12 on their own dime. I will accept and support their approach. They believe in their engine and they believe in competition.

Thanks to their willingness to compromise, we'll break up a monopoly; potentially harvest billions in savings, while fielding a more capable, more robust fighter jet -- all at zero cost to the taxpayer. That sort of acquisition reform from the defense industry should be rewarded and applauded at every opportunity and I thank GE and Rolls Royce for coming to us with a smart, viable solution to a tough problem.

UPDATE:

McKeon told reporters after his speech he is hopeful the Defense Department would be willing to supervise the final training of the alternate engine, despite the fact that defense officials successfully advocated for its termination.

“Their complaint was, at least their basis for shutting it down was, that we couldn’t afford it,” McKeon said. “So, if GE is going to pay for it, there should not be another objection, I would imagine.”

When asked how to GE might be provided access to governmental facilities, McKeon said he had not discussed the issue but suggested it would be taken care of in legislation. He noted that he does not believe the alternate engine will need funding past FY-12.

Engine Block
By Gabe Starosta
May 5, 2011 at 3:13 PM

A Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee is expected to spearhead another effort to kill the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program in the next few weeks.

In its mark-up of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee included a provision that would prohibit the Defense Department from funding “performance improvements” to the F-35 aircraft's engine system unless it also funds a second propulsion system, an attempt to keep the second engine alive. Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has been a prominent supporter of the second engine, but is receiving vocal opposition from Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL), a member of the subcommittee.

“I am deeply disappointed to see that the defense authorization bill, which should be focused on funding our troops, is being used in a backdoor effort to restart the wasteful extra engine program,” Rooney said in an April 4 statement. “The House of Representatives has sent a loud and clear message that we’re not going to continue to earmark funds for this wasteful project.”

Rooney spokesman Michael Mahaffey said this morning that Rooney is likely to offer some type of amendment -- either in front of the full House Armed Services Committee next Wednesday or later, on the floor of the House -- to rid the bill of the second engine directive.

“We could strike it, or we could add something onto [the bill] to subvert that language,” he said. “We're working on that now.”

The marked-up version of the FY-12 bill was accepted unanimously by the subcommittee Wednesday afternoon, without amendment.

U.S., Russia Talk BMD
By John Liang
May 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM

U.S. and Russian officials held a missile defense meeting in Brussels on May 2, according to a joint statement released by the Defense Department this afternoon. Russian Federation Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov and U.S. Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller headed their respective delegations, the statement reads. Further:

The meetings of this group support implementation of the decisions by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama to explore ways to cooperate on missile defense and to implement any agreements that may be reached.

The results of these consultations should become U.S. and Russian defense authorities’ contribution to the development of a comprehensive joint analysis of the future framework for missile defense cooperation. This builds on the decisions taken by the heads of state and government at the NATO-Russia Council Summit in Lisbon. The U.S. and Russian delegations discussed various military technical aspects of potential missile defense cooperation in Europe, which should not adversely affect strategic stability.