The Insider

The Pentagon is seeking comments from the public on how the Defense Department can "improve the way it procures defense items and defense services in support of foreign military sales (FMS) programs," according to a Federal Register notice published yesterday:

The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program is authorized under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The FMS program is an important instrument of U.S foreign policy. It allows the United States to provide defense articles and defense services to friendly countries and international organizations in order to deter and defend against aggression, facilitate a common defense, address security issues of mutual strategic concern, and to strengthen the security of the United States. The sales agreement between the United States and a foreign country or international organization is executed via a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA). Security Assistance Management Manual, DoD 5105.38-M, found at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/samm/, provides guidance for the administration and implementation of Security Assistance and related activities. The articles and services acquired via FMS sales are procured through the Department of Defense Acquisition System. In the LOA, the Department of Defense (DOD) promises that when procuring for the purchaser, DOD will, in general, employ the same contract clauses, the same contract administration, and the same quality and audit inspection procedures as would be used in DOD procurements. Pricing for FMS contracts typically use the same principles used in pricing of other defense contracts. However, the application of the pricing principles in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 15 and 31 to an FMS contract may result in prices that differ from other defense contract prices for the same item. Direct costs associated with meeting a foreign customer's additional or unique requirements are allowable under such contracts. Indirect burden rates applicable to such direct costs are permitted at the same rates applicable to acquisitions of like items purchased by DOD for its own use. If the foreign government has conducted a competition resulting in adequate price competition as identified in FAR part 15, the contracting officer shall not require the submission of cost or pricing data. The contracting officer should consult with the foreign government through security assistance personnel to determine if adequate price competition has occurred. In accordance with the Presidential policy statement of April 16, 1990, DOD does not encourage, enter into, or commit U.S. firms to FMS offset arrangements.

The decision whether to engage in offsets, and the responsibility for negotiating and implementing offset arrangements, resides with the companies involved. Relating to offset costs, a U.S. defense contractor may recover all costs incurred for offset agreements with a foreign government or international organization if the LOA is financed wholly with customer cash or repayable Foreign Military Financing (FMF) credits. The U.S. Government assumes no obligation to satisfy or administer the offset requirement or to bear any of the associated costs. Typically, costs not authorized under FAR part 31 are not allowable in pricing FMS contracts. On November 22, 2002, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) was amended to increase FMS customer participation and acquisition transparency in DoD contracts awarded on behalf of FMS customers. DFARS subpart 225.73 provides authorization for FMS customers to participate in specifications development, delivery schedule planning, identification of warranties and other contractual requirements unique to the customer, as well as the review of pricing needed to make price-performance tradeoffs. This DFARS change encourages customer participation in both the acquisition process and industry discussions. Customers also are allowed to participate in the contract negotiation process within the limitations of DFARS subpart 225.73, to the degree authorized by the contracting officer (CO). This section specifically protects against unauthorized release of proprietary data and improper influence on the contracting process.

The request stems from a requirement in a congressionally mandated DOD report on security cooperation reform published in July that found:

Although DOD's ability to support routine partner country requirements reliably in a steady-state environment has typically been strong, DOD has been far less able to support unplanned, urgent requirements for partner countries reliably. Under those circumstances, standard security cooperation processes have proven to be too reactive, too fragmented, and too slow to deliver needed equipment and related capabilities urgently and reliably in response to crises, opportunities, and operational contingencies. To address this pressing shortfall, DOD's security cooperation processes must be better able to anticipate partner countries' needs for defense articles and related services (including individual and collective training requirements), and become more flexible and rapid in responding to them.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is getting credit for developing the voice-recognition technology used on Apple's new iPhone 4S. According to a recent White House Office of Science and Technology Policy blog post:

Apple earlier this month announced that a virtual personal assistant called Siri would be the premier feature of the new iPhone 4S. People will be able to ask Siri to book a table at a nearby restaurant, make an appointment with a friend or colleague or answer a question using the information from multiple search engines and web sites.

Siri is a significant advance in our ability to develop computers that understand and do what we mean. Many experts believe that this technology – which integrates advances in wireless communications, speech recognition, artificial intelligence and smartphones, will transform the way we interact with information technology.

What you may not know is that this technology is a direct outgrowth of a federally funded research project called the “Personalized Assistant that Learns.” This project was backed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the same agency that supported the early research that led to the Internet, GPS and stealth aircraft. DARPA wanted to build “cognitive” computers for the military that can reason, learn from experience, be told what to do, explain what they are doing, and reflect on their experience.

Although a start-up company, venture capitalists and Apple itself had to make significant investments to commercialize Siri, federally funded research played a key role in developing the basic technology. Federal basic research has also contributed to the other components of your smartphone, including the lithium-ion batteries, the hard drive, the memory chips, and the liquid crystal display.

Another emerging DARPA technology, the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) demonstration effort, will undergo a "major program review" next week by an independent assessment team, Inside the Pentagon reports this morning:

DARPA will use an independent government assessment team, structured with Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, to conduct the program review, according to Lockheed's director of advance programs for missiles and fire control, Glenn Kuller.

The agency previously awarded Lockheed two cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts for the development and demonstration of two variants of the LRASM missile, or phase II of the project: $60.3 million for LRASM-A and $157.7 for LRASM-B. LRASM-A is a stealthy air-launched variation of the missile, while LRASM-B is a high-speed ship-launched missile.

The tests next week will involve both LRASM-A and LRASM-B, as well as some of the ram jet components under a Lockheed Martin subcontract with Pratt & Whitney, Kuller said.

"It's a good soup-to-nuts-, nose-to-tail review of the entire program," Kuller said.

Note to style purists: It looks like the term "paveway" with a lowercase "p" is now a generic one for a type of laser-guided bomb.

In a statement issued this morning, Lockheed Martin announced it had won a legal fight against Raytheon, which had filed a trademark claim with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Lockheed submitted an opposition filing in 2005 "in response to Raytheon's request to register the term 'paveway' after Lockheed Martin became a fully qualified supplier of the paveway LGB to the U.S. Air Force, Navy and international customers," according to Lockheed's statement. Further:

"This decision supports Lockheed Martin's goal of delivering competitive, best value solutions to the global market," said Joe Serra, precision guided systems senior manager in Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Fire Control business. "It fully recognizes Lockheed Martin as one of two U.S. Government-qualified sources for paveway II precision guided systems."

The TTAB found that the term has been used in a generic manner by the armament manufacturers, industry press, armament wholesalers and Government purchasers.  The term "paveway" also has been accepted as a generic term in tribunals in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Thailand, and additional cases are pending.

Lockheed Martin began production of paveway II products in 1992 with its laser guided training rounds (LGTR) and followed with paveway II LGB kits and paveway II Dual Mode Laser Guided Bomb (DMLGB) kits for domestic and international customers.  The paveway LGB kits are fully qualified for all three variants of the paveway II MK-80 series of GBU-10, -12 and -16 guidance kits (2,000, 500 and 1,000 lbs, respectively) and have been used successfully in Operation Iraqi Freedom and current overseas contingency operations.

In September 2011, Lockheed Martin received a $100.5 million contract from the U.S. Air Force for production and delivery of the increased precision paveway II Plus LGB GBU-12 guidance kits.  The award represents the majority share of an initial $134 million paveway II Plus LGB procurement, part of an overall $475 million five-year, firm-fixed-price, multiple-award contract announced by the U.S. Air Force on August 1.

As Inside the Air Force reported on that contract in September:

The award accounts for the majority of the initial $134 million Paveway II Plus LGB GBU-12 guidance kits procurement, which is part of a $475 million, five-year, multiple-award contract issued on Aug. 1, according to a Lockheed Martin statement released on Sept. 6. The latest contract provides both hardware and software updates under the indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, according to Tim O'Donnell, a precision guided systems engineer for Lockheed. Company executives expect to begin delivering the guidance kits in 2012.

The new guidance kits will provide greater accuracy over the legacy Paveway II system, O'Donnell said.

"It is available and ready for use," he said during a Sept. 8 telephone interview with Inside the Air Force. "It is fully compatible with every aircraft and every system that has used the Paveway II legacy system."

The Paveway II plus kits already went through full qualification testing in preparation for the initial $34 million procurement contract Lockheed Martin received last year, O'Donnell said. The company is producing the kits for the Air Force and Navy as part of the contract.

The Air Force completed a force development evaluation program for both the GBU-10 and GBU-12 guidance kits at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, in October 2010. The kits were qualified on both the F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

The United States "still has an edge" in cyberspace over other countries such as Russia and China, according to U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Robert Kehler. The general did not mention specific countries by name in his comments today, which came in response to a question from a reporter at a breakfast in Washington.

“I would just say this: There are a number of very sophisticated actors who operate in cyberspace. I believe that the United States still has an edge,” he said. Kehler said he cannot describe “how great that edge is,” except that in “some places” it is “quite an edge.” The United States has some “very, very good capabilities – both defensive capabilities and our ability to protect ourselves,” he said. Looking ahead, the question facing U.S. officials is how to invest, train and draw on expertise to retain the edge, Kehler said, noting U.S. Cyber Command needs more highly specialized personnel.

As defense officials continue working on the legal framework and doctrine for operating in cyberspace, they are considering whether “active defense” amounts to offense in cyberspace, Kehler said, adding he believes the answer to that question is no. He said such defense is analogous to actions a Navy captain might take to protect a ship at sea.

Lockheed Martin recently completed early delivery of intra-fire unit communications kits designed for use with the Medium Extended Air Defense System, according to a company statement issued this afternoon:

This tactical hardware for the MEADS Internal Communications Subsystem (MICS) will support integration, test and qualification of MEADS elements.

MICS provides secure communications between the MEADS sensors, launchers and battle managers across a high-speed internet protocol network. Through a capability called "plug-and-fight," sensors, shooters or other battle managers act as nodes on the network. From the MEADS battle manager, a commander can add or subtract nodes as the situation dictates without shutting down the system. With MICS, these MEADS elements can be positioned for maximum lethality and survivability while maintaining clear, rapid and efficient communication.

"Our technology helps the warfighter maintain situational awareness and combat superiority," said Rich Russell, director of sensors, data links and advanced programs in Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Fire Control business. "With MICS, ground units can exchange command, control and status data over a secure network."

MICS provides plug-and-fight technology for streamlined data exchange. MICS software minimizes the need for an individual to manage the network because it dynamically reconfigures as weapon system end items enter and exit. It also autonomously routes network traffic past anything that might slow it down or stop it.

Inside the Army reports this week that the service is still internally debating the logic to transfer to the Missile Defense Agency some aspects of the Army's missile defense programs, including aspects of the Patriot system.

Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, Army programs deputy chief of staff, said at an industry symposium this month that there are a number of reasons to transfer the programs, ITA reports:

"There is one program in the entire Department of Defense that does ballistic missile defense that was not part of the MDA and that is our Patriot system," Lennox said. Over the last 10 years, he said, the Army has not been able to invest in the Patriot system at the level it should have. Instead, he added, the Army has been investing in the Medium Extended Air Defense System.

MEADS is a trinational program with Italy and Germany, which the Army says it won't fund beyond a two-year research and development phase. The Army would then harvest the technology garnered from that phase.

By transferring aspects of the Patriot program, Lennox said, it could leverage the work the MDA is doing, the agency's buying power and its research and development arm. "That is the primary reason we see a benefit," he said.

Lennox said splitting funds between the Army and the MDA is a major undertaking. "Once that is resolved," he said, "we will go to the Department of Defense and ask their approval and then we know we have to go to Congress for their approval."

The MOA outlines the transfer of Army ballistic missile defense program responsibilities to MDA and lays out an implementation plan for the Army's program executive office for missiles and space to also serve as the program executive for Army BMD systems within MDA.

Rep. John Garamendi's office has put together a chart showing the varying estimates of the costs of reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal put out by a variety of sources -- among them Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), the Center for American Progress, the Sustainable Defense Task Force, the CATO Institute and the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

A Garamendi spokesman tells InsideDefense.com that the congressman "does not necessarily endorse any specific proposal in this chart. This content is for information purposes only."

Garamendi's office developed the chart in the wake of some lawmakers' wanting to make drastic funding cuts to nuclear weapons programs. In an Oct. 11 letter to the bipartisan supercommittee charged with cutting billions of dollars in government spending, 64 House Democrats called on the panel to "cut $20 billion a year, or $200 billion over the next 10 years, from the U.S. nuclear weapons budget."

In response, House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-OH) said during a full committee hearing yesterday:

Cuts that are currently pending before Congress to our nuclear deterrent could affect both that credibility and its reliability. At a time where China and Russia are investing in their nuclear weapons infrastructure, we're looking at proposed cuts that would create vulnerability and instability.

The White House today announced plans to send about 100 troops to Africa as part of an effort to support allies battling Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army.

InsideDefense.com first reported U.S. Africa Command's plans to provide security assistance for this effort in late July.

U.S. Africa Command is set to begin a new security assistance program in East Africa that aims to bolster the ability of Uganda's military to fight the Lord's Resistance Army, a rebel group that for more than 20 years has terrorized civilians.

Congress has lifted a hold it placed earlier this month on a Defense Department proposal to begin a new program to provide Ugandan defense forces with counterterrorism training and equipment, according to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. James Gregory.

The project, part of a second batch of so-called Section 1206 security assistance programs drawn up by the Defense and State departments, is designed to "provide communications and intelligence training as well as communications and engineering equipment to improve Uganda's ability to remove LRA leadership and fighters from the battlefield," according to Gregory. The project has a price tag of $4.4 million, he said.