The Insider

By Cid Standifer
January 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM

The Navy is about to revive the long-dormant position of deputy assistant secretary for research and development as a result of a recent Naval Research Advisory Committee study, according to the head of the Office of Naval Research.

Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told reporters this morning that he's heard “that person will probably be announced in the near future.”

“I'd say less than months,” he added.

The September 2010 NRAC study, done at the behest of the Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, was a wide-ranging critique that recommended consolidating control of the naval research community, bringing more science and technology in-house rather than contracting it out, and cultivating the kind of pie-in-the-sky science projects that dreams are made of even if they don't have any immediate application.

Carr said that he wouldn't speak for the secretary's office on how those recommendations might be implemented, but he said he's received thorough funding support for basic research even as efficiencies squeeze the rest of the Defense Department.

“It's the hardest portion of my budget to protect because you can't see what it does,” he said, “and that's why the strong support at high levels in the Navy and at [Office of the Secretary of Defense] have been very helpful.”

He said there have been cutbacks in contractors and administrative support at ONR, but those efficiencies have been “internally driven.”

By Dan Dupont
January 6, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle maker General Dynamics has issued a statement on Defense Secretary Robert Gates' proposed termination of the program, making the argument that things are going well enough to continue -- and suggesting that the savings Gates expects won't materialize as such.

We understand the U.S. Department of Defense has decided to cancel the EFV program. This decision is disappointing, particularly now when prototype vehicles are performing exceptionally well in ongoing testing and the program is ready to deliver the capabilities that meet the U.S. Marine Corps’ requirements.

By cancelling the program the Defense Department is abandoning the $3.3 billion it has invested to date in developing the vehicle. Cost to terminate versus the cost to complete the development and the value associated with that course of action are essentially the same. With the cancellation comes the prospect of requiring additional new investments in another new program to meet the Marine’s requirements, where is the savings?

As to affordability, the Marines could purchase fewer vehicles and still capture the value of the investment made to date. Purchasing 200 vehicles – two Marine Expeditionary Brigades’ worth – would give the Marines the new capability and still save approximately $4.6 billion from the current estimated program cost.

By John Liang
January 6, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' proposed budget cut of $75 billion over the next five years is already meeting congressional resistance. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) just released a statement to express his unhappiness over the cuts:

I'm not happy.  We went into today's meeting trying to ensure the $100 billion in targeted savings were reinvested back into our national security priorities. We didn't expect to hear that before these efficiencies can be realized, the White House and OMB have demanded that the Pentagon cut an additional $78 billion from defense over the next five years.

These cuts are being made without any commitment to restore modest future growth, which is the only way to prevent deep reductions in force structure that will leave our military less capable and less ready to fight.  This is a dramatic shift for a nation at war and a dangerous signal from the Commander in Chief.

Today's meeting was the first step in a longer process that now involves the U.S. Congress.  We will closely scrutinize Secretary Gates' proposal in the coming months as we craft the defense budget for Fiscal Year 2012.  At first glance, I’m particularly concerned about the proposed cuts to the U.S. Marine Corps.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee remain committed to the Marine Corps as an expeditionary fighting force ‘in ready’, which includes the capability to conduct amphibious landings.  This mission could be jeopardized by the cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a capability re-validated by the Secretary just last year, and delays in the Joint Strike Fighter and amphibious ship construction.

I remain committed to applying more fiscal responsibility and accountability to the Department of Defense, but I will not stand idly by and watch the White House gut defense when Americans are deployed in harm's way.

UPDATED -- 4:05 p.m.:

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), chairman of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, weighs in:

“In the last month, increasingly concerning reports regarding China’s military buildup have surfaced. These include news of China’s development of the DF-21D, a second missile system that is capable of taking out our aircraft carriers, rumors of Chinese plans for double-digit expansion of its defense spending, and reports that China is moving closer to having an operational carrier at some point this year. In 2009, shortly after the Pentagon announced it would discontinue the F-22 program, Secretary Gates predicted that China would not have a stealth fighter by 2020. Yet, this week photos have surfaced of a Chinese stealth fighter participating in high speed taxi tests, a precursor to initial test flights, that according to some, rivals the F-22 and is decisively superior to the F-35.

“How disturbing is it, then, that within the very same week, our own Administration under the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Gates has announced the continued dismantling of the greatest military the world has ever known. If Secretary Gates’ plans and predictions with these defense cuts are as accurate as his Chinese stealth fighter forecasts, Americans ought to be concerned for our national security.

“Even more appalling, though, is the fact that the Administration is not being honest with the threat we face with China or where our defense dollars are going. Last August when Secretary Gates announced his plans to cut $100 billion of the defense budget, he said, ‘Unlike budget cutting efforts of the past, the services will be able to keep the savings they generate to reinvest in higher-priority warfighting and modernization programs.’ At best, this was naivety; at worst, dishonesty.”

By Jason Sherman
January 6, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Gates says the DOD base budget request will be $553B, $13B lower than expected. Over the next five years the defense secretary said the Pentagon will also see $78 billion in cuts. Despite the reductions, the military services will retain their respective efficiency savings because the defense-wide agencies shouldered $54 billion in cuts -- nearly three times the original target.

By John Liang
January 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to use some of the billions of dollars in savings from his proposed efficiencies initiatives to invest in more long-range ballistic missile defense interceptors that would support the phased adaptive approach in Europe. Additionally, Gates wants to buy more advanced theater missile defense radar systems.

Gates also proposed cutting 360 contractors currently working for MDA.

By Jason Sherman
January 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Gates says the Pentagon's FY-12 budget request will reinstate a next-generation, nuclear-capable, bomber program

By
January 6, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Gates just dropped the big bombs: SLAMRAAM and EFV are slated for kills, as expected.

As for JSF, Gates said the STOVL variant will be placed on “the equivalent of a two-year probation.” If its problems can't be fixed in that period, “then I believe it should be canceled,” he said.

Also, the variant will move to the back of the production line, and the Pentagon will buy more F/A-18s to fill any gaps.

By Jason Sherman
January 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Gates says he is disbanding intelligence organizations that have grown up around COCOMs since 9/11 and will consolidate such intel capability at Defense Intelligence Agency; bump military service four-star regional commands around the world down to three-star commands; eliminate100 general officer positions, and spike the requirement for 400 annual reports.

By
January 6, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Gates has given the breakdown of the $100 billion in efficiencies cut, over five years, for the services: The Air Force's efficiencies totaled $34 billion, the Army's $29 billion and the Navy's "more than $35 billion."

Gates also revealed that the Pentagon has found another $54 billion in efficiencies savings over five years.

By
January 6, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates just opened his big announcements with a real big one -- his pick for Army chief of staff. That would be Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Dempsey, of course, is head of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command.

Biography here.

More to come.

By Amanda Palleschi
January 6, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates takes to the podium in just a few minutes. We'll be watching and updating the blog as he speaks.

You can also watch live here:

http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/

While you're waiting, check out this story, just filed:

McKeon Concerned About $78 Billion in DOD Budget Cuts

The Pentagon faces $78 billion in cuts to its topline over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers today, according to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA).

After the meeting with Gates, McKeon told reporters he has “big concerns” about the $78 billion in cuts, which would come on the heels of a $100 billion efficiencies initiative that Gates launched last year. While the efficiencies effort aims to shift funds within the Defense Department's topline, the $78 billion “goes back to the treasury,” McKeon said.

“We went in there worried about $100 billion and now I'm worried about $178 billion,” McKeon said. “We're fighting two wars, we have things going on in China, in Russia, in North Korea . . . is this the time to make these kinds of cuts?”

McKeon added that he had only “skimmed the surface” of Gates' fiscal year 2012 spending plan, but he cautioned against cutting DOD's budget to reduce the federal deficit.

“There's a whole lot we really need to look at and I'm really concerned about the depth of some of these cuts.”

By John Liang
January 6, 2011 at 4:37 PM

The Missile Defense Agency has extended the due date for industry responses to a request for information on "new concepts to support the potential development of an airborne advanced sensor to improve acquisition, tracking, and discrimination in large raid scenarios," according to an updated Federal Business Opportunities notice released this morning. Specifically:

This concept notionally consists of a pod configuration that is mountable on multiple unmanned airborne platforms. The MDA is interested in obtaining information on concepts, subsystems, and components that might comprise an advanced sensor to support a potential 2-3 year development program that culminates in a rigorous test campaign to support a production decision in late FY-16.

The original Dec. 23 notice said responses were due "no later than 30 calendar days after the original posting of this request." Responses are now due Feb. 10.

By Jason Sherman
January 5, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is heading to Congress tomorrow to preview key elements of the Pentagon's fiscal year 2012 spending proposal for select lawmakers, according to sources on Capitol Hill.

The briefing is expected to clarify DOD's position on a number of programs that Pentagon leaders decided months ago to terminate but technically are still alive, such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Gates is also expected to unveil the results of his effort to find more than $100 billion over five years in efficiencies, redirecting some Pentagon spending from bloated overhead operations to the weapons investment accounts.

Bloomberg yesterday reported the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon have agreed to a $554 billion FY-12 base budget request, a sum the news service called “modest growth.”

But Gordon Adams, American University professor and a senior OMB official during the Clinton administration, argues that Bloomberg “has been spun” and that a $554 billion topline reflects not an increase but a cut:

A DOD base budget of $554 billion would only be growth over FY 2011′s budget if the defense budget for FY 2011 were frozen at the FY 2010 level of $531 billion.  But this would be a significant cut of more than 3% this year from the $549 billion the Pentagon asked for and zero growth over FY 2010.  Figure there will be inflation; that’s a budget cut.

Adams notes that $549 billion is the FY-12 target that DOD planners used last year to develop their investment plans:

Now the FY 2012 number looks different – $554 billion is less than one percent growth over DOD’s budget request for FY 2011.  Less than one percent doesn’t even keep up with inflation, which OMB projects at over 1.5% and DOD projects (for defense) at over 2%.  That’s a cut from the planned and programmed baseline, which is exactly what Gates did not want when he announced his efficiencies initiative last summer.

By John Liang
January 5, 2011 at 6:41 PM

A Lockheed Martin official this morning gave more details on the reasons why a pair of Airborne Laser Test Bed intercept attempts of a boosting ballistic missile target went awry last year.

During one attempt, the problem "involved a software issue in our beam control, fire control system that has since been corrected and the other one involved an issue with a valve on a laser subsystem," Doug Graham, vice president of advanced programs at Lockheed's Strategic and Missile Defense Systems business unit, said, adding: "Both of those have been corrected. We've got missions planned for this year, in which we'll be able to validate the corrective actions we've implemented to fix those anomalies."

When asked about the software glitch, Graham said:

We basically had an error in a single frame of software that occurred at a critical time that could have happened literally like a millisecond earlier or a millisecond later and it would have had no impact on our ability to engage and destroy the target. And so that required us to make a relatively straightforward software fix. It hadn't manifested itself in any of the previous flights that we'd done, and we have since done a whole bunch of testing in our software development lab here and on the aircraft down at Edwards [Air Force Base, CA] to convince ourselves that that's not gonna happen again.

As Inside Missile Defense reported in November:

Despite the fact that ALTB did manage to shoot down a boosting missile target last February, under its current form the Airborne Laser does not reflect a weapon the military could realistically use, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.

While the intercept "was a magnificent technological achievement . . . the reality . . . is that this does not reflect something that is operationally viable," Schwartz said at a Feb. 23 House Armed Services Committee hearing. The general added that the future of military laser technology is in solid-state lasers and not the chemical-based one that was carried aboard the ABL.

"The real innovation there is essentially to use that platform as a way to test high-powered laser concepts," Zachary Lemnios, director of the Pentagon's Defense Research and Engineering office, said in a Feb. 23 interview. "And we have a joint technology office that's looking at the technical strategy for how we might use that: What's the right technical thread? We went out to see the ABL about a month ago at Edwards [Air Force Base, CA]. It's a remarkable platform. You sort of have to look at it like a nuclear submarine. It is high-power optics. This enormous power supply with an enormous laser in the back end, but it's also a chemical plant."

Lemnios called ABL "a very complex intersection of a combination of high-power laser optics, control systems -- much of which could be used for other than just high-power lasing. It could be used for alternate test beds for other concepts that we're looking at. So we have the joint technology office that's actually looking at that jointly with [the Missile Defense Agency] and the services to try to map that path forward."

By Cid Standifer
January 4, 2011 at 7:15 PM

The end for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program may be nigh, but program officials don't think its long-anticipated demise has anything to do with the vehicle's recent performance in testing.

Program spokesman Manny Pacheco told Inside the Navy today that the vehicle is on track to surpass its threshold for mean time between mission failures. The low-end goal is 16.4 hours between failures; Pacheco said he thinks they'll hit the low 20s.

According to Pacheco, the vehicle has so far completed about 300 hours of the 500 hours of testing planned. He estimated the testing itself will be finished in less than three weeks, after which the results will go to a scoring conference. Pacheco said the program is on track to have its final results ready by early February.

“We're chugging along,” he added. “We don't have any indications that there would be anything in testing right now that would lead people to believe that we're not doing what we need to do.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates sounded what some saw as an early death knell for EFV at the Sea-Air-Space conference last year, where he questioned whether the Marines would ever again need to launch a full-out amphibious assault. Former Marine Corps Commandant James Conway told Inside the Navy in October that if the program is canceled, the service will have to go back to the drawing board because the need for an EFV-like platform would remain, though requirements might be toned down.