The Insider

By Sebastian Sprenger
November 19, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Opponents of the idea that U.S. nuclear warheads should be redesigned to ensure their effectiveness had a field day today after news broke that a panel of scientists believes the warhead stockpile can be maintained by simply replacing aging parts.

National Nuclear Security Administration officials sent out the unclassified summary of the report to reporters, but not without slapping a statement on the front page. Curiously, the statement includes a vague caveat.

While we endorse the recommendations and consider them well-aligned with NNSA’s long-term stockpile management strategy, certain findings in the unclassified Executive Summary convey a different perspective on key findings when viewed without the context of the full classified report.

You can read the executive summary of the JASON report here.

By Sebastian Sprenger
November 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) this morning brought up a couple of his favorite topics during a hearing on defense budget trends with think tank experts. For one, he said, the Defense Department should address vulnerabilities to an electromagnetic pulse attack. These kinds of attacks can be produced by detonating an atomic weapon high above U.S. soil, and they would knock out much of the country's power grid.

Bartlett also warned of the similar effects of a large-scale solar storm, which he said could lead to the death of 80 percent of the American population.

He was probably disappointed by the response he received.

The witnesses -- experts from the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the American Enterprise Institute -- didn't spend a word addressing solar storms and how well DOD may be prepared to deal with them.

As for the general topic of high-impact attacks on America, CSIS's David Berteau predicted the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review report would devote a good amount of attention to the issue.

By Kate Brannen
November 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Army has decided to boost its French language skills so that it is better equipped to operate in Africa and other parts of the world, according to Col. James Stockmoe, director for operations and plans in the Army's intelligence office (G-2).

Speaking at a military intelligence conference in Washington today, Stockmoe said the Army is still struggling to develop sufficient language skills and plans to continue investing in language training.

The Army has decided it would be a smarter investment to teach French, which is widely spoken in parts of Africa, than to teach lots of soldiers Swahili, he said.

Another indicator of the service's commitment to increased language training is Training and Doctrine Command's inclusion of cultural and foreign language proficiency in its recommendations for the Army's first capabilities package, a key component of its revised modernization strategy.

In the meantime, Stockmoe said it's likely the Army will have to continue contracting out language capability until the requisite skills are well developed internally.

By Marjorie Censer
November 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Following comments by Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter earlier this month, BAE Systems representatives today argued strongly that the company's protest of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles "rebuy" contract is not a frivolous one.

At a Nov. 2 event at the Pentagon, Carter warned that DOD takes protests seriously. "The entire department is concerned about protests becoming common or routine, and we take the protest process very seriously,” Carter said in response to a reporter's question. “We expect it to be rare, and we expect it not to be used frivolously.”

But during a conference call with reporters today, Dennis Morris, president of BAE's global tactical systems division, said the company does not believe its FMTV protest to the Government Accountability Office is frivolous.

"When it comes to protests, BAE Systems does not protest often," he said. "We are willing to admit that if we get beat in a competition, we got beat."

As an example, Morris added, the company lost to Oshkosh in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected All-Terrain Vehicle competition. "We did not protest that decision," he said.

Al Crews, BAE's vice president for legal and contracts and chief counsel for the company's global tactical systems division, noted that protests cannot be taken lightly. During the same call, he said BAE is spending its own funds -- "money that's coming directly from our bottom line" -- to pursue the issue.

"Protests are extremely expensive, they're time consuming and they divert a lot of resources regardless of whether we're successful in the protest or not," Crews added.

By Sebastian Sprenger
November 17, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Defense firms and their government clients are "well positioned" to accelerate the development and fielding of alternative energy sources that would obviate the dangerous practice of sending fuel resupply trucks to the front lines in Afghanistan and elsewhere, concludes a recent report by consulting giant Deloitte. Still, a "game-changing shift" to that end has yet to occur, the document states.

Defense Department officials should be familiar with the report's main argument in favor of new energy technologies: Less petroleum-based fuel required on the battlefield means fewer casualties during resupply missions, more operational flexibility for commanders and, perhaps, lower costs.

The document proposes four areas of "partnership" between the U.S. government and industry that could help make this a reality: "Common biofuels" for use across the services, hybrid/electrical/biofuel technologies for ground vehicles, solar power systems, and engine and propulsion technology research.

"First and foremost, energy security is essential to wartime casualties," the report states. "With the significant numbers of U.S. soldiers supporting the transport, logistics and deployment of fossil fuel to the front lines, there is a call to action to reduce dependence on oil in war," it adds.

That call to action likely would be answered by DOD's director of operational energy plans and programs, a congressionally mandated position. But the job has yet to be filled.

By Thomas Duffy
November 17, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Yesterday the Pentagon provided a look at its books when it released its fiscal year 2009 financial report detailing how the Defense Department used approximately $666 billion during the 12-month period.

A glaring weakness in the recent financial statements DOD has issued is that none can be held up to an audit. The law requires it; however, DOD cannot meet that standard. The problem is the financial management systems the department relies on cannot produce the kind of detailed data about what monies were spent where and when that an auditor needs, Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale told the House Budget Committee in March. The systems “weren't designed to do that, and they don't do it,” he told the committee

Hale, who authored the newly released Fy09 report, says in the preface that the department has made progress toward what he terms “audit readiness” in recent years.

However, many of the most difficult problems remain, and the Department has not created a focused plan that offered a realistic chance of success in a reasonable period of time. After careful review, I have decided to implement a new strategy. DOD will focus on improving information and achieving audit readiness in those areas where we most use the information to manage, including the Statement of Budgetary Resources and the existence and completeness of weapons and other items. DOD is currently working to devise specific plans to carry out this new strategy.

Also available are the military services' 2009 financial statements: Army, Navy and Marine Corps and Air Force.

By Marcus Weisgerber
November 17, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The U.S. Court of Appeals today sided with the Air Force, rejecting a claim by Alabama Aircraft Industries that the service unfairly awarded a $1 billion-plus KC-135 maintenance contract to defense giant Boeing back in 2007.

The decision paves the way for Boeing to begin executing scheduled depot maintenance on its aging fleet of Stratotanker aerial refueling aircraft.

The Air Force awarded the depot maintenance contract to Boeing in September 2007. Alabama Aircraft Industries protested that decision to the Government Accountability Office, which “denied the protest on all grounds raised by AAII, with the exception of the agency's cost/price evaluation,” according to the decision.

“The GAO concluded that the record was insufficient for the GAO to determine the reasonableness of the agency’s price-realism analysis,” the decision reads.

The Air Force then reexamined both companies' proposals and determined the prices presented “were realistic and reasonable.” The Air Force affirmed the contract award to Boeing in March 2008. AAII protested for a second time; however, GAO denied the claim.

The company then filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims. That court ruled the Air Force's price realism analysis was “arbitrary and capricious” because the agency failed “to deal explicitly with the aging-fleet issue in the RFP” and then sought “to sidestep the aging-fleet issue in the price-realism analysis of Boeing’s prevailing offer,” according to the decision.

The court ordered the Air Force to resolicit the contract. The Air Force and Boeing subsequently appealed the ruling, which the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed today.

Alabama Aircraft Industries -- in a last-ditch chance to have the contract voided -- could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review today's decision.

By Jason Sherman
November 16, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The first Joint Strike Fighter variant designed for short takeoffs and vertical landings arrived in Maryland at Naval Air Station Patuxent River yesterday, after flying from Lockheed Martin's JSF assembly line in Fort Worth, TX, via Marietta, GA, the company said in a statement today.

The aircraft, known as BF-1, in December will begin hover and vertical landing flight tests, InsideDefense.com reported last month.

“We have high confidence in the capabilities of this aircraft, and we fully expect that it will meet or exceed the expectations of our customers,” Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager, said in a statement. “At Patuxent River, this aircraft will continue the process of validating our revolutionary STOVL propulsion system through a series of short takeoffs, hovers and vertical landings.”

While flight engineers ready BF-1 for an initial round of tests, senior Pentagon officials are closely watching another part of the program -- its price tag. As InsideDefense.com has reported, the JSF Joint Estimate Team has determined the program requires more time and billions of additional dollars to develop.

By Sebastian Sprenger
November 16, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The latest Pentagon report on the security situation in Iraq comes with a noteworthy new caveat in the foreword. Since U.S. forces withdrew from Iraqi cities in June, U.S. officials find it hard to obtain and verify source data for the performance categories discussed in the document.

As a consequence of the movement of U.S. forces out of Iraqi cities on June 30, 2009, the U.S. has experienced reduced visibility and ability to verify Iraqi reports. Without a robust U.S. presence, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) has begun reporting metrics that include host nation reports that it may not be able to independently verify. The overall trends between Coalition force data and host nation data are very close, but some values may change. Current charts show a combination of Coalition and Host-Nation reported data. The combination of these reports causes baseline numbers to increase, making it difficult to compare these charts with those presented in previous publications of this report.

The congressionally mandated document examines a host of indicators that would tell U.S. lawmakers whether the government of Iraq is making progress in the areas of security, public services and economic development.

The latest version, dated September 2009 but released only this month, describes "generally positive trends" but also warns that Iraq remains fragile because "many underlying sources of instability have yet to be resolved, putting security gains at risk."

By Marjorie Censer
November 13, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- who criticized the Army earlier this year for failing to integrate Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles into its Future Combat Systems plans -- indicated yesterday he expects MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles will also be a part of the military's future fleet.

Speaking to employees at M-ATV manufacturer Oshkosh's production facility in Oshkosh, WI, Gates said improvised explosive devices "of various degrees of lethality and sophistication will be with us for some time today.

"And so the need for these kinds of vehicles will not soon go away," he continued.

However, he stressed that no vehicle can prevent all fatalities.

"((W))e must never forget that there is no fail-safe measure that can prevent all loss of life and limb on this or any other battlefield, especially against a ruthless and resourceful enemy. That is the crude reality of war," Gates told employees. "But vehicles like the M-ATV and the MRAP, combined with the right tactics, techniques and procedures, provide the best protection against roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices."

At the facility to thank Oshkosh's workers, Gates noted a contrast between today's wars and those of the past.

"During the world wars of the past century, the war effort mobilized the entire American economy," he said. "That is not the case with most of our industry today, defense included. But you all have the opportunity to work on one of the few projects where your efforts have a direct and immediate impact on men and women fighting on the front lines."

By John Liang
November 13, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Pentagon's Defense Research and Engineering office is calling for new fiscal year 2011 Joint Capability Technology Demonstration candidates, according to a recent memo.

In the Oct. 9 memo, DR&E Complex Systems Director Charles Perkins writes:

I invite you to submit FY 2011 candidates for the JCTD program. Candidates should have a Combatant Commander as the primary sponsor, support joint, coalition, or inter-agency capabilities and counter unconventional and time-critical threats by rapidly providing "leap ahead" capabilities for the warfighter while encouraging rapid technology transition within the department by matching customer needs with S&T innovation.

To be more responsive to the warfighter, I will accept candidates year-round. However, candidates that would like to be briefed at the Candidate Review Board (CRB) in March 2010 should submit documentation by Jan. 15, 2010. A second CRB will be held in September 2010.

JCTD candidates should be submitted to the Rapid Fielding Directorate using the Defense Research and Engineering office's Knowledge Management Information System (KIMS) on the office's Web site, according to the memo. Classified proposals should be submitted to the KIMS page found on the SIPRNET Web site.

By Sebastian Sprenger
November 13, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The recently released strategic communication joint integrating concept includes a bit of communications theory to make its point. It notes, for example, that it takes two for "communication" to take place.

Importantly, the act of transmitting a message does not constitute communication. Communication occurs only when the signal is received and interpreted, so it is not sufficient merely to "get our message out." . . . .

While the source may have an intended meaning in mind, it is the receiver who actually provides the ultimate meaning, which may or may not be the meaning the source intended.

In our experience, many a Defense Department public affairs officers believe "getting the message out" is precisely the point of strategic communication. Perhaps the JIC will help clarify a few things here.

By Sebastian Sprenger
November 12, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Advertising firms around the world could soon be due for more work from the U.S. military. Authors of the recently released Strategic Communication Joint Integrating Concept believe in a "likely need for significant outsourcing" of military communication needs, according to the document, because commanders "will not have access to or credibility with" some audiences worldwide that would be required for things like opinion polls.

"This will have implications for budgeting and contracting," the document states.

Another possible "implication" of the strategic communication concept are beefed-up, all-in-one "public affairs operating units," according to the concept document. These folks would produce a "variety of public information products for designated audiences -- while retaining the staff public affairs function," the document states.

The document defines public affairs work as directed at U.S. audiences.

By John Liang
November 11, 2009 at 5:00 AM

An international coalition of military officials is pushing for the adoption of an ambitious climate-change treaty to keep national security threats from impacting global warming, Defense Environment Alert reports this week.

The action could add new life to upcoming global talks amid waning expectations that an agreement can be reached this year.

While the group's argument is not new, it could also spur momentum for aggressive emission-reduction targets by demonstrating a growing international consensus on the security threats from climate change, an argument made by proponents of legislation about the rising costs of inaction on climate change, DEA reports.

Specifically:

The coalition, which includes both retired and active military officials as well as a U.S.-based national security think tank, is making its pitch as national delegations are preparing to meet in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto climate treaty, and as the Senate begins to consider climate legislation -- with advocates of the bill similarly linking climate change to national security impacts.

The coalition’s Military Advisory Council (MAC), which comprises former and active general and flag officers from various countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, India and the Netherlands, issued a position statement Oct. 29 to parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at drawing support for a treaty based on the reasoning that global warming, left unchecked, poses national security threats.

The position statement also calls for countries to weave security impacts from climate change into individual defense strategies and to curb their militaries’ carbon emissions.

The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), a prominent U.S-based think tank, is one of several research groups, including the Institute for Environmental Security, backing the effort by the MAC.

The MAC in its statement to the UNFCCC delegates says climate change will cause significant “human misery,” biodiversity loss and infrastructure damage with resulting security implications. It calls on delegates to the UNFCCC to develop “an ambitious and equitable” international treaty at Copenhagen. It also asks that all governments integrate the security implications of climate change into their respective military strategies, and that all militaries help resolve climate change by lowering their own carbon “bootprint.”

If the delegates fail to “deliver an effective and institutionally robust climate protection system, preserving security and stability even at current levels will become increasingly difficult,” the statement reads.

MAC members said at a follow-up press conference following release of the position statement that examples of ways in which governments can integrate security implications of climate change into their military strategies include the work the Defense Department is now doing to include climate effects in its Quadrennial Defense Review. Other measures that could be taken include predicting regional impacts of changes, assisting planning programs to avoid or mitigate climate change, and conducting disaster planning and training, members said.

By Sebastian Sprenger
November 11, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Government Accountability Office auditors recently said the Defense Department still lacks needed information on contractors working in the U.S. Central Command region, despite Pentagon efforts to address the issue.

Defense officials introduced the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) system some years ago to keep tabs on how many contractors are working for DOD overseas, where they are located and what exactly they were hired to do. Since then, officials have been scrambling to make the use of SPOT mandatory for contractors, rewriting procurement regulations to that effect and reminding contracting officers to get their suppliers' records into the SPOT database as soon as possible.

In a new CENTCOM order, dated Oct. 31, officials are taking another step. The order comes in the wake of the latest GAO report on the topic of contractor visibility, which said Pentagon officials lack uniform criteria for issuing "letters of authorization" to contractors. The documents grant workers access to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are required for receiving DOD support services while deployed.

As of Dec. 1, CENTCOM officials will no longer accept "manual" LOAs, the order reads. Instead, all contractors must go through the SPOT application to obtain a system-generated LOA. Those without SPOT-issued LOAs after the deadline will no longer be eligible for identification cards, military transport or DOD medical services in theater, the order reads.

In addition, the order requires all armed contractors to be registered in SPOT, complete with data about the weapons they are authorized to carry. Moreover, officials must enter instances of contractors killed, missing, wounded or cases of misconduct into SPOT, the order reads.