The Insider

Off the Job
By Marjorie Censer
April 28, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Welcome to the building, Ash Carter.

Carter’s predecessor, John Young, left the Pentagon yesterday -- but not without saying a few words about what it’s like to be the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

Don’t expect to see those words on any recruiting posters.

“You get paid a salary but -- beyond that -- you become almost a monk and get all kinds of restrictions levied on you for coming in here and trying to help your country and do the right thing,” he told reporters yesterday.

And, he added, a person in his position “can't participate in the economy, you have every possibility that you could be in limbo for months as you're waiting to be confirmed in these positions, and then once you're in these positions you're going to be subjected to excessive mandates that operate from the presumption that you are an unethical person.”

He blamed Congress for holding up his confirmation for six months, limiting his effectiveness.

“I was acting ((acquisition executive)), but -- knowing that you could create new holds by pro-actively doing your job -- I had to be careful,” Young said. “I actually ignored that and I went ahead and did things like restructuring the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle ((program)) and other things, but it was probably at my peril and risk to do those things.”

So what’s next?

Young said he would leave the Pentagon “an unemployed individual,” and said he had “no idea” what he’d do next. “Despite what some people have inaccurately written, I have not interviewed, looked for jobs, filed recusals -- I've done nothing because I do not want to bring any more controversy on the acquisition team.”

He did say he'd start looking “probably not too far down the road.”

Defense Stimulus 2
By John Liang
April 28, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Pentagon today released the details behind $835 million worth of improvement projects for 850 defense facilities across the country funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

The $835 million "represents the balance of the ARRA funds provided to the DOD for construction and repair projects," according to a Defense Department statement, which adds:

All of the new projects will be conducted at Army and Army National Guard facilities in 37 states and the District of Columbia. More than half of the $835 million will be spent in five states: Texas ($155 million), Kentucky ($83 million), North Carolina ($83 million), Oklahoma ($66 million) and Hawaii ($59 million). In addition to making much-needed improvements to military installations, an additional $346 million will be spent on energy-related projects enabling the DOD to lead the way in the national effort to achieve greater energy independence.

Representing less than 1 percent of the entire $787 billion ARRA package, the overall $7.4 billion investment in defense-related projects will further the legislation’s stated goal of stimulating the American economy through job creation, while improving the quality of life for service members, their families, and DOD civilian workers.

In March, the Pentagon issued details on $5.9 billion in funding for nearly 3,000 military construction projects funded by ARRA, out of which $300 million would go "to develop energy-efficient technologies."

Click here to view the full DOD report to Congress issued this week.

Hill Bound
By Jason Sherman
April 28, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Mark your calendars: A date is now set for the first congressional hearing on the Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget request. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will testify the morning of May 13 before the House Armed Services Committee, according to congressional sources.

Still no word on when the White House will transmit the FY-10 budget; presumably it will be at least a day before Gates testifies.

High Priority
By Sebastian Sprenger
April 28, 2009 at 5:00 AM

James Clapper, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, wants everything in the field of measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to be considered a top priority.

"MASINT operations and activities shall be treated as high-priority efforts and receive full and proactive support in all resourcing and programmatic actions," he wrote in an April 22 Defense Department instruction.

The previous version of the document, which dates from 1993, contains no such language.

According to Clapper's instruction, MASINT is defined as:

Information produced by quantitative and qualitative analysis of physical attributes of targets and events to characterize, locate, and identify them. MASINT exploits a variety of phenomenologies to support signature development and analysis, to perform technical analysis, and to detect, characterize, locate, and identify targets and events. MASINT is derived from specialized, technically-derived measurements of physical phenomenon intrinsic to an object or event and it includes the use of quantitative signatures to interpret the data.

The high-priority designation for MASINT comes amid a growing interest from defense leaders in anything capable of providing improved intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data.

The Pentagon's ISR requests have soared since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Operations there have shown a critical need for information about violent extremists' operations -- a markedly different intelligence challenge from the Cold War era, when U.S. spy satellites were often tasked to simply photograph large Soviet formations.

In today's security environment, a few potential MASINT applications come to mind: Separating friends from foes in urban warfare, identifying buried targets, or finding improvised explosive devices.

On the latter issue, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization chief Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz last year said his office is working on ways to make the characteristic copper plates of armor-piercing roadside bombs, or explosively formed penetrators, visible to nearby ground forces through the use of radar and other sensors.

Power Up
By Christopher J. Castelli
April 27, 2009 at 5:00 AM

President Obama noted today his administration will fund an organization called Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy or ARPA-E, which is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Congress created ARPA-E a couple of years ago, but the Bush administration never funded it.

This morning at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Obama said DARPA -- which was created during the Eisenhower administration in response to Sputnik -- has been charged throughout its history with conducting high-risk, high-reward research on projects such as the precursor to the Internet, known as ARPANET; stealth technology; and the Global Positioning System.

"All owe a debt to the work of DARPA," Obama said. "So ARPA-E seeks to do the same kind of high-risk/high-reward research."

Last month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told the House Science and Technology Committee that ARPA-E will "identify technologies with potential to become the next generation of revolutionary energy systems and products while it will make a major impact on our twin problems of energy security and climate change."

Chu said he was pushing to get ARPA-E up and running soon. When advisers told him it would take one year, he instructed them to revisit the issue and see why it would take so long. "There might be regulations, things like that," he said. "And I have not gotten back the answer to that. So I hope it would take much shorter than one year."

No Longer Young
By Dan Dupont
April 27, 2009 at 5:00 AM

It's official: John Young is out as Pentagon acquisition executive, and Ashton Carter is in, sworn in this morning.

Young took a good deal of time to talk to reporters this morning, and we're going to bring you a lot of news from that session.

We've already begun with these:

Young Slams Air Force's UAV Acquisition Strategy as Illogical

Young: Price Should be Ultimate Factor in KC-X Tanker Competition

Young Criticizes 'Flawed Contract Strategy' Behind Future Combat Systems Program

Stay tuned for more.

Revisiting Requirements
By Jason Simpson
April 27, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Former Pentagon acquisition chief John Young today highlighted the MQ-4 Global Hawk program in reflecting on what he sees as a flawed Defense Department requirements mindset.

In his last meeting with reporters as DOD's weapons buying czar, Young said, “I find myself wishing that I had pushed harder in several spaces on requirements, and maybe even had a more major initiative to go and review the fact that I now have programs governed by ((600- or)) 700-page requirements documents that may have 1,000 requirements -- and several hundred of those requirements are tradeable.”

Centering his thoughts on the high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft system, Young said the program has roughly 240 requirements, and 100 of those are “tradeable.”

“Because they exist on paper," he said, program officials are testing those “tradeable" requirements. “What did it matter, if you had a tradeable requirement -- i.e. it was tradeable and you don't have to deliver it -- now I'm going to test to see if I delivered it or not? I mean, I'm spending money in ways that just aren't efficient, so I've got to keep changing the mindsets there," he said.

Programs like that, Young said, make him wish he had “pushed an initiative in requirements harder,” but noted that there are “a lot of great things that have been done” in other acquisition programs, particularly those that have featured joint analysis teams.

Called Strike
By Jason Simpson
April 27, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Joint Strike Fighter ultimately will succeed, outgoing Pentagon acquisition chief John Young predicted today, even though program officials inadequately funded the prototype flyoff during the competition to build the fifth-generation fighter.

“I think we didn't fully understand all the risks of achieving weight on the Joint Strike Fighter and other such things, but Joint Strike Fighter is, in the end, going to be successful, and I think fairly successful for what we're asking for three airplanes to do in terms of capability,” Young said.

In February, InsideDefense.com reported that Young had written a memo to Defense Secretary Robert Gates stating that “JSF technology demonstrators were not adequately robust, leading to optimistic estimates of the structural weight of the aircraft."

At least the F-35 program didn't go the way of the A-12 Avenger II, Young noted. The A-12 was intended to be a carrier-based stealth fighter replacement for the A-6 Intruder used by the Navy and Marine Corps, but the program was canceled in 1991 due to high costs. The cancellation led to years of litigation between the design team -- McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics -- and DOD, which is still ongoing, according to Young.

“People clearly didn't understand the risk ((of the A-12 program)) -- they signed up for a price that was totally unrealistic and kind of said, 'Industry, you got to go do it,' and we took them to court for not doing it,” he said.

Homeland Pick
By Christopher J. Castelli
April 27, 2009 at 5:00 AM

President Obama today announced plans to nominate Paul Stockton to be assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and Americas' security affairs. Here's his bio, as issued by the White House:

Mr. Stockton is a senior research scholar at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation. He was formerly the associate provost at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and was the founding director of its Center for Homeland Defense and Security. His research focuses on how U.S. security institutions respond to changes in the threat (including the rise of terrorism), and the interaction of Congress and the Executive branch in restructuring national security budgets, policies and institutional arrangements. From 2000-2001, he founded and served as the acting dean of NPS' School of International Graduate Studies. From 1995 until 2000, he served as director of NPS' Center for Civil-Military Relations. From 1986-1989 Stockton served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Stockton received a bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College in 1976 and a doctorate in government from Harvard University in 1986.

ISIS Rising
By John Liang
April 27, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Pentagon today awarded Lockheed Martin Aeronautics a $100 million increment of a nearly $400 million Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contract for phase three of an effort to develop a stratospheric airship that can simultaneously track airborne and ground targets in flights lasting upward of 10 years, according to a Defense Department announcement.

The program is dubbed Integrated Sensor is Structure, or ISIS for short. Work on the contract is expected to be completed in March 2013, according to the DOD statement. "This contract was procured under a limited source competition with two bids solicited and two bids received," the statement reads.

As Inside the Air Force reported last month:

In the second phase, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman worked on the systems design, and several sectors of Lockheed, Northrop and Raytheon were contracted for “critical technology” development, which included low areal density hull materials, lightweight low-power-density radar arrays, extremely low-power transmit-receive modules and regenerative power systems.

In Phase III, the agency will design, develop and fabricate a subscale demonstration system and conduct flight tests, Walker said.

Flight demonstration is scheduled for fiscal year 2013; it will be up to the Air Force following the flights to determine future acquisition and operations of a production asset, Walker added in a March 17 e-mail.

Up With People
By Dan Dupont
April 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Ashton Carter was confirmed by the Senate yesterday for the post of under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

He'll succeed John Young, who made a lot of waves -- and a lot of news -- during his tenure as the Pentagon acquisition chief.

More to come on both.

And while we're on the topic of Obama appointees, there's an item in The Washington Post today about Arnold Punaro's case for Army secretary. You might recall we covered Punaro's possible nomination for the post back in early February.

Also: Inside the Air Force today has this noteworthy story:

USAF HOLDOVERS TO STEP DOWN LEAVING SEVERAL KEY POSITIONS VACANT
A White House demand that Bush administration political appointees in the Pentagon abide by new ethics rules may prompt three senior Air Force officials to vacate their positions by the end of the month, Inside the Air Force has learned.

The appointees’ departure will leave several holes in the service’s senior leadership structure until the White House nominates replacements. Three assistant secretaries -- John Vonglis, Craig Duehring and Kevin Billings -- are expected to vacate their posts by April 30 rather than sign an Obama administration-required “ethics pledge” that prohibits the appointees from working on Defense Department-related projects for two years after leaving the Pentagon.

Winging It
By Marcus Weisgerber
April 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Air Force is contemplating the stand-up of a counterinsurgency irregular warfare wing, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said this morning.

A final decision will be made during a top-level meeting in June, the four-star told a group of industry and military officials during a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"I think a wing-sized unit, at least to get started, is not unlikely," he said.

Going Nuclear
By Christopher J. Castelli
April 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Will the Nuclear Posture Review echo President Obama's goal of eliminating the world's nuclear weapons? A pair of Pentagon leaders offered no clear answer yesterday, but it seems the department is more focused on deterrence.

“In the president's Prague speech, he referenced ((eliminating nuclear weapons)) as an ultimate goal,” a senior defense official recalled at a background briefing. “He also said that until that time, as long as adversaries possess nuclear weapons, we will maintain a robust and credible nuclear deterrent.”

The NPR is “being taken in the context that he lays out in that speech, which is a desire to really strengthen non-proliferation progress, if you will; explore the possibility of further reductions in our own arsenal, while also ensuring that we take the steps necessary, both in terms of the infrastructure and the forces, to ensure that we have a safe and secure and reliable deterrent,” the official told Pentagon reporters.

This three-pronged approach is “really the conceptual frame, the starting point for the NPR,” the official added. Asked whether the NPR would be akin to a "place holder” on the way to “eventual global zero,” the official replied, “Well, I think that we are certainly looking to, in the post-START negotiations, go towards further reductions.”

A senior military official, however, questioned whether the NPR would aim to do away with nuclear weapons.

“But I don't know that I would speculate to say that that would be a goal. Right?” the senior military official said, noting the NPR is about deterrence, which involves more than just nuclear weapons. “So there are other aspects of what the department does that need to be brought to bear to deter, you know, a potential adversary from using nuclear capability."

No go?
By Jason Simpson
April 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Air Force's top general today said he sees no “obvious” reason to fold the National Nuclear Security Administration into the Defense Department.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution this morning, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said the air service has “very little equity” in this discussion, but he doesn't see “immediately the obvious advantage” of the merger.

My personal view is, and at least my best military advise would be, that there is some merit in keeping the nuclear enterprise in our country not wholly concentrated within the Department of Defense -- that there is a history, a legacy, of civilian oversight and participation and involvement in the nuclear enterprise going back to the very first days.

Though “some” might see financial reasons to go forward with such a plan, the four-star general cautioned of some possible “unintended consequences” of migrating the Energy Department's role in the nuclear enterprise “in its entirety” into DOD. There isn't a “clear . . . distinct policy upside” to the idea, he added.

In January, the Office of Management Budget director, Peter Orszag, requested a study of the costs and benefits of transferring the budget and management of NNSA or its components to the Pentagon and elsewhere.

Schwartz isn't the first to oppose the idea. In February, Inside the Pentagon reported that some lawmakers worried a transfer could damage ongoing efforts.

Congressional sources at the time told ITP that any decision on the matter would require legislative action. And Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), chairwoman of the House of Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, wrote a letter to Orszag on Feb. 5 stating that the initiative “is not a new one, and has been rejected in the past for good reasons.”

Cyber Kill
By John Reed
April 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

One of the major selling points of the F-22A is its ability to penetrate -- undetected -- an enemy's heavily defended airspace and “kick down the door” for follow-on aircraft by laying waste to air defense networks. But why use a fleet of multimillion-dollar airplanes to do what can be done from a desk thousands of miles away from the target?

Enter the Air Force chief of staff.

“Traditionally, we take down integrated air defenses via kinetic means, but if it were possible to interrupt radar systems or surface-to-air missile systems via cyber, that would be another very powerful tool in the tool kit allowing us to accomplish air missions assigned to us by the joint forces command,” Gen. Norton Schwartz said today at the Brookings Institution. “We will develop that capability.”

The four-star added that the service is already developing a “nascent capability” in this arena -- and that it will continue to advance its cyber-warfare techniques to support “whatever architecture is ultimately approved for national cyber responsibilities.”

The idea of using cyber to shut down enemy air defenses is, of course, not exactly new -- rumors have long circulated suggesting that Israel hacked Syrian air defense networks or used hidden software “kill switches” inside the networks to take them down before its air strikes on a supposed Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007.