The Insider

Air Force officials are looking for a contractor to put together a "comprehensive AF/PAK strategic communication plan" for U.S. Central Command, according to a recent notice on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site.

The term AF/PAK is Washingtonese shorthand for "Afghanistan and Pakistan."

The strategic communication plan is needed amid "the on-going conflict in Afghanistan and unrest in Pakistan," the June 18 solicitation reads.

The document defines strategic communication thusly:

Strategic Communication supports the command’s obligation to facilitate information capabilities in order to keep the American people, regional and international audiences informed of ((CENTCOM)) operations that lead to defeating our adversaries, improving regional stability, and promoting and protecting U.S. interests in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

Notably, the solicitation identifies some of the key U.S. government AF/PAK-related players the contractor will have to work with. There is an "Inter-Agency AF/PAK Framework Development Operational Planning Team," and also an "AF/PAK Strategic Framework Project," according to the solicitation.

Defense secretaries past and present have long complained about the amount of reports Congress requires the Pentagon to submit. This year, for instance, just on missile defense, House authorizers, in their report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, want eight reports from DOD to be submitted within the next year. Inside Missile Defense will be tracking the following:

A report on the U.S.-Israeli Arrow-3 program:

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is currently negotiating a project agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defense for the Arrow-3 program. Given the high-risk nature of Arrow-3, the committee understands that the Arrow-3 project agreement will contain clear knowledge points (i.e., technical benchmarks) and a schedule that will govern the development of the program. Future decisions about the program should be based on the Arrow-3 system’s ability to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by April 15, 2010, that describes the agreed knowledge points and schedule, and assesses whether the Arrow-3 program is meeting the agreed knowledge points and schedule. The committee further directs that the report include a discussion of alternative paths the Department is examining to assist Israel in developing an upper-tier missile defense capability, such as the land-based version of the Standard Missile-3 (SM–3), should the Arrow-3 program fail to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule.

A report on the recently canceled KEI and MKV programs:

The committee recognizes that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program have completed research and development of certain technologies that could be beneficial to other defense programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2010, on the feasibility of completing development of certain technologies that were in the process of being developed through the KEI and MKV programs and could have additional useful defense applications.

A report on the planned Precision Tracking Space Sensor (PTSS) constellation:

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the defense committees not later than March 1, 2010, providing a description of the PTSS long-lead, risk-reduction activities to include: (1) payload design, prototyping and laboratory characterization; (2) continuing work on consolidated ground processing of overhead sensor feeds; and (3) implementation of the C2BMC interface. On the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Sustainment and Modernization Program:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a sustainment and modernization program to ensure the long-term reliability, availability, maintainability, and supportability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to protect the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks, whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees outlining the Department of Defense’s long-term sustainment and modernization plan for that system.

Missile defense in Europe:

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from acquiring (other than for initial long-lead procurement) or deploying operational missiles of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to the congressional defense committees a report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be deployed as part of such a missile defense system has demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner and the ability to accomplish the mission.

Ascent phase missile defense:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees outlining a strategy for ascent phase missile defense within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Foreign ballistic missile intelligence analysis:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct an assessment of foreign ballistic missile intelligence analysis gaps and shortfalls, and prepare a plan to ensure that the appropriate intelligence centers have sufficient analytical capabilities to address such gaps and shortfalls. The committee is aware of certain intelligence gaps and shortfalls in foreign ballistic missile activities, in particular emerging longer-range ballistic missile activities, as noted by the Missile Defense Agency.

This section would also require a report by February 28, 2010, on the results of the assessment, the plan to ensure sufficient analytical capabilities, and a description of the resources required to implement such plan.

A U.S.-Russian joint missile defense data exchange center:

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Government of the Russian Federation, to expand the United States-Russian Federation joint center for the exchange of data from early warning systems for launches of ballistic missiles, as established pursuant to section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), to include the exchange of data on missile defense-related activities.

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on plans for expansion of the joint data exchange center to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

The House Armed Services Committee is focusing on safety in Army tactical wheeled vehicles, calling for increased egress enhancements and a report on fire suppression systems.

Citing the potential threat of heavy armor doors on vehicles like the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, the report on the committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill calls for the Army secretary to “pursue mature technologies that provide some level of armor door power-assist, to allow military personnel to quickly egress tactical combat vehicles in emergencies.”

The report notes that, in some cases, the armor door on a tactical combat vehicle can weigh more than 400 pounds, “making it very difficult for the warfighter to rapidly egress the vehicle during emergencies such as vehicle rollovers.”

In a second, the committee praises tactical wheeled vehicle fire suppression systems, which it says “provide a proven capability for force protection against improvised explosive devices that use fire accelerants to increase lethality and injury to the warfighter.”

Yet, the report says, the systems are a required performance specification only for some TWV platforms. Accordingly, the panel directs the defense secretary “to conduct a capability-based performance assessment of fire suppression system technology for TWVs.”

More specifically, the committee dictates, the assessment -- due by March 15, 2010 -- should consider fuel tank, tire, engine and crew compartment fire suppression systems.

“The Secretary should determine the advisability and feasibility of requiring fire suppression systems on all current and future tactical wheeled vehicle platforms and provide relative cost assessments,” the report adds.

The House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, made public today, spells out what committee members have in mind for the National Defense Panel, which would be charged with critiquing the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.

As envisioned in the bill, the panel will consist of 12 "recognized experts" in national security matters. The House and Senate Armed Services committee chairmen will each appoint three members; the committees' ranking members each get to pick two. The defense secretary also may appoint two members.

The NDP's first meeting must be no later than 30 days after all the commission members are appointed, according to the legislation. The meeting would still take place if the defense secretary's appointment slots are unfilled at that time, the bill states.

An initial report outlining "findings" is due to Congress and the defense secretary by April 15, 2010, according to the legislation. A final report -- with findings plus recommendations -- is due by Jan. 15, 2011.

One month later that year, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must file a report with "comments" on the NDP's final product.

As for data sharing between the Pentagon and the commission, the bill authorizes panel members to "secure directly from ((DOD)) . . . such information as the panel considers necessary to carry out its duties," the legislation reads. Information must be provided "promptly," it adds.

One of the NDP's duties is to dissect the intellectual backdrop against which Pentagon leaders are conducting the QDR, according to the bill. Members also should assess findings, assumptions, strategies and cost implications outlined in the QDR report, paying "particular attention" to the issue of risk.

The panel must critique any force structure proposals included in the QDR report and offer an "independent assessment of a variety of possible force structures." It is unclear from the bill text who would bring these alternatives into play.

Finally, panel members must estimate the cost of any force structure moves -- either those advanced by DOD through the QDR, or any alternatives.

Kenneth Baer, the Office of Management and Budget's associate director for communications and strategic planning, today corrected information given to us previously by one of his subordinates about the Pentagon's fiscal year 2011 budget plan.

We asked OMB's public affairs folks last Friday whether the Defense Department is exempt from having to prepare a budget estimate assuming a) a freeze at FY-10 levels, and b) a 5 percent cut to the FY-11 figure included in the FY-10 outyear tables.

A June 11 memo from OMB Director Peter Orszag suggested some agencies are not affected by the requirement.

(We posed the same question in an e-mail to DOD spokesman Geoff Morrell, but never heard back.)

An OMB spokeswoman, who asked to remain anonymous, sent us an e-mail late Friday replying simply "Yes" to our question.

Turns out that was only half true.

"DoD has been exempted from considering a 5% cut to the FY-11 budget figure listed in the outyear tables accompanying the FY-10 request," Baer told us today. "However, DoD has not been exempted from the nominal freeze alternative," he added.

The Pentagon's budget submission, including the "freeze" alternative, is due to OMB by Sept. 14.

So, how would the two different scenarios compare anyway, you ask?

"((A)) freeze would be higher than a 5% cut, in principle," Gordon Adams, a former OMB official, tells us. "The question is a freeze with or without inflation. Either way, it is below what I am sure DOD wants to come back with in the fall," he wrote in an e-mail.

Our updated story is here.

The House Armed Services Committee's just completed fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill calls for an additional 30,000 increase in active-duty end strength for the Army in FY-11 and F-12.

In the meantime, with the Senate’s mark-up of the FY-10 budget request a week away, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee, told Army generals yesterday that he planned on mounting “a serious effort” to increase the service's active force end strength by 30,000 service members.

“There may be a requirement for us to have a temporary authorization of additional soldiers to fill some of the holes we have in our formations and to take the stress off the force in what is going to be a critical 12- to 18-month period," Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli told the subcommittee.

This may signal a change in the Army's tune. Just last month, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said a further increase in troops wasn't necessary.

Though he did not reject outright the idea of a temporary increase, Casey said what he's “not ready to sign up for just yet is whether we need to increase the active Army beyond 547,000,” he said.

“It comes down to it's about a billion dollars to have that increase, and that's a lot of money,” Casey said.

Defense Department officials are eying a new kind of assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan beyond instructing the countries' security forces in tactical warfighting matters.

According to a legislative proposal sent to Congress last week, Pentagon officials want to be able to send a total of 38 civilian advisers to Baghdad and Kabul to aid in the development of more strategic-level thinking among defense ministry officials when it comes to stabilization and irregular warfare operations.

The cost would be $13.1 million for fiscal year 2010, according to the legislative proposal.