USA 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review [Archive]

buglerbilly

28-01-10, 02:20 AM

QDR Draft: DoD Will Not 'Prop Up' Poorly Run Defense Firms

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 27 Jan 2010 14:16

A draft version of the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review sounds alarms about the health of the U.S. defense industrial base and promises steps to enhance it - but it also warns DoD will not "prop up poor business models."

A draft version of the Quadrennial Defense Review criticizes previous administrators for neglecting to support a broadened defense industrial base. (U.S. AIR FORCE) Links
Draft QDR: DoD Scraps 2-Major-War Construct
PREFACE
SECTION I: Defense Strategy
SECTION II: Rebalancing the Force
SECTION III: Taking care of our people
SECTION IV: Strengthening the Relationships
SECTION V: Reforming how we do business
SECTION VI: A Defense Risk Management Framework
CONCLUSION: The Way Ahead

See the links here in the original article..........

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4473225&c=AME&s=TOP

The draft version of the quadrennial study, dated December 2009, expresses the Obama administration's intention to lean on "market forces" in ensuring America's defense industry does not disappear. It also makes clear the administration is prepared to step in and save firms and sectors deemed critical to national security.

"The department will work to establish requirements and pursue specific programs that take full advantage of the entire spectrum of the industrial base at our disposal: defense firms, pure commercial firms, or the increasingly important sector of those innovative and technologically advanced firms that fall somewhere in between," according to the draft QDR.

"Our engagement with industry does not mean the Department of Defense will underwrite sunset industries nor prop up poor business models," according to the review. "It does mean the Department will create an environment in which our industries, a source of our nation's strength, can thrive and compete in the global marketplace.

"Whenever possible and appropriate, the department will rely on market forces to create, shape, and sustain industrial and technological capabilities, but we must be prepared to intervene when absolutely necessary to create and/or sustain competition, innovation, and essential industrial capabilities," according to the draft QDR, which was obtained by Defense News.

The draft document criticizes Washington and Pentagon leaders of recent years for failing to see that the U.S. defense industry had consolidated around "20th century platforms." What is needed is an industrial base able to offer DoD the "broad and flexible portfolio of systems today's security environment demands."

The draft strategy says it will take a while to cure these ills.

"The decades-long primarily hands-off approach to the U.S. defense industrial base cannot be remedied quickly, and will require a long-term approach undertaken in partnership with industry and Congress," it states. One Pentagon insider who reviewed the QDR earlier this month said of the study's industrial base segment: "It's going to be a must-read section for a lot people because it goes beyond what prior QDRs said about the industrial base."

But the insider said he left feeling unfilled. "That said, it left me wanting more and asking: 'OK, so how exactly are you going to go about this?' " Additionally, the draft study vows "a more holistic approach" for identifying "single points of failure."

The draft review also underscores the importance of the financial sector, saying the department "must ensure that we do not take this access to capital for granted and work to form a more transparent view of our requirements and long-term investment plans."

The draft document also says the Pentagon recognizes the importance of second-, third- and fourth-tier suppliers that make the many smaller - but absolutely necessary - components that compose complex weapon systems. The draft QDR states the Pentagon must take into account the impacts of its program decisions on these companies, while also giving those firms better ways to communicate with the department.

buglerbilly

28-01-10, 02:23 AM

Draft QDR: DoD Scraps 2-Major-War Construct

By DEFENSE NEWS STAFF

Published: 27 Jan 2010 20:09

The Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will implement a new construct under which defense officials make force structure decisions.

Out is the framework based on fighting two peer militaries simultaneously, and in is a new construct for a wider set of threats and missions, according to a draft version of the QDR.

"U.S. forces today and in the years to come can be plausibly challenged by a range of threats that extend far beyond the familiar 'major regional conflicts' that have dominated U.S. planning since the end of the Cold War," says the draft study, dated December 2009. Defense News obtained a copy.

"Because America's adversaries have been adopting a wide range of strategies and capabilities that can be brought to bear against the United States and its forces, allies, and interests, it is no longer appropriate to speak of 'major regional conflicts' as the sole or even the primary template for sizing, shaping, and evaluating U.S. forces," the document said.

Instead, the draft quadrennial study said, "U.S. forces must be prepared to conduct a wide variety of missions under a range of different circumstances." It goes on to describe operations that "may vary in duration and intensity for maritime, air, ground, space and cyber forces."

The new force-shaping model was derived from what the draft report calls the Pentagon's four defense strategy priorities: "prevail in today's wars; prevent and deter conflict; prepare to succeed in a wide range of contingencies; and preserve and enhance the force." Sources say the priorities are known within the QDR process as "the Four Ps."

The planning framework is designed to prepare U.S. forces to, according to the review, carry out "a broad, plausible range of several overlapping operations to prevent and deter conflict and, if necessary, to defend the United States, its allies and partners, selected critical infrastructure, and other national interests."

The quadrennial study's authors did not entirely cast aside the need to fight two large wars at the same time. "This includes the potential requirement to conduct multiple concurrent operations, including large-scale combat operations, in disparate theaters," said the draft.

The study said that "any lesser capability" would leave the military unable to defend Washington's "important interests while its forces were undertaking a single large-scale operation. This would increase the risk of opportunism by other potential adversaries."

The copy of the draft document is unclassified, and is stamped For Official Use Only. Sources indicate the QDR has undergone several revisions since this version was circulated within the Pentagon, but they said no major changes have been made to the force planning section.

Additionally, the draft QDR says Pentagon officials built the review around "six key mission areas critical to achieving [DoD's] strategy objectives."

Those six are: defend the United States and support civil authorities at home; conduct counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorist operations; build partnership capacity; deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments; impede proliferation and counter weapons of mass destruction; operate effectively in cyberspace.

The draft quadrennial review also describes the initiatives the department will employ for each of the six.

For supporting civil authorities, DoD will "field faster, more flexible consequence management response forces," states the draft. The department plans to restructure its chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear attack consequence management response force by scrapping the second and third planned teams and instead building 10 homeland response force teams based around the United States.

DoD also will set up "Headquarters and Support Consequence Management Response Forces" to provide additional command and control, logistics, and support capability for follow-on operations, according to the draft.

Also for civil support, the department plans to "enhance capabilities for domain awareness." The draft study states DoD and other agencies need more details about "the air, land and sea domains." To this end, the department is "exploring the application" of next-generation over-the-horizon radar technology. DoD also will develop standoff radiological/nuclear detection capabilities, and bolster its domestic counter-improvised explosive device capabilities.

For conducting counterinsurgency, stability and counterterrorism operations, the draft review spells out several steps the department will take to meet current shortfalls. Among those: increase the availability of the military's helicopter fleet; increase from 50 to 65 the number of Predator/Reaper orbits; continue developing new sensors for UAVs; and bolster its airborne electronic warfare abilities through moves like buying more EA-18G aircraft for the Navy and fitting one more Air Force C-130 with an EW suite.

The department will take a number of steps for counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions, including: converting one heavy brigade combat team to a Stryker configuration, then several more "as resources become available." The Navy will add a fourth riverine squadron, starting in 2011. The Air Force will field light attack aircraft and light mobility units that will be "specially organized, trained, and equipped for counterinsurgency, stability, and CT operations," while also training and supporting foreign security forces, the draft says.

Under the "building up partners" category, the draft study states the Pentagon will increase its corps of linguists and cultural experts, while also giving general purpose forces more duties working with partner nations' security forces. The latter includes an order for all four services to each add 500 people for such tasks, and directs the Air Force to add to "its regionally-oriented contingency response groups (CRGs) and will field light mobility and light attack aircraft in general purpose force units in order to increase their ability to work effectively with a wider range of partner air forces," the draft says.

The draft study devotes several pages to raise alarms and make prescriptions for future anti-access operations.

Potential foes like China have been fielding more and more advanced weapons designed to prevent the U.S. from operating abroad, the QDR draft states.

"As their numbers and capabilities continue to grow, U.S. forces deployed forward will no longer enjoy the relative sanctuary that they have had in conflicts since the end of the Cold War," it states. "Air bases, ports of debarkation, logistics hubs, command centers, large surface combatants, and other assets essential to high-tempo military operations could be at risk."

Projecting American military power also will get tougher.

"U.S. power projection forces also face growing threats in other domains. In recent years, adversary states have acquired sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles, quiet submarines, advanced mines, and other systems that threaten naval operations," the draft study states. "In addition to these weapons, Iran has fielded large numbers of small, fast attack craft designed to support 'swarming' tactics that seek to overwhelm the layers of defenses deployed by U.S. and other nations' naval vessels.

"U.S. air forces in future conflicts will encounter integrated air defenses of far greater sophistication and lethality than those fielded by adversaries of the 1990s."

As a remedy, the draft points to ongoing initiatives, like the Navy-Air Force Air-Sea Battle initiative, designed to get those two services working together on the anti-access mission. The draft document points to the Navy's Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) and the Air Force's on-again-off-again effort to field a new long-range bomber. This portion of the draft QDR does not offer anything new about those programs. It does, however, say that the department plans to begin working with prototypes of a prompt global strike weapon fitted with a conventional warhead.

Also, it states, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has "ordered a follow-on study to determine what combination of joint persistent surveillance, electronic warfare, and precision-attack capabilities, including both penetrating platforms and stand-off weapons, will be best suited to supporting U.S. power projection operations over the next two to three decades."

That study will help shape 2012-17 spending.

buglerbilly

28-01-10, 02:26 AM

For the USN, QDR Stays The Course

By christopher p. cavas

Published: 27 Jan 2010 16:59

The draft Quadrennial Defense Review apparently contains little new for the U.S. Navy. Rather, the document affirms the current direction of several Navy programs and initiatives and, over course of the next few years, holds to the same fleet structure that sails today.

Several observers were disappointed by the document.

"It is stunning by the lack of direction," said one industry analyst. "It's strong on studies - a classic kick-the-can-down-the-road Pentagon tactic."

The document "is so watered-down you could drive a truck through it," the analyst said. "It could support anybody's programs. How does this cause me to realign my programs?"

And while the document presents individual service force structures, the numbers seem to be more of a reflection of current capabilities than a plan for the future.

"These are not requirements," said one Congressional analyst. "They're more of a statement of what will be on hand. Simply a summary of the forces that in fact will be place" over the next four or five years.

Specifically, the draft QDR directs the Navy to:

■ Dedicate two helicopter squadrons for direct support to Naval Special Warfare units.

■ Extend the service lives of the "venerable" EA-6B Prowler electronic warning aircraft and procure additional F/A-18G Growler replacement aircraft.

■ Add a fourth riverine squadron and invest in service life extension programs for coastal patrol craft.

■ Develop a joint Air-Sea Battle Concept with the Air Force to defeat adversaries "equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial capabilities. The concept will address how the joint force will integrate capabilities across all operational domains - air, sea, land, space and cyberspace - to counter a range of challenges to U.S. freedom of operation. As it matures, the concept will also help to guide the development of future capabilities needed for effective power projection operations."

■ Exploit advantages in subsurface operations by increasing funding for the development of an unmanned underwater vehicle that will be capable of a wide range of tasks, including coastal intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and seabed mapping."

■ "Provide an alternative port to dock East Coast aircraft carriers, to mitigate the risk of a manmade or natural disaster." The report, perhaps pointedly, does not use the word "base." The Navy is examining options to modify its Mayport, Fla., base to handle nuclear carriers, but opponents have suggested carriers could temporarily tie up at other ports such as Baltimore or New York City.

The draft QDR also directs the service to expand future long-range strike capabilities by:

■ Investigating options for expanding the cruise missile capacity of future Virginia-class attack submarines - an effort already underway;

■ Conducting field experiments with prototype versions of the naval unmanned combat aerial system (N-UCAS) no later than fiscal 2015. The first of two aircraft already is slated to fly this year and to begin carrier operations in 2013.

One congressional analyst wondered why the QDR statement was somewhat watered-down compared with what already is scheduled with the N-UCAS program. "This paragraph scoops together a lot of stuff that was already happening," the congressional analyst said.

The Navy force structure provided by the draft QDR shows no real differences over existing fleet plans:

■ 10 to 11 aircraft carriers.

■ Nine to 10 carrier air wings.

■ 84 to 90 large surface combatants, including 19 to 32 BMD-capable combatants.

■ 14 to 28 small surface combatants.

■ 29 to 33 amphibious warfare ships.

■ 51 to 55 attack submarines.

■ Four guided missile submarines.

■ Three maritime prepositioning squadrons.

■ 30 to 34 combat logistics force ships.

■ 17 to 24 command and support vessels (including JHSV).

buglerbilly

29-01-10, 03:53 AM

DoD's '11 Budget: $10.7B for F-35, $4B for New Bomber, More for SpecOps

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 28 Jan 2010 19:43

The Pentagon's 2011 budget will seek nearly $11 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while also putting $4 billion toward a new long-range bomber and boosting funds for special operations forces, according to a draft overview of the spending request obtained by Defense News.

The FY2011 budget calls for $10.7 billion to be spent on the F-35. (LOCKHEED MARTIN) The Obama administration's 2011 Pentagon spending request follows a tumultuous 2010 Pentagon budget process that saw Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancel, restructure or otherwise alter about 50 major U.S. weapon programs.

Due to be sent to Congress on Feb. 1, the new budget will call for the termination of yet more programs while doubling the purchase of MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft, according to the summary document, titled "Overview - FY 2011 Defense Budget" and labeled "Draft - Predecisional." And as in years past, the budget will push to finally kill purchases of the Air Force's C-17 cargo plane and an alternative engine for the F-35.

"Since taking office, Secretary Gates has taken decisive action to increase the capabilities available to our deployed forces - especially those forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan," the summary says. "The FY 2011 budget builds upon his previous actions, which Congress generally has supported, and advances the [Quadrennial Defense Review's] emphasis on current conflicts."

Despite that current-war focus, the summary also describes a 2011 budget request that "funds a robust program to develop and procure superior [tactical] aircraft to guarantee continued air dominance over current and future battlefields."

The summary calls the F-35 program "the most important" and says its procurement quantities have been adjusted to reflect "new data on costs and on likely orders from our foreign nation partners and realigned development and test schedules." In 2011, the Pentagon wants $10.7 billion for more development and to buy 42 F-35s, according to the summary.

The summary does not include a DoD-wide top-line number, but is chock full of program funding lines.

For special operations forces, the 2011 budget will call for $6.3 billion for U.S. Special Operations Command, which the summary calls a "6 percent" boost from this fiscal year. The added funds would be used to buy new gear and ISR assets and to improve existing ones, training, and communications systems.

"DoD plans to call for SOF funding to continue to increase sharply over the next several years," the summary says.

It also will propose adding 2,800 new special operations personnel.

One of the biggest questions about the closely held budget: will the Pentagon put new money toward an on-again, off-again effort to develop and field a new long-range bomber? The summary says yes: $4 billion over 2011-15.

Echoing public comments made in recent weeks by Pentagon and Air Force officials, the summary says the funds will be used for work on "a portfolio of initiatives to improve long-range strike capabilities." The $4 billion also would go for maintaining "the bomber industrial base" while the Pentagon studies what kind of bomber will be "appropriate for future decades."

The long-range strike portion of the request also will seek funds for development of a Prompt Global Strike system, as well as efforts to upgrade B-2 and B-52 bomber aircraft, according to the DoD summary. The summary does not specify funding levels for those three initiatives.

"Later in this [2011-2015] time frame, funds are available to begin developing a new bomber and cruise missile," it says.

For the Army's ground forces modernization program, the budget plan will support a program to develop and field a new next-generation ground combat vehicle - but it does not include a funding amount.

"The design of the new program will take into account the success of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected [MRAP] vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan," the summary says.

Over the past year, senior Pentagon officials - including Gates - have sounded alarms about the U.S. military's helicopter fleet and industrial base. To that end, the budget will ask Congress for $9.6 billion "for the acquisition of a variety of modern rotary wing aircraft," the summary says. That list includes:

■ $1.4 billion for Army UH-60 Black Hawks.

■ $1.2 billion for Army CH-47 Chinooks.

■ $2.7 billion for V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft.

■ $1.7 billion MH-60R/S Seahawks for the Navy.

The budget also will propose creation of two "combat aviation brigades" by combining existing aviation platforms to create a 12th active duty brigade in fiscal 2011. It also will set in motion efforts to field a 13th in fiscal 2015.

Meantime, the 2011 spending blueprint also will support one of Gates' other primary focus areas: bolstering the military's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance portfolio.

The plan will ask lawmakers to approve the Pentagon's desire to "double procurement of the MQ-9 Reaper … over the next few years," the summary says. Such a buy rate is aimed at bringing about "an increase in the number of [combat air patrols] provided by this type of aircraft from 37 now to 65 CAPs" by fiscal 2015, the summary states.

The plan includes $2.7 billion for "increased capabilities" called for by the Gates-created ISR Task Force.

"ISR funding is supporting key enhancements for our deployed forces including: Introduction of innovative airborne collection platforms - such as new unmanned aircraft and ground-based collection systems; marked increases in the number of full motion video and signals intelligence collection systems optimized for counter-insurgency operations; enhanced ISR communications and its supporting infrastructure; and significant increases in processing, exploitation and dissemination capabilities - both people and systems," the budget summary states.

Also for ISR, the blueprint will "advance" the Pentagon's goal of fielding six CAPs per deployed Army brigade combat team by fiscal 2015.

On shipbuilding, the 2011 budget will reflect "the department's formulation of a realistic, executable shipbuilding plan" that will span 2011-15.

"The FY 2011 budget reinforces the on-going transition to a naval force that will address operational capabilities needed in the near term and to reduce the reliance on certain major combatants in the far term," states the summary.

For new ship construction, the spending plan will ask for $14.1 billion in 2011 monies. The sea service's shipbuilding plan will propose a nine-ship 2011, and 50 total through 2015, according to the budget summary.

On specific ship programs, the plan will seek:

■ Two DDG 51 destroyers.

■ Two Virginia class submarines.

■ Two Littoral Combat Ships.

■ One Amphibious Assault Ship Replacement (LHA-R).

■ One Mobile Landing Platform (MLP).

■ Two Joint High Speed Vessels (one Navy funded and one Army funded).

"This shipbuilding plan balances capability, affordability, and industrial base stability," the summary says.

The 2011-15 funding the budget plan will seek would put the Navy on track to maintain aircraft carrier production "on a five-year build cycle, resulting in a long term force structure of 10 aircraft carriers by 2040," it states.

It will put the Navy on pace to produce two attack submarines per year beginning in 2011, while also continuing development of a new "strategic deterrent submarine," according to the summary.

The Pentagon also will propose buying three Mobile Landing Platform vessels - one each in fiscal 2011, 2013 and 2015.

Further, the 2010 QDR will call for better electronic warfare capabilities.

To that end, the Pentagon will add $203 million in fiscal 2011 and $2.3 billion in fiscal 2012 for 26 additional EA-18G Growler aircraft. That would add to current plans two EA-18s in 2011, and 24 more in 2012, according to the budget summary.

Those jets would recapitalize four "expeditionary EA-6B squadrons the Navy plans to dissolve by fiscal 2012."

"To sustain EW capabilities while new EA-18Gs are procured, about $26 million in [fiscal] 2011 and $22 million in [fiscal] 2012 was added to extend the availability of EA-6Bs previously slated for retirement," the budget summary states. "This initiative will help fill an EW shortfall that has been consistently highlighted by the Combatant Commanders as one of their highest war fighting priorities."

The summary says the Air Force's budget plan will put the service on track to award a KC-X tanker contract in "summer 2010." It would start buying the aerial tankers in fiscal 2013 under this time frame.

On the F-35 alternative engine, which the Pentagon has for years proposed terminating only to see lawmakers keep alive with annual budget plus-ups, the summary says defense officials "considered all aspects of this program and decided that - because of cost and management issues - the department should not develop and procure an alternate engine."

The budget request also will seek $9.9 billion for ballistic missile defense programs, including $8.4 billion for the Missile Defense Agency.

"This funding supports the development and fielding of an integrated, layered Ballistic Missile Defense System [BMDS] architecture that provides multiple opportunities to destroy missiles and their warheads before they can reach their targets," according to the summary.

The 2011 budget will propose terminating the Navy's next-generation cruiser program, the sea-service's EP-3 replacement effort (known as EP-X), the Third Generation Infrared Surveillance system, and the Net Enabled Command and Control program.

ADMk2

29-01-10, 04:45 AM

So much for the alleged "death spiral" of the F-35...

buglerbilly

30-01-10, 10:48 AM

Draft Defense Department budget avoids weapons cuts, adds aircraft

By Greg Jaffe and Craig Whitlock

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Obama administration's 2011 defense budget avoids the controversial weapons cuts of last year, according to a draft copy, and continues to shift modest amounts of money to weapons programs such as helicopters, unmanned planes and Special Operations units that are in heavy use Afghanistan and Iraq.

The more than $700 billion budget will be released Monday with a congressionally mandated review of defense spending. That review calls on the Pentagon to focus more attention on wars in which enemy forces hide among the populace and use roadside bombs and hit-and-run ambushes to attack U.S. troops. The Quadrennial Defense review also predicts a future dominated by "hybrid" wars, in which traditional states will fight more like guerrillas and insurgents will arm themselves with increasingly sophisticated technology, such as antitank weapons and missiles.

The bold pronouncements in the review, however, won't drive big changes in the Pentagon budget, which is dominated by massive weapons programs with powerful constituencies in Congress and the defense industry.

"I think the review gets the diagnosis right on the big external challenges facing the Defense Department, but at the end of the day, the preexisting mismatch between the strategy and the [budget] program still exists," said Jim Thomas, who played a key role in writing the last quadrennial review and is now a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Despite the language about new threats, a December draft of the quadrennial review doesn't mention the F-35 fighter jet program, which remains one of the largest and most expensive programs in the history of the military and has been in development for more than a decade.

Although Obama has proposed a three-year freeze on federal spending, he has exempted the Pentagon from these limits, allowing an increase of about 2 percent when the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are stripped out of the budget. In addition to the more than $700 billion budget, the president will also ask for about $33 billion to pay for the surge of about 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.

Much of the new spending in the 2011 budget will be directed to weapons programs in heavy use in Afghanistan. The budget calls on the Air Force to double the number of MQ-9 Reapers, which are unmanned planes that can carry precision bombs, over the next several years. The extra planes will allow the Air Force to increase from about 37 to 65 the number of long-range, unmanned surveillance aircraft that it can keep airborne during combat missions.

The Army and Marine Corps will get almost $10 billion for helicopters, which have been essential to moving troops across Afghanistan and have been in short supply since the beginning of the war in 2001. The budget also calls for increasing spending for Special Operations forces by about 6 percent, to $6.3 billion. Those forces have played a central role in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, where they have trained indigenous counterterrorism troops.

The Pentagon's quadrennial review will formally scrap its past construct for determining the size of the force, which held that the military should be able to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. The review argues that the Pentagon today faces a much broader array of potential threats, including terrorism, stabilization missions and guerrilla wars, and acknowledges that in the near term, the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan will play the major role in determining the size of the U.S. military.

In contrast with last year, when Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates eliminated or curtailed several expensive conventional weapons programs, including the F-22 fighter jet, the new budget includes no major weapons cancellations and is likely to draw plaudits from the defense industry. For years defense industry executives have predicted that spending would be curtailed.

"You have to wonder whether the tough year is ever going to come," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank.

The lack of big weapons cuts is causing some outcry from congressional Democrats. "I don't think that we have to protect military contractors. And I want to make that distinction very clearly," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.). "I do not think the entire defense budget should be exempted."

buglerbilly

02-02-10, 05:54 AM

$3B For BCT Modernization In U.S. Army Budget Plan

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 1 Feb 2010 19:32

After an overhaul of the U.S. Army's modernization effort last year, the Pentagon's FY 2011 budget request allocates more than $3 billion for the service's revamped brigade combat team modernization program and provides almost $6 billion in the base budget for Army aviation.

"Achieving our objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq has moved to the top of the institutional military's budgeting, policy, and program priorities," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Feb. 1. "The FY '11 budget request takes a number of additional steps aimed at filling persistent shortfalls that have plagued recent military efforts, especially in Afghanistan."

At the top of Gates' list was the need for additional helicopters and increased intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capacity. The Army's FY '11 budget request reflects both priorities.

The base budget includes $5.9 billion in procurement funding for aircraft, with $1.3 billion for Army aviation in the 2011 overseas contingency operations account. The 2011 budget funds the formation of two additional combat aviation brigades, which brings the total to 13 in the active force. The Army has said the 12th would be formed by consolidating existing aircraft and force structure; the 13th would cost $5.5 billion over five years, Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale said today.

For procurement dollars, the Army designated $1.4 billion to buy 48 UH-60 M and 24 HH-60M Black Hawk helicopters. The $887 million request for AH-64 Apache helicopters funds 16 new Apache Block III aircraft and money to upgrade existing aircraft to Block II models. The $1.2 billion for CH-47 Chinooks includes the procurement of 40 F-model aircraft. The budget request also includes $326 million to buy UH-72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopters.

The FY-11 OCO funding goes toward replacing helicopters lost during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $187 million to convert OH-58A and OH-58C Kiowa Warriors to the upgraded "D" model. This would be the second year the Army has been funded to replace Kiowa Warrior helicopters, which were supposed to be replaced by the now-canceled Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.

Unmanned aircraft also gets a boost in the budget request, which funds a buy of 26 MQ-1 Sky Warriors at a cost of $459 million. According to budget documents, eventually each of the 10 active Army divisions will have a Sky Warrior company.

The request also includes $505 million to upgrade the Shadow RQ-7 unmanned aerial vehicle. The upgrade program funds the integration of laser target designator payloads and a tactical common data link capability that would allow higher levels of encryption.

Gates told reporters that UAVs are in demand in every combatant command's area of operations.

"We will continue to see significant growth for some years into the future, even as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan eventually wind down, just because the more we have used them … the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances," he said.

The budget request includes more than $3 billion for the Army's BCT modernization program, including $2.5 billion in research and development funds, roughly $1 billion of which would go toward the Ground Combat Vehicle effort. Documents indicate that $350 million in procurement funding would go toward the Non-Line of Sight Launcher System and $630 million would go toward equipment to support joint communication and network efforts, including money for Warfighter Information Network-Tactical and the Joint Tactical Radio System. Funding would also support the testing and fielding of Increment 1 equipment.

The base budget request includes $1.9 billion for missile programs, including $480 million for Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles, $164 million for Javelin, $291 million for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System and $117 million for a restructured Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-To-Air Missile program. The Army would procure six SLAMRAAM launchers in 2011, according to Kathleen Miller, acting director of the Army budget office.

The Army requested $1.7 billion in procurement funding for weapons and tracked combat vehicles. That includes $300 million for 83 Stryker vehicles to enable the conversion of a Heavy Brigade Combat Team to a Stryker BCT by the fourth quarter of FY 2011. Funding also goes toward situational awareness kits and survivability enhancements for vehicles.

According to Hale, FY 2010 will be the last year the Army buys Humvees. The FY 2011 contingency request includes $989 million for a Humvee recap program.

Lt. Gen. Edgar Stanton, military deputy for the Army budget, said the Army reached the acquisition objective for Humvees earlier than expected because there have been fewer combat losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and use of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and MRAP-All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV) reduce the need for them. He said the production line should remain open, because other organizations buy Humvees.

buglerbilly

02-02-10, 05:56 AM

DoD's $708.2B Budget Comes With Veto Threat

By william matthews

Published: 1 Feb 2010 17:26

The Pentagon's $708.2 billion spending plan for 2011 is the largest budget ever, but it's not big enough to keep buying C-17 cargo planes or a second engine for Joint Strike Fighters.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates, left, discusses the 2011 U.S. defense budget Feb. 1 at the Pentagon. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is alongside Gates. (JEWEL SAMAD / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE) Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that he will "strongly recommend" that President Obama veto the 2011 bill if Congress adds money to the budget to keep those programs alive.

As he unveiled the new defense budget Feb. 1, Gates also announced a shakeup of the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program. He fired the program manager, U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz, and said a three-star officer will replace him. Heinz is a two-star.

Gates said he took the step because the JSF, the Pentagon's most costly program, is troubled. "Progress and performance of the F-35 is not what it should be."

In addition to sacking Heinz, Gates said he would withhold $614 million in "award fees" from JSF builder Lockheed Martin. He said the company agreed to the withholding.

The program has increased in cost by about $100 billion since 2002, and now is expected to cost a total of about $300 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. And the program has been plagued by delays.

Gates said his decisions on the JSF program are an attempt to hold people accountable.

The 2011 budget calls for spending almost $11 billion to buy 43 Joint Strike Fighters next year.

In the defense budget, Gates asks Congress for a $548.9 billion "base" budget and for $159.3 billion to keep fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2011. He also asks for $33 billion to cover the 2010 costs of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

The base budget request is $18.2 billion more than the $530.8 billion Congress approved spending this year. The war funding request is $3.3 billion less than this year's war fund of $129.6 billion and the additional $33 billion being sought for this year.

Overall, the budget request represents a 3.4 percent increase over this year's budget, but Gates said that after adjusting for inflation, the increase is about 1.8 percent.

Congress Reacts

The increase did not please some Democrats in Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said that defense spending should be frozen, just as Obama has proposed to freeze spending on many domestic programs.

However, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was "grateful that even as we face economic challenges, defending America continues to be a priority for the Obama administration."

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, complained that the budget proposes spending too little on the Aegis portion of missile defense, and that research and development funding is inadequate.

The budget calls for spending $9.9 billion on missile defense, up from about $9.3 billion this year.

Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., blasted the decision to again try to end C-17 production. He called the decision "mixed-up spending priorities" that will affect "thousands of Missouri workers whose jobs depend" on the C-17.

Instead of buying more C-17s, the Pentagon wants to continue "to pour money down the Joint Strike Fighter rat hole – a boondoggle that continues to be over budget and behind schedule," Bond said. Missouri is also home to the assembly line of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, a Navy fighter that Boeing is pitching as a partial alternative to the JSF.

Spending on research and development takes a hit in the proposed budget. Gates would decrease it from $80 billion this year to $76 billion in 2011.
The procurement spending, meanwhile, increases from $105 billion this year to $113 billion in 2011.

Gates said his budget includes $2.2 billion to increase the number of armed unmanned aerial vehicle combat air patrols from 37 to 65 by 2013. UAVs have proven to be "critical enablers" for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in the Afghan war, Gates said.

The Air Force will be buying Predator and Reaper UAVs, Gates said. The more heavily armed Reaper "has capabilities that the Predator does not," he said. "We're buying as many Reapers as we can."

The budget includes $9.6 billion for buying helicopters, part of an effort to better prepare the U.S. military to deal with a broad range of threats, Gates said. Budget documents list CH-47s, UH-60s, light utility helicopters, H-1s and V-22s among the rotary-wing aircraft programs to receive funding.

And Gates said the Army would be adding two more aviation brigades.

Gates said he wants to spend $25 billion on shipbuilding. That includes $15.7 billion for nine Navy ships, and $9.4 for ship research and development. The Army would get one ship, a joint high speed vessel.

In an hour-long budget briefing, Gates stress that he is continuing efforts to reform the Pentagon. "The fiscal 2011 budget request builds on the reforms begun in last year's defense budget," he said.

Although the proposed budget kills no high-profile programs, as its predecessor did, it would produce some casualties:

■ CG(X) next-generation Navy cruiser.

■ EP(X) Navy intelligence aircraft.

■ Air Force's third-generation infrared surveillance satellite.

■ Net-enabled command capability.

■ Defense integrated military human resources system.

Gates said the programs are being canceled because they are not needed or they suffer from poor performance.

Gates acknowledged that he may have a hard time killing the C-17 and the alternate JSF engine. He tried and failed to kill both in this year's budget. "I'm fully aware" of Congress' desire to keep the two programs alive, he said.

But the Air Force "already has more of these aircraft than it needs," he said of the C-17, and the benefits of an alternate JSF engine "are more than offset" by the engine's cost and complexity.

Last year Gates warned that he would recommend a presidential veto of the military funding bill if it contained money for the alternate engine - and if the money would take funds from the already troubled JSF.

Lawmakers allocated $560 million for the alternate engine, but did not take money from the JSF program to pay for it. They added $2.5 billion to buy 10 more C-17s.

Gates warned that he will be tougher this year. "It's important to take a final stand," he said.

But he's hardly holding the line on spending.

The "base" defense budget has increased by 40 percent since 2001, said Travis Sharp, a defense budget analyst at the Center for a New American Security. When war costs are added, defense spending has increased by 70 percent, he said.

Compared to previous peaks in defense spending, 2011 breaks records. It is 13 percent higher than spending during the Korean War, 33 percent higher than the Vietnam War peak, 23 percent higher than the Reagan-era defense buildup and 64 percent higher than the Cold War average, Sharp said.

In terms of gross domestic product, the base 2011 spending plan is 3.5 percent of GDP, and with war costs added, it is 4.6 percent of GDP, he said.

buglerbilly

03-02-10, 05:16 AM

Pentagon abandons two-war doctrine

The US is to abandon its doctrine of always being ready to fight two simultaneous conventional wars.

By Alex Spillius in Washington

Published: 7:16PM GMT 02 Feb 2010

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said instead the Pentagon will shift its focus to a broader range of challenges including terrorism and cyber-security.

In a sweeping review of US military strategy, he said the Pentagon must prepare for an "uncertain security landscape" where extremists or "non-state actors" sought missile technology or weapons of mass destruction.

Warning that US military power faced new limits and constraints, he said that weaponry, tactics and enemies had overtaken the "familiar contingencies that dominated US planning after the Cold War".

"We have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are seldom the wars that we planned," said Mr Gates, as he presented the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defence Review and the 2011 budget plan to the Senate armed services committee.

"As a result, the United States needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities, with maximum versatility, across the widest possible spectrum of conflict."

Calling for more investment in aerial drones, helicopters and special operations forces, which have proved vital in the Afghan war, he said the military should focus on winning current conflicts, not putative future ones.

The Obama administration is seeking $741 billion (£463 billion) in defence spending for 2011, including £120 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We have, in a sober and clear-eyed way, assessed risk, set priorities, made trade-offs and identified requirements based on plausible real-world threats, scenarios and potential adversaries," said Mr Gates, making his boldest call yet for reform of a military force that dwarfs the rest of the world's.

Challenges looming on the horizon ranged from "the use of sophisticated new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace to the threat posed by non-state groups delivering more cunning and destructive means to attack and terrorize," he said.

Mr Gates underlined his determination to stop the construction of C-17 transport planes because the air force had a sufficient quantity, and of the alternative engine for the F-35 joint striker jet programme.

The defence budget must be approved by Congress, which last year saved both those projects. This year Mr Gates pledged to ask President Barack Obama to veto any bill returned that still included them.

In a surprise move on Monday, the Pentagon chief removed the general in charge of the joint strike fighter programme, the department's largest, and withheld £383 million from the contractor Lockheed Martin after a review warned that the project was going billions over budget.

Attempting to allay fears that the abandonment of the two-war doctrine would be too radical, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said planning for future major conflicts with conventional weaponry remained central to the Pentagon's portfolio.

The review also made clear that Nato and old allies such as Britain remained as important as ever to US thinking given the greater need for intelligence sharing in a more complex global environment.

"The United States cannot sustain a stable international system alone. Challenges to common interests are best addressed in concert with likeminded allies and partners who share responsibility for fostering peace and security," it said.

"Our shared history and interests with the United Kingdom have created a steadfast bond, strengthened in recent years through operations together in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere."

It called for more resources and expertise for dealing with failed states such as Somalia and supporting fragile states such as Yemen, which are ripe for terrorism. It underlined the importance of opening a US cyber-command centre, which has been slowed down by intra-agency wrangling.

For the first time the Pentagon identified global warming as a potential trigger of instability and urged the military to renew efforts to reduce its dependence on oil.

buglerbilly

03-02-10, 09:17 PM

Future U.S. Military Plan: More of the Same, Plus Robots and Catamarans

Wednesday February 03rd 2010, 1:08 am

by DAVID AXE

In conjunction with the 2011 budget and the four-year defense review, the Pentagon has released 30-year projections for airplane and ship production. The plans are most remarkable for their stability: roughly the same number of large warships over the three decades and pretty much the same number of spy planes, airlifters and tankers. Just a small reduction in fighters. This despite all the hawkish hand-wringing in the months before the announcements.

There are just two big changes worth noting: lots and lots of new, high-endurance drones; and more than twice as many high-speed catamaran sea transports compared to the Navy’s previous plan: a peak of around 30 instead of just 10. The Joint High-Speed Vessel catamarans will serve as highly-mobile, shallow-water sea bases for persistent humanitarian and training missions such as Africa Partnership Station. And in an emergency, the catamarans can lift Marines and soldiers or even serve as support vessels for patrol boats and naval drones.

[Time to buy some Austal shares!!!]

Both boosts point towards the gradual emergence of a “cloud” concept. Strategically, that means many small, inexpensive military units maintaining a constant, wide, stabilizing presence during peacetime, and concentrating on trouble spots during war. The cloud even works tactically: units “orbit,” on call, at all times, ready to respond to a pop-up enemy presence.

buglerbilly

03-02-10, 09:47 PM

Obama Proposes $708 Billion Fiscal Year 2011 Defence Budget

Summary of the US Department of Defence Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Proposal

defpro.com | On Monday, US President Barack Obama sent to the Congress a proposed defence budget of $708 billion for fiscal 2011. As the US Department of Defence (DoD) states, its budget request includes $549 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defence programmes and $159 billion to support overseas contingency operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to the DoD, this proposal continues the reform agenda established in last year's budget request and builds on the initiatives identified by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR).

The following is an excerpt of key highlights, with a focus on defence programmes and operations, of the proposed DoD budget (Structure and headlines may have been changed by defpro.com. For the original report please use the following link). The full report, including charts, can be viewed here: http://tinyurl.com/yhvea44.For more information and to view the entire Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal, please go to http://www.budget.mil and download the "FY 2011 Budget Request Overview Book."

Principal Objectives

The fiscal 2011 budget proposal supports the Department’s security strategy and begins implementing the recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that is being submitted along with this budget request. The FY 2011 request also builds on the strategic changes introduced by the FY 2010 Defense budget. As in FY 2010, the Department of Defense FY 2011 budget request is organized around four major themes:

1. The budget reaffirms and strengthens the nation’s commitment to care for the all-volunteer force, our greatest strategic asset.
2. It rebalances America’s defense posture, emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts, while enhancing the capabilities that may be needed in the future.
3. It continues the Department’s commitment to reform how DoD does business, especially in the area of acquisitions.
4. It ensures that America’s troops in the field have the resources to execute their missions successfully.

Rebalancing the Force

Guided by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the FY 2011 budget continues the effort to seek a better balance in America’s defense posture -- between the risks we face and limited resources, and between capabilities needed for current conflicts and those needed for future wars. To that end, the President’s request includes $112.9 billion for Procurement and $76.1 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E). A substantial portion of the requested funding focuses on improving the capability to fight today’s wars. Among the highlights:

• Rotary-Wing Aircraft
The FY 2010 enacted budget included additional funds to boost Army helicopter pilot training capacity and improve survivability. The FY 2011 request sustains
the FY 2010 increase and seeks an additional $65 million to train 1,500 new pilots per year by FY 2012.

The FY 2011 request also sustains new acquisition and modernization of helicopters – such as the CH-47, UH-60, LUH, H-1, and V-22 aircraft – with more than $9.6 billion. The FY 2011 investment request is more than $500 million, or about 6 percent, above the level provided for in the FY 2010 enacted budget.

• UAV Combat Air Patrols (CAPs)
FY 2011 investment spending will continue the expanded use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in war zones. The request of $2.2 billion supports the plan to increase Predator-Class CAPs from the current 37 to 65 by FY 2013.

• Electronic Warfare
The FY 2011 budget request supports procurement of 12 EA-18G aircraft to recapitalize four expeditionary electronic attack squadrons.

• Special Operations
The FY 2011 budget request of $6.3 billion is an increase of 5.7 percent over FY 2010, reflecting the priority to focus on irregular warfare and to strengthen core special operations capabilities. Funds will add about 2,800 SOCOM personnel in FY 2011

• Cyber Command
The FY 2011 budget request supports the establishment of the U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) – a new command to organize and standardize DoD cyber practices and operations in defense of the Global Information Grid (GIG). USCYBERCOM will be a sub-unified command under the U.S. Strategic Command. It will lead, integrate, and better coordinate the protection and operation of DoD networks.

• Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
The FY 2011 budget continues to support counter-WMD efforts, in particular $74.5 million for a new Global Nuclear Lockdown initiative that supports the President’s goal to secure all vulnerable weapons-usable nuclear material within four years.

The Administration’s defense budget also requests substantial funding designed to improve capabilities to fight today’s wars or future conflicts. Among the highlights:

• KC-X Tanker
The FY 2011 budget includes $864 million in RDT&E for developing a new generation tanker, which remains a very high priority. Initial plans call for procuring 179 commercial-derivative tanker aircraft to replace roughly a third of the current aerial refueling tanker fleet at a projected cost of $35 billion. A draft Request for Proposals was announced in September 2009, with contract award planned for summer, 2010.

• Restructure JSF
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a critical tactical air program to ensure continued air dominance over current and future battlefields. The FY 2011 budget request continues implementation of the long-term tactical aircraft acquisition plan and supports continued development and production of three variants of the F-35. Recognizing the need to complete all necessary testing while limiting concurrency, the JSF program has been restructured to add an additional year for development. The base budget requests funding for procurement of 42 aircraft in FY 2011.

• Robust Shipbuilding Plan
The FY 2011 budget request includes $25.1 billion to fund procurement and RDT&E costs (including $15.7 billion for Navy shipbuilding and conversion). Funds requested for FY 2011 will pay all or partial costs for 10 new ships, nine for the Navy – two Virginia class submarines, two DDG-51 destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), one Landing Helicopter Assault Replacement (LHA-R), one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) – and a JHSV for the Army.

• Rapid Ground Forces Modernization
The FY 2011 budget advances Secretary Gates’ restructuring of the modernization of Army ground forces. To improve current forces more quickly, the FY 2011 budget request includes $3.2 billion for procurement and research and development in support of Brigade Combat Team (BCT) modernization. It will provide increased intelligence, improved air and ground robotic capability, more responsive precision fires, and better situational awareness. The program will also seek to rapidly field a replacement for the Bradley fighting vehicle. As part of its overall modernization plan, the Army has terminated further Army-only buys of the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) because Army needs for this vehicle have been met.

• Next Generation Bomber
The FY 2011 request includes funding ($0.2 billion in FY 2011 and $1.7 billion in FY 2011-2015) for the next generation bomber. Near-term efforts include needed studies concerning the design of a future bomber as well as upgrades to existing bombers. To support future decisions, the bomber industrial base will be sustained.

• Missile Defense
The FY 2011 budget includes $9.9 billion to support missile defenses. The Ballistic Missile Defense Review concluded that U.S. missile defenses must be adaptive and responsive to advances in technology, and that they must be proven and cost-effective and must meet the real threat to the U.S. and its allies. The Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) fulfills these requirements with a flexible, scalable response to BMD threats. The recent shift from ground-based interceptors in Europe to a land-based and sea-based Standard Missile-3 system is an example of the new PAA.

Reforming How DoD Does Business

To make the most of the nation’s resources entrusted to the Department of Defense and to carry out its mission more effectively, the Department continues striving to improve the way it does business.

• Changing How We Operate
A critical effort involves reforming the processes by which we buy weapons and other important systems through implementation of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. To maintain America’s technological and conventional edge, we are working to achieve predictable cost, schedule, and performance outcomes, based on mature, demonstrated technologies and realistic cost/schedule estimates. To help achieve this goal, the Department is increasing the number of acquisition personnel by 20,000 – from approximately 127,000 in FY 2010 to about 147,000 by FY 2015. The FY 2011 budget request continues support for this transition and includes funds for training and retention programs that will bolster the capability and size of the acquisition workforce. Acquisition reform will provide America’s warfighters with world class capability, while assuring good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The FY 2011 budget also includes $261 million to manage the conversion out of the National Security Personnel System by January 1, 2012, as required by the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.
The budget request supports efforts to improve financial information and attain audit readiness. Under a new approach to this long-standing issue, the Department will focus its efforts on improving those types of information (particularly budgetary information) that are most used to manage defense activities.

• Ending unneeded or poorly performing programs
The FY 2010 enacted budget ended a number of major programs that were no longer needed or that were troubled by cost or execution problems. The FY 2011 budget request continues this reform agenda, saving taxpayers nearly $3.1 billion:

• C-17 Program Ended
The FY 2011 budget funds shutdown of the production line for C-17 transports. With 223 of these excellent planes already in its inventory, the U.S. has more than enough to meet current and future needs.

• JSF Alternate Engine Ended
After extensive consideration, DoD has decided not to expend scarce resources to develop or deploy an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Logistics, cost and management concerns support this decision.

• Additional Programs Ended
Other programs will be ended or terminated due to a lack of need or poor performance. Cancellations include the Navy’s CG(X) next generation cruiser; EP(X) Navy Intelligence Aircraft; Third Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS); the Net Enabled Command Capability (NECC); and DIMHRS, the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System which is still not operational after 10 years of development and an investment of $500 million. DIMHRS is being replaced by individual Service variants that will support standard integrated military personnel and payroll services.

Supporting the Troops in the Field

In addition to the Department’s base budget, the fiscal 2011 request includes $159 billion to support troops engaged in overseas contingency operations (OCO) in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not a supplemental request. It is intended to fund all currently known requirements for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for the entire fiscal year.

Included in the FY 2011 OCO request are:

• $89.4 billion for operating costs, linked to the operating tempo of frontline combat and support forces in theater. This includes $0.7 billion for additional family support initiatives in addition to those in the base budget.

• $21.3 billion for reconstituting equipment -- repairing and replacing equipment lost and damaged as a result of ongoing operations -- including $2.8 billion to reset equipment redeploying from Iraq and returning to inventory.

• $2.4 billion to ensure greater ISR support for U.S. warfighters, including funds for five Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance Surveillance System aircraft and efforts to address vulnerabilities of unencrypted airborne data links.

• $13.6 billion to train and equip Afghanistan and Iraq Security Forces -- $11.6 billion for the training and equipping of Afghan security forces and $2 billion for the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

• $1.2 billion of military construction to expand the logistical backbone and operational foundation in Afghanistan. This will enable counterinsurgency forces to fight more effectively by increasing operational capability, providing troop housing, replacing expeditionary facilities at the end of their lifecycle, consolidating functions and facilities, and supporting Special Operations forces operating in Afghanistan.

In addition, the Administration is submitting a FY 2010 supplemental appropriation request of $33 billion to cover the FY 2010 defense costs for the additional 30,000 troops that will be deployed to Afghanistan in support of the President’s new strategy for the region.

Continuing the Reform Agenda

The President’s Department of Defense fiscal 2011 budget request continues the reform agenda begun in the FY 2010 budget, which Secretary Gates has termed, “the nation’s first truly 21st century defense budget.” The new proposed budget continues the focus on improving capabilities to fight today’s wars, taking advantage of the many lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also changes how the Department operates. The budget request invests in capability to counter the full range of potential threats the U.S. is facing today or may face in the future. Finally, this budget takes care of our people – our highest priority.

These issues have been analyzed by the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and other studies. The President’s Department of Defense budget request for fiscal 2011 reflects all the available conclusions from these analyses.

buglerbilly

05-02-10, 10:46 AM

DoD 30-Year Ship Plan Needs $16B a Year; Aviation Plan Puts Off New Bomber

By christopher p. cavas and JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 4 Feb 2010 20:44

The U.S. Navy's new 30-year fleet plan demotes the previous goal of a 313-ship fleet to a mere "point of departure" for developing a new fleet. The service estimates it can buy the ships in the plan for an average of "no more than $15.9 billion per year" in 2010 dollars.

And for the first time, the Pentagon submitted to Congress a 30-year aviation plan for the Air Force and Navy.

The Navy is required by Congress to annually prepare a 30-year shipbuilding plan. Last year's plan was held in abeyance at the direction of Defense Secretary Bob Gates - a move that angered some lawmakers. The new plan was sent to the Hill on Feb. 1 to accompany the president's fiscal 2011 budget.

In the updated plan's near-term period, the Navy plans to "significantly ramp up" production of ships such as the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) to "support persistent presence, maritime security, irregular warfare, joint sealift, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and partnership building missions." A total of 66 LCS ships is now forecast to be bought over the 30-year period, including 17 replacements for ships reaching the end of their service life.

Highlights of the plan include:

■ Increasing the number of Navy-operated Joint High Speed Vessel ships to 23 and expanding their mission range.

■ Canceling plans to build two new joint command ships and instead extend the two 1970s-era ships through 2029.

■ Standardizing the combat logistics force to two basic auxiliary ship types: T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ships and new T-AO(X) double-hulled fleet oilers.

■ Replacing the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPFF) squadron to support high-end, forcible-entry operations with three enhanced Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons, each consisting of a T-AKE, a new Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) and a Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) ship transferred from the Army.

The plan, as expected, holds the number of aircraft carriers to 11 ships until dropping to 10 after 2040; reaffirms the 2008 decision to end the DDG 1000 destroyer program at three ships and last fall's choice to select a single design for the Littoral Combat Ship program; confirms the plan to continue development of a new Advanced Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to install on DDG 51-class destroyers (scheduled with the ships to be ordered in 2016); and maintain an amphibious landing force of "approximately 33 ships."

The plan is divided into thirds: a near-term from 2011 to 2020 "based on a very good understanding of requirements, costs and capabilities"; a mid-term from 2021 to 2030 featuring ships "yet to be informed by either concrete threat analyses of formal analysts of alternatives"; and a far-term from 2031 to 2040 based on decisions and assumptions "certain to change over the next two decades."

The new plan does not plan for a replacement for the four SSGN cruise-missile and special-mission submarines converted from the ballistic missile mission. A 12-ship replacement program for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is to be funded from 2019 through 2033, but the requirement for the new sub is expected in the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review expected to be sent to Congress in early March.

The Navy acknowledges that the 33-ship amphibious fleet "represents the limit of acceptable risk" in meeting the requirement to deliver two Marine Expeditionary Brigades in a forcible entry operation, despite the Corps' desire for 38 ships.

And while the total number of LCS ships to be bought jumps to 66, the rate of construction significantly drops. Gone are previous years where six or five ships were to be purchased; instead, the new plan buys four per year from 2013 to 2015, three a year from 2016 to 2019, and two or one per year thereafter through 2040.

Combined Aviation Plan

The combined Air Force-Navy aviation plan sheds new light on the Pentagon's expectations for fielding a new fleet of long-range bombers.

One 10-year outlook chart shows a column of zeros for aircraft purchases along a row titled "bomber."

"Although the department is spending considerable sums on modernizing legacy air mobility and long range strike platforms, there will be no new procurement of aircraft in these categories during FY 2011-2020," the plan says. "The picture will change in the 2020s, when the priority will likely shift to buying long-range strike and strategic lift aircraft."

Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 2 that the 2011 budget calls for spending $1.9 billion between 2011 and 2015 to develop a next-generation bomber.

The plan goes on to use similar language as defense brass in recent week, stressing the Air Force and Pentagon are busily studying requirements for a new bomber -- but making no firm commitments.

"Although the characteristics of the next long-range strike aircraft have not yet been determined, one option under consideration is a survivable, penetrating aircraft with better stealth capabilities than current aircraft have, possibly incorporating advanced sensors of the type previously reserved for ISR aircraft," according to the report. "Range and payload requirements for a successor system are still under investigation."

The aviation plan projects the military's manned fighter inventory will decline "by 10 percent" between 2010 and 2020. Over the same span, the plan forecasts the number of multirole unmanned aircraft in the fleet "will quadruple."

The plan envisions a combined fighter and attack aircraft fleet composed of 3,264 planes in 2011. The fleet would shrink to 2,929 by 2020, with a low point of 2,883 in 2018.

The multi-role unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) fleet would grow from 72 in 2011 to 223 in 2015. That growth would continue, with a 476-plane inventory envisioned for 2020.

For intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft, the plan projects the 580-plane fleet of 2011 will shrink to 527 aircraft in 2015, before growing to 542 airframes by the end of the span.

The military's airlift inventory is described as "robust and stable." The plan forecasts remarkable stability for strategic lift aircraft, starting at 313 jets in fiscal 2011, then holding steady at 312 through fiscal 2020. Tanker aircraft and intra-theater air lifter inventories also are projected to remain relatively the same. The 549-ship fleet of tankers in 2011 is expected to dip to a low of 531 in 2018 and 2019 before growing to 538 flying gas stations in 2020. The 2011 inventory of 536 intra-theater cargo planes drops to a low of 509 planes in 2016, rising to 538 in 2020.

The document forecasts "3 percent average annual real growth" for DoD aviation programs between 2011 and 2020.

"Total aviation investments will amount to $268 billion across the period," the plan states. "In terms of annual funding levels, expenditures will rise from about $22 billion in FY 2011 to about $29 billion in FY 2020." ■

William Matthews contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

09-02-10, 02:04 PM

The QDR: A Future of Hybrid Warfare?

(Source: Australian Strategic Policy Institute; published Feb. 9, 2010)

I haven't read this so don't shoot the messenger.............

The latest formal statement of US defence policy, the QDR, plays down sweeping ambition in order to remain focused on the tasks immediately at hand—Iraq and above all, Afghanistan. And it sees a future of ‘hybrid’ warfare, likely to involve a diversity of actors and to blur the traditional distinction between inter-state conflict and protracted counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations. It suggests the US will be looking for more from its allies, including Australia.

Click here to reach the report’s home page, on the ASPI website.

http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=240&pubtype=-1

-ends-

buglerbilly

04-03-10, 11:20 AM

U.S. Defense Budgets And Plans Collide

Mar 3, 2010

By David A. Fulghum
Washington

While U.S. military acquisition and program officials continue to say they have stretched and innovated to win both conventional and irregular conflicts, they express a lack of direction when it comes to the day-to-day information war. Evidence of this poorly understood conflict is often most visible in the form of constant cyber-probes and attacks that cannot be traced to any government.

Along with chronic cyber-attacks, infowar involves many other nonkinetic technologies, including directed energy, intelligence gathering, network manipulation and electronic surveillance. Some of these capabilities could enable the U.S. to create “effects” a half-world away that would leave no clues to who launched the attack. Pentagon officials are seeing a Homeland Security Dept. video that shows an electrical generator shaking itself apart and bursting into flames after being subjected to 22 lines of software code, launched from 1,000 mi. away, that rapidly recycled the machine’s circuit breakers.

However, these advanced capabilities are not adequately recognized, defined or funded. This multifaceted problem was created because “we’ve misdefined” the missions involved in information war and what the desired effect on the enemy is supposed to be, says Vice Adm. James Winnefeld, the Joint Staff’s director for strategic plans and policy. Understanding these issues is complicated by questions about who “owns” the infowar capabilities within the Defense Dept., and the problem could take the next five years to resolve.

Ashton Carter—the undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics—is also evasive about the capabilities under consideration.

At Aviation Week’s Defense Technology &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; Requirements Conference here last month, Carter alluded to the Defense Dept.’s increased interest in “tactical anti-electronics weapons. “There most definitely is [a need to create] not only damage, but manipulation. And that’s just a reflection of the fact that ‘smart’ systems are vulnerable [because of their dependence on computers] and that’s true of weapons and [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] systems. It’s not an area of much public discussion.

“It’s a vast discipline [and] we’re really struggling with it,” says Winnefeld.

The Marine Corps offers some insight into how it plans to handle the airborne electronic attack (EA) portion of the problem. The flying life of the service’s upgraded EA-6B Prowler aircraft, already long in the tooth, is being used up at five times the peacetime rate. The solution is a recasting of the F‑35B as a “multispectral, theater information-integration plus strike fighter,” says Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Duane Thiessen, deputy commandant for programs and resources. “It’s going to change the way we do business.”

But to afford it, the Marines have to forgo buying additional fourth-generation aircraft such as the EA-18G Growler EA aircraft. Instead, the F-35B will become the Marines’ EA replacement to the EA-6B.

“Our intention is to shift EA to the JSF; and where there is opportunity in unmanned air systems, we will take advantage of that,” says Thiessen. “We have no plans for a two-seater. There is a lot of interest in trying to put some of this [EA capability] in [an unmanned aircraft system]. That is probably not going to be a Marine Corps program.”

The Long-Range Strike concept, formerly known as the Next-Generation Bomber, is a poster child for the confusion in policy, the need for rapid acquisition and vagaries about threats against which it is to operate. What was once considered a manned, subsonic and nonnuclear bomber ready for service in 2018 is now being recast as optionally manned, supersonic, more surveillance- than strike-oriented, and not likely to be on the ramp until the late 2020s.

“There is no clear solution,” says Kathleen Hicks, deputy undersecretary of Defense for strategy, plans and forces. “We cannot know with certainty what . . . we will face, but we have a strong vision that the operational environment will be increasingly taxing . . . particularly in [the military’s] ability to project power into distant theaters. Our wish list far exceeds reality” even though defense spending has reached 4.7% of gross domestic product.

Even the types and numbers of wars the Pentagon is obligated to fight remains a question mark. The notion of maintaining a capability to fight two main regional conflicts in two theaters is considered unrealistic.

More is not always the answer, says Zachary Lemnios, director of defense research and engineering and the Pentagon’s chief technology officer. The problem now is “how to make sense” of all the data available to the individual soldier. “Data deluge is overwhelming the warfighter.”

Weasel

11-03-10, 01:14 AM

Anyone see info on USA dropping the nuclear tipped Tomahawk Block IIs?

cheers

w

ARH v.3.1

11-03-10, 02:40 AM

I read about it briefly, along with plans to develop a new nuclear air launched cruise missile.

buglerbilly

11-03-10, 02:50 AM

See here...........

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?44-Air-launched-Weapons&p=1458#post1458

buglerbilly

11-03-10, 02:57 AM

Also here...........

Testing the No-New-Nuclear-Weapons Pledge

The Air Force is considering a replacement for the nuclear air-launched cruise missile.

21:39 GMT, March 9, 2010 One of the important tests of Obama Administration’s nuclear non-proliferation policy will be whether the long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review will approve new nuclear weapons.

During his election campaign, Barack Obama promised not to build new nuclear weapons, a pledge that recently has been reiterated by the administration.

Yet the Air Force’s budget request for 2011 includes several projects that, if approved, would contradict the pledge.

The “No New” Pledge

During the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama pledge to “stop the development of new nuclear weapons” if elected president. The pledged lived on for the first few months after the election on the Obama administration’s White House foreign policy web page, but disappeared when the page was reorganized at the time of the Prague speech in April 2009.

Since, the president has, to my knowledge, not repeated the pledge. But Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher echoed the election pledge last month when she explained that the Pentagon says it does “not need new nuclear weapons capabilities. They just want to be confident in what we have,” she said and declared: “We are not in the business of seeking new nuclear capabilities. They are not needed to preserve a strong, credible deterrent.”

New Nuclear Weapons

Yet “new” seems to be an elusive term. Even though Tauscher promised that the “RRW is dead and is not coming back,” the Air Force nuclear weapons support program includes “Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Studies & Analysis” in both 2010 and 2011. Perhaps she meant RRW as it was known rather than ruling out future replacement warheads.

Another apparent contradiction with the administration’s no new nuclear weapons pledge is a new nuclear cruise missile to replace the current Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) that expires in 2030. The new weapon is known as the Enhanced Cruise Missile (ECM), and development of nuclear weapons requirements documents are planned for 2010 and 2011, along with a Phase 6.2 Study, also known as a Feasibility Study and Option Down Select study.

The Enhanced Cruise Missile appears to be part of a program known as the Follow-On Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) Vehicle to develop a replacement for the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM).

The plan includes production of the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) in early 2010, a Material Development Decision (MDD) in September 2010, and an Acquisition Decision in late 2011 or 2012. With that timeline, the NPR will have to make a decision.

New or Modified Warhead

One question is whether the new cruise missile will use a modified version of the existing W80-1 warhead currently deployed on the ALCM for B-52 delivery, or require development of a new warhead.

Until 2006, a life extension program (LEP) existed to extend the life of the W80-1. The LEP version was called W80-3. A parallel program to extend the W80-0 warhead would have produced the W80-2. But the Bush administration decided to “defer” the programs in pursuit of the RRW. That effort failed but the W80 LEP is still “archived,” according to the Air Force FY2011 budget request.

The remaining W80-1 warheads are scheduled to receive new neutron generators in 2015-2017, but a refurbishment of the nuclear explosive package is not planned until 2036-2039, according to the NNSA’s FY09 refurbishment planning schedule (no schedule exists yet for FY2010 or FY2011). No life-extension is planned for the W80-0, which will be retired.

A decision to use a modified version of the existing W80-1 in the new cruise missile would involve reviving the $200 million per year W80-3 LEP program.

New or Just “New”

Nuclear weapons modernization programs risk triggering a contentious debate similar to the dispute over the RRW and whether Obama’s no-nuclear-weapons pledge can be trusted.

Does a new “weapon” refer to the warhead on the missile or the delivery vehicle itself or both? And how new must a weapon be to be considered “new” – does it require an entirely new design or can a modified design be considered a “new” weapon?

Government officials have to be crystal clear when they present the results of the NPR to make sure the administration’s non-proliferation policy doesn’t get stuck in the mud of misunderstandings and contradictions about what constitutes a “new” nuclear weapon. A lot is at stake.

(Related graphics and tables as well as additional information can be found at the FAS Strategic Security Blog site: http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/03/newnukes.php)

----
By Hans M. Kristensen

Weasel

11-03-10, 03:27 AM

That's interesting re the W-80. I pulled this Rand report from 1990.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/2009/P7672.pdf

Looks like Navy is going to 86 the 300 odd submarine and surface launched Tomahawk nukes they have in storage against the recommendation of the committee reviewing the stockpile.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/01/navy_nuke_report010809w/

The W-80 family is used in the Navy Tomahawk nuke.

cheers

w

Riđđu

11-03-10, 02:32 PM

Excuse my ignorance but why would they need a new type of nuclear warhead?

Weasel

11-03-10, 07:13 PM

Excuse my ignorance but why would they need a new type of nuclear warhead?

The Navy is talking about getting rid of (as in destroying) 300 odd Tomahawk missiles. The Air Force is still struggling to stay relevant, althought the PAK FA helps. ;)

cheers

w

buglerbilly

12-03-10, 02:20 PM

Official Addresses Quadrennial Review Concerns

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued March 11, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- A month after the release of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a senior defense official directly addressed concerns about the report here yesterday.

The 2010 QDR, released on Feb. 1, is a comprehensive review of Defense Department strategy and priorities and identifies several key goals for the department in the next decade.

Speaking on background at a two-day seminar on the review hosted by the National Defense University, the official said it has become a well-established tradition to take issue with the QDR, the fourth published to date.

“We’ve learned a lot about the critiques over the years [and] how they’ve evolved,” the official said.

The official noted the importance of having opposing viewpoints to make sure the administration is aware of all possible concerns.

“The great thing about this country truly is that we have this debate and that this debate creates innovation,” the official said. “It asks the hard questions, it pushes us to rethink our assumptions. I think that’s critical.”

The official outlined several observations that the current report has generated, and presented the department’s response to each.

Beginning with the assertion that the 2010 QDR doesn’t provide a strategic vision or overall conceptual framework, the official said that the review process begins with a thorough assessment of the U.S. security environment through extensive interagency meetings and discussions with allies and partners.

“We wanted to have very strong strategy themes. We didn’t want our QDR to be misconstrued as either about [one particular weapons system or another],” the official said. “We wanted a very clear, obvious, strategy approach to the QDR, and that’s how we came to the ‘prevail, prevent, prepare, and preserve’ themes.”

Those themes, the official said, provide a 20-year outlook for Defense Department prerogatives, as the congressional mandate for the review requires.

The official noted that concerns expressed about the review sometimes are contradictory, asserting that while the QDR has strategic vision, that vision is too divorced from fiscal realities.

“You get this a lot with QDRs,” the official said. “You get hit on all sides.”

The 2010 report is tied closely to the budget, the official pointed out, because the preceding QDR was accused of being too separated from the budget.

“I guess we would plead guilty. … The secretary [of defense] did indeed push the department through the program review [and] budget process to ensure that we were always linking our decisions back up to what our strategic goals were,” the official stated.

Regarding the concern that the QDR is too focused on prevailing in today’s conflicts at the expense of tomorrow’s threats, the official said it does address future challenges by laying out several high-end threats from potential state adversaries. But more importantly, the official added, the emphasis on today’s threats is warranted.

“The secretary’s emphasis is right,” the official asserted. “We would be irresponsible if we did not pay foremost attention to giving the support necessary to the men and women in uniform in harm’s way in operational theaters today.”

The official added that military planners foresee that ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not aberrations, but rather are harbingers of the types of warfare in which the U.S. will engage over the next several years.

In reference to criticism that the report outlined decisions made before the process began and that its conclusions were out of line with the current administration’s goals, the official stressed the unprecedented level of cooperation and coordination during the review process, both within the Defense Department and with other departments and agencies.

“All of the combatant commanders were brought into the process from the beginning, which is the first time that has occurred,” the official said. The review team also “worked very closely with the national security staff to make sure we understood the president’s priorities.”

The official acknowledged that the QDR could not address every issue related to the Defense Department, and that in only setting forth a way ahead, the QDR leaves some issues undecided for now. However, the official added, these omissions provide opportunities for those outside of government to contribute their insights.

“For those who think we didn’t do enough, challenge us to tell us what more you would do right now,” the official said.

-ends-

buglerbilly

31-03-10, 03:34 PM

Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs

(Source: Government Accountability Office; issued March 30, 2010)

This is GAO’s eighth annual assessment of selected Department of Defense (DOD) weapon programs. The report examines how well DOD is planning and executing its weapon acquisition programs, an area that has been on GAO’s high-risk list since 1990.

In 2009, the Secretary of Defense proposed canceling or significantly curtailing weapon programs with a projected cost of at least $126 billion. DOD did not issue complete Selected Acquisition Reports for these programs in 2009, which precluded an analysis of the overall cost and schedule performance of DOD’s portfolio in this year’s assessment.

For 42 programs GAO assessed in depth, there has been continued improvement in the technology, design, and manufacturing knowledge programs had at key points in the acquisition process. However, most programs are still proceeding with less knowledge than best practices suggest, putting them at higher risk for cost growth and schedule delays.

A majority of programs have also experienced requirements changes, software development challenges, or workforce issues, or a combination, which can affect program stability and execution.

DOD has begun to implement a revised acquisition policy that addresses many of these areas. For example, seven programs we examined in technology development plan to test competitive prototypes before starting system development, and nine programs plan to hold early systems engineering reviews.

If DOD consistently applies this policy, the number of programs adhering to a knowledge-based acquisition should increase and the outcomes for DOD programs should improve.

Click here for the full report (182 pages in PDF format) on the GAO website.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10388sp.pdf

-ends-

buglerbilly

08-04-10, 02:39 PM

Gates Stresses Need for Special Operations Funding

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued April 7, 2010)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. --- Getting special operations forces a seat at the defense budget table has been a priority since he took office, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy here tonight.

Gates explained his rationale during a question-and-answer session following a speech he gave as part of the academy’s Forrestal Lecture series.

When he came to the Pentagon in December 2006, the secretary said, he faced two problems. The first was that the Pentagon is an institution designed to plan for a war, not to wage one.

“I didn’t know where to go in the Pentagon to find people who were coming in to work every day saying, ‘What can I do to help the warfighter be successful today?’ Gates said. “The other challenge was how do I get the guys who are in the wars today a place at the table when it comes to allocating the budget? It wasn’t how big was their place going to be, it was how do we get them to the table at all?”

About 10 percent of the procurement defense budget is for irregular warfare, Gates said, while 50 percent is devoted to future conflicts and the remaining 40 percent is for “dual-capable” equipment that will be used for any range of conflict.

“So the struggle was not how to equalize the irregular-warfare guys and the future-threats guys,” he said. “It was just how do I get the irregular [warfare] guys to the table in the first place?”

Virtually all of the U.S. Special Operations Command’s budget when he took office was in supplemental funding, Gates said, and he wanted to make it part of the department’s base budget to ensure special operations forces would get the funding they need once supplemental funding was no longer forthcoming. It was important, he said, to institutionalize funding for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, which are used in the full range of conflict, and especially in counterinsurgency operations.

“So this is all about how we can get all of the players to the table so that we have the full range of capabilities to deal with the threats and the challenges that the country is going to face over the next several decades,” he said, noting that six months before they happened, no one predicted the conflicts in which the United States has engaged since the Vietnam War.

“Nobody predicted even in July of 1990 that by December we would have a half million troops in Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Nobody predicted that we would be engaged in Grenada or Haiti or Panama or the Balkans or Somalia. So I have to build a force that has the range of capabilities to handle all of these challenges and has the flexibility to deal with them all at the same time.”

Repeating that 50 percent of defense procurement spending goes toward far-term, more sophisticated challenges, Gates told the midshipmen that he’s not shortchanging the future. “I just want to get the guys who are in the battle today to the budget table so that we can make the investments that we need to win.”

-ends-

buglerbilly

09-04-10, 03:05 AM

AUSA Highlights Need For Flexible Equipment

Apr 8, 2010

By Paul McLeary and Bettina H. Chavanne
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

The Association of the United States Army (AUSA) expo is a good gauge of what’s happening in the defense industry. Last year, there was a palpable air of hesitation, as Army officials and industry waited for the new administration to take the reigns and assert its policy goals, and for the Quadrennial Defense Review to outline priorities.

This year’s AUSA was hard to pin down. There were vehicles and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) galore, but little to tie everything together. The one overarching theme seemed to be that industry and the Army learned one crucial lesson from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: Conflict breeds change and the need for rapid adaptation; platforms that can’t change to rapidly meet unexpected requirements are programs that will not be successful in the long run.

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, commander of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, summed this up, in remarks, saying “Systems are interdependent. And in their interdependence, if you want to keep up with the systems, then you have to evolve at least as fast as the system. And if you want to get ahead of the system, you have to evolve at least twice as fast.” Dempsey’s shop had just released the Army Capstone Concept, published a few weeks before the show (DTI February, p. 4). Capstone tries to envision how the Army is evolving and how it can meet security needs over the next 25 years.

Part of the study, he said, reconsiders “some of the assumptions we’ve made about technology” over the past decade, since the dreams of total battlefield awareness of the late 1990s and 2000s were smashed in the irregular wars that the U.S. and allies like Israel found themselves fighting in the last few years. The enemies of today, Dempsey said, are decentralized, “they use the network and they’ve proliferated the technology. They live among the population, which means that you can’t gain the kind of knowledge you think you can from a distance and deal with it through precision.”

Change, when it must be translated into real products that soldiers use, now means modularity. Kevin M. Fahey, program executive officer for combat support and combat service support, told reporters that “what this war has taught us more than anything is the necessity of having flexibility in our platforms.” Speaking specifically about the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, Fahey said that it is “being developed as a plug-and-play A-kit B-kit mentality. It is being developed as an open-architecture, modular vehicle.”

Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (Arcic), agreed, telling DTI that when it comes to wartime technological requirements, “the current is always going to beat the future, and that was a challenge we had with [Future Combat Systems].” Rickey Smith, also of Arcic, added that the Army is looking at an open-architecture approach to the future ground vehicle fleet: “Slap a box in, pull a box out every two years or whatever . . . you’ve got to make it more modular in the sense of upgrading it as you go. You talk about upgradeable armor—[and an] upgradeable network, well then you have to build that way.”

Then there was Col. Christopher Carlile, director of the Army’s UAS Center of Excellence, speaking about the Army’s long-term UAS strategy and the official guidance that the service is set to release later this year. “Will the strategy for the future be right? It’s a good document, but we won’t get it all right because we’re trying to look 25 years into the future,” he said.

There are two fundamental elements that drive the strategy: commonality and open architecture. “We can’t afford to have a multitiered intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance approach if we don’t have open architecture,” Carlile said. On commonality, industry partners “have to understand up front that you can’t build something that doesn’t talk to everyone else because it just doesn’t fit” with strategy. Carlile said that the strategy is 98% complete. A plan “of this magnitude would [usually] take 2-3 years to complete.” The Army wrapped up this road map in 10 months. The finished plan will be presented at the Army Aviation Association of America meeting in April.

Photo: USAF

buglerbilly

16-04-10, 12:42 AM

Perry, Hadley: Independent Panel To Examine QDR Changes

By john t. bennett

Published: 15 Apr 2010 10:00

Two former senior U.S. national security officials heading a panel tasked with assessing the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review said April 15 that the group will examine whether changes are needed to produce better QDRs.

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is one of the co-chairs of the congressionally mandated QDR review team. (FILE / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE)

In a joint statement to be delivered during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, William Perry and Stephen Hadley said the congressionally mandated QDR review team they are co-chairing will look at "whether a more unconstrained, long-term and assumption-challenging process is required and how it might be achieved."

Defense News obtained a copy of the testimony before it was presented.

Perry was defense secretary under President Clinton, and Hadley was President George W. Bush's last national security adviser.

As the panel mulls whether the QDR process should be shaken up, the duo were set to tell the House members their group "will evaluate congressional direction and [DoD] implementation" of QDRs. The independent panel also will examine "the proper balance between medium and longer term perspectives, strategy and programs, force structure and resources, [and] the realistic time lines for developing future QDRs."

In the meantime, two Republican members of the panel - Eric Edelman and Jim Talent - were set to introduce their own statement at the hearing raising concerns about the 2010 QDR. Edelman was undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration and Talent is a former GOP senator from Missouri.

"It seems clear that the QDR was heavily informed by the current budget rather than operating with an unconstrained look at the nation's defense needs in the coming 20 years," according to Edelman and Talent. They also state they worry the QDR failed to look far enough out.

Defense News also obtained a copy of the Edelman-Talent statement.

"It appears that force structure recommendations, scenarios and assumptions employed, risk levels and budgetary recommendations were generally predetermined," Edelman and Talent wrote.

The two Republicans also are concerned by "the force planning construct and the force structure recommendations in the QDR."

The panel is composed of members picked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and congressional leaders. The panel has met twice so far, and it is aiming to complete its work by mid-July.

In their statement, Perry and Hadley "applaud the QDR's effort to address the challenges currently facing the Department of Defense."

Still, the co-chairs pledge to assess whether the quadrennial study "is suited to the nature of conflict and whether it provides a strategy to address future threats in a comprehensive manner."

Perry and Hadley also plan to determine whether the force-sizing construct contained within the QDR matches the future years defense plan, which refers to the five-year budget estimate that accompanied the fiscal 2011 defense spending request.

The independent panel, according to the duo's statement, will "assess whether the force structure it would produce [will] meet the challenges we will face over the next 20 years."

The Perry- and Hadley-led group also intends to examine "a variety of possible force structures," while also reviewing resource requirements pinpointed in the quadrennial study. As part of that work, the panel will compare "such resource requirements with the resource requirements to support the forces cited in the QDR," according to the statement.

"We will also examine the expected costs necessary to sustain a force structure and supporting end strength … sufficient to perform the missions anticipated in the QDR," the duo wrote.

Additionally, the panel will examine "the nature of 21st century conflict," how well so-called "interagency operations" are going, and acquisition and contracting issues.

The 1997 statute that requires the Pentagon to conduct the strategic study every four years also mandates the defense secretary "not later than six months before the date on which the report on a Quadrennial Defense Review is to be submitted … establish a panel to conduct an assessment" of the QDR, according to Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

The House Armed Services Committee included in its version of the 2010 Pentagon authorization measure language requiring a National Defense Panel (NDP) be established to draw up a set of assumptions and conclusions about how Washington should shape its defense strategies. According to the House panel's vision, the NDP would have been composed of an independent group of national security experts from both political parties.

The authorization conferees decided to combine the NDP concept with the required quadrennial review assessment panel, and let congressional defense leaders pick the eight new members.

buglerbilly

29-04-10, 02:53 AM

U.S. House Measure Pushes DoD To Squeeze Costs

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Published: 28 Apr 2010 18:12

Citing a looming budget crisis, the U.S. House passed legislation April 28 designed to force the U.S. military to be more cost-conscious when it buys a vast range of goods and services - from computers and software to lawn mowing services.

The IMPROVE Acquisition Act could save $27 billion a year, said the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.

The act passed in the House on a 417–3 vote amid warnings from House members that the nation's huge deficit will likely mean that future defense budgets will have less tolerance for waste.

The measure originally aimed to improve the defense acquisition by:

■ Demanding more accountability among acquisition workers.

■ Improving financial management so Pentagon spending can be audited.

■ Expanding the industrial base to increase competition.

■ Rewarding acquisition workers who save the military money and punishing those who don't.

But during three hours of debate before the bill passed, lawmakers approved 16 amendments. Among them are measures to help small businesses get Pentagon contracts, protect titanium producers, promote diversity in the acquisition work force, boost energy efficiency and make price a more import factor in contract awards.

Some of the amendments may do more harm than good to acquisition reform, said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president of the Professional Services Council.

"Every time you add another set of requirements, you make doing business with Defense Department a little more unique and a little more challenging," he said.

Over the course of a year, Andrews headed a House Armed Services Committee panel that examined defense acquisition processes. That panel "identified a legitimate set of issues and outlined a fair set of solutions," Chvotkin said.

But the legislation based on the proposed solutions "adds stuff unrelated to what Andrews was trying to accomplish," and the amendments made on the House floor "went even further afield," Chvotkin said.

One troubling amendment, for example, would allow contracting officers to switch vendors if a new vendor could offer at least 15 percent savings without a decrease in quality of the product being bought.

For example, if gasoline prices drop, a contracting officer could switch vendors to obtain a 15 percent discount "provided that doing so does not constitute a breach of contract." The amendment was proposed by Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa.

"We already have a method for competition at the task order level," said Chvotkin. "This might encourage companies to sit out a competition and then come in and say, 'I can do it for 15 percent cheaper.'"

Another amendment would make the cost of goods and services a more important factor in making contract awards.

At present, there is no guidance to contracting officers on how much consideration to give price when deciding who wins contracts, and the Defense Department frequently rejects the lowest cost, said Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.

Grayson's amendment would require contracting officers to make low cost at least 50 percent of the deciding factor in awarding contracts. The 50 percent requirement can be waived in certain circumstances, but the contracting officer must explain why, Grayson said.

The Pentagon has wasted millions of dollars by buying fuel and other commodities at high prices when it can get the same thing from other vendors for less, he said.

An amendment by Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. would require the Defense Department to make energy efficiency a factor when it awards contracts. The Marine Corps burns 800,000 gallons of fuel a day in Afghanistan, Quigley said. More fuel efficient vehicles and weapons would reduce fuel consumption, reduce the number of fuel convoys and reduce the number of Marines required for hazardous convoy duty, he said.

And since the military is the U.S. government's largest consumer of energy by far, conservation by the military could save substantial money and add to efforts to protect the environment, he said.

The Defense Department is already the government's most aggressive agency on pursuing good energy policies, said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., who co-sponsored the energy efficiency amendment.

Several amendments aimed to help small businesses compete against defense giants to win military contracts.

One by Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., could eventually curb the practice of "bundling contracts."

Bundling means combining several small contracts into one larger one. In theory, bundling can cut costs and speed up delivery, but in practice it favors large companies over small ones, Moore said.

"When the rubber hits the road at the Defense Department, small businesses find a giant pothole," she said. Her amendment doesn't ban bundling, but requires a study to assess how much bundling hurts small businesses.

"We need to bring more businesses into defense procurement, not push them out," said Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif.

buglerbilly

04-05-10, 02:59 AM

Quadrennial Defense Review: 2010 Report Addressed Many but Not All Required Items (excerpt)

(Source: Government Accountability Office; issued April 30, 2010)

The Department of Defense (DOD) is facing the complex challenge of simultaneously supporting continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and preparing its military forces to meet emerging threats of the new security environment. Congress appropriated $626 billion for DOD’s fiscal year 2010 budget and to support current operations.

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the fourth since 1997 and the second since the start of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, articulates DOD’s strategic plan to rebalance capabilities in order to prevail in current operations and develop capabilities to meet future threats. The QDR acknowledged that the country faces fiscal challenges and that DOD must make difficult trade-offs where warranted. Also, the QDR results are intended to guide the services in making resource allocation decisions when developing future budgets.

DOD is required by law to conduct a comprehensive examination of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the United States, every 4 years, with a view toward determining and expressing the nation’s defense strategy and establishing a defense program for the next 20 years.

In addition to the 14 reporting requirements specified in the 1999 legislation that established the standing requirement for the QDR in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Congress added 2 new reporting elements to be included in subsequent QDRs, including the requirement to report on the specific capabilities needed to achieve the strategic and warfighting objectives.

The department submitted its report on the fourth quadrennial review to Congress on February 1, 2010. According to DOD officials, DOD separately provided supplemental information in a classified format to the four congressional defense committees. Section 1051 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requires GAO to report to the congressional defense committees and the Secretary of Defense not later than 90 days after QDR report was released on the degree to which the QDR report addressed the 17 specific reporting items required by law.

DOD’s Approach to the 2010 QDR

DOD used the 2008 National Defense Strategy as the starting point for the 2010 QDR review. The strategy described an environment shaped by globalization, violent extremist movements, rogue and unstable states, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. For its 2010 QDR analyses, DOD examined forces needed for three different sets of scenarios, each consisting of multiple concurrent operations, chosen to reflect the complexity and range of events that may occur in multiple theaters in overlapping timeframes in the mid-term (5 to 7 years in the future).

The range of potential operations included homeland defense, defense support to civil authorities responding to a catastrophic event in the United States, a major stabilization operation, deterring and defeating regional aggressors, and a medium-sized counterinsurgency mission. According to the QDR report, DOD used the results of its analyses to make decisions on how to size and shape the force and to inform its choices on resourcing priorities. For example, according to DOD officials, the proposed fiscal year 2011 defense budget focuses investments toward the priorities outlined in the QDR report, such as rebalancing the force.

GAO’s Assessment of the Extent to Which the 2010 QDR Report and Supplemental Information Addressed Required Reporting Items

Our analysis showed that of the 17 required reporting items, DOD addressed 6, partially addressed 7, and did not directly address 4. The items not directly addressed included items addressing the anticipated roles and missions of the reserve component, the advisability of revisions to the Unified Command Plan, the extent to which resources must be shifted among two or more theaters, and the appropriate ratio of combat to support forces.

According to DOD officials, these items were not directly addressed for a variety of reasons such as changes in the operational environment, the difficulty of briefly summarizing a large volume of data generated through the QDR analyses, or departmental plans to report on some items separately.

Click here for the full report (42 pages in PDF format) on the GAO website.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10575r.pdf

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-05-10, 03:35 PM

House Armed Services Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Authorization Bill (edited)

(Source: House Armed Services Committee; issued May 19, 2010)

WASHINGTON, DC --- House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) announced that H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, was reported favorably by the committee on a vote of 59 to 0. A detailed summary of the bill as reported is available here. (35 pages in PDF format)

H.R. 5136 authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the national security programs of the Department of Energy (DOE). The bill also authorizes $159 billion to support overseas contingency operations during fiscal year 2011, and authorizes $34 billion for fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations for overseas contingency operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and to provide humanitarian and disaster assistance to assist victims following the earthquake in Haiti.

Skelton released the statement below following the committee’s approval of the defense authorization bill:

“This defense bill aligns our military strategy with the 21st century to sustain the 2 wars today and prepare for the threats of tomorrow – whatever and wherever they may be. The bill reflects our continued commitment to defend America, support U.S. service members and their families, and keep Americans safe.

…/…

The bill also addresses urgent force protection needs in Afghanistan, allowing DOD to cut through red tape by expanding rapid acquisition authority to deliver the resources needed to protect our troops.

“The bill enhances the capacity of the U.S. military, particularly the U.S. Special Operations Forces, to act directly against terrorist organizations. The bill also builds upon past efforts and creates new initiatives to discredit extremist ideology, increasing funds for research and taking additional steps to counter the use the Internet by extremists.

…/…

“The bill also continues close Congressional oversight of operations in Iraq, requiring reports focused on the redeployment of U.S. troops and their equipment over the next few months, and on the development of military capabilities that are necessary for the Government of Iraq to stand on its own.

“The bill prepares America to deal with 21st century threats, moving away from the Cold War mindset to adopt smarter policies on issues such as missile defense and nonproliferation. The bill provides $10.3 billion, $361.6 million above the budget request, for ballistic missile defense and in support of the Administration’s Phased Adaptive Approach, which addresses immediate needs.

…/…

“The strain of two wars has taken a toll on military readiness. To boost readiness and reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the size of the military by 7,000 Army troops and 500 Air Force personnel, and recognizes the Navy’s need to temporarily remain at a higher force size, which reflects the President’s budget request. The bill significantly increases Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding to support the daily operations, training, and administration of U.S. military forces at home and abroad

“The bill also provides critical funds to restore equipment stocks, including $9.9 billion for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset and depot maintenance, $4.5 billion for depot maintenance of active and reserve Air Force aircraft, and $109 million for Navy ship and aircraft depot maintenance. To address National Guard and Reserve equipment shortfalls, the bill authorizes $7.2 billion to provide aircraft missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical radios, and other equipment.

“To help prepare for future military requirements, the bill authorizes major weapons programs and platforms that will protect our national security in the years ahead. Demonstrating our commitment to reverse the decline in the size of the Navy fleet, the bill authorizes 9 new ships, including 2 Virginia-class submarines, 2 DDG 51 destroyers, and 2 Littoral Combat Ships.

The bill also authorizes F-35 competitive engine program, a necessary insurance policy on the trillion dollar Joint Strike Fighter program that will generate long term savings for taxpayers and also reduce the national security risk of depending on a single engine for ultimately 95 percent of our nation’s fighter fleet.

“In keeping with the committee’s interest and longstanding defense policy oversight, the bill seeks to improve the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process. The bill replaces the QDR Independent Review Panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense with a National Defense Panel consisting of ten members, with the Secretary of Defense appointing two panel co-chairs, and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees each appointing two members.” (end of edited text)

Selected excerpts of bill’s provisions

-- MARINE CORPS PROGRAMS:

The Committee continues to support development efforts associated with new Marine Corps ground vehicles, including the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), although the Committee remains concerned about the EFV design incorporating a flat‐bottom hull that may not be as survivable as an MRAP against an IED threat.

-- NAVY AND MARINE CORPS TACTICAL AIRCRAFT INVENTORY:

The bill authorizes $19.5 billion for aviation programs, including an additional $547 million for unfunded requirements submitted by the Navy and Marine Corps, for a total of 214 aircraft.

The Committee continues support for the development of the F‐35 competitive engine without a reduction to the budget request for aircraft, and it reaffirms its commitment to the alternate engine program as the best insurance policy against spiraling development costs and contractor responsiveness.

However, the Committee is extremely concerned by the Navy and Marine Corps managing and accepting an unprecedented level of operational risk within their tactical air force structure while waiting for the completion of the F‐35B and F‐35C.

The Committee estimates that by FY 2017, the Navy and Marine Corps inventory could be at least 250 aircraft short of requirements—the equivalent of five carrier air wings. This is an unacceptable outcome, and the Committee will not support future budget requests that fail to address the factual realities of a naval strike fighter shortfall.

Barring a complete reversal of the development and performance failures in the Joint Strike Fighter program, the Committee expects future budget submissions to continue the production of F‐18s to prevent our naval airpower from losing significance in our nation’s arsenal.

Because of the Navy’s inability to meet required reporting dates, the bill makes technical corrections to the multi‐year authority provided in the FY10 NDAA and requires the Secretary of the Navy to use the savings garnered from the multi‐year procurement contract for 124 aircraft, over the previously planned annual procurement contracts, to procure additional F/A‐18E or F/A‐18F aircraft up to the quantity that the savings would enable.

-- PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER PROGRAM:

The Committee remains disappointed by the excessive costs incurred by the terminated VH‐71 executive helicopter program, which cost taxpayers more than $3 billion with little to no return.

The Committee supports the acquisition strategy of the Navy to develop a new presidential helicopter, and the bill requires a formal annual report by GAO analyzing the cost schedule program to make sure that the problems of the VH‐71 are not repeated.

-- LIMITS ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR THE F‐35 PROGRAM:

The Committee is concerned that only five of the fourteen test aircraft planned for the F‐35 program have been delivered, and only ten percent of the planned test flights last year were flown.

Congress has provided funding for a total of 58 production aircraft, and not a single production aircraft has yet to be delivered. The program recently experienced a Nunn McCurdy cost breach. The Committee acknowledges significant cost risks that can result from buying large quantities of the F‐35 with only three percent of its flight testing complete.

To address concerns over the serious delays and cost overruns in the F‐35 program, the bill limits the obligation of funds beyond thirty aircraft until the Department certifies that specific program milestones and objectives currently in place for the F‐35 program have been met.

-- F‐35 COMPETITIVE ENGINE PROGRAM:

The Committee remains steadfast in its belief that the competitive engine program is a critical component of the F‐35. Multiple studies, ranging from GAO reports to the Department’s own internal study, have consistently shown that there is no additional cost to fund the competitive engine, and that the second engine will generate additional savings for taxpayers.

Additionally, competitive engine programs limited cost growth, improved performance, and increased readiness in the acquisition of the F‐15, F‐16, and F‐14 engines. Competition has also historically resulted in better contractor responsiveness, technical innovation, and improved engine durability and reliability. Beyond the cost analysis, however, the Committee recognizes the significant risk posed to our national security by a single engine for the F‐35.

The Joint Strike Fighter is expected to represent 95 percent of our nation’s fighter fleet. The engine will be required to meet demands that have been asked of no other engine. The Committee believes it is unwarranted to risk grounding our entire fleet and incurring billions of dollars in unnecessary costs by cutting the second engine—particularly when there may be no additional cost over the life of the program.

The Committee believes the alternate engine to be a critical insurance policy for more than one trillion taxpayer dollars and for our national security. The bill authorizes $485 million for the alternate engine program and requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to the President a budget that includes a plan for the funding, development, and procurement of the competitive engine for the F‐35.

-- GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE:

The NDAA fully funds the Administration’s request of $934 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). However, the Committee is concerned that the Army may be repeating the history of the failed Future Combat Systems program by asking industry for unnecessary components to the GCV design that may delay development and dramatically increase costs. The Committee urges the Army to review the requirements of the GCV to separate “needs” from “wants” and build a base model that can later be upgraded.

The Committee also urges the Army to conduct a thorough Analysis of Alternatives before awarding technology development contracts to determine if it is possible to upgrade current vehicles to meet baseline GCV requirements to get this critical equipment to our troops on the ground as soon as possible.

-- UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES:

The Air Force’s Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) and the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system were planned to achieve maximum system commonality and interoperability.

The Committee is concerned that differing, evolving service‐unique requirements, coupled with Global Hawk UAS vanishing vendor issues, are resulting in a divergence in each service’s basic goal of maximum system commonality and interoperability, particularly with regard to the communications systems.

To address these concerns, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to certify to Congress that he has reviewed the communications requirements and acquisition strategy for both the Global Hawk UAS and BAMS systems programs, that the requirements of each service’s communications systems have been validated, and that the acquisition strategy being executed for each system achieves the greatest possible commonality and represents the most cost‐effective option for each program.

-- ROTARY WING ASSETS FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES:

Rotary‐wing assets are critical enablers for our Special Operations Forces engaged in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations, and the Committee remains concerned by identified helicopter shortfalls, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the Committee is encouraged by steps being taken by the Department to address this problem, it is still concerned that proposed solutions may not provide adequate relief fast enough and that continued shortfalls may impede future operations.

The Committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the commander of SOCOM to continue to aggressively identify and implement solutions to address rotary‐wing assets such as expanded use of general purpose helicopters, improvements in SOF rotary‐wing organic force structure, accelerated acquisition timelines, and expanded use of non‐standard aviation platforms and aviation foreign internal defense activities.

-- FIELDING OF AEGIS BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE:

The Committee is concerned that the lack of stability in the purchase of SM‐3 interceptors and the steep expansion of production of Block 1B interceptors anticipated in FY12 could damage the industrial base and delay increases in the inventory of a system critical to the Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile defense. The bill authorizes $144.1 million, an increase of $50 million from the budget request, to provide greater stability in SM‐3 production and reduce the size of the production increase in FY12.

-- MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE:

The Committee fully supports the President’s new Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile defense. However, it believes that this strategy must meet the same standard applied to the previous administration’s missile defense strategy.

The bill limits the availability of funds for deployment of medium‐ or long‐range missile defense until any hosting country has signed and ratified the necessary agreements authorizing deployment, and until forty‐five days after Congress receives the report of the independent assessment of alternative missile defense systems in Europe required by the FY10 NDAA.

Additionally, the bill limits the deployment of medium‐ and long‐range missile defense until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the proposed technology is operationally effective based on successful, operationally realistic flight testing.

-ends-

buglerbilly

21-05-10, 02:57 AM

Congress to Gates: Screw You. Again.

By Nathan Hodge May 20, 2010 | 2:36 pm

The U.S. military is bracing for lean years, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has warned that the past decade’s “gusher of defense spending” is coming to an end. But you wouldn’t necessarily know that from the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, passed last night.

Among other things, committee members approved a second engine for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a direct thumb in the eye to Gates, who has said he would recommend that the president veto any bill that includes a second JSF engine.

Over the past few years, Congress has approved continued work on an alternate F-35 engine, a move that would break Pratt & Whitney’s lock on the JSF engine market by funding a competing engine made by a GE/Rolls Royce team. Supporters say a second design would ultimately yield some cost savings, but that argument has failed to move Gates, who has said that things don’t need to be any more complicated than they already are for the troubled F-35 program.

Then there’s money for 30 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters: eight more than the Department of Defense requested. Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, who introduced the amendment, said the extra aircraft (like the one pictured here) would “help address a looming fighter shortfall for the Navy’s carrier fleet.”

So much for austerity in naval budgets. Gates, as readers will recall, has already suggested that the Navy needs to take a hard look at whether it is right-sized — and whether it needs to keep 11 carrier strike groups for the next three decades. House authorizers, however, said their $65 billion recommendation for Navy and Marine Corps procurement was aimed at “reversing the decline in the Navy battle force fleet.”

The bill approved last night included $5.1 billion to fund two Virginia‐class submarines — the first time the committee has ever authorized two of the boats in one year — plus another $1.7 billion for advance procurement of two additional hulls in FY 2012. Members also recommended $3 billion to fully fund two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke‐class destroyers and $1.5 billion to pay for two Littoral Combat Ships (which, it’s worth recalling, were originally supposed to cost around a quarter billion dollars apiece).

The panel also added $361.6 million above the budget request for ballistic missile defense. If those additions are included in the final bill, the round dollar amount for missile defense — around $10 billion — will be roughly in line with what the Bush administration was spending each on its nascent missile shield.

And finally, this version of the bill is larded with “unfunded requirements” money. Panel members recommended that U.S. Special Operations Command, for instance, receive an additional $301.5 million to pay for “tactical vehicles, operational enhancements, and special operations technology” as well as to “expand and extend authorities supporting counterterrorism.” Authorizers also inserted $289 million to support unfunded requirements for force protection equipment and testing for troops deployed in the field.

It’s part of a Washington budget charade: Every year, Congress asks the services to outline their “unfunded requirements,” and the service chiefs offer up a wish list of the things that aren’t included in the regular budget request. Gates has pushed back against the practice, saying he wants to review the lists beforehand. As the Stimson Center’s Budget Insight blog noted recently, this has resulted in a dose of fiscal restraint, but there are still plenty of items in the bill that aren’t in the budget request.

[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/congress-to-gates-screw-you-again/#more-25045#ixzz0oWN0WoJC

buglerbilly

25-05-10, 01:27 PM

The New Guns Versus Butter Debate

(Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis; issued May 24, 2010)

INTRODUCTION

As the economy begins to emerge from the deepest recession since the Great Depression, the federal government faces a dire fiscal situation. In fiscal year (FY) 2009, the budget deficit rose to a record high of $1.4 trillion, and it is forecasted to reach as high as $1.6 trillion in FY 2010.

These record deficits are due in no small part to increased spending on fiscal stimulus programs and a sharp reduction in tax revenues due to the recession. But underlying the current fiscal situation is a structural deficit that the economic downturn has only exacerbated. A telling indicator of this is that one of the fastest growing items in the budget is net interest on the national debt. According to OMB projections, in FY 2018 the federal government will begin spending more on net interest payments than on national defense for the first time in modern history.

In the recently released fiscal year 2011 budget request, the administration proposed a freeze in non-security-related discretionary spending. While the base defense budget was one of the few discretionary accounts to receive a real increase, the rate of growth in defense spending slowed by half compared to the average rate of growth seen over the previous decade.

The defense budget may have avoided a cut for the time being, but as Congress and the administration focus more attention on deficit reduction in the coming years, it will likely put downward pressure on everything in the budget, including defense spending.

Within the defense budget, a debate has been developing for some time between funding the personnel-related areas of the defense budget, such as pay, pensions, healthcare, and other benefits, and the equipment-related areas of the budget, such as research and development and procurement. Over the past decade, overall growth in the base defense budget has allowed the Department to support increases in both people and equipment costs without having to choose between the two.

However, as the fiscal situation of the federal government continues to deteriorate in the coming years, sustained growth in the defense budget is unlikely. When the defense budget ceases to grow above the rate of inflation, the Department will have to make difficult choices between competing priorities, such as personnel and equipment. This is the new guns versus butter debate—a choice between taking care of the people who serve or the equipment they need to fight and prevail in current and future conflicts.

Click here for the full report (11 pages in PDF format) on the CSBA website.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/B.20100524.The_New_Guns_Versu/B.20100524.The_New_Guns_Versu.pdf

-ends-

buglerbilly

03-06-10, 02:46 AM

Pentagon defends six costly weapons programs

Tue Jun 1, 2010 7:30pm EDT

The Pentagon told Congress on Tuesday the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter program and five other big weapons programs were vital to national security and should continue despite big cost overruns that triggered live-or-die reviews.

Politics

The U.S. Defense Department told lawmakers that all six programs met five conditions required to keep them going under the Nunn-McCurdy law which requires detailed reviews once a program's unit costs rise 50 percent above initial estimates.

The cost of the F-35 program, for instance, is now expected to reach $382 billion over the life of the program. The expected cost of each aircraft rose from $50 million in fiscal year 2002 dollars to $92.4 million. But senior defense officials said they expected to undercut those estimates.

One senior defense official said the Pentagon was already doing detailed reviews of major weapons programs, given efforts to rein in cost overruns on many major weapons programs.

The Pentagon sent the certifications to Congress and then released details to reporters, but senior officials briefed on background and asked not to be named.

The official questioned how much value the time-consuming and costly Nunn-McCurdy reviews truly added to the Pentagon's oversight, noting that some cost increases reflected quantity changes and not management problems.

Officials were assessing the hours involved in the reviews, and trying to devise a more efficient process so senior acquisition officials could spend more time actually managing programs, the official said.

Part of the problem is that Nunn-McCurdy cost breaches actually occur long after program managers identified problems, said the official, who declined to speak on the record. "It's not the best mechanism for us."

The Pentagon in April said the F-35 and five other programs had exceeded certain cost thresholds, prompting reviews that could, but were not expected to, lead to termination.

"We are certifying these six programs," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters on Wednesday after the department completed the reviews.

To allow continued funding, the Pentagon must certify that each program has no viable alternative; that new cost estimates are reasonable; that the program is vital to national security; that it rates a higher priority than other programs; and that it has an adequate management structure.

Defense officials told lawmakers in April that a restructuring of the F-35, or Joint Strike Fighter, would result in a sharp increase in unit costs, driving the overall program of the program to $328 billion. But new estimates indicate the cost will be even higher at $382 billion.

Other programs certified for continued work were:

-- the DDG-1000 destroyer built by General Dynamics Corp, where the unit cost jumped by 86.5 percent due to the Navy's decision to buy just three ships instead of the 10 planned. To cut costs, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter ordered removal of a radar from the design, and a one-year delay in the initial use of the program to fiscal 2016.

-- Boeing Co's Apache Block III program to upgrade the AH-64 helicopter, which saw its unit costs increase by 25.5 percent due to the addition of 56 new aircraft to an existing program to upgrade 634 existing helicopters.

-- a remote mine-hunting system for use on a new class of coastal warships, which saw its unit cost increase by 79.5 percent after the Navy decided to buy 54 fewer systems.

-- Boeing's Wideband Global Satellite (WGS) program, whose unit cost rose by 27.2 percent due to a production break of three years and a decision to buy two more satellites.

-- a U.S. Army common missile warning program run by BAE Systems Plc, where unit costs nearly tripled after the Pentagon cut the quantity from 2,618 missiles to 208, spreading development costs over a much smaller overall number.

The Pentagon said the missile warning program was technologically immature and faced unrealistic performance expectations, but it needed to continue since the system was urgently needed in Afghanistan on CH-47 helicopters.

(Additional reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Tim Dobbyn and David Gregorio)

buglerbilly

07-06-10, 11:08 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Cost Cutting?

Posted by Bettina Chavanne at 6/7/2010 10:42 AM CDT

Everybody must cut costs.

Now that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has laid down the law, cost-cutting measures are coming swiftly from every direction. On June 4, Gates directed the military to take “deliberate and aggressive measures to protect critical current and future capabilities, ultimately securing real growth in the resources allocated to our war fighters.”

Submissions for cost-cutting are due by July 30, in time for Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) 2012 planning. Gates wants cuts everywhere. He assigned each military department and agency individual goals for fiscal 2012 through 2016. The cuts over that time total over $100 billion.

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn also briefed extensively on necessary cuts in early June. He said that this is not a single process, but three. Nonessential programs (pure overhead) are taking up 40 percent of the budget. "We're trying to reduce that and shift the resources into the force structure and modernization accounts,” Lynn said. Within force structure and modernization, Lynn said changes seem to be on track. He cited the end of F-22 production and the cancellation of the VH 71 as well as the end of the alternate engine and end of the buy on the C-17 as “efficiencies.” The third piece of the puzzle, is to “improve the operating efficiencies of the department itself,” Lynn said. “We are talking about a flatter organization, fewer headquarters, smaller staffs, generally more efficiency.”

Interestingly, Lynn said “this is not an effort to reduce the defense budget. This is an effort to operate within the defense budgets we've been given.” Does this mean that cost-cutting isn't really cost-cutting? Lynn continued by saying “this is not about reducing the top line. This is about operating within a constrained topline and trying to get enough resources into that.”

Last but not least, one should not forget that Pentagon acquisitions chief Ashton Carter recently critiqued the Nunn-McCurdy process, calling it cumbersome and expensive. He said the Pentagon should be catching programs when they hit the 5% overage mark, or the 10 or 20% overage mark. A full evaluation of the Nunn-McCurdy process is due this week.

So with all this cost-cutting talk, where are the real savings and when are they going to show up? Programs seem to be getting canceled (a process that costs a bundle of money) and calls for greater attention to the requirements process and procurement seem to be getting louder. But the Pentagon keeps spending and spending and spending. Am I missing something?

buglerbilly

07-06-10, 11:24 PM

Senate Panel Zaps Pentagon Mad Science Agency

By Noah Shachtman June 7, 2010 | 4:46 pm

Pentagon way-out research arm Darpa may be forced to get by on a mere three billion next year. The Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended taking $143.4 million out of Darpa proposed budget for 2011, as the legislators question just how mad the Defense Department’s mad science agency ought to be during wartime.

Since 9/11, Pentagon way-out research Darpa has been in a bit of a tricky position, even as its budget has grown by nearly 50 percent. The agency is supposed to investigate the wildest of the wild science and technology ideas; but it’s also supposed to translate that blue-sky material into real advantages for troops at war. The agency allegedly reports to the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, the Pentagon’s top geek; but, in practice, DDR&E doesn’t hasn’t had much impact on what Darpa pursues.

Under new chief Regina Dugan, Darpa seems to be getting pulled in two directions at once. Dugan is trying to make sure that every program it pursues has a “transition plan” — a way to eventually get gear out to the armed forces. But she’s also increasing by 59 percent the agency’s funds for so-called “basic research,” the foundational investigations that may or may not lead to anything particularly concrete.

In its markup of the Defense Department’s budget, the committee says it likes the idea of more blue-sky research money. Except that it doesn’t: “An increase in basic research is beneficial and reverses a trend that has affected the broader national science and technology enterprise, [but the committee] is concerned that the ability to transition technology will be adversely impacted unless there is a more appropriate balance between basic research and advanced technology development.”

Previous Darpa chief Tony Tether and his congressional overseers spent years at each other’s throats. Tether wanted to be able to withhold money from a research project at any time. Congress saw that as micro-managing. It’s an issue the committee says it’s “still concerned” about — and contributed to the $143 million trim.

The committee is also worried about Darpa’s “National Cyber Range,” a project to build an ersatz Internet where information war games can be conducted without hurting real-world networks. The Pentagon brass says the program is beyond-important to shoring up the nation’s digital defenses. But Darpa has “not yet identified a transition partner for the NCR, nor [are] there funds programmed in any other organization’s budget to support continued operations of the NCR,” the committee notes. So it’s holding back $10 million from Darpa until Congress gets a plan for how the Range is going to be run in the medium- and long-term.

Photo: Virginia Tech

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/senate-panel-zaps-pentagon-mad-science-agency/#more-25737#ixzz0qCkx07NX

buglerbilly

09-06-10, 03:00 AM

Skelton Considers Total DoD Spending Review

By RICK MAZE

Published: 8 Jun 2010 09:30

The House Armed Services Committee is preparing to consider cuts in defense spending through a top-to-bottom review of current and future programs, the committee chairman said Tuesday.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the committee has yet to decide exactly how to carry out a top-to-bottom review of current and future programs. (Chip Somodevila / Getty)

Rep.Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said he has yet to decide exactly how to do this. He might ask an existing panel that has studied defense acquisition reform to study ways of cutting spending; he might use his power as chairman to create a new panel; or he might assign a specific goal for savings to each of the seven subcommittes.

That last option would require Skelton to make some initial determinations about how much can be trimmed from which parts of the budget, but he made clear he wasn't going to be asking for cuts in the number of people on active duty and wasn't willing to accept things like a smaller Navy.

Skelton is not necessarily talking about a smaller baseline budget, but he believes money could be spent on other things.

"It is not just a matter of dollars but how you spend them," Skelton said. "There are ways to save money. How much, I don't know."

buglerbilly

11-06-10, 02:33 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Sharpen the Budget knives, or Grow the Base?

Posted by Michael Bruno at 6/10/2010 4:23 PM CDT

A task force commissioned by House Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a vocal Pentagon budget critic, and backed by progressives and watchdogs are unveiling a slew of proposed defense spending cuts Friday.

“Leaders from the left, right and center agree on two major policy changes: the U.S. deficit must be reduced and the Pentagon budget can reverse its exponential growth while keeping Americans safe,” claims Paul Kawika Martin, policy and political director of Peace Action and a member of the task force.

The Frank panel’s recommendations – expected June 11 in a Hill press conference – come as conservative activists and analysts in Washington promote a budget-growing approach that hearkens back to President Ronald Reagan’s “Peace Through Strength” motif.

Indeed, one group, including Reagan administration veterans Edwin Meese and Frank Gaffney, hopes to blunt cost-cutting moves promoted by Pentagon chief Robert Gates and the Obama White House. “The massive and broad cuts to the military budget now being telegraphed will ensure that the armed forces are ever-less-capable of projecting power, leaving the nation and its allies increasingly open to blackmail, if not actual attack,” the group asserted May 11.

Aviation Week's Paul McLeary was just listening to Frank Kendall III, the Pentagon’s principle deputy undersecretary for acquisition & technology, speak on acquisition reform this morning in Washington. Kendall warned that over the next several years as his office works to reform the defense budgeting system, budgets will tighten due to the economic downturn and the spiraling national debt, although he did say that while “we don’t anticipate a dramatic drawdown in the budget … we’re gonna see some gradual drawdown in [DoD] investment” over the next several years.

If you want a non-partisan, green-eye-shade take, here’s a link to the Congressional Budget Office’s January report, “Long-Term Implications of the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Budget.” In a starker take on the matter last August, CBO also presents 188 options for altering federal spending and revenues, including reversing the Grow the Army initiative, postponing USAF tanker replacement purchases and even cancelling the F-35B and C.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10294/08-06-BudgetOptions.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10294/08-06-BudgetOptions.pdf

Before you go dismissing CBO’s recommendation, however, consider some other of their suggestions, like restructuring the Future Combat Systems Program in favor of spin-outs, cancelling the Maritime Prepositing Force (Future), and buying more DDG-51s instead of DDG-1000s. Sound familiar?

buglerbilly

12-06-10, 03:50 AM

Bipartisan Panel Offers Ways To Cut U.S. Spending

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Published: 11 Jun 2010 17:06

How about retiring 57 ships from the U.S. Navy? And cutting 200,000 troops from the U.S. military? And ending costly programs like the V-22 Osprey, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, even the new refueling tanker?

Reps. Ron Paul, left, R-Texas, and Barney Frank, D-Mass., were organizers of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, which has unveiled a plan to cut $1.1 trillion in defense spending over the next decade. (GETTY IMAGES FILE PHOTO)

How about curtailing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?

Those are just a few of the recommendations offered by a task force that was asked by several members of Congress to come up with ways to cut defense spending - without diminishing national security.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force unveiled its plan to cut $1.1 trillion in military spending over the next decade. Defense spending, which will reach $567 billion in 2011, is expected to top $7.4 trillion during the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will boost 2011 defense spending to $726 billion.

Defense spending cuts will be essential as the United States struggles to bring its $13 trillion debt and $1.4 trillion annual deficit under control, members of the task force said June 11.

But reducing the Navy to 230 ships - 100 fewer than it wants - or reversing recent increases in ground troops, or eliminating air wings would represent a major - and many would say unlikely about-face for the U.S. military.

The task force, which includes representatives from a dozen think tanks and government watchdog organizations, was organized by liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and other members of Congress - a handful in all.

"We're not talking about undercutting the troops in the field" or reducing the United States' ability to fight terrorism, Frank said. "No one favors cutting back on national security."

But national security requires a healthy U.S. economy, he said, and the economy is in trouble, in part because of excessive military spending.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called for cutting by one-third the number of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia. That would reduce the number stationed in those regions to 35,000 in Europe and 65,000 in Asia and save $80 billion over 10 years.

"I do not know what we are protecting Europe from - or why they can't defend themselves," Frank said.

The task force recommends reducing the U.S. nuclear triad to a land-based and submarine-based nuclear dyad with 1,000 nuclear weapons. The newly signed START treaty would reduce the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 weapons each.

The U.S. should also cut spending on missile defense - now a $10 billion annual expense - to about $3.3 billion until development work is done and missile interceptors are proven to work, the task force said.

Eliminating five Army brigade combat teams and four Marine Corps infantry battalions - about 30,000 troops in all - would save $147 billion over the decade, the task force calculates.

Troop Pullouts

Those cuts would be possible as U.S. troops pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and there is a growing consensus that the United States is unlikely to get involved in another large, drawn-out ground war in the foreseeable future, said Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives and a member of the task force.

Other proposals include retiring two aircraft carriers and their air wings and retiring two Air Force fighter wings. Because UAVs are doing such a good job in Afghanistan and Pakistan, fewer manned fighters are needed, said Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official and now senior defense analyst at the Center for American Progress.

During nine years of war, U.S. defense spending has doubled. But recently, as the U.S. economy has faltered, there appears to be growing acceptance that defense cuts are necessary, Frank said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has instructed the services to find $100 billion in savings over the next five years, but that would not reduce overall defense spending. Instead, money trimmed from low-priority programs would be shifted to higher-priority modernization.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., a long-time champion of defense spending and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said June 8 he plans to ask a committee panel to recommend defense spending cuts.

But to achieve cuts as deep as those called for by the Sustainable Defense Task Force, there will have to be "a philosophical change" and perhaps a new definition of national security that includes a sound economy, Frank conceded.

buglerbilly

14-06-10, 03:05 PM

Flournoy Calls for Better Interagency Cooperation

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued June 11, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- The Defense Department has made progress in addressing the challenges of the world today, but huge problems remain and the department must do much more to face the dangers the nation confronts, the undersecretary of defense for policy said yesterday.

Michele Flournoy spoke to the Center for a New American Strategy, a think-tank she once presided over. The world is still dangerous, she noted, and the tools the United States can use are outdated.

“To put it bluntly, we’re trying to face 21st century threats with national security processes and tools that were designed for the Cold War -- and with a bureaucracy that sometimes seems to have been designed for the Byzantine Empire, which, you will recall, didn’t end well,” Flournoy said. “We’re still too often rigid when we need to be flexible, clumsy when we need to be agile, slow when we need to be fast, focused on individual agency equities when we need to be focused on the broader whole of government mission.”

Building international cooperation is a must, and the administration has worked hard to rebuild trust with allies and friends around the globe, she said.

Interagency cooperation is also tremendously important, Flournoy said. Almost nine years of war proved to defense officials the need for civilian agencies in a “whole-of-government” approach to the problems confronting the world. “The interagency community is beginning to grapple with tough challenges,” she said.

The State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence community are examining how to better work together with each other and with the Defense Department.

“If we as a government can’t get better at linking ends, ways and means, we will not adequately position the United States to protect and advance our national interests in the face of a very challenging 21st century security and economic environment,” Flournoy said.

The Defense Department must look to reform itself, too, she said. Defense leaders are working to embrace the lessons of the war. The central lesson being intelligent adversaries will seek to confront U.S. weaknesses, not American strengths.

“U.S. forces in this century will need to prevail against a wide range of challenges: from insurgencies and state failure, to regional powers seeking to deny U.S. access to critical regions, to the ever-expanding ‘hybrid’ possibilities in between,” she said. “We will need the agility of a David, not the clumsiness of a Goliath.”

All moves are to make the military more versatile across the range of possible conflicts.

“For far too long we assumed that, for example, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, building security capacity and stability operations were ‘lesser included’ cases — subsets of the canonical contingencies that dominated our defense planning,” Flournoy said. “As long as we planned for conventional warfare, so the argument went, we could succeed in these other operations.”

That is patently not true, she said, and what’s more the point is not to assume that future conflicts will look just like current conflicts.

“Future conflicts and threats may take many shapes,” she said. “Yet we can’t prepare simultaneously and fully for every possible contingency — so we need to focus on flexibility and agility, on creating a force that is prepared for the most likely threats, and can adapt quickly to the unpredictable.”

-ends-

buglerbilly

17-06-10, 03:23 AM

Pass Supp Or Gates Does ‘Stupid’ Things

By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 16th, 2010 1:54 pm

UPDATED: GOP Leaders Urge Obama To Push Spending; GE/Rolls Fire Back At Gates on F136

The House must act on the wartime supplemental spending bill by the Fourth of July or Defense Secretary Robert Gates will have to start doing “stupid” things. That’s what Gates told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee this morning.

Among those “stupid” things: performing “disruptive” planning on how to manage money for operations. What might happen? Gates said the Navy and Marines will begin to run out of money in July; the “Army comes along a little behind that.” Things would start to get serious in early to mid August when money in the base budget would begin to run out and the department would face the dire prospect of first having to furlough civilians and then plan for the possibility that it could not pay some of those in uniform.

Things have gotten complicated in the House when it comes to the supplemental. The defense spending bill has gotten tangled in $23 billion for teachers, an issue close to heart of Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who largely controls the progress of all spending bills in the House. And, of course, teachers unions are major supporters of the Democratic Party. That may have something to do with reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supportive of Obey’s move to hold up the war supplemental until the teachers get something.

A few hours after the Senate hearing, senior House defense Republicans joined with colleagues who follow education and wrote a letter to Obama in which they urge him to push through the supplemental.

“The House has failed to provide the wartime supplemental funding to our military in Afghanistan and Iraq because the Democrat leadership intends to meet the demands of teachers’ unions by adding billions of dollars in new, extraneous funding for state and local budgets. Delaying funds to our troops on the front lines to bail out state governments is dangerous and irresponsible,” they wrote.

The letter was signed by Jerry Lewis, ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee; Buck McKeon, ranking member of the House
Armed Services Committee; and John Kline, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee.

In other news from this morning’s hearing, Gates repeated his veto threat should funding for the F136 find its way into any of the defense bills. And he offered some new arguments for his opposition to the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. In his prepared testimony, Gates said “it would be a serious mistake” to think President Obama won’t veto defense bills just because they contain things the administration really wants.

Gates said in his prepared remarks that “the solution to understandable concern over the performance of the Pratt & Whitney program is not to spend yet more money to add a second engine.” And he added some new wrinkles, saying the department thinks the GE/Rolls Royce engine “probably does not meet the performance standards that are required, and more money would be required to bring it up to those standards.”

He also argued that a competition had been held and the best program offer had won. “My idea of a competition is winner-take-all and we’ve had that competition, and it’s time to move on,” he said.

The GE-Rolls Royce partnership fired back soon after the hearing ended:

The F136 engine is having an excellent testing program in 2010, meeting and exceeding all performance expectations in terms of aero-mechanical characteristics, temperature margins, turbine design, the control system and operability.

The secretary’s comments contradict the detailed assessment from the Department of Defense, which has consistently awarded very good and excellent ratings to the F136.

The F136 development program is on time and on schedule.

At the onset of the F136’s full-scale development program in 2005, the engine design was specifically modified to meet new requirements for the aircraft. As a result, GE and Rolls-Royce are highly confident that the engine will continue to meet and exceed all performance expectations during 2010, when a total of six test engines are scheduled to run, and next year, when the engine is flight tested on JSF aircraft.

buglerbilly

17-06-10, 03:26 AM

Pass Supplemental Spending Bill Or We Start Doing Stupid Things: Gates

I have to give it to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, he does know how to grab people’s attention. He told Senate appropriators today that if Congress doesn’t pass the $33 billion supplemental spending request by July 4 the Pentagon will start doing “stupid things.”

Our own Colin Clark covered the hearing and reports on some of the stupid that might result if the Pentagon doesn’t get the money it needs:

“Among those “stupid” things: performing “disruptive” planning on how to manage money for operations. What might happen? Gates said the Navy and Marines will begin to run out of money in July; the “Army comes along a little behind that.” Things would start to get serious in early to mid August when money in the base budget would begin to run out and the department would face the dire prospect of first having to furlough civilians and then having to consider the possibility that it could not pay some of those in uniform.”

What’s holding up the supplemental?

“The defense spending bill has gotten tangled in $23 billion for teachers, an issue close to heart of Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who largely controls the progress of all spending bills in the House. And, of course, teachers unions are major supporters of the Democratic Party. That may have something to do with reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supportive of Obey’s move to hold up the war supplemental until the teachers get something.”

– Greg Grant

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0r4MjLL3R
Defense.org

Deks

17-06-10, 04:21 AM

So, they're talking about getting rid of civilians at the pentagon? I'm sure there's a fair amount of people that will be extremely happy with that decision, if it happens.

buglerbilly

24-06-10, 09:11 AM

Vehicles Drive Pentagon Purchasing

Jun 23, 2010

By Michael Fabey

The Pentagon shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan last year did little to blunt the military’s appetite for ground vehicle acquisition.

The Defense Department shelled out about $19.3 billion for tracked and wheeled vehicles in 2009, making ground vehicles the leading Pentagon expense for the second consecutive year, according to an exclusive Aerospace DAILY analysis of contracting data provided by the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting.

Throughout 2008 and 2009, the Pentagon has spent about $31.3 billion for vehicle transactions, the analysis shows. Ground vehicle funding has seen an average annual compounded growth of 45% from 2002 to 2008, the Pentagon said.

Once again, Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle acquisition drove purchases last year, with about $5.1 billion in contracts and contract modifications, the analysis shows.

As the Pentagon has started to pull its troops and wheeled fleets out of Iraq to redeploy to Afghanistan, the military has had to refurbish its MRAPs and other vehicles to make sure they could handle the different terrain and road conditions. The Defense Department also has pushed contractors to develop whole new fleets of all-terrain vehicles with MRAP protection.

Oshkosh has especially benefited from the MRAP work, catapulting from third place in 2008 wheeled vehicle spending with $912.6 million to first in 2009 with $1.8 billion — or nearly half of the whole wheeled vehicle tally for the year. (See charts pp. 7-10.)

But the king of the road warriors for the year was BAE, whose $5.1 billion in transactions for tracked and wheeled vehicles was nearly double the accumulated tally for wheeled vehicle spending alone, the analysis shows.

While BAE grabbed its share of new-program work last year, it also reaped the benefits of contracts for fixing up the Pentagon road fleet that served in Iraq. For example, the company secured about $709.4 million in Bradley reset work in 2009.

International Military &amp; Government LLC finished second in tracked and overall group programs with $3.5 billion in transactions, while General Dynamics jumped up a spot in the tracked-vehicle ranking with $3.1 billion, thanks to its work on the U.S. Marine Corps Expedition Fighting Vehicle.

Not surprisingly, tracked combat vehicles cost a little more per contract than wheeled counterparts do. The average cost for a tracked vehicle transaction is about $9.7 million per deal, compared to a $3.7 million average per wheeled vehicle contract or modification.

The median price — the middle figure where half the numbers fall above and half fall below — was lower for tracked vehicles, about $8,127, than those with wheels, about $12,244. But two-thirds of tracked-vehicle transactions cost $899,000 or more, while two-thirds of wheeled vehicles cost only $87,737 or more.

The average per-transaction cost for the combined wheeled and tracked programs is about $7.4 million. The median is $11,227 and two-thirds of contracts for the overall vehicle mix cost $335,635 or more.

buglerbilly

29-06-10, 04:07 PM

Gates: Overhead Savings Would Benefit Warfighters

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued June 28, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- The Defense Department must find $100 billion in savings over the next five years to ensure U.S. warfighters continue to have the resources they need to defend the nation now and into the future, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today.

At a briefing today, Gates introduced Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and spoke about his own commitment to the effort.

“Over the past month, I’ve directed the Pentagon to take a hard, unsparing look at how the department is staffed, organized and operated,” Gates said. “The purpose is to significantly reduce our overhead costs in order to free up the resources needed to sustain our force structure, to modernize, and to create future combat capabilities.”

President Barack Obama’s defense budget requests for the next five years reflect the importance of growth for the department, the secretary said. While funding for other federal agencies is flat, the Defense Department is projected for a bit more than 1 percent real growth.

But that growth is not enough to ensure servicemembers receive the best equipment and materials. Gates said the $100 billion in overhead savings he’s working to achieve over the next five years would be put back into the acquisition process.

“As a matter of principle and political reality, we must do everything possible to make every taxpayer dollar count,” the secretary said.

Some of the savings will come from eliminating unneeded programs and activities. Gates already has canceled a number of underperforming or unneeded projects. “Other savings can be found within programs and activities we do need, by conducting them more efficiently,” he said.

With $400 billion in contracts across the department, Gates said, the Pentagon must become more efficient in the way it buys goods and services. “Clearly, an important part of achieving that goal is working closely with our industry partners and departmental contracting professionals,” he said. “Like all important and necessary institutional changes, this process will take time. But I’m confident we’ll succeed.

“Ultimately,” he continued, “we as leaders in government owe it to the men and women of our armed forces to do all we can to provide them with the very best support possible.”

-ends-

buglerbilly

09-07-10, 12:26 AM

Pentagon Wants to Move $3.9B Around

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 8 Jul 2010 17:44

The Pentagon wants to shift nearly $4 billion in previously allocated funding, much of it within the Army's budget to buy arms and gear needed in Afghanistan, according to a July 2 omnibus reprogramming request.

Above, U.S. soldiers with an M1A1 Bradley tank in Iraq in 2007. The new Defense Department reprogramming request calls for cutting $200 million in funding for the Bradley program. (U.S. MARINE CORPS)

Defense News obtained a copy of the 89-page request, signed by Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale and sent to Congress for review.

The Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle takes a big hit: $200 million is to be moved to higher-priority items, according to the request. Earlier this year, the Army asked permission to trim Bradley funding by $154 million; Congress has yet to make a decision on that request.

A similar cut moves $143 million out of research and development funding for the Army's Combat Vehicle Improvement program. The funds are available because the Pentagon has delayed its decision to upgrade the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Abrams tank, according to the reprogramming request.

To support operations, the Pentagon wants to shift $100 million to purchase 1,500 One System Remote Video Terminal, the Army's version of the Air Force's ROVER system, which provides soldiers access to full-motion video shot by UAVs.

The Pentagon would also like to shift $10 million to start developing a replacement for the M113 armored personnel carrier.

"These funds will inform the Army on the current state-of-the-art M113 replacement options, potentially provide a forum for industrial teaming allowing the Army to refine its requirement document and explore current vehicles for adaptability to the M113 requirements," the document said.

The Pentagon also shifts $35 million in Army funding for the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) to the Navy's research and development accounts for the same program.

The "funds are available because the Rifleman radio is not prepared for Milestone C in fiscal year 2010 due to deficiencies found during the Limited User Test," the document said.

Instead, the money will be spent on accelerating the delivery of the Handheld, Manpack, Small Form Fit (HMS) systems for test and potential deployment to theater, according to the document.

The Pentagon also reduces funding for the Joint Assault Bridge by $68 million, citing a program restructuring that shifted authority for the program from the Marine Corps to the Army. Low-rate initial production has been delayed until fiscal year 2013, according to the document.

For the Air Force, the Pentagon generally shifts money from procurement accounts to spending on personnel.

The Pentagon would like to cut $36 million from the Air Force's Global Hawk program.

"Obligations are late due to delays in the development test program, late and poor quality proposals from contractors, and reprioritization of acquisition activities to meet urgent Combatant Commander requirements," the document reads. The Pentagon cuts an additional $18 million from the program later in the request.

Most of the $74 million plus-up allocated to the Navy for administration activities - $54 million - was needed for increased costs for personnel security investigations. USS Independence, the second littoral combat ship and the first ship from the General Dynamics-Austal USA team, received an additional $5.3 million to meet higher than anticipated costs to correct problems discovered on sea trials. The effort to re-start DDG 51-class destroyer production with a new Flight III version got another $6.7 million to create a capability development document.

The MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned aerial aircraft received a 50 percent plus-up of $13 million to support completion of operational evaluation (OPEVAL) efforts to take place on board the frigate Halyburton. Continuation of the OPEVAL was necessary after the 2009-2010 effort on board the frigate McInerney encountered numerous technical challenges and discrepancies. The money became available when the service eliminated two of five aircraft it planned to buy this year due to the availability of airframes transferred from the Army.

The Naval Special Warfare Scan Eagle effort to operate unmanned aerial surveillance and attack aircraft in the Mideast received a boost of $8 million to buy replacement air vehicles and spare parts.

A Navy program restructuring effort paid off with a reduction of $4.8 million in the Aerial Common Sensor program.

The Marines Corps' Harvest Hawk effort to give a rapid-response fire support capability to KC-130J Hercules aerial tankers got a plus-up of $1.3 million for modernized avionics.

Accelerated procurement of the Transportable Radar Surveillance Model 2 radar (TPY-2) radar led to a new start addition of $191 million. The funds were available after delays were encountered in fielding batteries of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile.

An omnibus reprogramming request is sent to Congress each year. It is meant to shift funding to more urgently needed items. The request will be reviewed by the four congressional defense committees, who have the option to reject any of the requested changes.

According to the documents, $234 million is available in the Army's home station operation and maintenance accounts because several units deployed in Iraq were unable to return home due to "delayed Iraqi elections and the increased security posture in Iraq."

Alternatively, $70 million is available in Marine Corps operation and maintenance funds because their combat operations in Iraq were curtailed earlier than previously planned.

In the reprogramming, the Pentagon directs money toward equipment needed in Afghanistan, including Army helicopters, which are in high demand, as well as money to improve secure networked communications in the country.

The Pentagon is requesting $45 million for U.S. Central Command's Operation Earnest Voice (OEV) program, whose funding, according to the documents, was reduced by Congress in the 2010 budget.

"The OEV program is strongly endorsed by the Commander, USCENTCOM, and serves as USCENTCOM's primary and enduring non-kinetic weapon in its irregular warfare arsenal for countering adversary information operations."

The money will go toward "products to counter radical ideology and influence key audiences across the region via Internet or other mediums."

According to the documents, the program "provides the capability to engage audience on native language (Arabic and Urdu) web blogs, chat rooms, and social networks."

-- Christopher P. Cavas contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

10-07-10, 12:04 AM

U.S. Defense Budget In The Crosshairs

Jul 9, 2010

By Michael Bruno, Bettina H. Chavanne
Washington, Washington

Whether Congress follows through is far from clear, but the rhetoric inside Washington is building toward spending cuts and systemic changes to the national security budget after a decade of record amounts that some say left the U.S. military little better off.

At the Pentagon, the Defense secretary and the department’s acquisition chief are unveiling a new approach to purchasing by looking to reverse the assumptions that contracting officials start with—let alone demanding reliable, successful results from their programs. Last week they announced a general change in contract types to be used, from contractor-friendly time-and-material deals to stricter fixed-price agreements.

On Capitol Hill, hawkish Democrats are increasingly echoing their war-skeptic liberal wing in challenging Defense Department spending, while conservatives drum up general opposition to any federal largesse. “It’s time to stop talking about fiscal discipline and national security threats as if they’re separate topics: Debt is a national security threat,” says House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

And in think tanks around the city, analysts report severe challenges ahead to defense budgets even if spending levels stay the same. At the well-respected Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Senior Fellow Todd Harrison says that if officials really want to save money in defense, “stop doing things.” CSBA President Andrew Krepinevich agrees and notes that actual cost reductions often are a fraction of planned savings, if only because all of the stakeholders rarely agree to go as far as announced, while actions like quantity-of-order reductions actually drive up costs elsewhere in programs.

In turn, Defense Secretary Robert Gates in recent months has openly challenged military leaders to reconsider what, why and how much they were planning to spend for defense systems, especially in light of evolving warfighting needs. Recently he mandated more than $100 billion in cuts across the department between Fiscal 2012 and 2016, from outsourced services to high-level personnel and even non-critical weapons, in an effort to get another 2-3% for core warfighting capabilities.

“Some of these savings can be found by eliminating unneeded programs and activities,” Gates says. “But other savings can be found within programs and activities we do need, by conducting them more efficiently.”

Meantime, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) notes while Washington has managed to save combat personnel from being shortchanged during ongoing disagreements about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, programs like the Boeing C-17 probably will end. And that and other money-saving efforts by Gates enjoy broad support, including Levin’s.

Still, Harrison, once of consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton, and Krepinevich, a highly regarded independent analyst and Pentagon confidant, say that while the Fiscal 2011 budget request continues the Pentagon reforms and rebalancing Gates started in April 2009, it does “little” to address growth in Defense Department health care and other personnel costs such as recruitment and retention. Indeed, military personnel spending has grown 69% over the last decade. The George W. Bush administration’s defense boom was unprecedented in spending levels, but much of it went to fighting the wars and maintaining legacy equipment, lending to what Harrison and Krepinevich call a “hollow build-up.”

All of this bodes ill for an annual budget that swelled under the Bush and Barack Obama administrations to more than $700 billion this year—except for the fact that additional cuts are far from defined or agreed on. For instance, Ashton Carter, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, talked about paying for what goods and services “should cost.” But that is not a legal term and it cannot be found in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations. Carter acknowledges several more weeks of “conferring” with officials and industry executives before reporting out more information.

Then there is Congress. Lawmakers face heated November elections on top of an already deep partisan divide, made evident by their struggle to pass once-sacrosanct appropriations for the wars. And even recent services-contracting reforms passed by the House face an uncertain fate as Levin says they are not on his agenda (recently crowded by changes in Afghanistan command and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy).

Moreover, Levin still takes issue with Gates and Obama over the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, proving continuing resistance on the Hill to specific cuts. Levin predicted that the House and Senate will forward an annual defense authorization bill to Obama, who will sign it, but he does not know when and he is not even sure what will be in it.

Credit: Guy Norris

buglerbilly

12-07-10, 05:21 AM

From DiD.........

Grant Thorton: US Defense Budget Outlook for 2011 and Beyond

11-Jul-2010 19:30 EDT

Guest Article by Lou Crenshaw, Vice Admiral U.S. Navy (ret.)

After a sustained period of sizable increases, growth in the DoD budget is expected to slow considerably starting in 2011. Defense discretionary spending is likely to be constrained by built-in budget pressures, both external and internal to the department. Mandatory non-military spending (such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) as well as new administration initiatives, will limit the total amount of budgetary authority given to DoD by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Within the DoD, 3 principal factors will present continued budgetary challenges. First, the QDR will refocus the department’s spending priorities, adding additional requirements as well as questioning current investment strategies. Second, continued cost growth above inflation, particularly in acquisition, manpower and maintenance accounts, will continue to erode DoD discretionary spending. Finally, overseas contingency operations (OCO) will continue to age equipment, demand new equipment and stress operations accounts. Winners and losers will emerge as procurement spending is prioritized toward the most critical areas, including nontraditional warfare; high demand, low-density assets and cyber warfare; and away from large hardware programs associated with traditional operations. Recent legislation and policy changes will also affect the defense contractor community…

Federal budget realities

Increases in mandatory spending such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal retirements and debt service will limit funding available for the discretionary budget (including defense). Mandatory spending is projected to rise 11% from $2.3 trillion to $3.9 trillion between 2011 and 2015, increasing from 62% to 69% of the federal budget. As a result, the discretionary budget is expected to remain fl at at $1.4 trillion, compared with the 30% increase of the previous five years. Various benchmarks have been used as a measure of how much the DoD should receive from the OMB. Traditionally, the DoD has been roughly 50% of total federal discretionary spending. Another useful benchmark has been defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projections are for defense spending to decrease from 3.2% of GDP in 2015, to 2.6% of GDP in 2028.

Given the current economic climate and security posture, the baseline defense budget is expected to increase just over 1% per year to $743 billion by 2015, placing tremendous pressure on procurement spending. This projection is in stark contrast to the previous five years, in which the defense budget increased over 6% per year. While there is pressure from Congress and others to eliminate OCO (supplemental) funding, operations in Afghanistan will likely necessitate some form of supplemental funding into the foreseeable future, thereby reducing (but not eliminating) some pressure on the baseline budget.

Shift in spending focus

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will have a significant impact on the DoD investment portfolio, including the restructuring of research and development funds by investing more in high-demand, low-density technology; strengthening cyber war capabilities; emphasizing unmanned vehicles and increasing resources focused on “soft power” (e.g., political measures, foreign policy, exportation of cultural values).

The R&D investment strategy plans to shift focus away from large conventional warfare equipment such as large ships, high tech fighter aircraft and heavy motorized vehicles, and funnel resources toward unmanned aircraft and mine-resistant, light armored vehicles as well as smaller, more agile ships. Troubled acquisition programs outside this strategy have already been terminated in the 2010 budget, including VH-71 presidential helicopters, T-SAT broadband satellites, FCS manned ground vehicles, Airborne Laser, Multiple-Kill Vehicle anti-missile defenses, F-22A fighters, and CSAR-X rescue helicopters.

Additional resources are also expected to be allocated towards complex high-demand, low-density assets used in the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. These include aerial drones, helicopters and special operations transport, as well as other critical enablers that are in high demand and low supply.

Cyber warfare is an area in which the QDR suggests significant investment. The DoD has concerns around the level of preparedness for a serious cyber attack and is expected to invest to strengthen this competency. Evidence suggests that Pentagon computers are increasingly being probed and scanned and the frequency and sophistication of attacks are rising.

The QDR highlights the need to integrate soft-power methods used to influence or persuade another party to cooperate or adopt similar values. Combining soft-power and hard-power strategies is intended to allow for a quicker exit from conflicts.

The overall change in philosophy highlights a shift away from traditional warfare, especially in fighting near simultaneous, large-scale conflicts, to being engaged globally throughout the spectrum of conflict.

On the radar: Continued cost growth

Spending to support operations and maintenance (O&M) programs is also likely to increase as weapons systems continue to age and the strain of continuous use introduces inaccuracies in the costing models traditionally used by DoD to project costs. Additionally, new-generation weapons will be more expensive to operate and maintain due to increased complexity. These factors combine to cause increases in the O&M accounts far above the expected 1% growth in the DoD budget.

In addition, supplemental OCO costs of roughly $130 billion to $150 billion (slightly less than the $155 billion spent in 2009) will be transitioned into the baseline defense budget for the first time since 2002. Despite the drawdown of troops in Iraq, the United States is unlikely to receive the expected peace dividend due to an increased presence in Afghanistan. Although troop levels will be far lower, logistics-related spending is expected to increase due to that country’s lack of infrastructure and abundance of mountainous geography.

Adding to this pressure are increasing manpower costs. These are driven by both larger personnel bills associated with increased end-strength numbers requested by the armed services, and the fact that troops are expected to experience real increases in pay and benefits above inflation indices. Since 2003, military pay increases have been based on the annual Bureau of Labor Statistics’ employment cost index for wages and salaries in private industry, which is expected to exceed the GDP deflator by an average of 1.4% from 2011 to 2015. Out-of-proportion health care cost increases and additional personnel programs to address issues related to long-term conflict will only contribute to the cost of the department’s number-one asset: people.

Impact of recent policy changes and legislation

In addition to the aforementioned spending cuts identified by the QDR, additional savings are envisioned by the newly passed Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. This legislation was created to reform the way the Pentagon contracts and purchases major weapons systems. The reforms are expected to save millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars over the next decade. However, certain provisions related to conflicts of interest are likely to have a significant impact on defense contractors, particularly large vendors that not only provide hardware, but also provide systems-integration functions.

Contractors will undoubtedly be considering divestiture of those businesses that cause conflicts as they seek to protect revenue streams from the more lucrative sale of hardware. Additional legislation and administration policy aim to reduce DoD costs by in-sourcing services and functions that were outsourced to the commercial sector over the past decade. As a result of these initiatives, the DoD will be hiring tens of thousands of federal employees to fill new positions and those formerly held by defense contractors. Companies providing these services can expect reduced revenues and loss of personnel to the federal sector as these policies are implemented.

Ultimately, Operations & Maintenance, Research & Development and manpower increases, combined with a flat defense budget, will place significant pressure on procurement spending, forcing the DoD to cut nonessential acquisition programs and focus attention on key areas. Contractors therefore will continue to redirect their attention to areas prioritized in the defense budget.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lou Crenshaw, Vice Admiral U.S. Navy (Ret.), is executive director of the Defense and Intelligence Sector of Grant Thornton’s Global Public Sector Group. Prior to joining Grant Thornton, he was the senior resource and requirements manager for the U.S. Navy, where he was responsible for overseeing an annual budget of $130 billion. The full GT report can be found here. For further discussions, phone area code seven zero three, 837 dash 4430. Or email Lou dot Crenshaw at gt dot com.

buglerbilly

15-07-10, 05:47 PM

Gates: $33B Needed ASAP to Keep Military Afloat

Updated: 5 hours 18 minutes ago

Sharon Weinberger
Contributor

AOL News (July 14) -- Warning that the military could run out of money as early as next month, the Pentagon is putting pressure on Congress to pass the wartime budget before lawmakers leave for the August break.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was "disappointed that the Congress did not pass the defense supplemental before the July Fourth break," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a press briefing today.

The Pentagon is seeking another $33 billion to cover ongoing wartime operations, which will also help pay for President Barack Obama's plan to send another 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.

Brendan Smialowski, Getty Images
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned that the military is running out of funds and was disappointed that Congress did not pass the defense budget before the July Fourth break.

Without that additional money, the various branches of the military will have to use funds from the regular budget to fund critical ongoing military operations. Siphoning money from the regular budget is only a stopgap, however.

"[A]bsent more drastic action, we project that certain Army and Marine Corps accounts will run dry in August," Morrell told reporters. He added that the Defense Department is drawing up contingency plans in case the supplemental spending bill isn't passed in August.

As in previous years, getting Congress to pass the supplemental spending bill before money runs short can turn into a game of chicken; Gates has already warned twice this year that the department was running out of funds. "We're sadly getting used to this fire drill," Morrell said.

"Needless to say, all of this is extraordinarily disruptive to the department," he added.

buglerbilly

16-07-10, 04:43 AM

U.S. Army Trains Cost-Cutting Eye on Arms

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 15 Jul 2010 19:22

The U.S. Army is looking to ax redundant weapons, not cut troops, to fulfill Defense Secretary Robert Gates' order to reduce spending by $2 billion in 2012, according to the service's vice chief of staff.

"The easy thing is to go out there and say, 'Let's take out a brigade,' because you can quantify that pretty quickly," said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, speaking July 15 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The Army spends more than any other service on people, but to alleviate the stress placed on the force through years of war, the service wants to find other ways to reduce costs before it starts cutting end strength, he said.

Under Gates' June guidance, the services must reduce their budgets in the coming four years by $3 billion, $5.3 billion, $8 billion and $10 billion, according to the Pentagon's guidance.

One of the Army's top priorities is to give soldiers two years at home in between one-year deployments.

Eventually, the service wants to be able to provide soldiers in the active force with three years at home between tours, Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, has said.

To meet that goal, the Army wants to avoid reducing its end strength, Chiarelli said.

"We are an organization that requires people and we better make darn sure that everything we're not spending on people, we really, really need if we're going to meet the goals the chief has had for almost four years, and that's getting the Army back in balance," Chiarelli said.

While there are redundancies within the force structure, particularly in the generating force and the contractor pool, they cannot be addressed through simple attrition, Chiarelli said. Instead, "you've got to sit down with individual requirements and figure out a way to attack that, to see how these things have occurred over time," he said.

The vice chief is leading the Army's belt-tightening initiatives through a series of portfolio reviews, which he began more than six months ago.

The reviews aim to figure out just what the Army owns, what is still needed and whether any of it overlaps, the vice chief said.

The reviews have already resulted in one major program decision: the cancellation of a multibillion-dollar missile program, called the Non-Line of Sight Launch System.

Chiarelli said it was after back-to-back briefings on individual precision rocket systems that he first stumbled upon what appeared to be a redundancy in capabilities. He decided that rather than looking at programs individually, they need to be considered as part of a larger portfolio, so that various systems and requirements could be compared.

At CSIS, he showed a briefing slide comparing the range, cost and accuracy of various Army artillery, mortar and missile systems.

"When you look at the costs of some of these precision munitions, it became clear to me that we really needed to have a new way of looking at these to make sure we didn't have duplication in the system and that we're buying exactly what we need," the vice chief said.

His briefing included a list of every portfolio the Army intends to study: precision fires, aviation, engineer, air and missile defense, combat vehicle modernization, tactical wheeled vehicles, radios, the network, work force composition, software/hardware, soldier systems, ISR, training ammunition, watercraft, Army training strategy, installation management, sustained accounts and organizational structure.

Fast-Track Fuzziness

Because so much equipment has been rapidly fielded to Iraq and Afghanistan through nontraditional acquisition processes, it can be difficult to determine the long-term costs of these systems, the vice chief said.

For example, 70 percent of the Army's sensor packages for its UAVs were purchased off the shelf and rapidly sent overseas. Part of the review process is to determine which of these can be sustained through base budget funding, Chiarelli said.

The portfolio review process may become a more permanent exercise so that requirements can be scrutinized on a more frequent basis to determine if what was needed five years ago is still needed at the same quantity, if at all, Chiarelli said.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies organizers said that each service's vice chief of staff plans to make similar presentations in the coming weeks.

buglerbilly

22-07-10, 10:23 AM

Boeing ally not expected to seek funds for more C-17s

By Megan Scully CongressDaily July 21, 2010

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., is preparing a fiscal 2011 Defense spending bill that defense sources expect will not include funding to buy more Boeing C-17 cargo planes or to keep alive an alternate engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

By rejecting funding for those two high-profile programs, Dicks would avert veto threats from the White House, which considers any spending to keep alive the F-35 second engine and the C-17 programs as wasteful. The panel plans to meet Tuesday to consider the measure.

A spokesman for Dicks would not comment on the details of the chairman's mark, saying it would not be final until next week.

But if Dicks moves forward as expected, his decision not to include funding for more C-17s would run counter to the chairman's reputation as one of Boeing's biggest supporters on Capitol Hill.

The aerospace giant, which builds commercial aircraft at a plant just outside Dicks' district, has lobbied to include five C-17s in fiscal 2011 to supplement international orders and keep the production lines running at optimum speed, several defense sources recently told CongressDaily.

But Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to end the C-17 program with the 223 planes now on order. And he has said repeatedly that he would recommend President Obama veto any legislation that keeps the procurement program alive.

Dicks, who is drafting his first Defense spending bill since succeeding the late Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as subcommittee chairman, is "obviously concerned about the perception of being the congressman from Boeing," said one defense source tracking the issue. "It is hard to tell the engine guys 'no' and then add C-17s."

Neither version of the fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill passed by the House or the Senate Armed Services Committee includes funding for the cargo planes. But appropriators have long favored the C-17, adding 43 unrequested planes to spending bills over the last several years.

On the F-35 engine issue, Dicks could face stiff opposition within his subcommittee over his stance on the aircraft's alternate engine, built by General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce Group. Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney builds the primary engine for the fighter jets.

The subcommittee's backers of the alternate engine could challenge Dicks with an amendment during next week's markup that would add funding for the program Gates wants to terminate, sources said.

"I suspect there will be a discussion on that issue," Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Rep. C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., said Tuesday.

The alternate engine would create about 4,000 jobs in several states, including about 150 at Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis and roughly 1,000 at General Electric's plant outside of Cincinnati. Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, whose district is near GE's Ohio plant, has pushed to keep the engine program alive even though many budget hawks and groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste have criticized it as "high-flying waste."

In May, Dicks voted for an amendment to the fiscal 2011 defense authorization measure that would have stripped $485 million in the bill for the second engine. That amendment failed 231-193 despite a White House threat to veto any bill authorizing funding for the GE/Rolls Royce engine.

Next week's subcommittee markup could see the same result if an amendment is introduced to add funding for the alternate engine. The panel is stacked with members whose states could be adversely affected by ending the program and some Republican members may opt to back Boehner's effort to save the engine.

Supporters of the second engine argue that competition against the F-35's primary engine would drive down costs on the $100 billion alternate engine program and provide a back-up for the multiservice fighter.

Gates has fiercely argued for years that the $2.9 billion investment needed for the second engine over the next six years is not worth the potential benefit of manufacturing two different engines for the single-engine F-35.

"Every dollar additional to the budget that we have to put into the F-35 is a dollar taken from something else that the troops may need," Gates said last year.

buglerbilly

23-07-10, 01:54 AM

Absent Supplemental, Pentagon Furloughs Begin Next Month

By Greg Grant Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 4:19 pm

If Congress fails to pass a wartime supplemental spending bill by next week, before the congressional August recess, the Pentagon will begin to run out of money for operations and to pay military and civilian personnel beginning next month, the service under-secretaries told lawmakers today.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has repeatedly warned Congress that DoD would begin to do “stupid” things if it fails to pass a war time supplemental before the August recess. “If the supplemental was not passed we would be in an emergency situation,” said Navy Under Secretary Bob Work, speaking today at a hearing before a House Armed Services Committee.

For the Navy, no supplemental by next week would result in an immediate and significant disruption in operations, said Work. Things would rapidly worsen from there with civilian pay beginning to run out in the middle of August, followed by large scale furloughs; paychecks for active duty personnel would stop going out in mid-September.

“Quite frankly the [Navy] department was expecting the supplemental before the 4th of July, there was really no serious thinking that it would go beyond summer recess,” he said.

Absent supplemental spending, the Army begins to run out of money in the domestic operations and maintenance accounts in the middle of August, said Joseph Westphal, the Army Under Secretary. “We are dangerously close to those deadlines.” The Army has already been forced to dip into its base budget to pay for ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

The Air Force runs out of O&M funds across the range of operations at the end of August and the personnel accounts begin to dry up around mid-September, said Erin Conaton, Air Force Under Secretary. Furloughs for civilians would begin in August and shortages in the military manpower accounts would begin to impact active duty airmen by mid-September. “We certainly encourage as quickly as possible passage of the supplemental,” she said.

“My concern is that among some people in the House there isn’t quite the sense of urgency,” said Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Ca.), as the Pentagon has given different dates for when its financial affairs begin to get really ugly. “I for one think that if its not done we shouldn’t leave town until it’s done.”

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/22/absent-supplemental-pentagon-furloughs-begin-next-month/#ixzz0uSUDmKIv

buglerbilly

23-07-10, 02:39 AM

Federal Times E-Newsletters

Business Board: Close U.S. JFCOM, Freeze Hiring

By JOHN T. BENNETT | Last Updated: July 22, 2010

A Defense Business Board study group calls for the Pentagon to also shutter its Networks and Information Integration (NII) directorate. (Navy)

An influential Pentagon advisory board is poised to recommend Defense Secretary Robert Gates close contractor-heavy U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) and rid his office and the Joint Staff of redundant functions, moves that could save billions of dollars.

As part of work ordered by Gates under his war on overhead and inefficiencies, a Defense Business Board study group is urging him to also shutter its Networks and Information Integration directorate. NII, as it's known in the defense community, resides within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).

The Defense Business Board task force also is recommending Gates initiate a hiring freeze for OSD, all Joint Staff directorates and all combatant commands.

Those recommendations are part of a set of preliminary recommendations the board unanimously approved July 22. The board expects to submit these initial findings to Gates soon in an informational memo, followed in October by a broader set of longer-term cost-cutting proposals.

The board also will advise Gates to seek to "eliminate organizational duplication and overlap" across the department. A fourth proposal will advise an immediately effective directive to "seriously curtail all indirect spending" on things like "duty station moves, travel [and] conferences," states the preliminary DBB report. This recommendation also calls for Gates to modify the so-called "use it or lose it policy" on such funds, "which only promotes wastes," the report states.

The JFCOM and NII closures are part of a broader recommendation that will go to the secretary soon to shrink the military's combatant commands, which the board has concluded are swollen with thousands of expensive contractors — many in redundant positions.

Gates asked the board to propose ways the department can slash $101 billion over five years from overhead and unneeded costs. Gates wants to transfer those savings to hardware programs he feels are needed to combat future threats.

With war funding included, U.S. military spending for fiscal 2010 will approach $661 billion. The DBB study group estimates "at least $200 billion — $ 1 trillion across the [future years defense plan] — is overhead." If the Defense Department's overhead was its own nation, it would rank 49th globally in total gross domestic product — just behind Singapore and Portugal, and just ahead of Israel and the United Arab Emirates.

The Business Board has for about a year predicted major turbulence ahead for the U.S. defense budget as several forces finally converge: federal deficit reduction efforts, the economic slowdown, ever-escalating DoD healthcare and personnel costs, and the end of two wars. The board estimates the interest Washington will pay on the federal debt will exceed the annual defense budget by 2017.

Board members believe that to avoid fiscal calamity, the Pentagon will have to find savings beyond Gates' $101 billion target.

The preliminary report the advisory board approved made it clear the Pentagon must get a range of personnel and organizational costs under control if it wants to avoid killing more major weapon programs.

"Many combatant commands are staff- and contractor-heavy and very expensive," states the preliminary DBB report.

The DBB study group found Joint Forces Command is made up of more contractors than DoD uniformed or civilian employees. The number of government workers is around 3,000, while hundreds more contractors work at its various subcommands.

A chart in the study group's presentation shows 14 JFCOM subcommands and organizations.

"What the heck is all this stuff?" Punaro asked of those organizations. Many appear to have redundant missions, he said.

‘Contractor' Commands

The DBB group found 10 U.S. commands are populated by almost 11,000 contracted workers:

• U.S. Central Command has nearly 2,000 (versus slightly more government employees).

• U.S. Transportation Command is the only other command with more contractors than government employees (around 1,500 versus around 1,000).

• U.S. Pacific, Special Operations, European, African, Southern and Strategic commands employ significantly more government employees, though the number of contracted workers at the Pacific and Strategic organizations tops 1,000.

That comes with a $16.5 billion price tag in fiscal 2010, DBB concluded.

"Are some of the combatant commands becoming ‘contractor' commands?" asks one DBB study team chart.

The DBB study team urges Pentagon officials to find a way to track the number of contractors and their costs. It also proposes determining "how precisely many people the department has on the contractor payroll and assess their functions as core or non-core," Arnold Punaro, a DBB senior fellow who led the study, said during a July 22 meeting.

The study group also will advise Gates to either return the size of the DoD civilian work force to 2003 levels or shrink it by 15 percent — "whichever is greater."

On eliminating redundant organizations and jobs, the DBB advises Gates first to look around the halls of the Pentagon.

"Focus first in areas such as OSD and the Joint Staff in shared areas such as public affairs, legislative affairs and personnel oversights," Punaro said. Within the Pentagon's legislative affairs shop, "there are hundreds of people," but the office's director, Elizabeth King, "can't find them all," said Punaro, a retired Marine Corps general and former senior SAIC executive. "And they sure don't work for her."

Punaro also said Gates should examine redundancies in similar organizations. Two examples: the Joint Staff's force structure, resources and assessment directorate (J-8) and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; and the Joint Readiness Oversight Council and the office of the undersecretary of acquisition, technology and logistics (AT&L).

‘Bureaucracy Buster'?

Gates has won general acclaim around Washington for his program to free up the $101 billion and use the savings to avoid further weapons program terminations. Several board members echoed that.

Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon comptroller and now a Booz Allen Hamilton executive, applauded the secretary for being "brave enough" to seek overhead and other cost reductions. Gates realizes that he must make changes, even with two hot wars raging, "because if we don't, we'll shoot ourselves in the foot," Zakheim said.

Punaro hailed Gates as a "bureaucracy buster."

Yet, since 2006, the number of contractors in the Office of the Secretary of Defense has skyrocketed. Gates was sworn in Dec. 18, 2006.

In 2006, DBB found 2,106 contractors populated OSD; by fiscal 2010, that number had grown to 2,708. And it likely will climb even higher since the Pentagon is looking to move some contracted positions to the government payroll. (Punaro said information on intelligence positions was not available; that data would likely drive these figures yet higher.)

When DoD uniformed and civilian personnel who work within OSD are added, it becomes one of the largest enterprises — personnel-wise — in the U.S. military. Punaro said OSD's total expenditures are around $5.5 billion annually, and are projected to grow to $6.5 billion in five years.

buglerbilly

23-07-10, 03:39 AM

U.S. War-Bill Delay Imperils Civilian Salaries, Ops

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Published: 22 Jul 2010 15:56

The U.S. Navy will run out of money to pay civilian employees and might have to start furloughing them in mid-August if Congress doesn't approve a supplemental war-funding bill that includes $33.5 billion for the military, Navy Undersecretary Robert Work told the House Armed Services Committee July 22.

About a month after that, the Air Force may run out of money to pay the pilots who are flying combat missions over Afghanistan, warned Air Force Undersecretary Erin Conaton.

Soldiers will still get paid, said Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal, but civilian Army employees may not.

The problem is that the war-funding bill the Pentagon hoped Congress would pass before its July 4 recess still hasn't passed as the August recess approaches.

In May, the Senate passed a $59 billion bill that included $33.5 billion for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And earlier in July, the House passed the Senate's bill but added $22.8 billion to pay for domestic programs, including $10 billion to preserve teachers' jobs in cash-strapped states.

The House then sent its $81 billion bill back to the Senate, where it sits while senators squabble over the added domestic spending that Senate Republicans oppose.

During a July 22 hearing on Pentagon management reforms, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., warned of a looming "crisis in light of congressional delay in passing a clean wartime supplemental spending measure."

He blamed his House colleagues for adding "extraneous domestic spending" to the war-funding bill, and asked Pentagon witnesses to describe the impending impact of the funding delay.

Westphal said that if the Army doesn't get the supplemental money soon, Army operations and maintenance accounts will begin to run dry in mid-August. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq won't be affected, he said, but training, equipment maintenance and other activity on bases in the United States could be curtailed, he said.

The Navy will run out of money to pay civilians and may have to order unpaid furloughs beginning in mid-August, Work said. If the funding bill isn't passed by mid-September, the Navy will also run out of money to pay active-duty sailors, he said.

For the Air Force, operations and maintenance money will begin to run out at the end of August, and accounts for paying airmen will begin to run dry during the third week of September, Conaton told McKeon.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., asked, "Are we really looking at not paying" troops who are fighting the wars?" Westphal assured him that soldiers will get paid. "What we're concerned about is civilians."

Work and Conaton said that Navy and Air Force uniformed personnel might, indeed, encounter pay problems late in September.

That sounds scary, but it's not likely. Legislation passed 150 years ago ensures that troops won't go unpaid. The Feed and Forage Act of 1861 allows the government to pay for essential national security expenses, including pay for troops, even without an appropriation passed by Congress.

Separately, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, urged the Senate in a July 19 letter to pass a supplemental funding bill as soon as possible.

He said a bill should be "constructed so that it can obtain broad, bi-partisan support" in the Senate.

Skelton acknowledged that the Senate has already done that once, when it passed the $59 billion bill that the House pumped up to $81 billion. Nonetheless, he urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try again.

buglerbilly

24-07-10, 08:54 AM

House Pressured to Pass Stripped-Down War Bill

July 23, 2010

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - After a take-it-or-leave-it vote by the Senate, House Democrats face little choice but to drop billions in aid for schools, college students and others that they had hoped could ride on legislation paying for President Barack Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan.

The Senate rejected the House measure, passed earlier this month, by a 46-51 vote that fell short of a majority, much less the 60 votes required to defeat a filibuster.

Instead, the Senate on Thursday stripped out the $20 billion in House add-ons and returned to the House an almost $60 billion measure passed by a bipartisan vote in May. The Senate measure is limited chiefly to war funding, foreign aid, medical care for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange, and replenishing almost empty disaster aid accounts.

It would bring the amount of money appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan above $1 trillion.

Eleven Senate Democrats and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted against the House version of the bill. Not a single Republican supported it.

The moves repel a long-shot bid by House Democrats earlier this month to resurrect their faltering jobs agenda with $10 billion in grants to school districts to avoid teacher layoffs, $5 billion for Pell Grants to low-income college students, $1 billion for a summer jobs program and $700 million to improve security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Senate measure is likely to be grudgingly accepted by House Democrats next week despite opposition from liberals who oppose the war in Afghanistan, which many of them view as unwinnable.

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wouldn't comment on whether the House will simply approve the Senate measure and send it on to Obama for his signature.

But the pressure to do so is intense, especially after Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned lawmakers this week that unless the measure is enacted into law before Congress leaves for its August recess, the Pentagon could have to furlough thousands of employees.

The House bill also attracted a White House veto threat over $800 million in cuts to education programs to help pay for the additional domestic spending under a "pay-as-you-go" culture that the administration itself advocates.

The Senate measure blends about $30 billion for Obama's 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan with more than $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, as well as funding for Haitian earthquake relief, and a down payment on aid to flood-drenched Tennessee and Rhode Island.

The measure contains $13 billion in benefits for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange, but does not provide more than $4 billion requested by the administration to finance settlements of long-standing lawsuits against the government, including $1.2 billion to remedy discrimination by the Agriculture Department against black farmers and $3.4 billion for mismanaging Indian trust funds.

The measure contains $1.1 billion for mine-resistant vehicles, $657 million for military bases in Afghanistan and $6.2 billion in foreign aid for Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Haiti.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

27-07-10, 11:40 PM

Alternate QDR: Boost Equipment Modernization, U.S. Force Size

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 27 Jul 2010 17:22

Pentagon spending plans and cost-saving efforts would fall short of fielding the kind of modern combat arsenal likely needed to fight future foes, including a rapidly modernizing Chinese military, according to a high-level bipartisan group of defense experts.

Increasing the size of the U.S. Navy, especially to deal with the volatile Pacific Ocean, is one recommendation of a mandated alternative to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Above, the amphibious assault ship Essex steams through the Pacific. (MCSN ADAM K. THOMAS / U.S. NAVY)

"We are concerned by what we see as a growing gap between our interests and our military capability to protect those interests in the face of a complex and challenging security environment," according to a congressionally mandated alternative to the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

Defense News obtained a summary of the "alternative QDR," set to be unveiled July 29.

The U.S. military continues to rely on 30-year-old combat equipment, largely because of the staggering costs of two ongoing wars, including the expense of keeping aging platforms in operational shape for those conflicts, the independent QDR study team concluded.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates has charged each military service with freeing up between $10 billion and $15 billion annually over the next few years, ordering them to roll the "savings" into hardware modernization efforts, the independent QDR panel doubts that will generate enough new monies to build the kind of force America will need for decades to come.

"We cannot reverse the decline of shipbuilding, buy enough naval aircraft, recapitalize Army equipment, buy the F-35 requirement, purchase a new aerial tanker, increase deep strike capability, and recapitalize the bomber fleet just by saving $10-15 billion dollars that the Department of Defense hopes to save through acquisition reform," states the summary of the alternative QDR.

Last year's defense authorization act tasked the panel with assessing the contents of the 2010 QDR and issuing its own national defense plan. It was led by William Perry and Stephen Hadley. Perry was defense secretary under President Clinton, and Hadley was President George W. Bush's last national security adviser.

Lawmakers, congressional aides and defense analysts have questioned the force-sizing construct and future force descriptions contained in the Pentagon's quadrennial review.

House lawmakers and aides say the 2010 QDR was too shortsighted, alleging senior Pentagon officials simply chose to ignore the 20-year mandate.

For instance, a classified annex to the 2010 quadrennial review acknowledged "a bulk of the analysis only looked five years out," one senior House Armed Services Committee aide told Defense News in March.

An unreleased QDR annex reviewed by Defense News confirms that charge.

"This QDR is even more shortsighted than the last QDR," the aide said.

"We are concerned that the QDR force structure may not be sufficient to assure others that the U.S. can meet its treaty commitments in the face of China's military capabilities," states the summary of the alternate QDR.

The Perry-Hadley independent panel also concluded that "the force structure needs to be increased in a number of areas, including the need to counter anti-access challenges."

Like the Pentagon's quadrennial study, the independent panel envisions a large U.S. ground force in line with the current sizes of the Army and Marine Corps. But the Perry-Hadley panel also feels the U.S. will need "a larger Navy and Air Force," according to the summary.

While the QDR endorses an equipment force structure about the size of today's U.S. air, ground and naval forces, the independent study team thinks modernization of existing platforms should be carried out "on at least a one-for-one basis, with an upward adjustment in the number of naval vessels and certain air and space assets."

To the Perry-Hadley panel, "military power is a function of quantity as well as quality - numbers do matter."

The independent QDR will also call for a future U.S. arsenal more capable than the one vaguely described in the Pentagon's 2010 QDR.

"Perhaps the greater difference between the QDR force and the one that we recommend is qualitative," according to the summary of the Perry-Hadley report. "First, it is a fully modernized force. ... Second, it is a force that emphasizes long-range platforms to a greater extent than the current force."

The summary obtained by Defense News also shows the independent panel is concerned the 2010 defense strategy would put in place a force unable to carry out U.S. commitments in the ever-volatile Pacific region.

"The force structure in the Asia-Pacific area needs to be increased," states the summary. "A robust U.S. force structure, largely rooted in maritime strategy but including other necessary capabilities, will be essential.

buglerbilly

27-07-10, 11:47 PM

DoD Aims To Cut Costs of Future Arms, Not Today's

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 27 Jul 2010 15:48

The Pentagon's cost-cutting effort is aimed at upcoming programs, not existing ones, senior acquisition officials said July 27 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

Pentagon industrial affairs chief Brett Lambert said he has received no direction to cut a specific dollar amount from existing weapons programs. (CHRIS MADDALONI / STAFF FILE PHOTO)

Peppered by questions from industry and academic audience members, DoD industrial affairs chief Brett Lambert and others said they have received no direction to cut a specific dollar amount from existing programs; rather, they are overhauling buying guidelines before the U.S. military begins writing specifications and contracts for several new - and expensive - platforms.

Lambert did not directly address concerns about profit caps and cash flow.

He did say that the procurement changes that will be directed by acquisition defense undersecretary Ashton Carter and implemented in September - and subsequent ones perhaps arriving over several years - would be applied not to current programs but new ones such as new nuclear-armed submarines and future blocks of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Lambert said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not given his office a specific amount to trim from programs.

He said officials want to learn lessons from the flaws of past programs and contracts, but added, "This is not about correcting past mistakes."

Instead of revamping existing contracts to recoup funds from industry, Lambert said, "the document in September will be about new programs and new contracts."

"Inside the building, it seems like we shoot ourselves in the foot, then we reload the gun and shoot ourselves in the other foot," he said. That means "we have to change how we do business."

Gates has asked the acquisition, technology and logistics (AT&L) directorate to examine how the Pentagon can get a better deal when it buys weapons, services and other items.

That is part of Gates' drive to shift $101 billion over five years to weapon accounts.

Lambert said the DoD-industry cost-cutting discussions are a complement to that effort.

"The idea is to change procurement policies, procedures, behaviors and practices," said James Thomsen, principal civilian deputy assistant Navy acquisition secretary.

Lambert said Pentagon officials want to fix bad acquisition practices that took root over the last few decades, lest DoD be ordered to simply slash 5 percent from each weapon program's funding, which he said "would be devastating."

Some in the audience called the discussion a rehash of old ideas.

These are "the same things we've been talking about for 50 years," said Ralph Nash, a retired George Washington University professor. "If these are the issues you're locked into, this is a lost cause. … These things have been tried over and over."

He said DoD seems to copy failed programs instead of "emulating the successful programs - and there's a lot of success out there."

Steven Schooner, a GWU government procurement law professor, said he thinks the Pentagon is looking to constrain how much companies can rake in from military contracts.

"Frankly, what we're hearing is profit caps," he said, adding that that industry and some in academia are concerned about Carter's mention in a recent memo of the benefits of sharing cash flow.

"If you're looking to mess with cash flows," Schooner told Lambert and Thomsen, "then you're really going to upset the apple cart in a number of ways."

The officials did not directly respond to Schooner's comment.

But earlier in the session, Lambert said, "This is not about taking money from any of the services or from industry."

Several audience members said the DoD-industry efforts were ignoring "requirements creep," which happens when the Pentagon changes its mind about what it wants a weapon to do.

"It's all about requirements," Schooner said. "You have to figure out what you don't want to pay for. ... This is where savings will come from."

Thomsen answered that five internal DoD working groups are studying how to overhaul acquisition practices and policies; one is aimed at increasing affordability, and is looking at requirements creep.

For about a month, industry has been submitting observations, suggestions and comments about how the Pentagon should change its ways without harming the U.S. defense industry.

Lambert said, "We need insights [from industry] before we dictate oversight."

DoD acquisition officials "are conscious of the effects these decisions will have on the primes and the subcontractors," he said.

Lambert said Carter would, at year's end, ask each military service and agency to show how it has made progress implementing the coming September guidance.

He told the audience he welcomes skeptical views and debate, saying he was a bit pessimistic about the effort at its onset but is more optimistic after talking with Carter and Frank Kendall, the deputy acquisition chief.

The meeting was the third at the K Street think tank between senior DoD acquisition officials and industry; several more are planned before the new rules are rolled out in September.

buglerbilly

28-07-10, 11:21 AM

US lawmakers okay funds for Afghan war

OLIVIER KNOX

July 28, 2010 - 5:49PM

US lawmakers on Tuesday easily approved urgent funding for President Barack Obama's escalation in Afghanistan, despite a huge leak of secret military files that stoked anger at the unpopular war.

The 308-114 vote in the House of Representatives set the stage for Obama to sign the legislation, which provides about $US37 billion ($A41.03 billion) to fund the conflict in Iraq and pay for his "surge" of 33,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

More than 100 Democrats voted against the measure, however, which also provides funds for disaster relief in Haiti.

The House also beat back a blunt challenge to Obama's war strategy, defeating a resolution calling for the removal of US forces from Pakistan by a crushing 38-372 margin.

The margins called into question what impact the stunning disclosure of about 92,000 previously secret Pentagon documents on the war by the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks would have on the US debate on the conflict.

But lawmakers - who face a war-weary public in November mid-term elections - argued passionately about the nearly nine-year-old conflict and Obama's plan to right the faltering campaign in time to start a draw-down by July 2011.

"Wake Up America. WikiLeaks' release of secret war documents gave us 92,000 reasons to end the wars. Pick one," Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, author of the Pakistan measure, said as debate began.

Representative Buck McKeon, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, invoked US forces on the front lines and declared that "cutting off their funding in the middle of that fight is tantamount to abandonment".

But Democratic Representative Dave Obey, chairman of the powerful appropriations committee, said he was "reluctantly" voting no out of doubts "that this operation will hurt our enemies more than us".

"The Afghan government has not demonstrated the focused determination, reliability and judgment necessary to bring this effort to a rational andsuccessful conclusion," said Obey.

© 2010 AFP

buglerbilly

28-07-10, 03:40 PM

Defense Business Board Warns DoD Is Heading For Chapter 11

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued July 27, 2010)

(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

The Defense Business Board (DBB), a panel consisting of senior former defense officials, business executives and economists has just published its study of how the Department of Defense (DoD) can reduce overhead costs and improve business practices. According to the Board, if DoD were a corporation or a nation, it would be on the verge of having to declare Chapter 11. Like GM and Chrysler, DoD’s costs are increasing even as the size of the military shrinks.

The DBB’s characterization of the situation all but likens DoD to Greece. Military retirement requires that the government pay veterans and their families for sixty years based on only twenty years of service. Not only do veterans receive generous, indexed pensions but also lifetime medical care. Almost 25 percent of active duty military personnel serve in commercial activities. Despite fighting two wars, some 40 percent of those in uniform have never deployed anywhere overseas.

The size of headquarters and staffs is increasing relative to the number of warfighters as are their salaries. Like Greece, modern business practices have not been applied to major overhead areas so as to improve efficiencies and reduce costs. Congress has made the problem even worse by increasing the generosity of benefits packages and expanding eligibility.

The DBB proposes a set of modest corrections to what is a massive problem. It recommends a hiring freeze and reduction in the total number of DoD civilians back to the levels at the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Apparently, the Board didn’t notice that the Secretary of Defense is trying to increase the size of the bureaucracy. The Board also recommends eliminating or merging duplicative or redundant organizations, downsizing or eliminating Combatant Commands and OSD agencies and cutting indirect spending. These are straightforward, proven measures, the kind that most sensible companies took at the start of the current recession. In many cases, the rise in profitability by these corporations demonstrates the wisdom of cost cutting.

Much more is needed. Perhaps the model for DoD is the administration’s handling of the catastrophe in the automobile industry. Some combination of Chapter 11, government bailout, protection of union employees and merger with foreign companies might solve the problem. For example, pension and health care costs for current retirees or those nearing eligibility for retirement could be taken out of the DoD budget and placed in a special government corporation. For those now entering the military a new retirement/health care package would be put in place. For DoD civilians, part of their salary would be converted to long-term bonds that would only be vested if their policies proved successful.

This would be particularly useful for the civilian acquisition community. It would either require longer service or reduce benefits proportionately. All non-inherently governmental functions should be sold to the private sector just like in the developing world when they embrace capitalism. These functions would include logistics and maintenance, commissaries, transportation (with certain exceptions for sensitive items and war zones), military medicine and most space launches and intelligence activities.

We could not only cut the number of overseas bases -- like the automobile companies canceling dealer franchises -- but even eliminate low payoff territories. Finally, we could seek a partial merger of capabilities or functions with allied nations. Ultimately, we could even agree to a new division of geographic responsibilities in the world. For example, the EU takes over all responsibilities for Europe short of major war and we assume the burden in East Asia.

Boards and panels with ties to the organizations they are assessing often have a difficult time telling their “employers” the unvarnished truth. The DBB has done an excellent job of telling DoD it must reform or go out of business.

-ends-

buglerbilly

29-07-10, 02:38 AM

Dicks Bulls Dems On DoD Bill

By Colin Clark Wednesday, July 28th, 2010 5:29 pm

The chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee said this morning he will lean on the wary Democratic leadership to bring the defense spending bill to a full committee and then floor vote by the end of September.

The chairman was speaking at an awards event held by the Association of the US Army. Of course, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have tactical or strategic reasons to put the vote off, but we understand Dicks really wants to get this done.

Dicks, chairman for a few months since the death of Rep. Jack Murtha, is likely to run head on into Rep. David Obey, outgoing chairman of the full committee and a resolute opponent of war and — sometimes — defense spending. Obey actually announced his opposition yesterday to the war supplemental. In the end, Obey was swept away by 308 Democrats who voted for the bill. That may well have helped Dicks decide to push for a vote instead of waiting for party leadership and Obey to decide the bill’s course.

Passage of a defense bill is seen by many lawmakers and by defense observers as a key measure of congressional effectiveness and as a commitment to troops serving in two wars and many conflicts. When defense spending is wrapped up in a continuing resolution, as has happened several times in recent years, it lessens congressional inputs on the administration’s request since it usually means adopting the administration’s budget request.

On the F-136 fight, Dicks opposed adding the second engine for the Joint Strike fighter to his bill after conversations held with Rahm Emmanuel, and Defense Secretrary Robert Gates. He believed their threats of a presidential veto. Many of his congressional colleagues — most of whom have not sat down face to face with senior administration officials and taken their measure on this issue — believe the Obama administration will not veto the defense bill over a relatively paltry sum and over a policy issue about which many senior defense lawmakers feel quite passionately.

The House version of the defense bill includes substantial, though unspecified, spending for the intelligence community. But Dicks, who has publicly discussed his interest in intelligence matters more often than did his predecessor, slapped some restrictions on the IC. His statement says that the spending bill includes “language that: prohibits new programs from being initiated without Congressional notification; prohibits contracting out of inherently governmental functions; curtails the growth of Senior Executive positions in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and prohibits use of foreign intelligence unless it has been lawfully collected.”

buglerbilly

29-07-10, 03:31 AM

Senior DoD Brass, CEOs To Discuss Pentagon Cost-Cutting Effort

By JOHN T. BENNETT and VAGO MURADIAN

Published: 28 Jul 2010 13:48

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top Pentagon officials will meet July 29 with more than a dozen U.S. defense industry executives to discuss his efficiencies effort.

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter, left, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will meet with 15 industry executives. (R.D. WARD / U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE)

Gates will be joined at the afternoon session by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn and Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter. They will meet with 15 titans of the American defense industry to hear their suggestions, thoughts and concerns about the Pentagon's efforts to find efficiencies and get a better deal when it buys weapons, services and other items from industry, sources said.

During a July 28 telephone interview, Carter confirmed the meeting, saying Pentagon brass feel it is important to have "a dialogue" with industry.

The high-level session is part of an effort Gates launched months ago to "reverse" a trend of the past few years that had left the DoD-industry relationship in a condition Carter described as "not healthy."

The efficiencies push comes as Pentagon officials are working to remove fat from within the annual defense budget, aiming to free up $101 billion over five years and transfer those monies into modernization accounts.

Of the Pentagon's $700 billion total budget, about $400 billion is spent on things the department buys - from advanced fighter jets to kitchen services to logistical support to intelligence tasks.

The DoD officials will be meeting with CEOs from companies that are members of the Aerospace Industries Association, an AIA spokesman said.

"This is an important forum for the CEOs and the Pentagon to discuss DoD's cost-savings initiative," the spokesman said. "This is the second meeting of this kind we have held this year to expand the dialogue between the department and industry."

Some in industry have expressed concerns about the cost-savings effort, and an ongoing effort to revise the policies and practices that guide how the Pentagon buys things from the private sector. Some of these skeptics say the department is looking to shrink industry profits.

But Carter, as he has done for weeks when asked about such concerns, said a "vibrant defense industry is in the national interest."

buglerbilly

30-07-10, 04:16 AM

Gold In Them Thar Efficiencies

By Winslow Wheeler Thursday, July 29th, 2010 5:58 pm

In his September 10, 2001 (alas, not to be) swan song speech, Donald Rumsfeld asserted that 50 percent of DoD spending was overhead. The money gusher that started the next day can only have increased that percentage, and yet a little while ago Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn pronounced D0D overhead was 40 percent. If you read the Defense Business Board Report by Arnold Punaro, you’ll find on slide 15 that overhead is put at “at least” $200 million, or approximately Lynn’s 40 percent.

No one has defined what overhead really is, let alone provided an independent study of how much DoD spends on it. The “factual” assertions above are all standard DoD “wisdom:” Sounds about right — but not a scintilla of data was presented.

In Punaro’s explanatory statement he laments that no one can figure out the cost and number of contractors, immediately followed by a citation from Undersecretary Carter that the number is 766,000, costing $155 billion (per year). Interesting as it is horrifying, but again not a shred of actual evidence.

At the end, Punaro recommends unloading some baggage, most prominently Joint Forces Command, and he promises to recommend more later this year. He also articulates some important ideas about reforming DoD pay and benefits and reducing their unaffordable costs. (But, sadly, he is almost silent about DoD’s equally unaffordable behavior on hardware.)

I conclude three things:

That the $102 billion that the Gates/Lynn/Carter team wants to move in five years from overhead to force structure (it’s not a savings; it’s an internal transfer) is truly pathetic. Just scratching the surface, Punaro has ideas that suggest far, far more is hanging low off the fruit tree.

The quality of evidence that the Washington defense community likes to use to ground its ideas and recommendations is more akin to rumor and the buzz of the month. If there were to be an objective, independent, competent study of what DoD spends on overhead (reasonably defined) and if that number were not well above 50 percent of the Pentagon budget, you’d be able to knock me over with a feather.

The defense luminaries are swirling around the idea of reducing personnel costs. Some have good ideas; some are merely playing around the edges, but they all have one major purpose in mind: transfer the money to hardware. Ignore the fact that DoD’s hardware path is every bit as unaffordable as the personnel path, and ignore the fact that more money, generously applied — for the last 10 years especially — has made the equipment inventory both smaller and older. Nevertheless, they can’t get it out of their heads that heaving more money at unaffordable hardware will make it within our means.

This game needs new players.

Winslow T. Wheeler, a former GOP congressional budget expert, is director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

buglerbilly

30-07-10, 04:28 AM

Independent QDR Panel Recommends Buying More of Everything, Increasing Defense Budget

As independent panel reports go here in Washington, D.C., this one just released by the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, co-chaired by former Bush administration National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Clinton-era defense secretary William Perry, is really awful.

It recommends buying more of pretty much every weapon system or at least replacing the current inventory on a one-to-one basis, maintaining ground forces at current levels, expanding the Air Force, greatly expanding the Navy’s battle fleet and to pay for all of that the panel recommends increasing the defense budget.

For an example of how unserious this report truly is, the panel took as its force planning default the 1993 Bottom Up Review. How a strategic analysis conducted in 2010 can look backwards 17 years to come up with a force planning model is beyond me. Has the strategic landscape not changed dramatically over the past two decades?

The problem with so many of these various exercises masquerading as strategic thinking is they do their best to maintain a force that was designed to fight a massive land and sea war against a monolithic, hyper-militarized Soviet Union. Here is an analysis of the 1993 BUR by two of this nation’s foremost strategic thinkers, Andrew Krepinevich and Bob Work contained in A New U.S. Global Defense Posture for the Second Transoceanic Era:

“Although the BUR cautioned against planning for the last war, it proceeded to do just that. In essence, it used Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm to help explain and justify a regionalization of the Cold War military problem of forward defense along the inner German border and the demilitarized zone that separated North and South Korea.

Regionalizing the Cold War planning problem thus ensured that little substantive change would come to the US defense program beyond shaving force structure and the total numbers of weapons systems. After all, weapons and systems designed for fighting along the inner German border were likely to be just as relevant against regional aggressors fielding combined-arms, mechanized forces like Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards. More importantly, however, it made US defense planners lazy; they had little new thinking to do other than concentrating on winning regional wars as efficiently as possible.”

Intellectual laziness abounds in this new QDR assessment that should be thrown into the trash faster than most reports of its kind. The report’s drafters even write: “we had neither the time nor the resources to conduct a detailed force-structure analysis.” Well then, what the hell good are you?

For what its worth, here’s a summary of the force structure recommendations the report made without putting in the time to do the analysis to back them up:

• Maintain the Army and Marine Corps at current levels.

• Expand “substantially” the Navy toward the BUR recommended 346 ships and keep 11 carriers, “the reason being the potential challenges in Asia.”

• Make deep strike a priority for the Air Force.

• “Replace inventory on at least a one-for-one basis, with an upward adjustment in the number of naval vessels and certain air and space assets.”

– Greg Grant

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/independent-qdr-panel-recommends-buying-more-of-everything-increasing-defense-budget/#more-8459#ixzz0v82m83bN
Defense.org

buglerbilly

31-07-10, 11:08 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Build Up Naval, Air Forces After Current Wars, Experts Say

Posted by Michael Bruno at 7/30/2010 12:43 PM CDT

A blue-ribbon panel of bipartisan national security experts is warning Congress that there should be no peace dividend after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, because U.S. naval and air forces will have to grow in light of China and North Korea.

The panel, mandated by Congress to assess the Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, appears to endorse Obama administration efforts for the current growth of forces, like the U.S. Army and Marines, for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Panel leaders also praised Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ reform efforts like his $101 billion, five-year austerity plan.

But the panel suggests that the reform efforts will not be enough monetarily, and naval and aerial forces like the ship fleet and long-range strike capabilities will need even more investment, if for no other reason than to help ameliorate Asian allies and ward off confrontation with China or North Korea. In particular, the panel reached back to the 1990s to resubmit a proposal for 346 ships or more, including 11 aircraft carriers, 55 attack submarines and four guided missile subs, while also advocating 180 Air Force bombers and eight wings of up to 380 aircraft devoted to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

The panel's cochairmen, former Clinton administration defense chief William Perry and former Bush administration national security councilor Stephen Hadley, admit that their spirited band of reviewers did not have the wherewithal to conduct a proper force posture review like the Pentagon does regularly. But, in a reference to the Soviet adage that quantity has a quality all of its own, the panel criticizes the decades-old drive to replace larger fleets of ships and aircraft with smaller fleets of more-powerful units. "We are concerned that, beyond a certain point, quality cannot substitute for quantity.”

Perry told House Armed Services Committee yesterday that he seriously doubts the U.S. will go to war with China, and he added that it would be a monumental failure of diplomacy if it happened - seemingly lending a hand to the administration's global outreach efforts. But he and Hadley both stressed that allies want the U.S. to engage China across the Pacific, and credible engagement only comes if it is backed by a substantial military force.

Not surprisingly, HASC ranking Republican Buck McKeon quickly jumped on the notion to reiterate "peace through strength," the Reagan adage for dealing with the Soviets. Everything old is new again.

buglerbilly

03-08-10, 02:52 AM

Morrell: SecDef's Budget Concerns Aimed at Congress, not White House

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 2 Aug 2010 17:52

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is worried about Congress cutting the Defense Department's budget, not the White House, says Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

House and Senate appropriators have passed dueling versions of the 2011 defense appropriations bill that propose reducing the administration's request by $6 billion and $8 billion, respectively. (Karen Bleier / AFP)

Gates, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn and Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter met with about 15 executives in a closed door meeting July 29 to explain his strategy in seeking $101 billion in budget savings over five years. He wants to use the savings to fund future weapons purchases.

Morrell said the secretary is concerned about Congress taking the ax to his budget, but industry sources who attended the meeting said it was the White House that the secretary seemed to be concerned with.

Yet Congress is already starting to cut. House and Senate appropriators have passed dueling versions of the 2011 defense appropriations bill that propose reducing the administration's request by $6 billion and $8 billion, respectively.

Here's what industry sources said: If the Pentagon cannot show progress in shifting billions of dollars from overhead to modernization, the White House and Office of Management and Budget will likely shift money from the Pentagon to domestic programs, deficit reduction, and economic stimulus.

If any executive left the July 29 session with the understanding that Gates is concerned about support from President Barack Obama and other senior White House officials for his efficiency push, they have "a fundamental misunderstanding," Morrell said. "The secretary's concern was directed at Congress."

Gates has the strong support of Obama, and also has the backing of White House chief of staff Rham Emanuel, Morrell said. "Everyone is fully supportive and on board."

The 2011 Pentagon spending request projects 1 percent annual spending growth from 2012 to 2016. But the secretary has determined 2 percent to 3 percent annual growth within modernization accounts is needed. He aims to fill the gap by making cuts within Pentagon spending plans.

Of the Pentagon's $700 billion total budget, about $400 billion is spent on acquisition - from advanced fighter jets to services like food, logistics and intelligence work. That is why Gates, Carter and other DoD officials have been asking industry chieftains for ideas to make acquisition more efficient without damaging companies' profitability.

Morrell said Gates and his lieutenants will carry out internal belt-tightening "with a scalpel rather than a hatchet." They will "make difficult decisions," Morrell said, while "cutting deep, but with precision."

buglerbilly

06-08-10, 11:28 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Defense Authorization Runs Into Senate Trouble

Posted by Michael Bruno at 8/5/2010 10:24 PM CDT

Word is emerging this afternoon that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is indeed trying to slow down the annual defense authorization there in his fight against changes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Rick Maze, a pillar of congressional defense reporting, reported the floor action here. Maze reports that McCain objected when Democrats tried to arrange for the Senate to consider the $725 billion defense bill in September when lawmakers return from their August recess.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also let known his frustration. “Apparently, Sen. McCain is willing to block battlefield equipment upgrades and pay raises for our troops because he didn’t get his way in a committee hearing room," Reid alleged, referring to the SASC markup of the Fiscal 2011 measure. "With his irresponsible obstruction of critical support for troops who sacrifice for our country every day, Sen. McCain seems more interested in political grandstanding than protecting our men and women on the battlefield. Our troops deserve better.”

Now, alleging that McCain is trying to keep equipment from warfighters is pretty far fetched. The U.S. military hardly has a closer friend on Capitol Hill than McCain, who in case anyone forgot was a decorated naval pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam. But, it is an election year, and people say and do strange things. And this latest development could well mean a major obstacle for the annual bill.

buglerbilly

10-08-10, 06:03 AM

‘Culture of Savings and Restraint’

By Colin Clark Monday, August 9th, 2010 4:26 pm

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has swung the axe once more, this time aiming for the enormous personnel costs that have swelled since Sept. 11, 2001, eliminating Joint Forces Command, freezing the numbers of senior military and civilian positions, cutting contractor numbers and aiming to control the costs resulting from congressional and OSD reports.

Gates’ goal, put simply, is to inculcate a “culture of savings and restraint” and forestall any efforts to strip the overall defense budget in these hard economic times.

Stripping the defense budget, which he noted has happened four times before, “would be disastrous” in these times when the world is more unstable. That possibility, he said “is my greatest fear…”

On top of eliminating JFCom and the Networks Information and Integration office, he will freeze the number of senior civilian and military officers at OSD at last year’s levels. He also plans to cut “at least” 50 officer positions and 150 senior civilian positions from OSD. He will even cut into the military side of the intelligence community. He will cut 10 percent of the intelligence contractors and froze senior positions. And he said Jim Clapper, his counterpart overseeing the intelligence community, is looking to take similar actions in his shops.

The JFCom cuts are likely to yield the greatest direct savings since the command includes some 2,800 military and civilian positions, bolstered by 3,000 contractors, for an annual budget of $240 million.

Initial congressional reaction may surprise some, with the Republican’s top man on the House Armed Services Committee cautioning that Gates must first “convince members of this committee that these efforts will not weaken our nation’s defense.” Rep. Buck McKeon said in a statement that Democrats were harvesting savings “for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. This is already happening. In the House this week, Congressional Democrats—with the full support of the White House—are taking critical defense funding to pay for another state bailout. What’s to stop them from taking this money too?” he asked.

On the other side, Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the HASC, praised Gates, saying he supports “any responsible shift of funds from overhead costs in order to strengthen the efforts of our brave troops.”

Keenly aware of how congressional opposition could sink his effort to shutter JFCom and eliminate other jobs, Gates argued these moves might well allow him to add one or two billion dollars to shipbuilding so Virginia “could end up gaining a lot more jobs than it loses.“

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/09/culture-of-savings-and-restraint/#ixzz0wAkIgESh

buglerbilly

10-08-10, 06:06 AM

DoD to Cut Joint Forces Command

August 09, 2010

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that tough economic times require that he shutter a major command that employs some 5,000 people around Norfolk, Va., and begin to eliminate other jobs throughout the military.

The announcement was the first major step by Gates to find $100 billion in savings in the next five years. Gates says that money is needed elsewhere within the Defense Department to repair a force ravaged by years of war and to prepare troops for the next fight.

The plan prompted swift political pushback from lawmakers fearful that jobs would be lost in their districts.

"At the end of the day, Secretary Gates and his team will have to convince members of this committee that these efforts will not weaken our nation's defense," said Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said he could see "no rational basis" for eliminating Norfolk's Joint Forces Command, which was created in 1999 to improve the services' ability to work together and find efficiencies.

"In the business world, you sometimes have to spend money in order to save money," said Warner.

In a Pentagon press conference, Gates was optimistic that Congress would eventually swing behind his plan despite lawmakers' control of the budget. He said in the case of Virginia, the state could wind up with additional jobs if the savings found by closing Joint Forces Command enables a boost in shipbuilding.

Gates described his initiative as just the beginning in his hunt for inefficiencies across the Defense Department, which commands a nearly $700 billion annual budget including war spending.

"The department must start setting priorities, making real trade-offs and separating appetites from real requirements," Gates said.

Gates vowed to review every corner of the budget, including the military's rising health care costs.

"There are no sacred cows," Gates said.

In addition to shutting down Joint Forces Command, Gates wants to:

- Trim by 10 percent the budget for contractors who support the Defense Department;

- Freeze the number of employees working for his office, defense agencies and combatant commands for the next three years; and

- Cut at least 50 general and flag officer positions and 150 senior civilian executive positions over the next two years.

Gates declined to say how much money would be saved by shutting down the command, which holds more than 1 million square feet of real estate in Suffolk, Va., and Norfolk, Va. Savings will be offset by the cost of shifting some jobs and roles elsewhere, he said.

JFCOM lists its mission as training troops from all services to work together for specific missions. It tries to make sure equipment used by different services works together and looks for gaps in capabilities within military services that could be filled by a specially trained joint force.

The command is headed by a four-star military officer, the highest grade currently in use. Marine Gen. James Mattis was its commander until named last month to replace Army Gen. David Petraeus as head of U.S. Central Command. His replacement will be Gen. Ray Odierno, now the war commander in Iraq. Odierno's job will be to eliminate his own office, officials said.

The plan Gates outlined was similar to one suggested last month by the Defense Business Board, a panel of company executives who advise the Pentagon. The panel identified Joint Forces Command as contributing to much of the contractor bloat because it had more contractors than government employees on its payroll.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

10-08-10, 11:39 AM

Pentagon to cut thousands of jobs, defense secretary says

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that the Pentagon will cut thousands of jobs, including a substantial chunk of its private contractors and a major military command based in Norfolk, as part of an ongoing effort to streamline its operations and to stave off political pressure to slash defense spending in the years ahead.

Gates said he will recommend that President Obama dismantle the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which employs about 2,800 military and civilian personnel as well as 3,300 contractors, most of them in southeastern Virginia. He also said he will terminate two other Pentagon agencies, impose a 10 percent cut in intelligence advisory contracts and slim down what he called a "top-heavy hierarchy" by thinning the ranks of admirals and generals by at least 50 positions.

The reduction in funding for contract employees -- by 10 percent annually over three years -- excludes those in war zones.

Although the moves will save an unspecified amount of money, defense officials characterized them as a political preemptive strike to fend off growing sentiment elsewhere in Washington to tackle the federal government's soaring deficits by making deep cuts in military spending. The Obama administration has exempted national security from its budget reductions, but Gates said he fears that Congress might not be able to resist for long.

"It is important that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, where tough economic times or the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense," Gates said. He cited threats from Iran, North Korea and other countries -- in an implicit reference to China -- as justification for continued overall growth in the Pentagon's budget.

After a decade in which its budget has nearly doubled, the Defense Department confronts its most significant fiscal constraints since the end of the Cold War. These constraints are pressing the military to accept major changes in the way it operates, especially as it tries to end long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The initiatives Gates detailed are part of his previously announced effort to save $100 billion over five years by trimming overhead and shrinking bureaucracy so that more money can be spent on troops and weapons.

That bureaucracy includes the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which was established in 1999 to coordinate training and military doctrine among the branches of the armed services. The command is also involved in organizing the deployment of armed forces around the world.

On Monday, the defense secretary emphasized that he is not seeking to cut the Pentagon's overall budget. Rather, he said, officials need to demonstrate a newfound thriftiness to keep deficit hawks elsewhere in the government at bay. "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of savings and restraint," he said.

In a statement, Obama said he supports Gates's plans, saying they would "help us sustain the current force structure and make needed investments in modernization in a fiscally responsible way."

Despite soaring federal budget deficits, the Obama administration has asked Congress to increase defense spending next year from $535 billion to $549 billion, not counting the cost of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan.

Lawmakers from both parties have questioned how long the Pentagon's budget can avoid the ax as Washington confronts its mounting debts. Analysts said Gates's preemptive strategy has played well on Capitol Hill, but might go only so far.

"It's a very smart and anticipatory set of actions Gates is taking, and it will definitely help," said Maren Leed, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Will it be enough? Probably not."

Some stalwarts of the defense establishment have urged Gates to make deeper cuts.

The Defense Business Board, an advisory group at the Pentagon, recommended to Gates last month that he shutter the Joint Forces Command. It also urged the Defense Department to shed more than 100,000 civilian jobs overall, returning its workforce to the size it was in 2003, when it numbered about 650,000.

Gates noted that the number of people working directly for him -- in the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- has swelled by 1,000 employees over the past decade, an increase of about 50 percent. He said he would freeze the number of personnel in his office, as well as those working for defense agencies and the military's 10 combatant commands, for the next three years.

The reduction in money for contractors alone would mark a major shift in the way the Defense Department has conducted business over the past decade, as it sought to limit the size of the federal workforce by hiring private firms instead.

The Pentagon did not specify how much it hopes to save by closing the Joint Forces Command or by reducing the number of contractors. Nor did it say how many of those positions would be transferred to the rest of the Defense Department's civilian workforce.

"It's premature to give you a number," Comptroller Robert F. Hale told reporters. "I don't think it's ready for prime time."

Indeed, the military isn't even sure how many contractors are on its payroll. One Pentagon report recently estimated that it relies on about 766,000 contractors, at a cost of about $155 billion. "This does not include the intelligence organizations and we are told it is not a 'high-confidence' figure," the Defense Business Board noted. In comparison, the Defense Department's civil-service workforce consists of 745,000 people.

A Washington Post analysis conducted as part of the "Top Secret America" investigation, however, found a significantly higher number: an estimated 1.2 million contractors overall being paid by the Defense Department, including the armed services and military intelligence agencies.

Staff writer Rosalind S. Helderman in Richmond and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

10-08-10, 12:06 PM

Recess sets aside several controversial defense issues

By Roxana Tiron - 08/09/10 06:00 AM ET

Congress will face several controversial defense issues when it returns from the summer recess, beginning with the annual defense spending bill, the industry’s bread and butter.

A crucial test for defense lobbyists, companies and lawmakers alike will be how many earmarks make it into the Senate’s version of the bill. The Senate this year appears to be the only conduit for for-profit firms and their congressional benefactors to add funding for projects the Pentagon has not requested.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who also leads the defense-spending panel, is expected to take up the Pentagon’s fiscal 2011 budget in September.

House Democrats allowed earmarks only for nonprofits, and House Republicans instituted a moratorium on all types, with only a few GOP members breaking that pledge. As a result, pet projects were cut in half in the 2011 spending bill as compared to the previous year, according to an analysis by The Hill and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Conference negotiations with the Senate may be intense over the earmarks, testing the resolve of Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), the new defense appropriations chairman, and Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), the retiring Appropriations chairman, to keep pet projects only for nonprofits in the final defense bill.

The Senate panel is not expected to approve funding for an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, which the Pentagon does not want and which has prompted a veto threat from administration. That sets up a clash with the House: Dicks couldn’t fend off the second engine’s supporters when his panel approved the 2011 appropriations bill in July. The full House Appropriations panel is also likely to back the $450 million for the GE-Rolls-Royce-made alternate engine.

It’s unclear whether the Pentagon’s 2011 budget will be in place on time — by Oct. 1. Congressional sources have said Congress may not approve the final defense bill before the November elections, forcing a continuing resolution that would fund the department at 2010 levels.

The Senate is also poised to take up the massive defense policy bill in September — usually seen as must-pass legislation because it carries critical policies for the Pentagon, including the yearly authorization for the military’s pay raises and benefits. Perhaps the most polarizing issue this year is the repeal of the Pentagon’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay people from serving in the military.

John McCain (Ariz.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday indicated he would set up hurdles to Democratic leadership efforts to bring up the 2011 defense authorization bill for a vote in September. He opposes repeal of the “Don’t ask” law as well as a provision in his committee’s bill that would repeal the ban on abortions at military hospitals if they are paid for with private funds.

Supporters of the “Don’t ask” repeal are pressing Congress to act while Democrats still hold majorities in both chambers. The defense authorization bill containing the repeal provision is unlikely to move forward in the Senate without 60 votes in favor — a level of support that may be unreachable after the midterms.

Another issue likely to ignite floor debate is a provision mandating that the president deploy 6,000 National Guard troops to the Southwest border. McCain backs the provision — his state of Arizona has seen some of the worst violence related to the drug trade from Mexico — but Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman and the manager of the bill, believes it would be unprecedented for Congress to direct the commander in chief to send troops to a specific location.

Levin has vowed to fight the provision on the floor or in conference negotiations with the House, which did not include such a provision.

Separately, the Obama administration is fighting a $1 billion cut in its $2 billion request for U.S. military training of Iraqi security forces.

“Some of us feel pretty strongly about this issue: that it's time — given the amount of money that Iraq is taking in oil revenue and the fact they cut their own defense budget in half in the parliament — it's kind of hard to justify putting billions of dollars in for the Iraq army,” said Levin, who has vowed to fight the cut, in May.

Conference negotiations with the House may be drawn out too, particularly because Levin is the only one of the Big Four — the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services panels — who supports repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Also, the F-35 alternate engine could keep lawmakers arguing, as was the case last year when the Senate did not include funding for the GE-Rolls-Royce engine.

buglerbilly

11-08-10, 02:55 AM

Gates Outlines Major Cuts To Contracting

Aug 10, 2010

By Paul McLeary, Michael Bruno

Traditional weapons programs like shipbuilding and emerging capabilities like cyberwarfare may be beneficiaries of the one-third, three-year cut in services support contracting that U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined Aug. 9.

The steps announced were at once sweeping and seemingly nibbling, but all will be up for what promises to be a contentious congressional review in the Fiscal 2012 budget process.

Still, service contractors certainly will see strong headwinds as Gates, in a high-profile Pentagon press conference, said nascent insourcing efforts were not going far enough and that the way to cut excessive contracting costs was to root out offices and practices that generated them.

“To be clear, the task before us is not to reduce the department’s top-line budget,” he said. “Rather, it is to significantly reduce its excess overhead costs and apply the savings to force structure and modernization.”

Gates asserted to reporters that he was “determined” to change the way the Pentagon did business, and he said he would be staying longer than he or others once predicted. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, announced his support for the moves.

Several lawmakers, however, erupted in opposition. In particular, the Virginia delegation and governor announced a “united front” to fight the closure of U.S. Joint Forces Command (Jfcom), as Gates is recommending, and questioned whether Washington really would allow greater investments in areas like shipbuilding.

“The American people will see this decision for what it is: a first step in a long string of national defense cuts that will systematically and intentionally gut the institutions that protect and defend the freedoms and liberties upon which our nation was founded — and they will not stand for it,” declared Virginia Rep. J. Randy Forbes, a Norfolk-area Republican and major booster of modeling &amp;amp;amp;amp; simulation and shipbuilding.

Still, the Gates-led Pentagon appears to be in the opening stages of what looks to be an almost unprecedented effort: to trim a bloated and duplicative Pentagon bureaucracy while at the same time maintaining the year-to-year defense budget expanding at a clip of 2%-3% in real growth.

Gates’ announcement — on the first business day that all lawmakers were out of town for their summer recess — is designed to follow his call this spring for $101 billion in reallocated internal spending so that major weapons programs could be buttressed.

As before, he declared that the armed services would get to keep their so-called savings; but he went further by adding that savings found elsewhere in the department would also go to the core weapons and capabilities deemed critically important, rather than back into non-branch agencies. One specific example offered by Gates to reporters, addressed to the Virginia delegation, was adding billions of dollars more to the Navy’s underfunded shipbuilding plan.

Besides Jfcom — funded at about $1 billion a year including $240 million for the salaries of the contractors — Gates also is pursuing closure of the Business Transformation Agency and elimination of the assistant secretary of defense for networks integration and information, and J6 function, which deal with enterprise information technology and hardware issues.

A “refashioned” Defense Information Systems Agency will perform the department’s chief information office functions. The secretary also directed a zero-based review of all of the Pentagon’s intelligence organizations and contracts, with the goal to strip “needless” duplication by Nov. 1, and said the new director of national intelligence could try to do similarly elsewhere.

Gates also targeted the Defense Department’s own overhead, mandating personnel level cuts and freezes — with exceptions like building up the acquisition workforce — directly aimed at reversing a culture of spending and demand that mushroomed after 9/11.

buglerbilly

11-08-10, 03:19 PM

Gates Efficiency Proposals Don’t Save Much Money

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued August 10, 2010)

(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates held a news conference to lay out his much anticipated plans to wring costs out of the Defense Department’s overhead activities as part of an effort to find $100 billion of savings to be applied to investments in future capabilities.

He is freezing senior appointments, reducing the number of boards and internal reports, cutting funding for such activities, eliminating duplication in defense intelligence activities, calling for greater commonality in IT systems and eliminating several defense organizations such as the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration, part of the J-6 section, the Defense Transformation Agency and the Joint Forces Command. Possibly the most innovative step Gates proposed was that every new initiative, program or ceremony large or small come with a price tag.

Secretary Gates called yesterday’s announcement a down payment on his effort to reform DoD. This is good because frankly his proposals are rather modest. Freezing senior civilian positions after more than a decade in which their numbers have mushroomed is not going to save much money. Using the Secretary’s own figures, cutting reports, boards and defense organizations will save, at best, $1 billion. This piddling amount will only be realized if everyone in the named organizations were fired and the gates of the facilities padlocked. But this will not be the case, as the Secretary admitted. Many of the functions of those star-crossed organizations will be transferred to other parts of DoD, requiring people to perform them. So, at best the savings will only be a small fraction of their total budgets.

The only way to save real money is to close offices, stop performing their functions and show the people employed there the door. One of the problems with past efforts to save money through base closure and realignment is that the functions performed on the facilities being closed were moved to other facilities along with the personnel slots to perform them. People either moved to the new facility and organization or new people were hired. Because of the increase in people and workload, the bases receiving these functions built additional facilities. Just look at all the building going on in places like Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and Huntsville, Alabama, both of which are experiencing major influxes of people from facilities being closed as a result of the last round of base closures. So, in the end, very little will be saved.

In response to a reporter’s question, the Secretary admitted that his effort to save money by insourcing the work of some 30,000 private contractors was not saving money. This is surprising since senior officials in the Secretary’s office and elsewhere in DoD had claimed that a government employee was 40 percent cheaper than a contractor. This assertion had been used by a number of DoD organizations to take logistics and sustainment work away from private contractors who had been performing well and bring it back inside the organic defense industrial base.

But the Secretary said in his press conference that the Department had come to the conclusion that the only way to reduce costs of contractor support was by cutting dollars. So much for the claim by some in DoD that insourcing will reduce costs. The plan now is not to make sustainment more efficient through insourcing but simply to spend less on it and take the resulting degradation in availability and output.

-ends-

buglerbilly

11-08-10, 06:46 PM

Gates’ Tries Hard, Won’t Stop Cuts

By Winslow Wheeler Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 10:02 am

Monday, August 9, I was invited [along with other analysts] to a meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates immediately after his press conference announcing some spending modifications. I also attended his press conference before the on the record meeting.

Overall assessment: Gates has made it clear that he seeks to defend the defense budget from real cuts that he expects from Congress (eg. Barney Frank alternative budget, which he mentioned in passing) and the deficit commission (which he said he wants to talk to). None of the money he seeks to save with these efforts would leave the defense budget; he simply wants to transfer overhead spending to other parts of DOD.

While he explicitly did not, repeat not, say so, I suspect Gates knows he will lose his fight against cuts and that he seeks with these actions to help DOD survive the cuts that are coming. In doing so, these efficiencies are inadequate. They will not transform the Pentagon into something that can survive significant budget reductions and be anything but the same institution at a lower level of spending. That, of course, will be a real disaster because even with dramatically growing DOD budgets our forces have become smaller, older, and less ready to fight.

On the other hand, I believe, Gates deserves credit for starting a process to attempt to deal with the fringes of the defense problem. He is the first secretary of defense to attempt to do so in decades, and he is earnest in his efforts, I believe. There is a long, long way to go, however. I and others have written at some length about what needs to be done; those proposals are readily available upon request.

Strangely, the Pentagon says these new proposals are part of the $102 billion, five year “savings” announced last May. While, again, nothing was said to indicate it, I believe there is something strange about this $102 billion “savings.” It’s not just that it amounts to very, very little over five years of DOD spending (and that it’s not a savings but an internal transfer), but I have come to suspect that it’s a rather meaningless number. Instead, it is a device being used to try to extract some efficiencies from the DOD bureaucracy and DOD contractors, and when the real cuts start occurring, these same ideas (and more importantly expansions of them) will be employed to adjust to real cuts.

Those real cuts are not coming from Capitol Hill. Although there has been some hyperventilated talk about bigger than usual cuts in the 2011 DOD appropriations bills coming out of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (up to $8 billion), much of those cuts may be quite phony. Although the reports and bills are not yet available from the HAC or SAC, a summary from the HAC (at http://appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/def/FY11_defense_summary.7.28 .10.pdf) makes me suspicious that they are up to their usual tricks. Rather than programmatic cuts, it may be that much of the reductions will be gimmicks (such as “revised economic assumptions”) and deferments of spending to future years (such as “unobligated expenditure” and “civilian underexecution” actions) that over the long run save nothing. Watch this space when the details become available.

Also, the political porkers are cuing up to make sure that their own pigs stay fat and someone else pays for budget restraint. In this regard, check out the incredibly selfish statements of the governor and congressional delegation of Virginia that queued up in a hyper-flash to announce that someone else needs to save money in the defense budget and that the Norfolk-based Joint Forces Command (now fingered by internal studies, a former commander, and the secretary of defense as useless) is just the kind of defense spending they like. Shame on them. Also, the usual political hacks are trying to savage the Obama Administration for being anti-defense for daring to take a penny of bloat from the Pentagon. In that regard, see the public comments of the top ranking Republican on House Armed Services, Cong. Howard “Buck” McKeon of CA.

Clearly, the change agents for the coming adjustments in the defense budget will not be the congressional porkers and hacks on committees like the appropriations and Armed Services committees.

Winslow T. Wheeler, a former GOP congressional budget expert, is director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/11/gates-tries-hard-wont-stop-cuts/#ixzz0wJh4yeh5

buglerbilly

12-08-10, 05:51 PM

‘Wall Street Marine’ Backs Defense Cuts

August 12, 2010

Military.com|by Bryant Jordan

These days it's unusual for a member of one political party to say anything positive about someone from the other camp.

And when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans Aug. 9 to slash the Pentagon budget and cut DoD reliance on contractors by 10 percent, it was hardly surprising that some of the loudest criticism came from Republicans, with ranking House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon suggesting that the cuts are a Democratic Party ploy to reroute the money into entitlement programs.

But Ilario Pantano -- the Wall Street broker who became a Marine officer in 2001 and is now a Republican candidate for Congress -- offered praise for Gates' planned budget cuts. However, he added that every other department -- and even Congress -- should pick up the carving knife.

"If Secretary Gates can find some fat to trim, then so can every other bloated government agency -- bar none," Pantano said in a statement yesterday.

Pantano emerged from a field of three GOP candidates to grab the party nomination for North Carolina's 7th District in May. Come the general election in November, he'll be facing incumbent Rep. Mike McIntyre, the latest in a line of Democrats who have held the seat since 1871.

Republicans are hopeful that Pantano will cut that string and plant the GOP banner in the 7th District.

But now they're faced with a candidate who appears willing to speak his own mind even if it means giving credit to the other side.

"I'm not afraid," Pantano said. "This is going to be a gunfight and I'm bringing the guns."

Pantano's political star has risen since he left the Marine Corps following a court-martial for killing two unarmed Iraqis he was holding. Pantano said the men attacked him and he emptied two magazines into them. He was charged with murder, but the case against him fell apart and the charges were dropped.

Gates announced his plans for Pentagon cuts on Aug. 9. The plan includes shutting down Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va., as well as freezing the numbers of senior military and civilian positions, cutting contractor numbers, and controlling costs.

Pantano said Gates' argument that he will streamline the bureaucracy and put DoD dollars where they'll do the most good is one that he agrees with.

"I have always been a proponent of streamlined military operations, and find that the bloated programs create inefficiencies and vulnerabilities in our military operations," he said in a statement calling for across-the-board agency cuts.

Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called Gates' plan "the piecemeal auctioning off of the greatest military the world has ever known. Unfortunately, it is a silent auction because the voice of the American people is not being heard."

He accuses the administration of gutting the military to pay for social programs. Forbes represents Virginia's 4th District, which abuts Norfolk, headquarters of Joint Forces Command.

McKeon, the senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Gates will have to convince committee members that the cuts will not weaken the country's defenses.

But he also floated a partisan question, asking: "How are we to be convinced that these savings will be reinvested into America's defense requirements and not harvested by congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs?"

Pantano said he is not worried about Gates' plan for cutting some defense spending.

Pantano said he also expects to take heat from lawmakers, including Republicans, over his call for them to cut their own salaries by 25 percent. Many people have seen the value of their homes drop by that amount, he argued.

"I'm not interested in what any party has to say about this," he said. "I'm channeling what I'm hearing every day out in the street. People talk about the medical care and the retirement packages in Congress, the exorbitant pay."

If November returns the GOP to leadership in Congress, he added, the Republican leadership is going to have to take these kinds of steps seriously.

© Copyright 2010 Military.com. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

13-08-10, 05:06 AM

Pentagon Sees Budget Uncertainties Ahead

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 12 Aug 2010 11:55

By promising to drastically slash spending, the Pentagon hopes to convince the U.S. Congress not to reduce its colossal budget. But experts say that may not be enough in a tough fiscal climate.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 9 announced measures to save 100 billion dollars over five years, including pared budgets for contractors, a cut in senior military and civilian posts, and closure of a major military command.

The aim is not to reduce the defense budget but to put its funds to better use, Gates said, stressing "the services will be able to keep the savings they generate to reinvest in higher priority warfighting needs and modernization programs.

"It is important that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, where tough economic times or the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense," he said.

Spared from a freeze on spending imposed by President Barack Obama's administration, the Pentagon has been allocated slightly more than 700 billion dollars in fiscal 2011.

But it is positioning itself for an anticipated decline in the budget from the highs of recent years, when the George W. Bush administration poured huge amounts of money into defense coffers.

At a time of flagging economic growth, the efforts may not be enough to keep intact a titanic defense budget that has more than doubled since 2001 and now accounts for more than 40 percent of the world's military budgets combined.

"I think that this was a necessary but not necessarily sufficient step to preserve small growth of the defense budget," said Maren Leed, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"There is massive pressure that is now growing in Congress on the defense budget as a whole, and so the danger is that they offer up a bunch of cost reductions or shifts and people sort of accept the cuts but don't accept all of the reinvestments," she said.

Winslow Wheeler, an expert at the Center for Defense Information, said he suspected Gates knew he would lose a fight to maintain the defense budget as is, and was taking steps to prepare the Pentagon for cuts that are on the way.

Even so, he said, "these efficiencies are inadequate."

"They will not transform the Pentagon into something that can survive significant budget reductions and be anything but the same institution at a lower level of spending," he said.

On the other hand, he gave Gates credit for "starting a process to attempt to deal with the fringes of the defense problem."

"He is the first secretary of defense to attempt to do so in decades, and he is earnest in his efforts, I believe. There is a long, long way to go, however."

In the meantime, Gates must manage a classic paradox of political Washington: withstand congressional pressure to cut costs while at the same time enduring the anger of members of Congress whose districts feel the pain of losing funds and jobs.

His plan to close the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, which employs 5,000 people, has already drawn the ire of Virginia lawmakers.

buglerbilly

13-08-10, 11:26 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

ACT Avoids Ax

Posted by Nicholas Fiorenza at 8/12/2010 10:59 AM CDT

The closure of the U.S. Joint Forces Command (Jfcom) will apparently not affect NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT), which is collocated with it in Norfolk, Va. An ACT spokesman told me: “ACT’s mission remains critical to the Alliance and there is no plan to disestablish or relocate ACT.”

He said, “It remains essential for NATO to stay closely linked to U.S. capability improvement efforts to ensure the alliance maximizes its effectiveness and interoperability. We will work closely with the U.S. government to ensure this cooperation remains close and productive throughout this process of transition for Jfcom.” In addition to interoperability, he sees “obvious benefits and efficiencies” in “maintaining a close transatlantic partnership throughout the process of transforming our forces to meet the needs of the future," especially in areas such as capability development, training and innovation. He added that ACT would identify “new but different ways” to preserve the transatlantic partnership.

Jfcom and ACT used to be commanded by a dual-hatted U.S. general or admiral, an arrangement dating to the Cold War when Jfcom was the U.S. Atlantic Command and ACT was Allied Command Atlantic. But French Air Force Gen. Stéphane Abrial became the first European Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) a little over a year ago. As its newest and potential last commander, U.S. Army Gen. Raymond Odierno will be responsible for closing down Jfcom, but this does not mean SACT will sacked.

buglerbilly

13-08-10, 04:02 PM

QDR Panel Dropped Strategy Ball

By Brian M. Burton Friday, August 13th, 2010 12:36 am

If Congress was frustrated by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) for advancing a do-it-all approach to strategy, it should be equally disappointed by the Independent Panel’s review of the QDR.

The Independent Panel, a blue-ribbon commission of leading defense experts, serves a valuable purpose: it acts as a check on the Defense Department’s often-opaque internal deliberations that shape defense strategy and capabilities. Moreover it benefits from being conducted outside many of the political and bureaucratic constraints that inhibit frank discussions of and innovative proposals for critical problems, such as ballooning personnel costs and questionable acquisition policies. But the Independent Panel failed to perform its most important function: critiquing the defense strategy laid out in the QDR.

The essence of strategy is prioritization. In a resource-constrained environment, the United States cannot afford to confront every global challenge or purchase capabilities for every contingency. One major criticism of the 2010 QDR was that it failed to identify clear priorities. The primary objectives it laid out to shape the force (such as “prevent and deter conflict” and “prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies”) were all-encompassing and abstract enough to justify virtually any investment or activity.

At the same time, demands on the force and pressures on discretionary spending from mounting deficits suggest a need to make some hard choices; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced on Monday new plans to trim the Defense Department bureaucracy in hopes of warding off potentially more drastic cuts imposed by Congress. This is the time for the department to be more discriminating, not more expansive, in its capability investments.

Yet the Independent Panel recognized no such limitations. It identified broad “security interests” (such as “providing for the global ‘common good’”) and explicitly rejected any retrenchment from a position of global leadership. Rather than focusing on specific priorities, it recommended doing more of everything. It calls for maintaining the end-strength of the recently expanded Army and Marine Corps while also modernizing and replacing hardware on a one-to-one basis.

The panel’s primary response to the new “anti-access” challenge posed by China and other potential adversaries is to recommend building up more force structure. It called for “an increased priority” on addressing this particular class of threat, along with enhancing homeland and cyber defense capabilities and carrying out an extensive modernization program, while continuing to prosecute current conflicts.

To its credit, the Independent Panel is honest about the cost of its recommendations. It noted, for example, “We cannot reverse the decline of shipbuilding, buy enough naval aircraft, recapitalize Army equipment, modernize tactical aircraft, purchase a new aerial tanker, increase our deep-strike capability, and recapitalize the bomber fleet…[without] a substantial and immediate additional investment that is sustained over the long-term.”

Certainly, if cost were no object, the United States would be able to invest in every capability it could conceivably need for any situation. But resources are always limited, and good strategy is defined by the difficult but well-informed tradeoffs it makes.

For that reason it was disappointing that the Independent Panel had very little to say about the defense strategy enunciated in the QDR. It preoccupied itself, puzzlingly, with proposals for developing civilian capacity in other departments and a new national security strategy formulation process—important issues, to be sure, but outside the purview of the QDR that the panel was to review.

Far more useful would have been the panel’s view of what should and — critically— should not be defense priorities. For example, which of the QDR’s stated areas of focus can be cut, or at least minimized, to intensify efforts on the greatest threats? What exactly is the most significant threat that the armed forces should be sized and shaped against? How should the department prioritize defending the homeland against maintaining a major presence in the Asia Pacific and enhancing cyber security while prosecuting a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan? [Eds note: see the picture of Clausewitz.]

Something is going to get shorted in this equation, and the Independent Panel should have used its position to offer guidance on how to navigate these competing demands. Unfortunately, the Independent Panel’s recommendations do not lead us that way, but instead further down the unsustainable path of trying to buy our way out of trouble.

Brian M. Burton is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/13/qdr-panel-dropped-strategy-ball/#ixzz0wUisC4NS

buglerbilly

15-08-10, 04:42 AM

Panel Looks at Closing U.S. Air Force Overseas Installations

By MICHAEL HOFFMAN

Published: 14 Aug 2010 12:47

Thousands of airmen would lose their jobs if Congress closed military installations overseas to cut defense spending.

Lawmakers as well as the Pentagon itself are reviewing how shuttering some bases in Europe and Japan would affect both national security and the defense budget. The Air Force has 16 installations in Europe and six in Asia.

A task force appointed by Congress has already weighed in positively; a Pentagon advisory board is studying the potential cost savings and impact on the U.S. and its allies.

"We are looking at ," said a board member who agreed to talk with Air Force Times on background.

Three months ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the Pentagon's military and civilian leaders to find $102 billion in savings over the next five years - roughly 3.4 percent of the Pentagon's requested appropriations - and shift the money to the war-fighting effort.

Gates' predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to close more than a third of the bases overseas and move 170,000 service members and their families back to the U.S.

Air Force Special Operations Command considered moving its 352nd Special Operations Group at RAF Mildenhall, England, and 353rd Special Operations Group at Kadena Air Base, Japan, to Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., said Lt. Gen. Mike Wooley, former AFSOC commander.

Today, support is building in Congress to close installations in Europe and Asia.

A bipartisan group of four congressmen sponsored the task force, which found the U.S. could save $80 billion if it reduced its military presence in Europe and Asia by a third.

Members of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, mostly Washington defense analysts, testified at a July 20 hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on their findings, compiled in a report titled "Debt, Deficits, and Defense: A Way Forward."

"We continue to try to get a clear picture from the department of the actual number of overseas military bases we have, as well the strategic rationale for each location," said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass, the subcommittee chairman. "Time after time, we see opportunities for increased efficiency, less waste and better use of taxpayer money."

Under the task force's proposal, about 50,000 service members would go.

The Air Force would cut one fighter wing and 10,000 airmen, according to the report. The task force also recommended eliminating one Army Brigade Combat Team from Europe and pulling back 7,000 Marines and 9,000 sailors stationed overseas.

"Our allies can afford to defend themselves. The Cold War is over," said Benjamin Friedman, who served on the task force. "Time has come for all our allies to carry the burden of their defense."

The former commander of U.S. Air Forces Africa, which has its headquarters at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, has noticed overseas major commands moving their headquarters to the U.S.

"Southern Command is in the United States. Central Command and Pacific Command are all on U.S. soil. So to me, if we just followed that logic, AFRICOM would move back to the United States," Maj. Gen. Ronald Ladnier told Air Force Times in a June interview. "Doesn't that just make sense?"

Service officials got a view of life without some key USAFE bases in April, when ash from an Icelandic volcano brought air traffic in Europe to a standstill.

Air Force transports hauling everything from cargo to wounded soldiers in and out of the war zones remained grounded for six days. Planes scheduled to stop at Ramstein to drop off wounded soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center had to fly nonstop back to the U.S.

The biggest costs associated with overseas bases are moving, housing and cost of living expenses.

A single technical sergeant at Kadena Air Base, Japan, gets $33,200 more a year to live than his counterpart at Langley Air Force Base, Va., said Col. Ottis L. Hutchinson, PACAF director of financial management and comptroller. A single senior airman at Misawa Air Base, Japan, makes $25,574.28 more a year than his counterpart at Langley.

Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation and a former Senate aide, doesn't think the Pentagon will save much money by reducing its overseas presence. Military construction is expensive whether it's in the U.S. or abroad.

"It's expensive to keep them forward deployed, but in a lot of ways it's a sunk cost," she said. "The money has already been spent," Eaglen said.

The member of the advisory board agreed. It would be unfair to assume out of hand that it costs more to run a base in Italy or Japan than one in New Mexico or Maryland. Many countries such as Japan pay the U.S. for bases inside their countries, the official said.

[I][There may be in a lot of cases one-off costs to modernise, expand and/or re-develop existing or even new facilities, BUT the on-going fact is that there is a huge State and Federal Tax benefit to having your Forces nationally based.............the major downside then becomes the Logistics element to allow you to transport Forces over potentially huge distances.........more C-17's anyone! :moon]

The overseas basing debate is not simply a dollars-and-cents one, though. U.S. military strategic goals demand base units throughout the world, said Brig. Gen. Mark Schissler, USAFE's director for plans, programs and analyses.

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz listed building partnership capacity on top of his priority list. PACAF and USAFE bases are essential to meeting that goal, Schissler said.

"For me it's all about distance," Schissler said. "We're in a place that we can get to [many of our NATO allies] in a day's travel."

Schissler counters the cost-saving argument with a missed-opportunities one. Moving units back to the U.S. would cause airmen to lose out on training and partnership building, he said.

"Those forces could go to the United States and rotate over here, but they don't have the types of relationships we enjoy by being over here," he said. "If the [C-130s at Ramstein] go to a country to build relationships [and] get training ... they'll also have a chance to expose our procedures and our habits and ... our professional NCO corps."

Besides, Schissler added, the U.S. has a responsibility to its NATO partners to maintain bases in Europe.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, points to North Korea's sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 as proof that overseas bases don't always deter U.S. enemies.

"We should assure our allies and deter our enemies with strong military capabilities and sound policy, not merely by keeping our troops stationed overseas," Hutchison said in a July 16 statement posted on her website. "Instead of breaking ground on military projects abroad and advancing DoD's new goal of building 'partnership capacity,' we should be building American infrastructure."

buglerbilly

15-08-10, 07:30 AM

Lawmakers Blast Joint Forces Closure

August 14, 2010

Daily Press, Newport News, Va.

Virginia's congressional leaders officially delivered their case against closing Joint Forces Command to Defense Secretary Robert Gates Friday in a letter that said the move "reflects superficial research and a lack of analytical rigor."

The letter -- signed by Sens. Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner and U.S. Reps. Randy Forbes, Glenn Nye, Robert C. "Bobby" Scott and Rob Wittman -- lays out formally the flood of complaints that have been bubbling out of Virginia's political leaders since Gates announced the move on Monday.

The three-pronged argument basically states that closing the command will hurt military cohesion on the battlefield, cut into the defense workforce, and harm the local economy. The move would cause "the future erosion of our military's joint warfighting capabilities, the dismissal of thousands of highly skilled civilian federal employees and defense contractors, and a significant adverse economic impact in the Hampton Roads region," the letter states.

The letter also questions the legality of the closure -- echoing an argument adopted by Forbes, Webb and Wittman -- saying that Gates should have gone through the formal Base Alignment and Closure process. Forbes said the delegation is analyzing a legal challenge.

Lawmakers also lashed out at the Defense Business Board, which recommended the closure, noting that the group didn't visit Joint Forces Command, ask for a briefing on what the command does, or offer Virginia congressional leaders the opportunity to weigh in.

"Needless to say, it is deeply disturbing that that you would apparently act on a recommendation that reflects superficial research and a lack of analytical rigor," the lawmakers wrote.

The arguments in the letter are sure to be on display next week, when lawmakers head to Suffolk for a summit on the closing. The Wednesday meeting at the Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center is expected to bring out federal, state and local leaders from throughout Hampton Roads.

© Copyright 2010 Daily Press, Newport News, Va.. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

15-08-10, 07:33 AM

Gates Likes Services’ Reinvestment Plans

August 14, 2010

Associated Press

SAN DIEGO -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday he is pleased with the military services' initial recommendations for cutting their budgets and spending the savings on weapons modernization.

Gates called the services' cuts and reinvestment priorities ambitious and aggressive.

"Because they get to reinvest savings, they're highly motivated to make it work," the Pentagon chief said.

Gates has ordered the services and the Pentagon's agencies to find $100 billion in spending cuts and savings over the next five years.

Some of the proposed cuts have already drawn fierce opposition from members of Congress whose districts would be affected.

Six members of Virginia's congressional delegation wrote to Gates on Friday warning that Gates' call to close the Joint Forces Command, located in their state, would cripple American combat capability, wreck southeastern Virginia's economy and sidestep federal base closing procedures.

Sens. Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner and Reps. Bobby Scott, Randy Forbes, Rob Wittman and Glenn Nye wrote that it was "deeply disturbing that you would apparently act on a recommendation that reflects superficial research and a lack of analytical rigor."

Gates' press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said that Gates is "sensitive" to concerns and that eliminating the command will create some difficulties for Virginia. But he said Gates believes the actions are necessary to addresses the overall interests of the military and ensure adequate investment in forces and weapons modernization.

Morrell said Gates rejects the argument that the action requires a base closing commission. "We are eliminating an organization, not closing a base," the spokesman said.

Gates praised the military response to his plan in comments to reporters during a visit to San Diego's Marine recruit depot. There, he welcomed a group of 196 Marines who had just completed a 13-week basic training course.

As the new Marines stood under the bright sun with a breeze rippling palm trees behind them, Gates praised the "uncommon perseverance" they showed in making it through basic training.

Later he was flying to Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in Washington state.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

16-08-10, 01:42 PM

Stick Around, Bob

Published: 16 August 2010

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' campaign to reduce overhead spending at the Pentagon kicked into high gear last week.

Declaring his department bloated, top-heavy, and extravagant, Gates last week rattled off a string of cuts and freezes aimed at instilling "a culture of savings and restraint." He wants to eliminate U.S. Joint Forces Command, consolidate three large information technology agencies into one and cut back contract service support spending at the Pentagon by 10 percent annually for the next three years.

In classic Gates fashion, he defused the drama of the moment by foreshadowing all of these moves in earlier speeches and comments, carefully softening the blow in an effort to make it all seem somewhat inevitable.

He also continues to hint that there's more to come, setting off alarm bells in some corners, yes, but also setting expectations that the services will follow with similar cuts of their own.

Closing down Joint Forces Command will not be as simple as it looks. The Joint Staff at the Pentagon will have to look carefully at all of that command's myriad responsibilities and products to determine what is duplicative and what must be preserved.

Similarly, combining the Office of Network and Information Integration, the Joint Staff's J-6 division, and the Defense Information Systems Agency saves top-tier management and staff jobs, and forces the offices to identify redundant programs and efforts and to streamline defense IT activity. But it will also raise questions about whether the DISA chief will have the authority he needs to achieve greater commonality in network architectures and technology across the defense landscape.

Finally, cutting contract service support spending is essential. The explosion of such jobs since 9/11 has been so rapid that today, no one knows how many contract employees are working for DoD agencies. Establishing specific goals will force managers to track their contractor spending and prioritize needs. For too long, contractors have been viewed as free labor, because the money comes from operations and maintenance rather than personnel. But no more.

Critics say the 10 percent annual cut in contract service support is arbitrary, and perhaps it is. But in a use-it-or-lose-it world, managers need such goals; without them, there is no incentive to rein in spending or review methods, procedures and staffing.

And Gates is all about establishing incentives and expectations.

By demonstrating it can trim its own bloated overhead costs and more smartly manage its money, Gates reasons, the Pentagon can stave off the kind of thoughtless cuts that led to the hollow force of the post-Vietnam era and the undersized, underpaid military that emerged after the first Gulf War. At least that's the theory.

Now comes the hard part: Seeing the cuts through to reality.

If Gates really wants to replace a spendthrift culture with one that values every dollar, he will have to stay put. That means years, not months; otherwise, all those who oppose him, whether civilian or uniformed, elected or appointed, civil servants or contractors, will simply drag their feet until, through sheer inertia, they win out.

buglerbilly

16-08-10, 07:29 PM

Gates Is Going

By Colin Clark Monday, August 16th, 2010 1:00 pm

A great pity in my opinion, I'd like to see him in that position for another 3-4 years...............irresepctive of which Party comes to office!

It’s official. One of the most dynamic and effective defense secretaries ever plans top leave office sometime in 2011. Buzz readers, of course, knew that in late May, but Gates made it public in a Foreign Policy magazine interview published today.

Gates told Fred Kaplan that “he hopes to leave office next year, possibly as early as January, but certainly by the end of 2011,” according to the article. The interview occurred July 12 in Gates’s office.

“It would be a mistake to wait until January 2012,” he said. “This is not the kind of job you want to fill in the spring of an election year.”

That timing would allow Gates to try and cement the effioiencies he seeks and present his final budget, the second full effort by the Obama administration.

We will have more on the impact of Gates’ departure through the day.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/16/gates-is-going/#ixzz0wn4yoaIy

buglerbilly

16-08-10, 07:39 PM

Gates Gone? Not So Fast…

By Noah Shachtman August 16, 2010 | 1:27 pm

The headline writers have decided: Bob Gates is leaving the Pentagon next year. But is that really the case? The Defense Secretary has a history of departure declarations — only to rescind them, when the President asks him to stay.

“It seems like somewhere there in 2011 is a logical opportunity to hand off,” Gates tells Fred Kaplan, in an interview for Foreign Policy magazine. “I think that it would be a mistake to wait until January 2012.”

That’s the quote that launched editors and bloggers into a thousand declarations that Gates was gone.

It’s a little odd, considering that Gates in 2007 kept a countdown clock that ticked off the days, hours, minutes, and seconds until January 20, 2009, when President George W. Bush would leave office and Gates could retire to his home in the Pacific Northwest. At the time, Kaplan asked Gates if he thought he might stay into the next administration. “The circumstances under which I would do that,” Gates replied, “are inconceivable to me.”

Then President-elect Barack Obama asked Gates to stick around in a November 2008 meeting in a Virginia hotel room, shortly after the election. Gates said yes, right away.

At the time, the Iraq war had already turned for the better, and Gates’ talk of overhauling the Pentagon was mostly just talk.

Perhaps the Afghanistan war will be in just as good shape by, say November 2011. Perhaps Gates’ project to streamline the Pentagon’s bureaucracy will have reached a suitable conclusion by then. Perhaps President Obama won’t ask Gates to remain on.

But my guess is that if either of these two big projects are unfinished, Gates will stay. He doesn’t strike me as the type to have a losing war or losing fight with the military-industrial complex as the final mark on his decades-long government career. The career public servant also doesn’t strike me as the type to turn down an Oval Office request. As Kaplan notes at the end of his profile, “if the president does ask, Robert Gates has always been the type to say, ‘Yes.’”

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/gates-gone-not-so-fast/#more-29470#ixzz0wn97hQEF

buglerbilly

17-08-10, 02:28 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Eliminating Waste In Defense Spending--And On Capitol Hill

Posted by Tony Velocci at 8/16/2010 11:41 PM CDT

Eliminating all manner of inefficiencies in the U.S. Defense Department—not to mention forcing the defense industry to exercise more discipline in how it manages weapons programs—are not exactly new concepts. Defense secretaries, members of Congress and denizens of think tanks have been paying lip service to these imperatives forever, it seems.

The difference between then and now is that the current SecDef’s very public commitment to making real progress on both fronts is more than empty talk, as we explain in the Aug. 16 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology (subscription required). Robert Gates demonstrated as much with the program cuts he imposed last year and the underperforming programs he has vowed to terminate in the next budget cycle.

Indeed, what Gates is attempting to accomplish is nothing short of a cultural transformation. Whether it takes permanent hold in industry and the Defense Department bureaucracy remains to be seen. But the likelihood that he will remain in his current post beyond the previously rumored departure of December 2010, as some national security community insiders had been intimating, suggests that at least some of his efforts will have a lasting effect. (A piece in September/October issue of Foreign Policy magazine quotes Gates as saying he will leave some time in 2011; his comment comes at the end of the piece).

Perhaps the most heartening aspect of Gates’ latest initiative—a one-third, three-year cut in services support contracting—is his concern that the contraction in defense funding could be seen by some observers as a kind of peace dividend. “I have seen this first-hand twice, following Vietnam and the Cold War, and I can smell it coming,” he told a small gathering of thought leaders at a private meeting recently at the Pentagon.

While Gates is targeting fat, underperformance and poor business practices, some shortsighted members of Congress and the Obama administration are simply targeting the Defense Department for deficit-reduction purposes. Never mind that little is being done to bring the explosive growth in domestic entitlements under control.

Particularly galling was the reaction by some lawmakers to Gates’s recently proposed cuts to overhead costs. Among the most vocal were the Virginia delegation and governor. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) declared, “The American people will see this decision for what it is: a long string in national defense cuts that will systematically and intentionally gut the institutions that protect and defend the freedoms and liberties upon which our nation was founded—and they will not stand for it.”

My hope is that the American people will see such members of Congress – those unwilling or incapable of looking beyond their state or district’s own parochial interests and making decisions for the greater good -- for who they really are. And then I hope they ask what those lawmakers personally have done to root out inefficiencies to help bolster and sustain defense modernization.

buglerbilly

18-08-10, 11:52 AM

With Gates’ Proposals, the Edge Of the Perfect Storm Comes Ashore

September 2010 edition NDI magazine

By Lawrence P. Farrell Jr.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates just issued a significant series of budgetary and programmatic decisions that begin the major adjustment process he announced in early May at the Eisenhower Library in Kansas.

In last month’s President’s Perspective we anticipated the coming storm. With the August announcements, the leading edge of that storm has come ashore.

The reforms proposed by Gates are quite significant and will greatly affect many organizations. A series of reviews between now and the end of the year presages more adjustments to come in the 2012 budget. The efficiency push is not over, Gates warned. “This is a dynamic process,” he said. “I expect it to continue. It’s not the work of one year or of one budget cycle. ... I wouldn’t necessarily describe it as the tip of the iceberg, but if 90 percent of an iceberg is under water, then this is a pretty good percentage of it, but not all.”

Gates has been adamant that his intent is not to cut the department’s budget. The goal is to reshape priorities so resources can be freed up and reallocated within the Defense Department’s budget to get to the 2 to 3 percent real growth (1 to 2 percent above current top line) he believes is needed to underwrite two wars and to protect our interests and future capabilities. Thus, any savings will be applied to more pressing needs within the existing top line.

The process will play out in four tracks: $100 billion in service-generated overhead savings (to include closure of bases); suggestions from external sources and boards (where the proposal to shutter Joint Forces Command came from); internal assessments (the Ashton Carter initiative) that will affect ongoing programs immediately, and the recent August announcements.

This last set of initiatives aims, in the first instance, to cut down on the use of advisory and support contractors by 10 percent a year for three years. Next up is a freeze on headquarters, agency and combatant positions and significantly, no creation of full-time in-house positions as a result of in-sourcing after 2010. A “clean-sheet” review will be completed by Nov. 15. A freeze on senior executive service and general officer positions is to be followed by the elimination of at least 50 general officers and 150 SES officials over the next two years.

Reports and studies, and outside boards/commissions are to be cut by 25 percent and are targeted for further reductions.

The most significant changes come with major functional and organizational adjustments. Of note is the consolidation of information technology within the department and across bases, headquarters and agencies. Not much detail is available yet, but much more is to come. Slated for elimination is the office of the assistant secretary for networks and information (NII) and the Command, Control, Communications and Computer Systems Directorate of the Joint Staff, known as JCS/J-6; the Business Transformation Agency, and the already mentioned Joint Forces Command. The closings and consolidations are all scheduled to be completed within one year. That is aggressive.

What to make of all this? First, the reduction in studies, reports and outside boards is probably the easiest to achieve, although there may not be a lot of savings there. Cutbacks in the number of general officers and senior civilians are not hard to do, but they are complicated by other personnel reductions associated with the elimination of agencies and commands. It is not clear where these people will go.

The elimination of J-6 will require some heavy thinking. It is a key organization that oversees and manages the operational piece of battlefield communications and networking.

And while the Business Transformation Agency may go easily, closing JFCOM will be tough, because of its size and numerous functions, some of which will undoubtedly be deemed critical and will be realigned. There is also the political impact of letting go nearly 6,000 personnel and contractors in Suffolk and Chesapeake, Va. The Virginia delegation is already gearing up for a fight, although statements by House Armed Services Committee leaders seem to be neutral if not mildly supportive of Gates’ efforts.

One big unknown is the initiative to streamline intelligence organizations and operations in order to eliminate “unnecessary redundancy.” This is accompanied by a 10 percent reduction in funding for intelligence advisory and assistance contacts and freezing the SES positions. A zero-based review is scheduled to wrap up by Nov. 1. The new Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has indicated a parallel effort for national intelligence organizations.

Finally, it is worth noting that the program that Gates launched with his May speech in Kansas has momentum and continuity. It also has support. His reforms will have serious and significant implications across the Defense Department, and there is more to come. A key fact to remember is that Secretary Gates is the helmsman. The dire financial condition of the country, and upcoming report by the Deficit Commission in December virtually guarantee that most of his proposals will come to pass.

buglerbilly

19-08-10, 02:18 AM

Gates Wages A Budget War And A Gamble

Aug 18, 2010

By Michael Bruno, Paul McLeary, Michael Mecham
Washington , Washington, San Francisco

At the heart of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s new gambit lie two bold guesses: first, that his budget cuts and force reductions will do more good than harm; and second, that Congress, the White House and even the public will accept the sacrifices and dig no deeper into warfighting capability.

This strategy constitutes an epic wager that, perhaps, only a trained historian like Gates can truly appreciate. And he is set to make its success or failure his legacy.

“I am determined to change the way this department has done business for a long time,” he says.

It is almost personal. According to a closed-door meeting with a hand-picked group of analysts after a press conference announcing the changes, Gates expressed genuine frustration with budget rollbacks he witnessed firsthand after Vietnam and the Cold War, as well as repeated failure by Washington to address other federal spending such as entitlements. Now, House Democratic leadership, numerous liberal activists and members of President Barack Obama’s bipartisan budget-cutting commission again are calling for defense spending to be considered in expected federal cutbacks. Conservatives from Gates’s own Republican camp, too, are whipping up an anti-spending fervor.

In turn, he sees another round of “peace dividends” eyed after major combat operations end in Iraq and Afghanistan. “If you were to graph the defense budget going back the last 40 or 50 years, it would look like the EKG of a fibrillating heart,” Gates says. “My greatest fear is that in economic tough times, people will see the defense budget as the place to solve the nation’s deficit problems—to find money for other parts of the government.”

Instead, Gates’s announcement—on the first business day that lawmakers were out of town for their summer recess—is designed to follow his call this spring for $101 billion in reallocated internal spending so that major weapon programs can be buttressed. As one of Obama’s most-respected cabinet members, Gates and others believe he has secured from the White House about a 1% increase in annual, baseline Pentagon allocations for the coming years despite White House freezes elsewhere—but weapon costs still will demand another 2-3% spending growth in their accounts. Gates had hoped that so-called insourcing, contracting reductions and other changes such as those in the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 would satisfy the gap; but by this month he acknowledged those reforms were falling short and greater sacrifices were necessary.

“What we need is modest, sustainable growth over a prolonged period of time that allows us to make sensible investment decisions and not have these giant increases and giant decreases that make efficiency and doing acquisition in a sensible way almost impossible,” Gates asserts. To that effect, he proposes slashing three agencies that rely heavily on contractors, freeze and cut staffing levels including leadership, and gut the number of advisory panels and reports that feed a general spending atmosphere (see chart).

In a measure of Gates’s reputation, practically everyone in industry contacted by Aviation Week or who offered reaction publicly praised Gates for his national security achievements, efficiency drive and even political savvy in pursuing these and other reforms since April 2009. “We support the secretary’s desire to strike the right balance between government and private industry roles in our national defense,” Pratt &amp;amp; Whitney representatives e-mailed Aviation Week.

In fact, Gates met with several executives in late July to pre-brief them on his moves, and some like ITT Corp. Chairman and CEO Steve Loranger already were expressing overall support toward shoring up U.S. defense budgeting (AW&amp;amp;ST Aug. 9, p. 20).

“Gates is supposed to be a skillful bureaucratic infighter, so hopefully he knows what buttons to push to get the overhead cut,” notes aerospace and defense finance specialist Wolfgang Demisch. But he also sounds a warning: “I wish him all the success in the world, but [I] am concerned that the contractors, who are very comfortable in this lah-lah land of endless contracts and near-zero competition, will impede his efforts.”

Indeed, the Professional Services Council, a Washington trade group for government services providers, immediately challenged Gates for his “arbitrary” reductions in funding for contract support, as well as basing his decision to close U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), at least in part on the large number of contractor employees supporting it. Virginia officials said about 5,000 jobs could be at risk in their state.

And Washington law firm Venable’s Robert Burton, who spent seven years as the top career procurement policymaker in the George W. Bush administration, says the proposed cuts in contractor support raise serious concerns. “First, small businesses will suffer most of the losses in jobs and revenue,” he says. “If large [defense] prime contractors have to make cuts, they will first reduce their subcontractors, who are frequently small businesses.”

Of course, Gates will not get a free ride from Capitol Hill either as lawmakers focus on job protection and growth ahead of November elections. In particular, most—but not all—of the bipartisan Virginia delegation and the commonwealth’s governor declared a “united front” to defend the Norfolk-based JFCOM. Defense and intel contracting, in general, has shielded the state from the current recession and led to record wealth and job growth in Northern Virginia, where the Pentagon is, and the Norfolk area, which is the home of the U.S. military’s largest collection of forces on the East Coast.

Gates may run into similar opposition from European allies. Since his Eisenhower Library speech in May, the secretary has used the legacy U.S. command footprint in Europe as one example of overhead ripe for culling. Unlike most other commands, the armed services have kept their own four-star-level headquarters there “long after the vast majority of their fighting forces have departed,” Gates reiterated on Aug. 9. While European reaction has been slow owing to the August holidays, allies there already were sensitive to a loss of prestige as Washington looks to reorient toward Beijing strategically. In addition, U.S. bases are important to local jobs, while NATO’s transformation office has been collocated at JFCOM.

How many of his recommendations Gates can achieve on his own authority is up for dispute. Base realignment and closures became so politically fraught starting in the 1990s that Congress established an extra-judicial commission process just to get anything done. But budget implications from Gates’s recommendations will start to emerge in the Fiscal 2012 process, already underway inside the Pentagon, and they will not be all bad news.

For instance, Gates suggests that shipbuilding and cyberwarfare—both important sectors to Virginia, incidentally—could be some of the leading beneficiaries from the reallocations, and he is not shy in his deal-making. “If as a result of these efforts I am able to add a billion or $2 billion to the Navy’s shipbuilding program of record, Virginia may well come out with a lot more jobs than it loses.”

The defense secretary’s Aug. 9 proposals include:

• Eliminate the U.S. Joint Forces Command, one of 10 combatant commands (Cocoms).

• Eliminate the Business Transformation Agency.

• Eliminate the assistant secretary of defense for networks integration and information, and J6 function, which deal with enterprise information technology (IT) and hardware issues.

• Reduce funding for service support contracts by 10% annually for three years.

• Stop replacing departing contractors with full-time personnel, except to build up the Defense Department’s acquisition workforce as planned.

• Freeze Office of the Secretary of Defense, non-branch agencies and Cocom management staffing at Fiscal 2010 personnel levels for three years and conduct “clean-sheet” reviews of them by November.

• Cut at least 50 general and admiral positions and 150 senior civilian executive positions over the next two years.

• Consolidate IT assets, stand up an empowered chief information office, and assign greater responsibility to the Defense Information Systems Agency to take advantage of the Pentagon’s buying power.

• Freeze the number of all department-required oversight reports and cut funding allocated to advisory studies by 25%.

• 10% reduction in funding for advisory and assistance contracts that support intelligence functions and agencies, and report on further recommendations by November.

• Attach a cost estimate to every new initiative proposed hereafter.

Photo: DoD

buglerbilly

19-08-10, 02:07 PM

Department of Defense Announces Selected Acquisition Reports

(Source: US Department of Defense; dated Aug. 17, 2010)

The Department of Defense (DoD) has released details on major defense acquisition program cost, schedule, and performance changes since the December 2009 reporting period. This information is based on the Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) submitted to the Congress for the June 2010 reporting period.

Selected Acquisition Reports summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule, and performance status. These reports are prepared annually in conjunction with the President's budget. Subsequent quarterly exception reports are required only for those programs experiencing unit cost increases of at least 15 percent or schedule delays of at least six months. Quarterly SARs are also submitted for initial reports, final reports, and for programs that are rebaselined at major milestone decisions.

The total program cost estimates provided in the SARs include research and development, procurement, military construction, and acquisition-related operation and maintenance (except for pre-Milestone B programs, which are limited to development costs pursuant to section 2432 of title 10, United States Code.) Total program costs reflect actual costs to date as well as anticipated future costs. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances.

The current estimate of program acquisition costs for programs covered by SARs for the prior reporting period (December 2009) was $1,616,169.3 million.

After subtracting the costs for four final reports:

Bradley Upgrade, CVN 68, EA-6B ICAP (Improved Capability) III, and Minuteman III PRP (Propulsion Replacement Program)
and adding the costs for eleven new programs:

AMF JTRS (Airborne and Maritime Fixed Joint Tactical Radio System), ASIP (Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload), BAMS UAS(Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System), ER/MP UAS (Extended Range/Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aircraft System), IAMD (Integrated Air and Missile Defense), INC 1 E-IBCT (Increment 1 Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team), JHSV (Joint High Speed Vessel), JPALS (Joint Precision Approach and Landing System), Predator Unmanned Aircraft System, Reaper Unmanned Aircraft System, and WIN-T INC 3 (Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 3),

the adjusted current estimate of program acquisition costs from the December 2009 reporting period was $1,672,150.5 million.

For the June 2010 reporting period, there was a net cost decrease of $52.6 million (-0.003 percent), due primarily to a revised estimate in support of the Milestone C (Low Rate Initial Production) decision for C-130 AMP (Avionics Modernization Program).

Current Estimate ($ in Millions)

-- December 2009 (87 programs): $ 1,616,169.3

-- Less final reports on four programs
(Bradley Upgrade, CVN 68, EA-6B ICAP III, and Minuteman III PRP): -18,836.8

-- Plus initial reports on eleven programs
(AMF JTRS, ASIP, BAMS, ER/MP UAS, IAMD, INC 1 E-IBCT, JHSV, JPALS, Predator, Reaper, and WIN-T INC 3): +74,818.0

-- December 2009 Adjusted (94 programs): $ 1,672,150.5

-- Net Cost Change Changes Since Last Report: $ -52.6

-- June 2010 (94 programs) $1,672,097.9

For the June 2010 reporting period, there were quarterly exception SARs submitted for four programs. The reasons for the submissions are provided below.

Navy:
-- CVN 78 Class - The SAR was submitted to revise cost variance explanations to provide further clarification of changes associated with the Five Year Build Center that were reported in the December 2009 SAR. There was no net cost change reported.

Air Force:
-- C-130 AMP (Avionics Modernization Program) - The SAR was submitted to rebaseline from a Development to a Production Estimate following approval of Milestone C (Low Rate Initial Production) in June 2010. Program costs decreased $52.6 million (-0.8%) from $6,352.9 million to $6,300.3 million, due primarily to a revised cost estimate in support of the Milestone C decision.

-- HC/MC-130 Recapitalization - This was an initial SAR following program initiation at Milestone C (Low Rate Initial Production) in April 2010.

-- Predator Unmanned Aircraft System - This was a final SAR because the program was more than 90 percent delivered in May 2010 and meets the statutory requirement for termination of reporting.

New SAR (As of June 2010)

The DoD has submitted one initial SAR on the following program for the June 2010 reporting period. This report does not represent cost growth. The baseline established on this program will be the point from which future changes will be measured.

Program / Current Estimate ($ in Millions)

HC/MC-130 Recapitalization: $8,745.3

Click here for the latest SAR (2 pages in PDF format) on the Pentagon website.

http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100817PACPressJun10.pdf

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-08-10, 02:31 AM

Gates to DoD Staff: Cooperate With Efficiency Effort

By JOHN REED

Published: 19 Aug 2010 14:53

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week codified the 20 elements of his effort to cut "excess and duplication" with the publication of a memo detailing his plans, distributed throughout the Pentagon Aug. 16.

The document, which does not list any new elements of Gates' war on excess, officially orders key Pentagon staff to assist in executing the 20 moves aimed at eliminating redundancy, which the secretary described in a widely publicized Aug. 9 speech.

"All DoD components will fully support and cooperate with the [task force responsible for implementing the cuts] in the execution of its mission," the memo reads. "This includes being responsive to all requests for relevant information, detailed personnel or other support so that the [task force] can deliver its final report in 120 days."

The task force is to be led by Gates' special assistant, Robert Rangel, and will include representatives from "appropriate DoD components," according to the memo.

The 20 cuts proposed by Gates involve everything from eliminating U.S. Joint Forces Command and reducing the number of reports sent to Congress every year, to slashing the number of flag officers and senior civilian Pentagon staff by at least 200 in the next two years, and cutting 10 percent of the funding for private intelligence contracts along with reviewing the entire DoD intelligence structure.

Those cuts are just one part of his four-pronged plan aimed at reducing DoD costs over the next five years. The focus areas of the so-called efficiency effort are:

■ Shifting overhead costs to force structure and weapons-buying accounts.

■ Soliciting outside advice on how the Pentagon can be made more efficient.

■ Conducting "front-end assessments" to inform the 2012 budget request.

■ Reducing excess and duplication.

buglerbilly

23-08-10, 02:17 AM

JFCOM Could Close Before September 1

August 21, 2010

Daily Press, Newport News, Va.

President Obama could approve the decision to close Joint Forces Command in Norfolk before Sept. 1, according to a memo being circulated to local and state officials.

The memo from the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance does not cite a source, but claims to have "strong evidence" that the controversial move is being fast-tracked.

"There is a package being prepared fairly vigorously to get in front of the president on about September 1 for him to approve the elimination of Joint Forces Command," said Frank Roberts, executive director of the alliance, when asked about the memo.

Virginia's congressional delegation has vowed to oppose the closing -- even taking it to court -- but a Sept. 1 decision means that the commander-in-chief would have signed off before Congress returns from its recess.

Under this scenario, job losses would begin after the start of the new year, the memo says.

Also on Friday, a new report put a value on an even more frightening economic scenario: that the closing of JFCOM could drive away Norfolk-based NATO's Allied Transformation Command. Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim has been among those raising this concern.

The one-page economic brief from the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission doesn't speculate on the possibility of that happening or get into the complex politics of it.

But it says the two organizations combined contribute $901 million to the gross regional product, about 1.2 percent, with more than $500 million in contracts being awarded annually.

JFCOM itself employs about 5,600 people in Hampton Roads, the bulk of them civilians or contractors. It has an annual operating budget of nearly $704 million.

Senior leaders back plan

The alliance's memo says the decision has the backing of senior military leaders and is supported by a five-month internal Defense Department study, the results of which have never been publicized.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced two weeks ago that he wanted to close JFCOM as part of overall cost-savings plan. He said the role of the command, which trains the military fight effectively together, is no longer needed because joint operations are now a part of the military culture.

Roberts said the memo was issued to put mayors, township supervisors and state officials on notice that they need to contact the White House sooner rather than later.

"We need our elected officials engaged as quickly as possible to attempt to slow down and delay this process such that it doesn't get so far out of the barn that it comes out not even negotiable -- or discussable," he said.

Bruce Sturk is the director of federal facilities support for the city of Hampton and a 26-year Air Force veteran. He said the JFCOM issue requires "a strategic pause" and seems to defy standard procedure.

"This train is moving really fast," he said.

While it's important to keep on top of all news -- and even rumors -- regarding JFCOM, Sturk said he takes everything with a degree of skepticism until he sees official documents.

The memo goes on to say that Marine Gen. James Mattis, the most recent JFCOM commander, had "significant input" throughout the process.

Divest Suffolk facility

The five-month study was purportedly done by Christine Fox, who directs of the office of cost assessment and evaluation at the Pentagon.

The study says that JFCOM's mission of providing forces should be reassigned to the individual services. Its experimentation role would be eliminated. The Joint Warfighting Center in Suffolk has "value," but the Pentagon "wants to divest the leased space so it could potentially go anywhere," the memo says.

The most breathless sentence of the memo is the last one, that Gates "is considering a move to mothball the Second Fleet," which is based in Norfolk.

Roberts said that doesn't mean ships would be idled.

"My sense would be that that comment relates to disestablishment of the Second Fleet staff," he said.

Circumventing Congress

U.S. Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D- Newport News, said that he has not seen any study and questioned why it would be done in secret. The timing of the move appears designed to circumvent Congress, which is in summer recess.

"The initial announcement was made right after we left town and the decision will be made before we get back," he said. "It adds to the mystery of it. You ought to be able to have a public discussion."

Scott said he wasn't surprised that Obama would agree with Gates' recommendation.

"If the secretary of defense proposes it, you assume that it's the administration's position," Scott said, noting that sometimes those decisions can be "delayed or even reversed."

Scott said Gates' plan to save money remains in doubt because the Pentagon has not detailed any savings.

"We don't know the economic impact because we don't know what functions will continue," he said.

Scott said the lack of detail from the Pentagon is frustrating.

"This is part of the problem. We're trying to respond to rumors," Scott said. "How do you intelligently respond to rumors? It's a rumor -- I'm against it?"

© Copyright 2010 Daily Press, Newport News, Va..

buglerbilly

23-08-10, 02:52 AM

Big Firms in No Rush for Gates To Leave

Some Fear Severe Cuts Will Follow Secretary's Protective Policies

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 23 August 2010

To say U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has had a complicated relationship with industry is an understatement.

In April 2009, insiders said Pentagon-industry relations were icy after Gates killed or altered about 50 major hardware programs. But fast forward 16 months, and many now view Gates as the defense sector's biggest ally.

The reason: Gates' efforts to rid the U.S. defense budget of inefficiencies, redundancies and bad business deals is aimed at freeing up billions of dollars for weapon program coffers.

Washington insiders were betting Gates would leave his job in the next six months. So when he announced in a recent interview with Foreign Policy magazine that he expects to retire next year, industry advocates reported relief among defense companies, which are calculating Gates will stay for much of 2011 - and maybe longer.

"It's fair to say that Secretary Gates is industry's best bet" to keep spending high on hardware programs, said Fred Downey, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association's national security division.

"He has been very clear and persuasive about the overall situation," Downey said, referring to coalescing pressures that could force down annual Pentagon budgets.

To be sure, it's a daunting list that includes federal deficit reduction efforts, the economic slowdown, ever-escalating DoD health care and personnel costs, and the end of two wars. The Defense Business Board estimates the interest Washington will pay on the federal debt will exceed the annual defense budget by 2017.

With war funding included, U.S. military spending for fiscal 2010 will approach $661 billion; it is expected to surpass $700 billion in 2011.

The nation's economic sluggishness and those budget pressures have led for some in Congress - mostly Democrats, but also some uber-conservative "Tea Party" Republicans - to call for sizeable reductions in defense spending. In fact, Congress is already starting to cut. House and Senate appropriators have passed dueling versions of the 2011 defense appropriations bill that propose reducing the Obama administration's request by $6 billion and $8 billion, respectively.

Many questions swirling as Washington debates Gates' intention to leave in 2011:

What will the post-Gates era mean for Pentagon budgets?

Defense analysts agreed annual Pentagon budgets likely will come down, perhaps substantially. And most insiders said it could sound a death knell for the remaining years of Gates' efficiencies effort, which calls for the biggest savings in its last three budget cycles (2013-2016).

"Right now, Gates is their best bet for insulating from deeper cuts," said Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute. "The next defense secretary is far more likely to look to make cuts, and less likely to possess the clout to stop others from cutting."

Gates has what Thompson called "a special relationship" with President Barack Obama. Under the arrangement, "Gates can essentially do as he wants so long as it doesn't interfere with the other parts of the Obama agenda."

Sources said some Republican Senate defense appropriators wanted to cut even more from the administration's Pentagon request.

"The fact that it was what SAC-d [Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee] Republicans, not Democrats, who wanted deeper cuts seems to have absolutely scared the hell out of the Defense Department," one source said.

"Our CEOs, while they might not agree with everything Gates is doing with his efficiencies initiative, with Secretary Gates ... it is less likely investment accounts will have harm done to them," Downey said.

Jim McAleese, a consultant to defense companies, said Gates' comments indicate he will stay on at least through July 2011, ensuring he is in office until the congressional appropriations panels finish their work on their versions of the 2012 spending bill.

For defense companies, doing so likely will stave off big congressional cuts until the 2013 budget cycle, McAleese said.

"The bottom line," McAleese said, "is no Gates equals fewer resources."

What will the post-Gates era mean for industry?

"If Gates leaves in 2011, industry will be no worse for the wear in the short term," said Mackenzie Eaglen, a former Senate defense aide and now a Heritage Foundation analyst. "However, if Gates is serious about putting savings back into the services' modernization programs, then industry could end up hurting more over the medium term.

"Industry could also get hurt far worse if Gates leaves and his successor is not committed to maintaining the defense budget top line at today's levels," she said. "The climate in Washington is ripe for defense cuts."

Thompson said major hardware manufacturers are happy to have Gates stay longer, because his efficiency drive should mean more cash for big programs.

Conversely, McAleese said that since the efficiency push is targeting contracted services and operations and maintenance accounts, small- and medium-sized defense companies - and their investors - would not mind if Gates left soon. That's because when he leaves, the efficiency push might die, McAleese said.

Will Gates really exit next year?

Experts said it will depend on conditions in Afghanistan, and to what extent Gates feels his budget-tightening initiatives are on track.

But some, like Eaglen, are skeptical of a 2011 departure.

"Secretary Gates' announced departure feels more like an information operations campaign designed to confuse rather than clarify his scheduled exit," Eaglen said. "It appears the secretary could very well remain on the job through 2011 if President Obama asks him."

A planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan set to begin next year, the potential of a big fight over the Pentagon's 2012 spending request and the need for a heavy bureaucratic hitter as secretary could force Obama "to ask Gates to stay on board," Eaglen said.

But in the Foreign Policy interview, Gates sounds like he has made up his mind.

"It would be a mistake to wait until January 2012," the secretary told the magazine. "This is not the kind of job you want to fill in the spring of an election year."

Who's on the short list to replace Gates?

So if Gates follows through on that pledge, whom might Obama ask to run the Afghanistan conflict and drawdown, as well as oversee the Pentagon, its budget, weapon programs and relationship with industry? Washington's rumor mill has been debating that one for months.

[I]The favorites: CIA boss Leon Panetta and U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

Sources said Panetta has emerged as a star of Obama's first Cabinet. Some Obama administration officials said he would bring to the job the kind of Washington clout needed to build upon Gates' initiatives.

Mabus, sources said, also has become a favorite of Obama's inner circle. As a former Democratic governor of Mississippi, where U.S. Navy ships are constructed, Mabus knows the defense game well. He also would keep the president's political base happy.

"What we don't know is either of their views about defense spending," Thompson noted.

The contenders and long shots include Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, and Sam Nunn, a former Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Elevating Lynn is seen as the longest shot by defense experts, who doubt he has the requisite résumé to replace Gates. But it would provide a White House endorsement of Gates' four-pronged budget-tightening initiatives.

Before he left office in 2007, Hagel was a chief critic of the Bush administration and the Iraq war. He was rumored first as a vice presidential possibility for Obama, and then as a candidate for defense secretary had Gates left office in early 2008. Hagel would be adept at shepherding Obama's defense budgets and war plans through Congress.

Nunn is respected by Democrats and Republicans alike. He has chaired several high-profile bipartisan study groups. In fact, at a Washington forum earlier this year, Nunn received a standing ovation when introduced. As a former Democratic Senate powerhouse, sources said, he would please the base as well.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, once rumored as the top administration pick to take over at the Pentagon, is now expected to remain at State until she is ready to exit.

"Clinton clearly knows defense issues," Thompson said. "But the question is: Why would she want to leave her current position as the No. 1 Cabinet official?"

buglerbilly

24-08-10, 03:51 AM

The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update

August 2010

[Reposted on August 19, 2010, to correct the 5- and 10-year totals for revenues and outlays in Summary Table 1 because of an error in addition.]

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11705

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed $1.3 trillion—$71 billion below last year's total and $27 billion lower than the amount that CBO projected in March 2010, when it issued its previous estimate. Relative to the size of the economy, this year's deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), it is exceeded only by last year's deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP. As was the case last year, this year's deficit is attributable in large part to a combination of weak revenues and elevated spending associated with the economic downturn and the policies implemented in response to it.

This report presents CBO's updated budget and economic projections spanning the 2010–2020 period. Those projections reflect the assumption that current laws affecting the budget will remain unchanged—and thus the projections serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to assess the potential effects of policy decisions. As such, CBO assumes that tax reductions enacted earlier in this decade that are currently set to expire at the end of this year do so as scheduled; it also assumes that no new legislation aimed at keeping the alternative minimum tax (AMT) from affecting many more taxpayers is enacted. In addition, CBO assumes that the measures enacted in the past two years to provide fiscal stimulus to the weakened economy will expire as currently scheduled and that future annual appropriations will be kept constant in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Under those assumptions, the federal budget deficit would decline substantially over the next two years—to 4.2 percent of GDP by 2012—and, consequently, the budget would provide much less support to the economy than has been the case for the past two years.

According to CBO's projections, the recovery from the economic downturn will continue at a modest pace during the next few years. Growth in the nation's output since the middle of calendar year 2009 has been anemic in comparison with that of previous recoveries following deep recessions, and the unemployment rate has remained quite high, averaging 9.7 percent in the first half of this year. Such weak growth tends to occur in recoveries from recessions spurred by financial crises. The considerable number of vacant houses and underused factories and offices will be a continuing drag on residential construction and business investment, and slow income growth as well as lost wealth will weigh on consumer spending.

All of those forces, along with the waning of federal fiscal support, will tend to restrain spending by individuals and businesses—and, therefore, economic growth—during the recovery. CBO projects that the economy will grow by only 2.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter of 2011; even with faster growth in subsequent years, the unemployment rate will not fall to around 5 percent until the end of 2014.

In CBO's current-law projections, once the economy has recovered, the federal budget deficit amounts to between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2020. Projected deficits total $6.2 trillion for the 10 years starting in 2011, raising federal debt held by the public to more than 69 percent of GDP by 2020, almost double the 36 percent of GDP observed at the end of 2007.

Those projections, which are similar in many respects to the ones that CBO prepared in March, reflect assumptions about revenues and spending that may significantly underestimate actual deficits. Because the projections presume no changes in current tax laws, they result in estimates of revenues that, as a percentage of GDP, would be quite high by historical standards. Because of the assumption that future annual appropriations are held constant in real terms, the projections yield estimates of discretionary spending relative to GDP that would be low by historical standards.

Of course, many other outcomes are possible. If, for example, the tax reductions enacted earlier in the decade were continued, the AMT was indexed for inflation, and future annual appropriations remained the share of GDP that they are this year, the deficit in 2020 would equal about 8 percent of GDP, and debt held by the public would total nearly 100 percent of GDP. A different fiscal policy would also yield different economic outcomes. For example, CBO estimates that under an alternative fiscal path similar to the one just mentioned, growth of real GDP in 2011 would be 0.6 to 1.7 percentage points higher than it is in the baseline forecast, and the unemployment rate at the end of 2011 would be 0.3 to 0.8 percentage points lower. However, later in the coming decade, real GDP would fall below the level in CBO's baseline because the larger budget deficits would reduce investment in productive capital.

Beyond the 10-year budget window, the nation will face daunting long-term fiscal challenges posed by the aging of the population and rising costs for health care. Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over time would reduce long-term economic growth. Putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course will require policymakers to restrain the growth of spending substantially, raise revenues significantly above their average percentage of GDP of the past 40 years, or adopt some combination of those approaches.

The Budget Outlook

Fiscal year 2010 will mark a change in the recent trends that have prevailed for both revenues and outlays. After falling sharply during the recession, revenues are projected to increase (in nominal dollars) for the first time in three years, rising by $38 billion, or about 2 percent. Outlays, which have grown rapidly in recent years because of the recession, the turmoil in financial markets, and policies enacted in response to those events, are expected to decline by about 1 percent.

On the basis of tax collections through July 2010, CBO expects federal revenues to total $2.1 trillion this fiscal year, or about 14.6 percent of GDP. Gains in receipts in recent months indicate that federal revenues are beginning to recover from the recession. In the period from October to December 2009, revenues were about 10 percent lower than in the same quarter a year earlier. But from January to July 2010, revenues were about 6 percent greater than in the comparable period of 2009.

Outlays are expected to total $3.5 trillion this year, or nearly 24 percent of GDP—a level slightly lower than the 25 percent share recorded last year but still much higher than the average level of roughly 21 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Spending has dropped sharply this year for certain programs related to the federal government's response to the turmoil in the housing and financial markets. For activities other than those programs, overall spending will rise by 10 percent in 2010, CBO estimates.

Over the next few years, federal budget deficits would decline markedly as a share of GDP if the current-law assumptions about fiscal policy in CBO's baseline came to pass. Under those assumptions, the deficit would drop to 7.0 percent of GDP in 2011 and 4.2 percent in 2012 and then would reach a low of 2.5 percent of GDP in 2014. For the rest of the 10-year projection period, deficits would range between 2.6 percent and 3.0 percent of GDP, close to the average of 2.6 percent of GDP experienced over the past 40 years.

In CBO's baseline, total revenues climb sharply in the next few years, from 14.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 17.5 percent in 2011 and 18.7 percent in 2012. That increase is attributable in part to the scheduled expiration of tax provisions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 (including temporary relief from the AMT, which expired at the end of December 2009) and in part to the anticipated economic recovery. Revenues will also be boosted by provisions of the recently enacted health care legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), which are estimated to increase receipts by growing amounts over the next few years, reaching 0.6 percent of GDP by 2020. In addition, the structure of the individual income tax will gradually raise receipts over time. Together, all of those factors push federal revenues in CBO's baseline to 21.0 percent of GDP by 2020, compared with an average level of about 18 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.

In 2011, federal outlays in CBO's baseline total $3.7 trillion (24.5 percent of GDP), almost $230 billion more than the amount anticipated for this year. Much of that increase stems from temporary factors that have held down outlays this year. Net outlays in 2010 for the Troubled Asset Relief Program were reduced by an adjustment to the outlays recorded for the previous year, and premiums paid by banks for deposit insurance were unusually high this year; neither factor is expected to recur next year. Furthermore, because October 1, 2011, falls on a weekend, some benefit payments will shift from fiscal year 2012 into 2011. In the other direction, outlays related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are projected to decline significantly in 2011. With all of those factors excluded, total outlays would be only about $80 billion more than the projection for this year.

As spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 tails off and as the anticipated economic recovery allows payments for unemployment compensation and other benefits that automatically rise during recessions to continue returning toward more typical levels, outlays are projected to decline to 23.0 percent of GDP in 2012 and then to fall a bit further before rising eventually to 23.9 percent by 2020. Relative to GDP, mandatory spending is projected to rise (outlays for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security contribute significantly to that increase), and discretionary outlays are projected to fall. From 2012 through 2020, outlays in CBO's baseline average 23.2 percent of GDP—2.5 percentage points higher than the average over the past 40 years.

The federal government's spending on interest is determined largely by the stock of debt and prevailing interest rates. The amount of federal debt held by the public has skyrocketed in the past two years: from 40 percent of GDP at the end of 2008 to nearly 62 percent at the end of this year, CBO estimates. Interest rates, however, have fallen to historically low levels, so despite the higher levels of debt, interest costs have not yet increased significantly.

Interest rates are expected to rise noticeably in the next few years, though, and under the assumptions of CBO's baseline, debt held by the public is projected to exceed 69 percent of GDP by the end of 2020. As a result, over the next decade, the government's annual net spending for interest is projected to more than double as a share of GDP, increasing from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 3.4 percent by 2020. Over the 10-year projection period, such spending grows at an average rate of 15 percent a year.

The Economic Outlook

The pace of growth after the recent recession is likely to be slower than usual as the economy recovers from the effects of the financial crisis and as the support to economic activity provided by fiscal policy diminishes. In the past, many recoveries from deep recessions have been quite robust. After deferring purchases during a slump (especially for expensive goods like homes, automobiles, and capital equipment), households and businesses typically boost their spending quickly as economic prospects improve. However, international experience suggests that recoveries from recessions that were spurred by financial crises tend to be slower than average—perhaps because the losses in wealth and damage to the financial system that occur during such crises weigh on spending for a number of years. Following such a crisis, it takes time for consumers to rebuild their wealth, for financial institutions to restore their capital bases, and for nonfinancial firms to regain the confidence required to invest in new plant and equipment; all of those forces tend to restrain spending. In addition, under current law, both the waning of fiscal stimulus and the scheduled increases in taxes will temporarily subtract from growth, especially in 2011.

In CBO's projections, real GDP increases by 2.8 percent between the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010 and by 2.0 percent in 2011. Such rates of growth are well below historical norms for a recovery from a severe recession; for example, following the deep recession of 1981 and 1982, real GDP surged by nearly 8 percent in 1983 and by roughly 6 percent in 1984. In CBO's forecast, the growth of real GDP picks up after 2011, averaging 4.1 percent annually from 2012 through 2014 and closing the gap between GDP and its potential level (the amount of production that corresponds to a high use of labor and capital) by the end of 2014.

The modest growth in output projected for the next few years points to sluggish growth in employment during the remainder of this year and next. Consequently, CBO projects that the unemployment rate will decline slowly, falling to 9.3 percent at the end of 2010 and 8.8 percent at the end of 2011. After that, the growth in employment will accelerate, and the unemployment rate will decline more rapidly, reaching 5.1 percent at the end of 2014.

Inflation in the prices of consumer goods and services (calculated using the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is projected to be about 1 percent in 2010 and 2011, when measured on a fourth-quarter-to-fourth-quarter basis. Core inflation, which excludes the prices of food and energy, is also projected to be about 1 percent this year and next. CBO projects that inflation will pick up moderately thereafter but remain below 2.0 percent from 2012 through 2014.

Interest rates in CBO's projections remain very low through the end of 2011 and then rise gradually as the recovery continues. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise its target for the federal funds rate (the interest rate at which depository institutions lend reserves to each other overnight) from its near-zero level while the recovery remains subdued and inflation stays low. As a result, the interest rate on 3-month Treasury bills will average 0.2 percent in 2010 and 2011, CBO projects. However, given CBO's outlook that the economy will strengthen and inflation will increase somewhat between 2012 and 2014, the projected 3-month Treasury bill rate averages 2.8 percent in those years. In the projections, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes, which is influenced by investors' expectations about monetary policy and other factors, edges up from an average of 3.4 percent in 2010 to 3.5 percent in 2011 and then rises to an average of 4.7 percent over the 2012–2014 period.

Beyond 2014, CBO projects, growth in real GDP will match the growth of potential GDP at 2.4 percent. In the agency's projections, the unemployment rate averages 5.0 percent from 2015 through 2020, and inflation (as measured by the PCE price index) averages 2.0 percent. During that period, the interest rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year Treasury notes average 4.9 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively.

Economic forecasts are always subject to considerable uncertainty. The uncertainty regarding CBO's current forecast is especially large, both because forecasting the path of the economy near turning points in the business cycle is always difficult and because the current business cycle has been unusual in a variety of ways. Many developments could lead to outcomes that differ substantially, in one direction or the other, from those CBO has projected.

buglerbilly

25-08-10, 01:41 AM

Senate Panel To Hold Hearing on JFCOM Closure

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 24 Aug 2010 17:23

The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee soon will convene a session to examine Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to shutter Joint Forces Command.

Sen. James Webb said the hearing also will examine Gates' broader effort to free up more than $100 billion within the DoD budget and transfer those dollars to modernization programs. (Yoshikazu Tsuno / AFP)

Virginia Democratic Sen. James Webb, a member of the panel, announced in a statement he has "secured" the approval of committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., to hold the hearing. The hearing also will examine Gates' broader effort to free up more than $100 billion within the defense budget and transfer those dollars to modernization programs.

Webb also wants Gates and Defense Department leaders to withhold any further cost-cutting measures until Congress, now in recess, is back in action.

"I believe that further action by the president or Secretary Gates should be suspended until Congress has had ample opportunity to review the full scope of the secretary's actions," Webb said in the statement.

In the statement, Levin said he shares Gates' desire to cut costs.

"At the same time, I agree that the far-reaching initiatives announced by the secretary deserve close scrutiny from our committee," the chairman said.

"The White House and the secretary's lack of prior consultation with Congress on his entire set of recommendations is deeply troubling," Webb said. "The Department of Defense has declined for two weeks to provide any additional details regarding the decision to close JFCOM."

Webb and other Virginia politicians have vowed to block the closure of Norfolk-based JFCOM, a move that would terminate thousands of jobs in their state.

Gates says he would use a good chunk of the funds he is trying to move into modernization on shipbuilding programs. The secretary says such a move could mean a net gain in jobs for Virginia.

buglerbilly

26-08-10, 04:00 AM

Service Contracts Targeted by OSD Efficiency Push

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 25 Aug 2010 17:38

As the U.S. Defense Department looks for ways to save billions of dollars each year, service contracts, which make up more than half of the U.S. Army's contracting dollars, will be targeted, according to a senior Army official.

"One of the areas that you're going to see OSD get involved and engaged in is service contracts," said Lt. Gen. William Phillips, military deputy to the Army's acquisition executive. "The Army is going to take this on, because we're putting a tremendous amount of our budget into service contracts."

Of the Army's $585 billion in active contracts today, 58 percent goes toward service contracts, Phillips told a C4ISR conference in Baltimore on Aug. 25.

"For industry, you'll see some of the terms and conditions of contracts revised somewhat and you might see more use of fixed-price incentive contracts," Phillips said.

This is all part of an effort to meet Defense Secretary Robert Gates' guidance to free up $101 billion over the next five years from within the baseline Pentagon budget. To reach Gates' goals, "there is a tremendous amount of activity. It's so important that some of our weekends are spent working on these projects," Phillips said.

For example, he plans to meet this Sunday (Aug. 26) with the Pentagon's top weapon buyer, Ashton Carter, "for about seven hours to walk through efficiencies."

Army contracts make up a large share of overall federal contracting dollars. In 2009, the Army conducted 36 percent of all federal contracting, said Phillips. Over the last three years (2008 through 2010), the Army spent $372 billion in contracts.

On the night of Aug. 24, the Army spent $397 million on procurement, Phillips said. On Sept. 30, 2009, the last day of the fiscal year, the Army spent $5.7 billion. Phillips used this last figure as an example of a practice that has to change.

Helping direct that change is an Army acquisition study, which is expected to create a blueprint for actions over the next one to two years, said Phillips. It is an assessment of organizations, policies, processes and the acquisition work force.

The study is being led by Gil Decker, former Army acquisition executive, and retired Gen. Louis Wagner, the former commander of Army Materiel Command.

"We've asked them to garnish some of the best and brightest from industry and they're looking at Army acquisition from beginning to end," Phillips said. This includes requirements development to sustainment and everything in between, he said.

In the past, acquisition reform has only led to more rules and regulations. Instead of a reformation, the Army needs a transformation, said Phillips.

buglerbilly

27-08-10, 04:46 AM

DoD Comptroller: No Major Budget Cuts Until February

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 26 Aug 2010 16:49

Pentagon officials will announce no further military facility closures or other major budget-cutting proposals until they unveil the 2012 defense budget in early February, says DoD comptroller Robert Hale.

DoD Comptroller Robert Hale said the Pentagon will not announce any additional “major” budget moves until the 2012 defense budget is delivered to Capitol Hill on Feb. 7. (U.S. Army)

U.S. lawmakers and senior aides have expressed frustration that Pentagon officials did not inform Congress before Defense Secretary Robert Gates' Aug. 9 announcement of plans to shutter Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) and other budget-cutting moves. In recent weeks, sources have said, lawmakers - especially House members seeking re-election - have requested the Obama administration clamp down on further Pentagon budget-cutting announcements.

During an Aug. 26 taping of the "This Week in Defense News" television program, Hale said the Pentagon will not announce any additional "major" budget moves until the 2012 defense budget is delivered to Capitol Hill on Feb. 7. The show will air Aug. 29 at 11 a.m. on WUSA-9 in the Washington area, and on the American Forces Network (AFN).

But when next year's budget request is made public, Hale said, it will likely contain cost-cutting proposals from the military services that are "analogous" to Gates' plan to shutter JFCOM.

The budget-trimming proposals are part of an effort launched by Gates to cut $101 billion over five years by eliminating unneeded organizations, inefficiencies and bad business deals. He wants to shift those freed up dollars to weapon modernization programs.

The services "are trying hard and making progress" toward meeting their 2012 cost-cutting goals, Hales said. He declined to disclose specific proposals the services have pitched to Pentagon brass.

The 2012 Pentagon budget blueprint will contain "a number" of cuts that are "quite specific," along with "a number of smaller changes" and "a number of major items" like those Gates announced Aug. 9, the comptroller said.

The annual targets the services must meet get larger in the final years of the five-year efficiencies effort. To that end, Hale said, Pentagon officials do not expect the services to project specifics for those later years.

He reiterated defense officials oft-spoken vow that Congress stop its recent practice of adding a half percent to annual military pay raises.

"We're not having recruiting and retention problems," Hale said, calling the additional salary hikes "not needed." ■

--

Christopher P. Cavas and Vago Muradian contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

31-08-10, 01:57 AM

$1 TRILLION Bought Older, Smaller Forces; Fix it, Mr. Gates

By Winslow Wheeler Monday, August 30th, 2010 4:51 pm

In 1998, the Pentagon budget was at a twenty-three year low at $361 billion (in constant 2010 dollars). For 2010, the DOD budget was $697 billion (also 2010 dollars, as are all the rest that follow).

According to the analysis of the Project on Defense Alternatives, between 1998 and 2010 Congress appropriated to the Pentagon $2.144 Trillion (with a “T”) more than was anticipated by the 1999 “baseline.” Of that amount, $1.113 Trillion was spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $1.031 Trillion was added to “base” (non-war) Pentagon spending. (See p. 3 of PDA’s study, “An Undisciplined Defense: Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending.” I basically concur with PDA’s numbers, which are from DoD and OMB budget data as described on p. 61.)

What did you get for that extra $1 Trillion? Basically, you got a smaller Navy and Air Force and a tiny increase in the size of the Army. As an extra bonus, the hardware those forces use are now older than they were in the Clinton administration in 1998.

How can that be?

Each year the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee publishes the size of the major components of the Army, Navy, and Air Force in its committee report for the Department of Defense Appropriations bills. (Find these data in the early pages of these documents at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html.) The tables the HAC-D publishes are not particularly user-friendly, but they are an apples to apples count of Army brigades, Navy ships, and Air Force squadrons.

In 1998, the Navy had 333 “battleforce” ships. (This count includes both SLBM and attack submarines, all active carriers, surface combatants, amphibious warfare ships, combat logistics ships, mine warfare and support ships, and something called “Mobilization Category A” ships.) In 2010 the Navy lays claim to 287 “battleforce” ships (a decline of 46 ships, or 14 percent).

In 1998, the active duty Air Force, plus the Air National Guard, plus the Air Force Reserve had 108 squadrons of fighter and attack aircraft and long range, heavy bombers. In 2010 it had 72 of the same, a decline of 36 squadrons or 33 percent. (This decline may be a conservative estimate; the count of squadrons does not embrace the thinning out of some squadrons; the count of actual combat aircraft may have declined more than the count of squadrons.)

The Army is an exception, but the amount of increase is rather pathetic. In 1998, the Army tallied 10 divisions plus three independent brigades. I calculate that to amount to 43 brigade combat team equivalents (based on the number of maneuver battalions in classic divisions and in modern brigade combat teams). In 2010, the Army tallied 1 division, plus 42 Heavy, Infantry, and Stryker brigades, making a total of 46 combat brigade equivalents. That’s an increase of three brigade combat team equivalents, or 7 percent.

The cost of that Army “expansion” was considerable. Army appropriations in 1998 were $90.5 billion (2010$); in 2010 the non-war (base) Army appropriation request was $140.3 billion (2010$). A 55 percent increase in money produced a 7 percent increase in the force. (Again, this calculation is conservative, Army war funding, not counted here, has included significant amounts for base-Army activities, such as “modularity” [i.e. converting from divisions to brigade combat teams]).

The substantially smaller, much more expensive defense inventory is not — on average — newer and more high tech. It is older (in adition to being smaller). As the Congressional Budget Office has periodically assessed, not only have most parts of our hardware inventory grown older, the officially approved plan is mostly for that negative trend to continue. (See CBO’s analysis [“The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans: Detailed Update for Fiscal Year 2008″] at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9043. )

Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2006) is generally acknowledged to be the most incompetent secretary of defense since — well — Donald Rumsfeld (1975–1977). Since 2006, his successor has come to seek some terminations in DOD acquisitions — most prominently the F-22 — and to transfer $102 billion from overhead (bloat) to “force structure” (hardware). However, the last two DOD Selected Acquisition Reports (available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/) show the number of major defense acquisition programs to have increased from 89 to 91 programs, and GAO has measured the cost growth as now larger than even. (See GAO’s two reports, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2009 and 2010 [GAO-09-326SP and GAO-10-388SP] at www.gao.gov.) Finally, that $102 billion efficiency drive being pursued by Secretary Gates is over five years. The current Pentagon budget plan is to spend $3.245 Trillion over that period. In other words, the much touted Gates plan would shift from overhead to hardware just 3 percent of the planned spending.

If the soft-spoken Secretary Gates is to avoid the derision generally slung at the blustering Secretary Rumsfeld, the former will need to do more — a lot more — to evade a legacy of failure. Gates’ highly effective soft spoken technique of overpowering Congress when he wants to. and his mutually reinforcing relationship with President Obama will be seen by history as wasted assets if the secretary does not not mobilize them for a far more pervasive program of real reform to help the Pentagon survive, even prosper, in the coming age of scarce money.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/30/1-trillion-bought-older-smaller-forces-fix-it-mr-gates/#ixzz0y8XPNiQA

buglerbilly

31-08-10, 02:32 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Massive Spending Vs. Wise Budgeting

Posted by Paul McLeary at 8/30/2010 11:52 AM CDT

It’s no secret that after nearly a decade of massive outlays for two shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a whole host of programs -- the Littoral Combat Ship, JASSM, F-35, Future Combat Systems, the Marines’ EFV -- that have exploded budgetary estimates and their production schedules, that something had to give over at the Pentagon.

After the financial meltdown that hit home in 2008 put even further strain on federal budgets, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates began bluntly stating that this way of doing the Pentagon's business was coming to a close, cancelling the F-22 and FCS programs and more recently tasking the military services with finding $100 billion in overhead savings during the next five years.

Earlier this month, Gates also announced that he was cutting funding for contractors, freezing hiring, eliminating the Joint Forces Command and two other Pentagon agencies, and taking the axe to 150 senior executive service positions and 50 general and flag officer positions. The moves aren’t just about cutting the defense budget, he said, but instead "It's about reforming and reshaping priorities to ensure that, in tough budgetary and economic times, we can focus defense resources where they belong: in America's fighting forces, investment in future capabilities and, most important, on our men and women in uniform."

A tight economic climate isn’t just an American problem, however. In a good little summation of the global nature of the economic downturn, The Economist reports

This week Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Germany’s defence minister, said he favoured suspending conscription, with the option of resuming it later, in order to create a “smaller but better and more operational” army that would shrink by a third, to about 165,000. The move is part of Germany’s plan to cut €8.3 billion ($10.5 billion) from the defence budget by 2014. Even Britain, which has the largest European force in Afghanistan, is likely to cut defence spending by 10-20% over the next five years, following an overdue defence review in the autumn. Spain cut defence spending by 9% this year; Italy will chop by 10% next. Less drastically, France is freezing defence expenditure.

Left out of this equation is China, a country whose military ambitions are beginning to make headlines in the west. This past spring, Chinese officials announced that its military budget -- or one should say its publicly available military budget -- will rise by 7.5 percent in 2010, a rate only about half recent published increases and the first to fall below 10 percent since 1989.

While the United States will vastly outspend the rest of the world for the foreseeable future on its armed forces, at what point does spending wisely--and keeping to strict budgets--become more important than spending massively?

buglerbilly

01-09-10, 03:18 AM

Five Teams Form to Tackle Gates' Call for Greater Efficiencies

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 31 Aug 2010 19:41

Pentagon officials have created five teams to lead the effort to improve efficiency across the Defense Department, according to the Army's acquisition executive.

Each team will work on a different area that the Pentagon believes can lead to cost savings, said Malcolm O'Neill, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, in an Aug. 31 interview.

Those areas are affordability, incentives, contract terms, metrics and service contracts.

In June, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he wanted to find $100 billion in overhead savings over the next five fiscal years, starting in fiscal year 2012.

"This thing is very significant for the Defense Department," said O'Neill.

"We estimate we can probably save 2 to 3 percent of the DOD budget every year."

Service contracts are an important area for the Army as 58 percent of the service's $585 billion in active contracts goes toward service contracts today, Lt. Gen. William Phillips, O'Neill's military deputy, told a C4ISR conference in Baltimore on Aug. 25.

The Army is the only service represented on all five teams and chairs one of them, according to O'Neill, who began his job in March.

O'Neill was part of a group that met for hours on Aug. 29, working with Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter to hammer out some of these issues.

"We worked all day Sunday on this with Ash," said O'Neill. All of the services were represented at the meeting, as well as officials from the Missile Defense Agency and Special Operations Command, he said.

The efficiencies teams are heavily focused on contracting because each year approximately $400 billion of the Pentagon's $700 billion budget is spent on contracts for goods and services.

Industry can expect to see more fixed-price/incentive-fee contracting, said O'Neill, adding, "We don't use that quite enough."

Carter also wants the services to start thinking about affordability at the outset of a program not halfway through, O'Neill said. This may include using "affordability targets" at program milestones. At milestone A, an affordability range could be used, because it is still early in the program to identify an exact cost, said O'Neill. As the program continues through development, the range could narrow into a more precise target, he said.

For example, with the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, if the vehicle's cost exceeds the target, then the Army may decide it is no longer worth pursuing, said O'Neill. Instead, the Army could look at upgrading Bradley Fighting Vehicles as a more cost-effective solution.

For incentives, the question is what will really make a difference to the contractor, said O'Neill.

"One of the things we were talking about was it might not necessarily be a concern as to how much profit a contractor makes as long as the cost to the government is lower, the product is better and more sustainable," said O'Neill.

While the Pentagon and the Army are looking to reduce overhead costs, they are also trying to follow the recommendations of the Gansler report, which called for increasing the size of the acquisition work force.

That effort continues, said O'Neill, but he has also told Carter that if he sees unnecessary overlap of jobs or functions, he will make cuts.

"But we have been told that they are not going to trouble and try to change the conclusions of the Gansler report, which says we need more experts in contracting, we need more acquisition experts," O'Neill said.

The savings are not intended to be instantaneous. The reforms put in place and the new contracts signed will take time to produce savings, said O'Neill.

"We should see the savings every year in the [program objective memorandum], fewer savings in FY12, but by 2016, you should be able to see that we can do our job significantly more effectively," said O'Neill.

buglerbilly

09-09-10, 02:05 AM

DoD Adviser: Pay, Retirement Systems Outdated, Too Costly

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 8 Sep 2010 16:31

The U.S. military must overhaul and reduce the cost of paying its people, funding their retirements and underwriting their health care, a top Pentagon adviser said.

Arnold Punaro said Defense Department budgeteers are already taking aim at weapons programs and operations and maintenance accounts. But it was regarding the military's skyrocketing personnel costs that the retired Marine Corps general and former senior SAIC executive sounded the loudest alarm during a Sept. 8 presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Punaro, a Defense Business Board senior fellow, led a DBB task force that in July recommended that Defense Secretary Robert Gates close U.S. Joint Forces Command. Weeks later, Gates proposed doing just that.

Punaro called the military's pension setup a "pre-volunteer-force retirement system."

"We know that it is not sustainable to pay people for 60 years to serve for 20," the former Marine Corps Reserve director said.

He said the Pentagon spends $46 billion a year on retiree pay, not including health care.

Among other problems, the current pay and pension system encourages people to leave the service after 20 years, when many reach their highest level of proficiency, Punaro said.

Many go on to take high-paying defense sector jobs while collecting a DoD pension and enjoying discounted military retiree health plans, he said.

Punaro called that arrangement "outdated," saying it is the kind of "middle-class entitlement program ... not food stamps" that is threatening not just the U.S. defense budget but America's fiscal outlook.

Never one to pull punches, Punaro criticized sitting military leaders for acknowledging but doing nothing about the need for changes to the pay/compensation, retirement and health care systems.

He also pinged military advocacy groups, saying those organizations' primary objective has become ensuring the executive and legislative branches make no changes to the military's pay and benefits policies.

People are getting more expensive. Punaro estimates "35 percent of all DoD spending" goes toward personnel; he told the forum the Pentagon says it's closer to "50 percent."

Internal and external budget pressures likely will bring changes to the Pentagon's force structure, Johm Hamre, CSIS president and CEO, said during the event.

"We are at a tipping point," he said.

History shows that when the defense budget is a target for cuts "that we tend to break the force," said Hamre, deputy defense secretary during the Clinton administration.

Pentagon leaders are pushing toward a goal of freeing up $100 billion over five years and shifting those monies to hardware programs.

But is that enough? More and more experts say no.

Harlan Ullman, a senior associate with CSIS, said he projects that DoD is "over-programmed or under-budgeted by one-third."

buglerbilly

13-09-10, 03:24 AM

Defense cuts could slow D.C. economy for years

By Marjorie Censer and Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, September 11, 2010; 3:29 AM

After surging in size and profits during the post-9/11 era, the defense industry in metropolitan Washington is bracing for a major contraction and significant layoffs that economists said could produce a drag on the regional economy for years.

Already, there have been signs that announced cuts in national defense programs are having an impact: Six hundred executives at Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin are accepting the company's offer of a buyout. ITT Defense and Information Systems, based in McLean, this year combined seven business units into three and cut 1,000 workers. Hundreds were let go this year from Northrop Grumman operations in Maryland.

Those losses are just the beginning of what many expect to be a much broader set of reductions at local companies.

After making cuts in military hardware budgets last year, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last month took aim more directly at the Washington region's defense industry, calling for reducing spending on "support contractors" by 10 percent each of the next three years. This region is a hub of contractors providing professional, administrative and computer services.

"As the defense budget shrinks, it will be impossible for the companies here to escape unscathed," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and a consultant to several major defense contractors. "There will be many thousands of layoffs in the greater Washington area."

Several in the industry said the downturn could be as severe as it was in the early 1990s, when, among other things, the Navy largely pulled out of Crystal City.

"We're seeing the start of another down cycle," said Randy Jayne, managing partner for executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles's aerospace, defense and aviation practice.

During the defense buildup over the past decade, the Washington area's economy became more dependent on the federal government and, in particular, defense spending.

Federal spending now amounts to about 37 percent of the regional economy, up from 33 percent in 2000, said John McClain, deputy director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University.

Over the same period, the volume of defense procurement contracts in the area almost tripled, rising from $12 billion to more than $35 billion, according to McClain's statistics.

If the significant cuts come as expected, McClain said, the local economy could stall, as it did in the mid-'90s.

The campaign to rein in defense costs began in earnest in April 2009 when, in dramatic fashion, Gates put an end to several big-ticket military programs.

Among others, he targeted a program to build 23 presidential helicopters that had more than doubled in cost and was running six years behind schedule; several missile defense efforts he said had technological problems; and a set of eight Army combat vehicles he said were ill-suited for the kinds of war that the military has faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some cancellations surprised even top military officials, but Gates said he had seen enough studies on reforming Pentagon buying. "Enough hand-wringing, enough rhetoric," he said. "Now is the time for action."

Despite the drama, the effect on the Washington region was relatively small: Some of the companies affected were based here, but most of the building of military hardware is done elsewhere in the country.

But since the recession, Gates has preached the need for the military to be "respectful of the American taxpayer at a time of economic and fiscal distress." Last month, he announced cuts that are expected to have a far more serious effect on the local economy.

The series of 10 percent cuts for each of three years were directed at "support contractors" - that is, companies that provide administrative and professional help, computer technology and other services. More than a quarter of national defense spending consists of outlays for service contracts, and much of those are provided by Washington area companies. Among the largest are CACI, SAIC, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Booz Allen Hamilton and ManTech International.

"The Washington area historically has been insulated from downturns," said Jim McAleese, a defense industry consultant who recently participated in a briefing by Gates on the cuts. "Over the next few years, you are basically looking at a 5 to 10 percent reduction in the workforce here that supports the Department of Defense. It will be signficant."

Defense industry experts have differed over how large the cuts will be, however, because the Defense Department has yet to detail how it will achieve the 10 percent reductions.

There's little question that the Washington industry that is now in the crosshairs of budget cutters helped propel the region's growth in the boom years.

General Dynamics, which has its headquarters in Falls Church and bases much of its information technology business in Fairfax, had just over 1,100 local employees at the end of 2000; there were nearly 6,000 by 2005. Between 2002 and last year, its revenue grew from $13.7 billion to $32 billion.

Much of the company's local work is related to information technology - areas such as collecting and processing intelligence data and managing cybersecurity. The firm also has a program office for a Marine Corps vehicle in Woodbridge and an office near the Navy Yard.

Likewise, Arlington-based contractor CACI International, which works in the defense and intelligence worlds, grew dramatically as the United States ramped up its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. The company has a broad range of service-related businesses, including evaluating the military's security systems and helping it bring together multiple systems such as sensors and intelligence programs.

At the start of 2001, CACI had about 2,600 area employees; it now has close to 6,200.

Its revenue also grew virtually every year, from $490 million in 2000 to $2.7 billion in 2009. Profits ballooned from $38.4 million in 2000 to $107 million last year.

The magnitude of the cuts locally will depend on how Gates' mandates are carried out - whether entire programs are eliminated or whether companies are simply asked to reduce their prices, said Alan Chvotkin, lobbyist for the Professional Services Council, which represents the contracting industry.

"These companies have been growing for 10 years, accumulating people in marketing and [research and development] and administration," Thompson said. "As they see these cuts enacted, they will let people go. They won't wait."

whoriskeyp@washpost.com censerm@washpost.com

buglerbilly

14-09-10, 06:05 AM

Tension as Defense bill's fate in limbo

By Roxana Tiron - 09/13/10 06:00 AM ET

The fate of the 2011 defense bills is in limbo even as the new fiscal year quickly approaches.

The next few weeks will be tense for the defense community, which is still in the dark about when the Senate will take up a defense authorization bill.

The majority leader’s office says that the 2011 defense authorization bill is on the list of “possible items” that the upper chamber might consider during the upcoming work period.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) objects to bringing the bill to the floor because he opposes two provisions: one that would repeal the military’s ban on openly gay service members, and a second that would allow abortions to be performed at military hospitals, so long as federal funds aren't used.

McCain's objection could be overcome with a motion to proceed, followed by a cloture vote to end debate — a move that would require 60 votes, and thus the support of at least one Republican.

The uncertainty over the 2011 defense authorization measure is prompting gay-rights groups to up their pressure on senators and party leaders to take up the bill. The legislation contains a provision that would repeal the military’s ban on openly gay service members, known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The activists want to see the Senate take up the 2011 defense authorization bill the week of Sept. 20. Otherwise, they fear that the much-awaited repeal of the Clinton-era law may be stopped in its tracks. If the bill doesn’t move in September and slides into the period after the election, Republicans have made it clear they will only agree to a continuing resolution to keep funding the Defense Department.

If that continuing resolution gets carried into next year, a new defense bill would have to be written under a new Congress. Getting a repeal passed through both chambers in the next session would be difficult; Republicans, who mostly oppose repeal, could win a majority in the House this November and gain seats in the Senate.

Congressional sources contacted by The Hill are already intimating that the Senate will not take up the authorization bill until after the midterm elections. Until then, the top priorities for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other leading Democrats are likely to be the economy and jobs.

Any delay on the defense authorization bill could also stall action on the 2011 defense appropriations bill in the Senate. Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) was expected to start marking up the defense budget next week, but that may be delayed. The committee said it may have an update on the timeline Monday once the members return from recess.

Unless the Senate finishes its business on defense, the required conference to merge the bills with the House will not be possible before the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1. The House Appropriations Defense subcommittee has already written the 2011 defense budget and the bill is awaiting full committee backing — a move that is expected this work period.

The Pentagon is preparing for the possibility of a continuing authority and continuing resolution to pay for its operations. The Department of Defense is working with the defense committees to ease some of the restrictions that typically come with continuing resolutions and authorizations. Operating under the previous year’s budget levels, for example, normally prevents the Pentagon from starting new programs.

buglerbilly

15-09-10, 02:43 AM

SAC-D Rejects F136 Dough

By Colin Clark Tuesday, September 14th, 2010 12:08 pm

UPDATED: Summary of SAC-D Markup; GE Says “More to Come”

Sen. Daniel Inouye, longtime supporter of the second Joint Strike Fighter engine, could not save the program again and his Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee dropped funding for the engine during its markup today.

The Senate has long been less certain source of support for the program, but the canny Inouye had helped save it in the past. And the likely course for the defense spending bill is uncertain with most observers thinking an omnibus or continuing resolution is most likely. So the SAC-D move may be moot legislatively but it is certainly an important political tell.

Pratt & Whitney responded rapidly to the news, saying it was “pleased” with Inouye’s action. “This Senate action is a clear message that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Defense supports President Obama and Secretary Gates in their position that funding an alternate engine will not save taxpayer’s money or improve military
readiness in any way,” spokeswoman Erin Dick said.

“GE-RR is not surprised by the SAC-D action,” GE spokesman Rick Kennedy sad in an email. “Senators Inouye and Cochran are public supporters. As you recall, Inouye and Cochran in 2009 sought to avoid a confusing floor fight and took their F136 support to conference. Levin iin authorization took the same approach — more to come.”

The bill

* Provides $669.871 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense for functions under the Defense Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, including $157.7 billion for overseas contingency operations
* Recommendation is $8.1 billion below the President’s FY 2011 base budget request
* Provides $4.5 billion in General Transfer Authority

Title I – Military Personnel $127.2 billion

· Funds an active duty end strength of 1,432,400 and a reserve component end strength of 846,200

Title II – Operation and Maintenance $167.3 billion

· Fully funds key readiness programs critical to prepare forces for combat operations and other peace time missions: OPTEMPO flying hours and steaming days, depot maintenance, training, spare parts, and base operations

· Provides additional funding to address Army base operating support shortfalls

· Provides $162 million above the request for tuition assistance for military spouses

· Fully funds the request for the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund

Title III – Procurement $104.8 billion

· Funds new equipment and upgrade programs to ensure that military forces have the platforms, weapon systems, and other equipment needed to support training, sustain the infrastructure and ensure readiness for military operations.

Aircraft

o Increases Army helicopter procurement with an additional 12 UH-60 Black Hawks and 6 CH-47 Chinooks

o Accelerates modernization of 10 UH-60A Black Hawks to the UH-60L configuration

o Funds a total of 32 F-35 aircraft (6 Navy, 10 Marine Corps and 16 Air Force planes), deleting 10 aircraft from the requested level

o Funds the requested quantity of 12 E/A-18 G Growlers and 22 F/A-18E/F Hornets

o Fully funds the request for 30 Navy V-22 and 5 Air Force CV 22 aircraft

o Fully funds the MH-60S and MH-60R programs and supports multiyear procurement for the helicopters

o Funds the UH-1Y and AH-1Z programs

o Fully funds the request for 7 P-8A Poseidon Aircraft

o Fully funds the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye program and adds funds for reliability enhancements for the E-2C

o Funds 38 Joint Primary Air Training Systems (JPATS) aircraft for the Navy

o Funds one C-40 aircraft for the Navy Reserve

o Fully funds 8 C-130Js, 4 HC-130Js and 5 MC-130J aircraft

o Fully funds 8 C-27 Joint Cargo aircraft

o Fully funds the Air Force’s new Light Mobility Aircraft program

o Funds 3 Air Force HH-60 helicopters in the Operational Loss Replacement program

o Continues support for unmanned aerial system by funding 4 Global Hawk and 24 MQ-9 Reapers. Additional Reapers are funded in Title IX (below).

o Increases funding to accelerate procurement of AESA radars for the Air National Guard F-15Cs

o Funds the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program (RERP)

Weapons/Missiles

o Fully funds Patriot missile program and provides an additional $133 million for Army unfunded requirements

o Eliminates funding for the BCT Non Line of Sight Launch System due to program termination

o Fully funds Tomahawk missile program

o Fully funds Hydra Rockets

o Fully funds grenades

Shipbuilding

o Fully funds the budget request for the Carrier Replacement Program, Virginia Class Submarine Program, DDG-51 Program, DDG 1000 Program and LHA ® Program

o Reduces funding for the Littoral Combat Ship by $615 million and one ship

Vehicles/Force Protection

o Funds Army Stryker vehicles and modifications

o Funds upgrades for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle fleet

o Fully funds the M1 Abrams Tank modification and upgrade programs

o Provides funds for the Army Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles and the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles

o Funds the Army Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Extended Service Program

Missile Defense Agency

o Provides an additional $121 million for 13 Standard Missile-3 Block IA interceptors

o Provides $205 million for the Israeli Iron Dome program

o Reduces the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor program by $425 million due to at least a one-year delay in production

Other

o Provides $500 million for National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation

o Provides funds for the Warrior Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T)

o Provides funds for the Army’s Joint Tactical Radio System

o Funds the Brigade Combat Team Network and Unmanned Ground Vehicle programs

o Fully funds procurement to support the Navy and Marine Corps Next Generation Enterprise Network

o Increases funding for training and weapons range readiness initiatives across the services

Title IV – Research, Development, Test and Evaluation $76.2 billion

o Invests in basic and applied scientific research, the development, test and evaluation of new technologies and equipment, and provides support for the research community so forces will have the systems and equipment for tomorrow’s challenges

Aircraft

o Provides nearly $540 million for the tanker replacement program

o Defers follow-on software development for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and reduces Navy test funds due to under-execution

o Includes no funds for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine development

o Increases funding for the Navy EP-3/Special Project Aircraft systems development

o Fully funds research and development for the P8-A Poseidon, Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV, Navy Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (N-UCAS) and CH-53K

Shipbuilding

o Eliminates funding for Conventional Trident Modification efforts

o Supports funding for the Ohio class submarine replacement program with an adjustment for slow program ramp-up

Vehicles and Ground Forces

o Adds $128 million for the Stryker Double-V Hull modification

o Fully funds the Army’s restructured Ground Combat Vehicle program

o Fully funds Army combat vehicle modernization

o Fully funds further development of Army’s Brigade Combat Team Modernization program

o Provides an additional $30 million for Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program, as authorized

o Fully funds technology development efforts for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, but defers follow-on development funding

o Funds reliability testing for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and provides for termination costs in the event of test failure

Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)

o Fully funds new starts requested in FY 2011

o Fully funds the continuation of new starts initiated in FY 2010

o Fully funds Global Integrated Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance programs

Other

o Provides an additional $125 million for alternative energy research

o Adds funds to fully support Army requirements for test range infrastructure

o Eliminates unjustified increases for the Joint Tactical Radio Systems Airborne-Maritime Fixed Radio

o Provides an increase of $88 million for the Israeli cooperative programs, including Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense (David’s Sling), Arrow-2 and Arrow-3

o Provides $50 million for sensor development of the Defense Weather Satellite System and no funding for the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)

o Includes an additional $40 million in the Operationally Responsive Space program for responsive launch capabilities

o Provides an additional $30 million for the Industrial Base Innovation Fund (IBIF), as authorized

o Provides $20 million for cyber security pilot programs

o Provides an additional $18 million to fully fund development test and system engineering requirements to implement the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009

Title V – Revolving and Management Funds $2.5 billion

Title VI – Other Department of Defense Programs $34.5 billion

Defense Health Programs $31.5 billion

o Provides $595 million above the President’s budget request

o Provides $240 million for cancer research. The total amount is distributed as follows:

· $150 million for the Breast Cancer Research Program

· $80 million for the Prostate Cancer Research Program

· $10 million for the Ovarian Cancer Research Program

o Provides $60 million for the Peer Reviewed Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Research Program

o Provides $50 million for a medical research fund

o Provides $8 million for the Peer Reviewed Gulf War Illness Research Program

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction $1.5 billion

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities $1.2 billion

o Provides an additional $35 million for National Guard Counter-Drug plans, as authorized

Office of the Inspector General $304 million

o Provides an additional $21 million to accelerate the growth of the Office of the Inspector General and keep pace with increases in the size of the defense budget and number of defense contracts

Title IX: Overseas Deployments and Other Activities $157.7 billion

* Provides $157.7 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense for functions under the Defense Subcommittee’s jurisdiction for overseas deployments and other activities
* Provides $4 billion in Special Transfer Authority
* Fully funds current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan

Military Personnel $ 16 billion

o Provides pay and allowances for mobilized Reservists and Guardsmen and special pay and allowances for deployed active duty personnel

o Supports required Pre– and Post-Mobilization Training for Reserve and Guard units

o Provides an additional $900 million to cover anticipated military personnel shortfalls resulting from higher than budgeted personnel and mobilization levels

Operation and Maintenance $112.6 billion

o Fully funds key readiness programs critical to prepare forces for combat operations and other missions: OPTEMPO flying hours and steaming days, depot maintenance, training, spare parts, and base operations

o Provides additional depot maintenance funding for the Navy and Air Force to address funding shortfalls

o Provides $11.6 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to train and equip Afghan Security Forces

o Provides $1 billion for the Iraq Security Forces Fund to train and equip the Iraq Security Forces

o Provides $900 million for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program and caps projects at $20 million, realigning the program for its original purpose

Procurement $ 23.1 billion

Aircraft

o Provides additional funds for one AH-64 Apache and 3 UH-60 Black Hawk battle loss helicopters for the Army

o Increases funding to complete the last battalion of AH-64A to D conversions for the Army National Guard

o Funds 3 aircraft in the Navy UH-1Y/AH-1Z program, as requested

o Adds funds to procure an additional 10 HH-60 helicopters to replace battle losses and nondeployable aircraft

o Increases funding to procure 24 MQ-9 Reapers for theater use

o Provides additional funds for one MH-60 Black Hawk and one MH-47 Chinook battle loss helicopters for Special Operations Command

o Adds $210 million to address Navy shortfalls in aviation spares

Weapons/Missiles

o Provides a total of $1.7 billion for the purchase of ammunition and missiles to replenish war expenditures and reserve stockpiles

o Provides an additional $111 million for 12 Standard Missile-3 Block IA missiles

Vehicles/Force Protection

o Fully funds Mine Resistant Ambush Protected-All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) force protection upgrades and sustainment

o Provides $318 million for additional Stryker vehicles and Double-V Hull modification kits to equip vehicles deploying to Afghanistan.

o Funds the Army’s Mine Protection Vehicle Family program

o Provides funds to continue recapitalization of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs)

o Fully funds both handheld and ground standoff mine detection equipment

Other

o Increases funding for the Army’s Defense Advanced Global Positioning System Receivers to address unfunded shortfalls

o Provides additional funding for Army biometrics equipment

o Adds $55 million to address unfunded shortfalls in Navy’s aviation spares program

o Increases funds to address a number of Marine Corps-identified battlefield shortfalls

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation $874 million

o Fully funds the quick reaction capability of the Hostile Fire Detection System for aircraft survivability

o Adds funds to fully resource the deployment of Marine Corps cargo unmanned aerial systems

Revolving and Management Funds $485 million

o Includes $17 million in the Transportation Working Capital Fund for the transportation of fallen heroes.

Defense Health Programs $1.4 billion

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities $441 million

o Funds drug interdiction and counter-drug activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia

Office of the Inspector General $ 11 million

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) $2.8 billion

o Realigns $419 million within JIEDDO for proper execution

o Transfers several programs to Service accounts for proper execution

General Provisions

o Includes language which prohibits the transfer, release, or incarceration of any individual who was detained as of October 1, 2009, at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States or its territories which is consistent with language previously adopted by the Senate

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/14/sac-d-rejects-f136-dough/#ixzz0zYQtare4

buglerbilly

15-09-10, 03:30 AM

Sen. Subcommittee Votes To Cut JSF, LCS Purchases

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Published: 14 Sep 2010 13:16

A key Senate subcommittee voted Sept. 14 to cut top priority purchases by the Air Force and Navy in 2011 to help trim $8 billion from the 2011 defense spending bill.

The Senate defense appropriations subcommittee approved cutting Joint Strike Fighter production from 42 planes to 32, and to build just one Littoral Combat Ship, not two, in 2011.

Overall, the subcommittee chopped $8.1 billion from the budget President Barack Obama requested for the U.S. Defense Department for 2011. The cuts come mainly in procurement and operations and maintenance accounts.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, subcommittee chairman, said the JSF cuts are warranted because the program is behind schedule. "I would inform my colleagues that the Defense Department has not yet awarded a contract to build 30 aircraft which the Congress funded nearly a year ago."

Similarly, with the Navy's LCS, Inouye said that "two ships funded in 2010 have not yet been contracted. Under the new plan, the Navy would seek to award four ships to a single contractor in the coming year. There is virtually no way that the winning contractor would be able to begin construction of four ships in 2011."

Funding for one ship in 2011 "is more than adequate," he said. And it saves $615 million.

Similar reductions were made to "dozens of programs where the requested funding level is above what is required to meet adjusted schedules," Inouye said.

The THAAD missile interceptor program, for example, was cut by $425 million because of production delays.

The defense appropriations subcommittee approved spending $680.9 billion on the military in fiscal 2011, which begins Oct. 1.

Obama requested $708.2 billion for the Defense Department and $18 billion for nuclear weapons managed by the Energy Department.

That Senate appropriations number appears to be much lower than the president's request in part because it does not include more than $14 billion that was requested for military construction. That is funded by Congress in a separate bill.

Of the $680.9 billion, $157.7 billion is to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama asked for $159.3 billion to pay for the wars.

Inouye said his subcommittee cut support for Iraq Security Forces in half - from $2 billion to $1 billion. The subcommittee also cut funding for the Commander's Emergency Response Program from $1.3 billion to $900 million.

Senators approved $167.3 billion in operations and maintenance spending; the Obama administration requested $200.3 billion.

And they set procurement spending at $104.8 billion - the 2010 level. The administration wanted $112.9 billion.

It wasn't all cuts, though. The subcommittee added funding for more search and rescue helicopters for the Air Force and Army, and added $121 million to buy 13 more Standard missile interceptors for the Navy's missile defense ships. The National Guard and service reserves received $500 million for buying new equipment.

Senators boosted spending on health care by $600 million to care for wounded troops and conduct medical research. Total spending on health care is $31.5 billion.

Inouye included a scolding for Pentagon finance managers. While some cuts were made because programs are far behind schedule, others, particularly those in operations and maintenance accounts, were made "because of lax budgeting practices by the military departments."

Inouye said the Defense Department "has not yet recovered from years of neglect in financial management." The Pentagon's effort to eliminate wasteful spending ought to start with "improving its budget preparation," he said.

Inouye called some of the cuts his subcommittee proposes "tough measures," but he said, "We believe in total the package is not only fair, but presents a carefully balanced set of recommendations" that meet U.S. security needs for 2011.

buglerbilly

15-09-10, 04:59 PM

Pentagon Starts to Bargain Hunt

September 15, 2010

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Defense Department has unveiled a surprising new plan to start reining in its supersized budget: After nine years of unbridled war spending, the military will finally start bargain hunting.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at a Pentagon news conference Tuesday that the military will begin factoring in affordability before committing to a purchase. Any contracts exceeding $1 billion will be scrutinized in particular for ways to keep costs down. And when looking to spend money, the military will try to do more comparison shopping, Gates said.

The initiatives are part of Gates' goal to find $100 billion in budget fat in the next five years, money that he says is needed to care for U.S. troops and modernize weapons.

Such steps may seem like common sense in most American households, now trying to survive the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But the Defense Department has mostly escaped any belt-tightening in the past decade, as it committed tens of thousands of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Lawmakers in Congress, meanwhile, were eager to support the troops.

The Pentagon now spends roughly $700 billion a year, which includes the cost of both wars. Of that amount, about $200 billion is spent on goods like new weapons and fuel and $200 billion goes toward services like weapons maintenance and computer networking.

Defense officials and budget hawks say the heightened spending in recent years prompted a feeding frenzy within the defense industry. Meanwhile, there was minimal oversight from the Pentagon, which was more focused on equipping troops on the battlefield than on comparing costs.

Gates, who is expected to retire sometime next year, has predicted that defense spending will begin to level off as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. In order to ensure that key programs don't suffer -- health benefits for troops, for example, and rebuilding Army vehicles worn-out by desert warfare -- the military will have to find ways to do business smarter, he says.

Gates has already announced a plan to disband an entire headquarters in Norfolk, Va., known as the U.S. Joint Forces Command. He also wants to cut the general officer corps, which he says has grown too large and expensive.

His proposal announced Tuesday takes direct aim at the defense industry and the approximate $400 billion a year it earns in contracts for goods and services.

Among the new requirements for future programs is that "affordability will be incorporated right at the beginning, as a firm requirement for each new program," Gates said.

The goal, he said, will be to avoid starting programs that later prove too expensive and not worth their cost. He gave the example of the half-billion dollar presidential helicopter program, which was eventually canceled by President Obama.

The Pentagon acquisition chief, Ashton Carter, said a program's affordability hasn't been a requirement in recent years because cost was no object. When problems arose on a contract, more money was thrown at the problem to correct it, he said.

That's not the way most of us spend money, he said. "You don't buy the car that you fantasize about," Carter said. "You first check how much money you have before you buy a car. And we need to start doing that."

Whether Gates' cost-cutting efforts will succeed remains unclear. The defense industry has a host of powerful lobbyists, and Congress has been fiercely protective of any defense spending within their districts because military spending creates jobs.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

17-09-10, 12:00 PM

U.S. Senate Panel Lops $8.1B Off 2011 Budget

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Published: 16 Sep 2010 19:27

The Senate Appropriations Committee lopped $8.1 billion off the 2011 defense budget Sept. 16, mainly by cutting two top-priority U.S. Air Force and Navy weapons programs, and trimming dozens of smaller programs.

The appropriators approved cutting Joint Strike Fighter production from 42 planes to 32, and to build just one Littoral Combat Ship instead of two in fiscal 2011, which begins Oct. 1.

The JSF cut could save about $3 billion. It leaves in the budget six planes for the Navy, 10 for the Marine Corps and 16 for the Air Force. The LCS cut is worth $615 million, according to the committee.

Senate appropriators saved another $450 million by not funding development of a second or "alternate" engine for the JSF.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, Appropriations Committee chairman, called the cuts "tough measures." But he said, "We believe in total the package is not only fair, but presents a carefully balanced set of recommendations" that meet U.S. security needs for 2011.

The appropriators approved spending $670 billion in defense, which includes $158 billion for fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it does not include $18 billion to be spent on nuclear weapons and $14 billion for military construction. Those are funded in other budget bills.

President Obama asked the Appropriations Committee for $678 billion, including $159.3 billion to pay for the wars. Overall, he proposed a $726 billion defense budget for 2011.

The Senate appropriators and their House counterparts are especially budget-minded this year. In July, the House defense appropriations subcommittee cut Obama's request by $7.2 billion. With elections six weeks away, the $1.4 trillion budget deficit and the $13.5 trillion debt have emerged as volatile issues. Interest payments on the debt have risen to $400 billion a year.

Inouye, D-Hawaii, said the Senate committee's JSF cuts are warranted because the program is behind schedule. "I would inform my colleagues that the Defense Department has not yet awarded a contract to build 30 aircraft which the Congress funded nearly a year ago."

Similarly, with the Navy's LCS, Inouye said that "two ships funded in 2010 have not yet been contracted. Under the new plan, the Navy would seek to award four ships to a single contractor in the coming year. There is virtually no way that the winning contractor would be able to begin construction of four ships in 2011."

Funding for one ship in 2011 "is more than adequate," he said.

Similar reductions were made to "dozens of programs where the requested funding level is above what is required to meet adjusted schedules," Inouye said.

The THAAD missile interceptor program, for example, was cut by $425 million because of production delays.

Inouye said his committee cut support for Iraq Security Forces in half - from $2 billion to $1 billion. The subcommittee also cut funding for the Commander's Emergency Response Program from $1.3 billion to $900 million.

Senators approved $167.3 billion in operations and maintenance spending; the Obama administration requested $200.3 billion.

And they set procurement spending at $104.8 billion - the 2010 level. The administration wanted $112.9 billion.

It wasn't all cuts, though. The administration wanted $76.1 billion for research and development spending; the committee approved $76.2 billion.

The subcommittee also added money for buying more search-and-rescue helicopters for the Air Force and Army, and added $121 million to buy 13 more Standard Missile interceptors for the Navy's missile defense ships. The National Guard and service reserves received $500 million to buy new equipment.

An extra $450 million is allocated for Stryker double-V hull modifications, and $125 million is to go to alternative energy research.

The $158 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan includes money for 24 additional Reaper UAVs, 19 helicopters to replace battle losses, and $1.7 billion to buy ammunition and missiles.

JIEDDO, the organization set up to defeat roadside bombs, is to receive $2.8 billion.

Senators boosted spending on health care by $600 million to care for wounded troops and conduct medical research. Total spending on health care is $31.5 billion.

Inouye included a scolding for Pentagon finance managers. While some cuts were made because programs are far behind schedule, others, particularly those in operations and maintenance accounts, were made "because of lax budgeting practices by the military departments."

Inouye said the Defense Department "has not yet recovered from years of neglect in financial management." The Pentagon's effort to eliminate wasteful spending ought to start with "improving its budget preparation," he said.

buglerbilly

19-09-10, 06:31 AM

Ex-General Declares Total War on Defense Secretary

By Spencer Ackerman September 17, 2010 | 3:11 pm

Defense Secretary Robert Gates came into the Pentagon like C.C. Sabathia entered Yankee Stadium. Not only did he help revitalize a military beaten down by Iraq, Afghanistan and Donald Rumsfeld, he focused on fundamentals, like slashing seemingly-permanent waste. Accordingly, he’s gotten a lot of good press, ourselves definitely included. So it falls to Charlie Dunlap — a pal of ours, an iconoclast and a retired Air Force two-star general — to say that Gates, like CC, is more fat than muscle.

In a guest post on Tom Ricks’ Foreign Policy blog today, Dunlap circles the defense secretary’s office and drops bombs until the rubble bounces. Think Gates responsibly reoriented the Pentagon to support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Actually, he’s irresponsibly ignoring future threats like China, Dunlap argues. Think Gates bravely challenged the military’s generals not to live so high on the hog? Actually, he’s a hypocrite who goes yachting on the Potomac at taxpayer expense. Think Gates ended Donald Rumsfeld’s culture of military conformity? Actually, he gives dissenters the sack and executes a vendetta against the Air Force.

That just scratches the surface of how caustic and personal Dunlap’s critique is. Dunlap derides Gates’ CIA background as a way of arguing that he easily bamboozles people. “He also collected a huge $525,000 compensation package from taxpayer-supported Texas A & M University,” Dunlap writes. “I’m sure he earned it, but shouldn’t a general’s warfighting insights that might save someone’s son or daughter be as valued as overseeing Aggie football prospects?” That’s the Pentagon equivalent of Jim Jones and Cam’ron’s unexpectedly brutal attack on Kanye West.

It’s true that Gates has fired a lot of top brass since taking office in 2007: General Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff; Major General George W. Weightman, commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center; Admiral William Fallon, Central Command chief; Major General David Heinz, head of the Joint Strike Fighter program — we could be here all day. So perhaps what’s most surprising about Dunlap’s piece that no other officer wrote it sooner. There’s been no “Revolt of the Generals” of the sort that Rumsfeld faced in 2006 from ex-officers who wanted him fired. And unlike Rumsfeld, Gates has actively attacked “brass creep,” making the provocative case that the military has too many useless generals.

But Dunlap, a career military lawyer, is the opposite of a conventional general. Back when he was a major in 1992, Dunlap became (in)famous because of an essay, “The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012,” which used a sci-fi trope to argue that the armed forces’ drift into traditionally civilian activities like disaster relief augured a disaster in civil-military relations. The concept of non-state actors using national or international laws as weapons against more-powerful adversaries? Dunlap invented it. When counterinsurgency theory became all the rage in military circles, Dunlap fired back with a monograph, “Shortchanging The Joint Fight,” that accused its advocates of sacrificing the military services’ ability to work together on the altar of a marginal form of warfare.

Depending on who you ask, Dunlap is either a few fighters short of a squadron or one of the Air Force’s most strategic thinkers — someone brave or buck-wild enough to publicly confront Pentagon orthodoxy. But Dunlap isn’t an officer anymore: he decamped for Duke Law School in June after spending the last few years in the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s office.

Conspicuously, Dunlap only obliquely attacks Gates’s big, legacy-defining project: getting rid of billions in Pentagon bloat, a task that’s led him to axe a ton of programs, including the Air Force’s beloved F-22 fighter jet. Dunlap’s post doesn’t have anything to say about the effort as a whole. Instead, he goes after Gates for “indulging near-term wants (and perceived needs) at the expense of long-term strategic interests,” buying MRAPs and unmanned drones while China modernizes its military — a challenge which just so conveniently dovetails with the Air Force’s arguments for more money. “Today’s thinking about defense spending is hobbled by the Pentagon’s inability to distinguish sufficiently between the serious challenge of irregular wars, and the need to deter truly existential threats posed by nation-states,” Dunlap accuses.

And that exposes Dunlap to a countercharge: that his beef with Gates is really just Air Force and general-officer parochialism. China’s military budget is growing, but it’s about $78 billion; ours is over $700 billion. Not only does Dunlap sidestep an argument about the appropriate size of the Pentagon budget, he doesn’t make a case about how “serious” the challenge of today’s “irregular wars” really are. (The closest he comes there is a vague prediction that the surge will fail in Afghanistan, compelling the Obama administration to enact Vice President Biden’s “Counterterrorism Plus” strategy as a fallback.) That makes it fairly easy for both men to talk past one another.

I left messages with Dunlap for this post but haven’t heard back. (Gates’s spokesman, Geoff Morrell, declined to comment.) I’ll update when I get replies or when others join the fray. Dunlap probably speaks for more than just himself on this one.

Credit: USAF

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/09/ex-general-declares-total-war-on-defense-secretary/#more-31073#ixzz0zwiafzeY

buglerbilly

21-09-10, 02:28 AM

U.S. Congress Delays Decisions on '11 Budget

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Published: 20 Sep 2010 17:12

In money terms, 2010 ends in 10 days. And there won't be a new U.S. defense budget by then.

With six weeks to go before midterm elections, leaders in the House and Senate have decided that there won't be any action on the $678.2 billion Defense Appropriations bill that President Barack Obama has requested, or the $726 billion Defense Authorization act.

Instead, the U.S. military will be funded with a "continuing resolution" that will provide money to the services at the same rate they have received through 2010.

For appropriations, the sum to be continued is $658.7 billion a year.

That's not good news for the military. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $670 billion appropriations bill for 2011. The House was a tad more generous with $671 billion.

There are differences between the two appropriations bills that will have to be fought out by a conference committee. The Senate, for example, cut Joint Strike Fighter purchases by 10 for next year; the House did not. And the Senate eliminated one Littoral Combat Ship; again, the House didn't. The House isn't happy, an aide to a senior House appropriator said.

On the other hand, the House funded the controversial alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Senate did not, and the $450 million program has provoked veto threats from the White House.

Until the elections and the budget wrangling are over, the military will make do with current levels of funding "with some tailoring," the House aide said. That is, limited amounts of money may be moved from one account to another, but the 2010 bottom line will stay the same.

The defense authorization bill, which is larger because it includes items such as military construction and funding for nuclear weapons, is tied up in the Senate by politically explosive social issues, including eliminating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, permitting abortions in military hospitals and immigration reform.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced that action on the authorization bill would be put off until after the Nov. 2 election.

The authorization bill, which technically sets policy but doesn't hand out money, really isn't needed as long as there is an appropriations bill.

buglerbilly

22-09-10, 01:58 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Statement of Administration Policy on Defense Bill

Posted by Michael Bruno at 9/21/2010 10:41 AM CDT

Defense Weather Satellites:
The Administration objects to the committee’s reduction of $241.8 million in funding for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program. The decision to restructure the program, taken in February, was designed to address chronic budget, schedule, and management difficulties. DoD’s senior leadership recently approved a long-term, follow-on weather satellite program to NPOESS – the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS). The Committee’s reduction would significantly hinder the Department from taking the necessary steps to implement DWSS and to transition critical assets and data to NOAA, potentially resulting in future gaps in military and civil weather satellite coverage. The reduction could also result in terminating major elements of the existing program, impairing development of NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System program, and incurring an otherwise avoidable termination liability for both DoD and Commerce.

Contracts for Commercial Imaging Satellite Capacities:
The Administration objects to Section 142, which requires that DoD only procure the capacity of commercial imagery satellites with 1.5 meter telescopes after December 31, 2010. The planned next generation of commercial imagery satellites will use a 1.1 meter aperture. Since the commercial satellite industry does not currently build 1.5 meter satellites, this provision would require considerable additional government investment, and is not required to meet defense or intelligence requirements. Further, by stipulating a predetermined commercial solution, this provision could negatively impact the commercial data providers, limit innovation in commercial technology, and increase the risks on future government contracts for commercial data services.

National Nuclear Security Administration Program Reductions:
The Administration objects to reductions to key weapons programs, including the W76 Life Extension, Plutonium Infrastructure Sustainment, Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure, Tritium Readiness, and Fissile Materials Disposition programs. Failure to provide the requested funding for these programs would delay essential stockpile support and nuclear infrastructure modernization in support of the Nuclear Posture Review and would reduce NNSA’s ability to attain the W76 Life Extension Program production rates needed to meet Navy requirements.

Expansion of the Defense Production Act:
The Administration objects to section 214, which authorizes the use of Defense Production Act Title III authorities to develop advanced technologies for ground vehicles without a determination that the industry involved is essential to the national defense and that government assistance is required for the production of the systems and technologies. Early stage development of advanced technologies for military vehicles is best addressed in the Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation title.

Incremental and Full Funding:
The Administration is concerned that the committee is authorizing incremental funding of military construction projects. As a matter of fiscal prudence, the Administration encourages full funding of these programs, which is consistent with the President’s Budget.

National Guard Deployment to Secure the Southwest Border:
The Administration strongly objects to Section 1041, which the Administration would construe to require the Secretary of Defense to authorize the funding for deployment, under title 32, United States Code, of at least 6,000 National Guard personnel to undertake operations such as constructing fences and border checkpoints, surveying the border, and providing radio communication interoperability among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, until the Secretary, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Governors of the border states, certifies to Congress that the Federal Government has achieved “operational control” of the border. The legislation would unduly interfere with the President’s role as Commander in Chief with respect to the management of the Total Force. The Administration continues to pursue a comprehensive, multi-layered, targeted approach to law enforcement and security on the southwest border. Within this approach, the National Guard will be utilized to meet specific, requirements-based needs where they can implement missions using their unique capabilities.

Full statement available here.

http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USEOPWHPO/2010/09/21/file_attachments/10310/SAP_on_S_3454.pdf

buglerbilly

29-09-10, 02:58 PM

Defense Officials Testify on Cost-saving Measures

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued September 28, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- Senior Defense Department officials here today detailed the department’s efforts to redirect $100 billion in defense spending over the next five years.

“This effort is not just about the budget, it is also about operational agility,” Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said. “We need to ensure the department is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible.”

Lynn, along with Ashton B. Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the efficiencies initiatives outlined Sept. 14.

The guidance expanded cost-saving measures Gates mandated June 28, and outlined 23 principal actions organized in five major areas:
-- Target affordability and control cost growth;
-- Incentivize productivity and innovation in industry;
-- Promote real competition;
-- Improve tradecraft in services acquisition;
-- Reduce nonproductive processes and bureaucracy.

As the department projects lower future budget increases than those over the past decade, it must fundamentally change the way it does business, Lynn said.

“To sustain the current military force structure, which we must do given the security challenges this country faces, requires the equivalent of real budget growth of 2 to 3 percent,” Lynn said. “The overall defense budget, however, is projected to rise in real terms by about 1 percent.”

Bridging the gap, he said, requires reducing the “tail” of massive overhead costs and structures, and redirecting those dollars to the “tooth” of fighting forces and modernization accounts.

The department will achieve that resource shift, Lynn said, by reducing executive and flag officer billets and their staffs, shedding overlapping commands and organizations, and trimming the role and cost of support contractors.

In a four-track approach, Lynn said, Gates directed that the services identify $100 billion in savings over five years to invest in high-priority needs, that the department seek suggestions for efficiencies from experts, think tanks and other sources outside normal channels, that it review its organization and operations to effect systemic improvements, and to take specific actions to reduce overhead.

“With regard to track four,” he said, “the secretary announced August ninth specific areas where the department can take action now to reduce inefficiency and overhead.”

Gates’ Aug. 9 announcement included his proposal to close Joint Forces Command based in Norfolk, Va.

During his opening statement today, Cartwright said Jfcom had accomplished its primary mission to establish “jointness” throughout the military. “It is our goal to reduce unintended redundancies and layering,” Cartwright said, “to more clearly align operational responsibilities with service, train and equip functions.”

Meanwhile, future military functions would “move toward a construct of combined, joint, interagency task force organizations or centers,” the general said.

During his testimony, Carter said the department’s reduction targets were very reasonable. “We recognize the change in our business practices will take time, and require the close contribution of our industry partners,” he said.

Carter said the alternative would be broken or cancelled systems, uncertainty for industry, erosion of taxpayer confidence and “lost capability for the warfighter in a dangerous world.”

“Not only can we succeed in this endeavor, but we really have to,” he said.

-ends-

buglerbilly

04-10-10, 04:43 PM

Defense Logistics Agency Guidance Emphasizes Efficiencies and Savings

A Soldier moves cargo onto an Air Force Cargo plane as part of a DLA integrated logistics led mission.

08:02 GMT, October 4, 2010 FORT BELVOIR, Va. | Defense Logistics Agency Director Navy Vice Adm. Alan Thompson today released his fiscal 2011 Director's Guidance, which refocuses the agency's goals with an emphasis on increasing efficiencies and savings in accordance with Defense Department requirements.

"DLA is putting its full support behind Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates' requirements to reduce the department's overhead so that more money can go to troop development and force modernization," Thompson said. "Initiatives are included in the fiscal 2011 guidance that ensure DLA will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our processes. That's just good business and part of DLA's obligation to its customers."

The 2011 Director's Guidance includes perspective from DLA's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2010-2017, DoD's recently published Logistics Strategic Plan and other DoD guidance. The guidance includes 19 initiatives, some of which are being continued from the fiscal 2010 Director's Guidance. The fiscal 2011 guidance continues to emphasize DLA's three strategic focus areas of Warfighter Support Enhancement, Stewardship Excellence and Workforce Development.

In the area of Warfighter Support Enhancement, the initiatives focus on support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, improving business operations and contracting to better serve warfighters, and developing logistics efficiencies that better serve customers and save money. In the area of Stewardship Excellence, the initiatives focus on pursuing price reductions, improving detection and deterrence of counterfeit material, and meeting Congressional and DoD inventory management and overall supply chain performance. When it comes to Workforce Development, the initiatives focus on ensuring workforce capabilities match present and future mission requirements, supporting diversity and enhancing DLA's performance-driven culture.

"As we move into the new fiscal year and begin to work on the focus areas and initiatives in the 2011 guidance, we'll apply what we learned in the past months to our operations," Thompson said. "We'll continue to provide best-value logistics to the armed forces as we anticipate and meet the requirements of the coming years. DLA will keep looking beyond the near horizon to the future, and we'll continue to develop and implement cutting-edge capabilities and products for our customers."

In the 2011 guidance, Thompson noted that the agency has made significant progress on the initiatives in the fiscal 2010 Director's Guidance. Some notable successes were the agency's support to ongoing operations in Afghanistan, a proactive response to the defense secretary's call for efficiencies in business operations, an expansion of outreach communications to customers and DoD leaders, and a leadership role in support of U.S. Central Command's emphasis on local purchases in Southwest Asia and use of the Northern Distribution Network, which has improved logistics support to Afghanistan.

"Over the past year, the DLA team once again gave critical support to our warfighters, stakeholders and customers," he said. "We made good progress on the initiatives contained in the fiscal 2010 guidance. I know every DLA employee will continue to provide the same high-quality sustainment in the months ahead as we begin to execute the fiscal 2011 guidance."

The fiscal 2011 Director's Guidance is online at: http://www.dla.mil/library/guidance_2011.pdf.

As the Department of Defense's combat logistics support agency, DLA provides the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, other federal agencies, and joint and allied forces with a variety of logistics, acquisition and technical services. The agency sources and provides nearly 100 percent of the consumable items America's military forces need to operate, from food, fuel and energy, to uniforms, medical supplies, and construction and barrier equipment. DLA also supplies more than 80 percent of the military's spare parts.

buglerbilly

08-10-10, 03:48 AM

Efficiencies Will Keep Military Strong in Tight Economy, Lynn Says

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued October 6, 2010)

MCLEAN, Va. --- Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III today reiterated the need for efficiencies as a way to keep the military strong during tight economic times.

“With forces deployed abroad [and] fiscal pressures at home, we face a very complex environment,” he told the World Affairs Council here. “It’s going to require very careful management by the department.”

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced his efficiency initiative during a speech in Abilene, Kan., in April. He wants the department to save $100 billion over five years.

Lynn said the Defense Department must learn from the past as it faces its “fifth inflection point.” The first three prior significant transitions came after the World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars, he said, and the last came when the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union dissolved.

“What the four transitions have in common is each time we’ve gone through this, we’ve suffered … a disproportionate loss of capability,” Lynn said. “In shorthand, we’re 0-for-4 in managing these transitions.”

Gates wants to manage this transition in a manner that retains and improves the capabilities and qualities the military has right now, Lynn said. “We don’t want to break the force,” he said. “We want to adapt to the fiscal situation we’re in.”

The department has taken three main lessons from the past transitions, Lynn said. The first is to make the hard decisions early, because the budget situation is not going to get better, and resources will be fewer.

“If you cannot afford it now, you clearly are not going to be able to afford it in the future when the funds are tighter,” he said.

Second, he said, it’s not possible to generate the savings the department needs via “pure efficiencies” -- doing the same things with less money. Some pure efficiencies will be realized, he added, but the department is not going to save $100 billion over five years without other measures.

“You are going to have to eliminate lower-priority organizations, lower-priority activities,” Lynn said, citing the elimination of U.S. Joint Forces Command as an example. “It’s not that what they were doing wasn’t valuable,” he said, “but given this environment, there are other, higher priorities.”

The department has to approach the efficiencies in a balanced way and cannot take the majority of money from operations or modernization accounts, Lynn said.

Some work has moved ahead, the deputy secretary said. In 2008, Gates proposed and Congress approved eliminating programs worth more than $300 billion. The efficiency initiative target, he added, is on top of these savings.

Lynn acknowledged some constants. For example, he said, the United States is fighting two wars and cannot reduce force structure. Some 50,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, 100,000 are in Afghanistan, and counterterrorism requirements exist around the world. The increased operational tempo caused DOD to ask for, and Congress to approve, increases in the Army and Marine Corps, and a halt to reductions in the Navy and Air Force, he noted.

But budgets will not be rising the 2 to 3 percent per year in real growth the military needs to retain its capabilities, Lynn said. President Barack Obama has approved 1 percent real growth in the defense budget over the next years. To maintain the quality of the force and maintain its capabilities, Lynn explained, DOD needs to shift the 1 to 2 percent needed from overhead to warfighting.

Lynn said he sees the $100 billion breaking down to two-thirds of the money coming from transfers from overhead and one-third coming from pure efficiencies. This, he added, is going to require the department to change the way it does business by eliminating layering and duplication of effort. “We must flatten and streamline institutions,” he said. “If we do this, we will improve our operational agility.”

The department has a way forward, Lynn told the group.

“To keep our forces strong in a time of tight budgets, we’ve designed a program of efficiencies that establish reasonable reduction targets focused on specific savings in which we think we can develop a program that can give us the warfighting capabilities we need in this era of fiscal austerity,” he said.

-ends-