Raptor Fight Shows Limits of Procurement Reform

There should be little doubt by this point that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is an honest broker. His actions since he's been in office suggest he has no personal or political agenda. He's shown he deeply cares about the troops. So when he does a deep dive on the Air Force's fighter aircraft requirement and emerges with 187 as the right number of Raptors -- all things considered -- Americans can feel confident that he's doing the right thing. And taxpayers can actually start to believe that their hard-earned dollars might not ultimately be wasted. Procurement reform just might be possible.

(Cue scary music.) Then Congress shows up and smashes all hope. To wit, AP reports:

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22 program got an unexpected lift Wednesday after House lawmakers approved $369 million to continue production of the radar-evading fighter jets.

The surprise amendment, likely to reopen a debate over the necessity of the Cold War planes that cost $140 million each, was approved by the House Armed Services Committee. Republicans largely backed the measure and were joined by a handful of Democrats in a 31-30 vote.

The extra funding was adopted as part of the 2010 Defense Department spending bill mark-up. The bill still needs to make its way through the full House and Senate.

Notice how it's called a "mark-up" and not "mark-down" or even "mark-sideways"? Same as it ever was . . .

Read the full AP report here.

-- Ward

Obama's 100 Days Report Card

EDITOR'S NOTE: The combined reporting and brain power of the entire Military.com/Defense Tech/DoD Buzz team was brought to bear last week to compile a report card for President Barack Obama's first 100 days as it related to the military and national security. I invite you to read the excerpt here and continue with the comprehensive story on Military.com. And I'd also be interested to read your opinion on his performance so far.

In his campaign for president, Barack Obama pledged a swift end to the war in Iraq, a new commitment to the defeat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strong emphasis on veterans' care and military families and a critical look at Pentagon spending, strategy and conduct in the war on terrorism.

Since his inauguration 100 days ago, Obama has made good on his promise for sweeping change in the military, a new tone in the White House's relationship with troops and a personal investment in easing the burden of military service.

But so far his record has been met with controversy, both for its marked consistency with the policies of George W. Bush and for its radical break from the past that some see as reckless.

Obama was quick to apologize for American conduct in the war on terrorism and relations with some of its allies during his trip to Europe in early April. He called for "mutual respect" toward Iran, which commanders in Iraq say supplies deadly roadside bombs to insurgents. And he has agreed to the release of reportedly gruesome photos of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, an action that some insiders claim will worsen morale in a military service only now recovering from the tarnished public perception stemming from that terrible chapter.

Likewise, in his first 100 days Obama has met several times with veterans organizations to assure them of his personal investment in their care. He's taken on the largest defense firms with a sweeping Pentagon budget reform that slashes costly programs at a time of economic turmoil. And he's proven immensely popular with troops in the field; for instance, last month he was given a standing ovation from those serving in Iraq even as he asked them for continued long-term commitments to Afghanistan.

And Obama hasn't needlessly rocked any boats during his first 100 days either, keeping Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, holding off needless controversy over a hasty repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" sexual orientation policy, and continuing the Bush administration's controversial strategy of fighting al Qaeda and Taliban forces with covert Predator drone strikes in Pakistani territory.

-- Christian, Colin, Bryant, Greg and Bryan

More on Murtha

I know I'm going to catch flak from the technophiles out there, but I wanted to forward along to you all the story I wrote yesterday on the Navy awarding its highest civilian honor to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.). No, this is not specifically "defense tech," but it does relate to someone who has a lot of influence on who gets it.

Anyway, I reported yesterday in a story that has hit the Drudge Report today that former SecNav Donald Winter awarded Murtha with the Navy's Distinguished Civilian Service medal. This has rubbed some vet groups the wrong way, since Murtha's anti-war outrage boiled over in May 2006 when he disclosed private briefings from Marine officials who told him civilians had been killed by grunts in Haditha in 2005 and there was an investigation going on about why.

As you all know, Murtha called the Marines (and one Navy corpsman) "cold blooded" killers and has refused to recant his position or apologize for his remarks despite the Marines' acquittal in military courts on all counts.

Well, I just got off the phone with a Navy official who gave me a few more details on how the award was bestowed and why.

Bottom line, it was a unilateral decision by then SecNav Donald Winter, who, just days before he left office, gave these awards to key members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee's defense panel. In other words, he gave them to the folks who gave the Navy money and gear. The official was unable to provide me with a list of exactly whom these medals were awarded to (pretty special award, huh?).

The Navy official told me a typical civilian can be nominated for the award and the nomination goes before a board where it's forwarded to the SecNav who makes the final call. But that didn't happen this time.

Also, I asked for official Navy reaction to the outcry from some vets groups and the petition drive to rescind the award from Murtha and he said, "I'm not going to go down that spiral with you."

Q: Does the Navy stand by the award?...

A: "The Secretary of the Navy has the authority to present this award, and he did so."

Case closed...

And, even more mysteriously, you'd think that if the Navy was going to bestow its highest civilian award on not just one, but several civilians at one time, they'd have a pretty big ceremony or something, right? Well, the official couldn't provide me with any information on when the awards were given, where the ceremony -- if any -- was held, or whether the awards were simply mailed to the recipients with a nice letter.

The official said he'd get back to me when he found that out, so I'll update you when he does.

-- Christian

Dep. SECDEF Out

From Defense Link:

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said today that he will not be staying with Secretary Gates in the Obama Administration. “I congratulate President-Elect Obama for retaining Bob Gates as secretary, and I salute Bob Gates for his continued commitment,” England said.

“However, it’s time for me to leave. When I came into government in early 2001, I anticipated serving for two to four years. After almost eight years, it’s now time for me to turn over the reins to a successor. Also, it’s most appropriate for the new administration to name its own deputy.”

England said he will stay for some time past Jan. 20, if requested, to assure a smooth transition.

England added, “It’s been an astonishing time to serve the nation under President Bush and alongside Secretaries Don Rumsfeld and Bob Gates, each of whom I greatly admire. I thank the brave men and women of our military, and their families, for their service and sacrifice, and for the honor of serving them.”

Aside: Probably a fair share of celebrating over at Lockheed right now (and not just because they landed a ginormous satellite contract), England was one of the staunchest opponents of the F-22.

--John Noonan

ABC: It's Gates (UPDATED)

Jake Tapper: Gates a "Done Deal"

Sources tell ABC News that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will be staying on in the top Pentagon job, for at least the first year of the Obama administration. "It is a done deal," a source close to the process tells ABC News.

Update from Colin: Two sources told me they believe Richard Danzig will be named Deputy Defense Secretary. He will choose the new faces to man the Pentagon, ensuring the Obama people get folks who are loyal to them and reflect their policy inclinations. Apparently, Danzig will hold that slot for up to a year. Then, if all goes well, he will replace Gates.

ALSO:President-elect Obama will introduce his national security team to the public early next week, a seasoned team that will include: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), as Secretary of State; retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as National Security Adviser; retired Adm. Dennis Blair as Director of National Intelligence; and Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Gates, while a registered independent, has served numerous Republican administrations. President George W. Bush nominated Gates to replace the Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections, when the war in Iraq was spiraling out of control.

The former Eagle Scout is expected to be rolled out immediately after the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend as part of a larger national security team expected to include Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, as Secretary of State; Marine Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) as National Security Adviser; Admiral Dennis Blair (Ret.) as Director of National Intelligence; and Dr. Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

[EDITOR: Okay, I swear, this is the last time a make a political prediction. I dismissed the rumor of Gates' being retained as ridiculous for weeks. Man am I eating crow now. I still say Danzig will eventually be SecDef...but, wait, there I go again! --Christian]

--John Noonan

The Big Three/National Security Risk Myth

There's been a lot of talk about the impending collapse of "the big three" automakers over the last two weeks -- of course, what people really are talking about is GM...but panic sells better, right?

One angle we've explored at Military.com is the effect a collapse of one or more of the American automakers would have on the defense industry...specifically military vehicles like Humvees, Medium trucks, Strykers, tanks and Bradleys.

The answer from our sources: "not much."

Now, I have a lot of respect for Sen. Karl Levin, the Democratic icon and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But his pandering to the panic and his Michigan constituents about how GM's failure would put American national security at risk just isn't supported by the facts.

Former NATO commander Wes Clark tried to tie the two together the other day with an oped in the New York Times where he said stuff like this:

In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn’t have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.

Huh? AM General makes the Humvee and isn't part of the big three domestic market except for its "Hummer" line of vehicles. The armor innovations didn't come at all from GM, Ford or Chrysler. MRAPS aren't made by them either. Where does Clark come up with this?

And even the $3,000 watch-wearing, private jet flyin' CEOs are claiming the Pentagon will suffer if there are no more Suburbans made.

Chrysler's chief executive, Robert Nardelli, told the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday that a crippled auto industry "would undermine our nation's ability to respond to military challenges and would threaten our national security."

My sources are telling me -- and others -- that the Big Three pulled out of the defense market a long time ago, not seeing it as a profitable, stable market for their goods. In fact, none of the JLTV downselectees have any ties to the domestic auto business -- how's that for innovation Wes?

Levin has spread his fear dust all over the country, claiming: “This is a national security issue as well as an economy issue,” Levin said. “But first and foremost, it’s a jobs issue," according to a report on Crains Detroit Business.

Surely, there could be some downside to the crisis for suppliers to the defense industry. But another source of mine said he's done some preliminary searches of DoD contracts and couldn't find a single instance where "this just jumps out at you." He mentioned that "you need to go way down the supply chain for some widget to find a connection"...but that is very preliminary.

Yes, a collapse of one of the Big Three would suck. But a "national security issue?" That's a stretch...

-- Christian

Madam SECDEF?

Senator Clinton isn't the only female in the hunt for a major cabinet position in the Obama administration. Word on the street is that Michelle Flournoy is under strong consideration for the Secretary of Defense post.

Ms. Flournoy, a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, made her bones as a DoD worker bee with the Clinton Administration. She went on to teach at the National Defense University and -in 2007- co-founded the respected Center for New American Security. She's also one of the two principal defense brains assigned to President-elect Obama's transition team.

Flournoy knows her business, has a strong background in both asymmetrical and traditional state threats, and seems to believe in a moderate approach to any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. She's experienced, qualified, and her centrist positions on defense issues would (seemingly) make her a safe choice to head up the DoD.

Unfortunately, Ms. Flournoy's reasoned approach to Iraq -withdrawal that takes into consideration the efficacy of the Iraqi government and logistical realities- could lock horns with Obama's ideological "withdraw now, regardless" plan.

Any drawdown that falls short of Obama's campaign promise of expedited removal of US troops from theater risks upsetting the easily perturbed, zealous faction of the Democratic base. That makes Ms. Flournoy almost as politically risky as continuing the tenure of current SECDEF, Robert Gates.

--John Noonan

Butter Not Guns for the Next Four Years?

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting OpEd yesterday sort of dove tailing with Colin's story from Friday that broke the news of Democratic party Brahman Barney Frank's call for a 25 percent cut in defense spending.

Now, Frank is not a DoD budget decisionmaker, but his views tend to jibe closely with the liberal leadership of the House and even some in the Senate.

The Journal analyzed what Obama and his supporters have said about what they'd do with defense budgets, so it's worth a close read for a worst case scenario.

We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.

All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary.

But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?

Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate.

The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.

And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's?

From the writing I'm seeing on the wall, we can basically forget end-strength increases. There's no political capital in increasing the size of the military, but there's plenty of bacon in hardware.

During an interview with defense reporters in Washington earlier this month, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig -- a top Obama defense advisor -- talked to us about "revitalizing" America's "overstretched" military, then went on to highlight Obama's commitment to veterans care, traumatic brain injury and PTSD.

"It's just an example of trying to do more for our troops and create stronger incentives for recruitment," Danzig said.

What about more guns, ammo and tanks? I know a bunch of Marines and Soldiers who want that more than a little extra money for college classes.

Danzig went on to talk about how the acquisition system is broken (who hasn't said that?) and that cost overruns on programs have gone ballistic (tell me something else I don't already know)...

"We need to come to grips with the affordibility and the requirements process," Danzig said. "The requirements need to be more appropriately fashioned not only to the desire to buy the most modern program, but also to" meet realistic costs.

"We have a strong view that national missile defense is a rewarding area that should be invested in," Danzig added. "It's an area that demands scrutiny. It should be used to the extent that it works but used with other checks and balances."

"The future combat system in the Army is a system that's been criticized ... and needs to be looked at closely," he added. "With our ship building system it's just clear that we're not building enough. ... The shipbuilding program doesn't work. It doesn't add up."

Danzig said Obama supports a 65K increase in Army end strength and a 27K bump in Marines -- but Obama ain't Congress.

Here's more on hardware:

"The new technologies represent extraordinary capabilities -- UAVs and robotics -- we need to invest in that," Danzig said. "We need to recognize that there are a set of risks in cyber warfare that are now very intense."

On defense spending:

"I don't see defense spending declining in the first years of an Obama administration. There are a set of demands there that are very important to our national well being," Danzig said.

Then he went on to explain how out of balance it was that the U.S. spends $10 billion on national missile defense and less than $1 billion trying to control loose nukes.

"Is that the right proportion for what you want in your defense budget?" Danzig asked. "And look how you could increase the one by 50 percent if you reduce the other by 5 percent. We need to achieve a better balance [between soft-power spending and hard-power spending] and I think that can be done within the context of the DoD top line."

So let's see, more money for the corrupt failure of an effort to pad the pockets of Russian nuke warehouse guards at the expense of a missile interceptor that is our only line of defense against a nuclear warhead lobbed at Los Angeles? Soft power worked great against al Qaeda didn't it?

So let's get the conversation going here. Where will a swollen Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Dem majority in the Senate PLUS a Democratic president take us in terms of defense spending, programs and force posture?

-- Christian

Let's Talk Politics

A little unconventional I know, but I figured I'd toss out the invite to come over to Military.com's Election Center blog to discuss the speeches tonight at the Republican convention, including the keynote address from John McCain.

We'll be doing it live from the press stand at the event. So if you wanna get all riled up, come on over.

-- Christian

Navy Short on Shipbuilding Funds

The Navy needs to make Oliver Twist a senior budget official because it needs to ask: "Please, sir, may I have some more?"

That's the essence of comments made by a Congressional Research Service defense expert who said the Navy's reluctance to push for significantly higher budgets in coming years may give lawmakers the wrong view of Navy needs.

This, in spite of the fact the Navy is facing recapitalization needs aren't very different from those of the Air Force -- which has been up front about needing an additional $20 billion a year for the next five years.

"The Navy has been avoiding asking for an increase," said Ron O'Rourke, a national defense specialist at CRS. "If one [branch] is vocal about the need for an increase and another is not, policy lawmakers can develop an imbalanced understanding of funding needs for the services."

What some lawmakers have seen of the Navy's long-range plans has generated skepticism. Some lawmakers, including key members on the House Appropriations and Armed Services subcommittees, have put more faith in Congressional Budget Office fiscal estimates than in the Navy's. That's led some influential lawmakers to consider altering the Navy's ship procurement plans.

On Capitol Hill, O'Rourke told attendees of the Sea-Air-Space expo in Washington, D.C., there has been strong criticism of the Navy's inability to follow its 30-year shipbuilding plan since the service isn't requesting the budget increases that officials believe are necessary to execute the plan on time.

For example, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), cited the discrepancy between what CBO researchers say the Navy needs to meet its 313-ship fleet in 30 years and what the service proposed in its 2009 budget: The CBO said the Navy would need to spend about $20 billion a year on new ship construction to meet the plan. But the fiscal '09 budget includes just $14.1 billion for ship construction.

O'Rourke also referred listeners to March 14 comments made by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, to best capture the sense that lawmakers have of the Navy's shipbuilding plans.

"Dismissed as pure fantasy," O'Rourke said. Taylor is a strong backer of Navy programs but is well known for his plain speaking and hard-hitting logic, Hill observers say.

"It [the plan] is totally unaffordable with the resources the Department of Defense allocates to the Navy for ship construction," Taylor said in his March 14 comments. The Navy, he continued, admitted in its annual long-rage report on shipbuilding that it does not have the funding to construct the vessels it will need in the years beyond 2020.

Taylor panned the Navy for its plans to cancel ships that are being built on time -- the LPD 17 class amphibious assault ship, Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Virginia class submarines and T-AKE Dry Cargo Ammunition ships -- in order to go forward with additional Littoral Combat Ships, which are behind schedule and over cost.

According to O'Rourke, members on the armed services committee and the powerful appropriations committee both are considering pushing for changes in what the Navy buys, believing they have a better handle on Navy needs than the sea service's leadership.

-- Bryant Jordan

Big Changes for the Defense Budget

My former colleague at Marine Corps Times, Gordon Lubold, has a great story that ran a couple days ago in his new paper, the Christian Science Monitor.

He's taken a look at an initiative dreamed up on Capitol Hill to redistribute the nearly half-trillion (if you don't count wartime supplementals) DoD budget away from roughly equal shares and dole out more funds to the service that deserves them most.

Lubold writes:

A bipartisan House panel is nudging the Pentagon to begin a conversation on how to reform itself in many ways. But at the Pentagon, talk of change usually has a budgetary impact.

And, despite the past several years of "nation-building" and counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been virtually no change in the way the defense budget is carved up in at least 40 years, says Rep. Jim Cooper (D) of Tennessee, who chairs the panel.

"That right there is a statistical indictment of the process," Representative Cooper says. "There had to be a year in which there were greater needs in one area or another, and the system was unable to accommodate it."

The fiscal 2009 budget request released this month, for example, shows the Army requesting a 27 percent share, the Air Force asking for a 28 percent share, and the Navy, which includes the Marine Corps, wanting a 29 percent share of the proposed $515 billion budget.

Cooper's seven-member panel is expected to release a study this week on each of the branches' "roles and missions" that may threaten services that are seen to perform more conventional warfare. With the focus on the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that makes some in the Navy and Air Force worry.

There's a part of me that thinks this is a good idea...that it's kinda f-ed up for the Army to get a smaller share than the Air Force or Navy.

But, by the same token, I can understand the argument that Air Force planes and Navy ships are more expensive than most Army gear. And I'm not one of those ascetics that thinks the Air Force should only fly A-10s and F-16s and the Navy should trash its aircraft carriers for small patrol boats.

Lubold continues:

Cooper hopes the study will spark a broader debate about the need to reform national security, with new emphases on cybersecurity and nonmilitary government agencies. The panel isn't recommending specific changes to the budget as much as it is raising concerns about the Pentagon's historical aversion to change. More specifically, some services are clinging to a version of warfare the panel believes is dated.

"There should be vociferous support from inside the services, since the military has been left carrying the burden of the failures of our national security institutions," reads a draft of the report, to be released Thursday. "Instead, our military has resisted change just as they have past efforts at reform. The Air Force and Navy are reemphasizing more traditional threats and downplaying the unexpected
threats we face today."

In fact, the Navy has tried to emphasize its so-called soft-power capabilities to combat terrorism, and senior Air Force officials seek to remind Congress that conventional threats, like those presented by China, still remain.

Congress is asking the same questions that many in and out of uniform have raised for some time. "After seven years of war, that we haven't budged one inch away from the cold war apportionment of the budget to me is Kafka-esque," said Robert Scales Jr., a retired Army major general, speaking last week at a think tank. "I just can't
explain it. I don't understand."

The Pentagon has begun its own internal review of roles and missions. But with budgetary planners essentially in limbo until a new administration arrives next year, it's unclear how much impact such discussions will have, says Loren Thompson, a senior analyst at The Lexington Institute, a think tank outside Washington.

It may serve to create a debate in anticipation of the broader effort to review the nation's strategic planning document, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). But when all is said and done, it's likely that things will remain largely the same, Mr. Thompson says.

Insofaras Cooper is trying to spark a debate on reapportionment of the DoD budget (one I'm sure the 4-percenters will want in on), it's a great move and long in coming. I'm a huge fan of Bob Scales and am tracking with him when it comes to budget frustration.

But don't count the Iron-Triangle out...they don't want any part of it.

But such talk of budgetary reform can sound like fighting words to some inside the Pentagon, as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged earlier this month during hearings on Capitol Hill.

"What I worry about in this ... is that, not done well, it has a tendency to turn services against each other," Admiral Mullen said.

And moving money from one service to another can be politically insurmountable. Each service, with its own political constituency on Capitol Hill, carefully guards what belongs to it.

You got that right.

-- Christian

Congress Flies First Class

With exquisite timing, Boeing chooses a travel weekend that could go down in the annals of airborne horror to deliver a top-of-the-line Boeing Business Jet that will be assigned to Congress -- those folks who have charged billions in air travel taxes over the decades and left us with 1930s blind-landing technology. The jet took off from Seattle this morning for its base at Scott AFB in Illinois.

Midwest and East Coast -- check out this yesterday's Seattle weather in the picture, because it's headed your way.

The C-40C, jam-packed with 40 seats by luxury-jet specialists at Greenpoint Technologies, is the third and last of a batch ordered in 2005. They will be operated by the USAF reserve to carry Congressional delegations around the world.

Funny how nobody in Washington ever mentions these $70 million jets as an example of wasteful defense spending. Or as an example of an unjustified Air Force mission that doesn't support our soldiers on the ground.

From our friends at Aviation Week, now hosted at Military.com.

-- Christian

Disband the DC Punditocracy

The extended op-ed by Robert Farley about disbanding the Air Force is now online in full, and revealed for what it is: a rather ill-structured and highly selective recycling of old arguments.

Selective? Consider this: continued production of the F-22 Raptor is an absurdity during the course of two counter-insurgency wars, says Farley. Maybe, but how much use is this...

...against the Taliban? (Apart from lashing them to the periscope, or torpedoing them when they charter a ship for a cruise vacation.)

Old? We can argue the effectiveness of the World War 2 strategic bombing campaign until we are all blue in the face. I would merely suggest that, in the absence of any plan to fire-bomb Tehran with B-29s, it's of limited relevance.

The question is not "Why do we need an Air Force?" because in classic terms that "begs the question" - that is, it implies that there is some reason that the Air Force rather than any other service is expendable.

For example, Farley would abolish the Air Force but adds that "some elements of tactical airpower would pass to the Marine Corps." If the United States does not need its own air force, why the bloody hell does the US Navy's own army need its own air force?

Of course, in the world of DC, that question has a simple answer: any proposal that the Marines don't like stands as much chance as Barney in the velociraptors' cage...

Read the rest of this story from our partners at Aviation Week HERE.

-- Christian

Army Sees Budget Crunch Looming

From a story we posted on Military.com this morning...

It's like calling the auto parts store and ordering a new battery that you're not sure you can pay for two months from now.

That's the situation in which the Army finds itself given the funding delays imposed by Congress for the 2008 fiscal year that begins Monday.

Army Secretary Pete Geren said Sept. 27 he's frustrated that Congress is continuing to dither on approving the money he needs to run the service, with some reports indicating lawmakers might not be able to approve a defense budget until January.

Instead, lawmakers plan to use a budgeting tool called a "continuing resolution" that will fund the overall government, including the Pentagon, at 2007 levels for only 45 days. That ambiguity hurts the Army's ability to purchase needed equipment, such as vehicle repair parts.

"If we were to find ourselves in a situation where we had multiple 45-day [continuing resolutions], we can't run an organization like the Army with that kind of predictability," Geren told a group of defense reports at a breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C.

"We've got to be able to plan months out and years out," he added.

The Senate has yet to agree to a Pentagon authorization bill or its version of the DoD appropriations bill. That could happen by mid-October but the House and Senate version have to be reconciled then agreed to before the cash can start flowing.

The clock is ticking, though, with the House set to recess for the year in late October and the Senate scheduled to recess in mid-November.

Geren explained that the funding uncertainty makes it nearly impossible to plan for upgrades and other initiatives that need some lead time. For example, it's difficult to commit to payments for new Bradley Fighting Vehicle transmissions if the Army is uncertain whether it will have the funds to pay for them a couple months down the road.

"To have uncertainty hanging over the head of an organization that 'will the next tranche of money come 45 days from now, 60 days from now?' That's hard to plan, it's hard to invest," Geren explained.

With the Army spending about $18 billion per month just to run the service, the lack of funding stability makes life hard for Army planners to pay the bills.

"If we do find ourselves in a 45-day type of a funding approach, that will make things hard for the Army that will make things expensive for the Army," Geren said. "Much of our support force requires longer-term investments that you can't turn on and turn off."

-- Christian

Don't Tarnish the Blues

Why doesn't this surprise me...

BEAUFORT (SC) GAZETTE 4 SEP 07) ... Lori Yount

Another estimated release date and more than four months have passed since Blue Angels pilot Lt. Cmdr. Kevin Davis crashed his jet during an air show into a wooded area in Burton, killing him and destroying homes. But the thousands who witnessed it still don't know why.

Davis' parents haven't seen the report detailing the cause of the crash that killed their son April 21, and they probably won't until their advanced copy of the Judge Advocate General's Manual investigation is released to them this month, according to military officials.

The investigation by the Navy was complete by early June and since then has been undergoing approval and preparation for public release at the Chief of Naval Air Training in Corpus Christ, Texas.

The original projected release date was late August. The next was Sept. 1. Now it has been pushed back to Sept. 17 -- tentatively.

"It's not a date set in stone," spokesman Lt. Sean Robertson said. "We are looking to have it released in September. ... As far as a timeline, I'm real hesitant."

The military conducted three investigations into the crash, as is done with most major military plane crashes, but only one will be released to the public. The others will remain for military use only, according to Blue Angels spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Garrett Kasper.

A redacted copy of the Judge Advocate General Manual investigation will be made available to the public once commanders review and approve it.

The military must redact identifying information of everyone involved in the case, including all references to Davis and the names of witnesses and their Social Security numbers. The reviewers redact the more than 700 pages of the report by hand, using a strip of white correction tape and then marking over it with black marker on each name or number.

Call to action: If anyone has any gouge on this JAGMAN or any other investigation report regarding the Blue Angels crash, please forward it to us. We promise (as always): no fingerprints.

(Gouge: Ward)

-- Christian

The Plane to Nowhere

This is the kind of story that puts a smile on the face of investigative journalists and throws congressmen into a tizzy.

Our friends over at the Center for Defense Information put together a compelling report on the kind of earmark program that’ll make DT readers want to reach through their computer monitors and wring Capitol Hill’s neck.

The DP-2 aircraft: A jet-powered STOVL aircraft designed by DuPont Aerospace shoved down NASA and the Pentagon’s throat that one congressional committee says “was first proposed by Tony duPont thirty-five years ago. Since then, every government review of the design of the DP-2 aircraft has found it technically flawed,” Capitol Hill at its best!

The CDI report is appended below:

Straus Military Reform Project adviser Jason Vest discovered an aviation program for a plane called the DP-2, which after 20 years of American taxpayer funding still can’t fly. This aviation program owes its birth and ongoing existence to almost 20 years of earmarks from current and former members of Congress, including Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), and former Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.), who is now chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, among others.

Vest spent the better part of nine months investigating the history and current status of the DP-2 program, which is under the auspices of the Office of Naval Research/NASA. What he found was a fascinating history of how ideological visions over technological expertise, campaign contributions, lobbying fees and congressional bullying of the Pentagon have cost the American taxpayers nearly $100 million for an airplane the military doesn't want or need – and either blows up or crashes every time it's tested.

As a result of Vest’s and others congressional investigations, the House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a three-panel hearing on the DP-2 on June 12, 2007, to examine the “testing mishaps and management” of the aviation program. The subcommittee found that despite safety concerns over the aircraft, “poor management of the program and the company’s lack of adherence to safety protocols and procedures,” the U.S. government is still funding the development.

In fact, the fiscal year 2008 federal budget has a $6 million earmark reserved for the DP-2, all for an aircraft that even the U.S. military – the group it’s being developed for – has rejected.

You can also read the ABC news story on the DP-2 debacle here…

An additional $6 million is being proposed for the 2008 fiscal year, supported by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the former Armed Services Committee chairman who's now running for president.

Hunter's district is close by the duPont Aerospace Company in La Jolla, Calif., that's building the plane, and he and other Republicans have gotten tens of thousands in donations over the years from Anthony duPont, the company president.

-- Christian

Bashar Bashes the Competition

Defense Tech would like to be the first in the blogosphere to congratulate Syrian “president” Bashar Assad on his stunning landslide victory for another seven years as ruler of Syria.

How he eeked out a 97 percent victory in an electoral field devoid of competition is the biggest mystery. Maybe it was his four-point healthcare plan or the Baath party's “green” energy agenda?

Nearly 12 million Syrians voted in the “referendum” – a whopping 19,000 voted against Assad. What were they thinking?

As AFP points out: "With parliament having unanimously approved Assad's candidature and with vocal opponents of the regime locked up, the result was never in doubt."

...Kinda takes all the fun out of the whole election thing, though, doesn't it.

-- Christian

FCLP Field Fights

It's no secret that landing an airplane on an aircraft carrier isn't easy. It's the stuff of Tom Cruise flicks and Discovery Channel specials. And even the best pilots need to practice. In fact, for every carrier landing a Naval Aviator logs, he or she has done at least a dozen field landings simulating the carrier environment. This Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) generally takes place at "outlying" fields away from the main air station so as not to unduly clog up the traffic patterns.

But the east coast Navy has a problem. Cultural sprawl around Virginia Beach has forced officials to look for an alternative to the current outlying field at Fentress. FCLPs happen 'round the clock (like ice time for little league hockey in Michigan), and folks don't like jets flying over their heads at three in the morning.

So the Navy's looking for another spot. They thought they had a line on a couple of good locations in North Carolina in either Beaufort or Washington county, but those were shot down by Senator Elizabeth Dole, who cited the Navy's failure "to adequately address environmental and safety concerns about allowing fighter jets to land near a wildlife refuge." (Read "rich and influential retirees don't want noisy jets around them.")

But fear not. AP is reporting that Senator John Warner has suggested a site outside of Richmond, near Fort Pickett. And William D. Coleburn, the local mayor, loves the idea.

“We’re used to the artillery sounds, the booms at night at Fort Pickett, it’s the sound of freedom,” Coleburn said. “This is a different sound, but if it’s a different sound that also makes the cash registers ring and employs people, I would be interested in listening.”

Patriotism ain't dead yet, folks.

(Gouge: NC)

(Photo: F9 Panther Cougar doing FCLPs at Miramar way before the Marines came in a wrecked the place.)

-- Ward

Doc-Ex

Primary Sources:

China’s Navy 2007

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11

House Report 110-60 (fiscal 2007 wartime supplemental spending bill) Note: Our friend at the Center for Defense Information, Winslow Wheeler, adds…

As has already been widely reported, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey and Speaker Pelosi have added $21.3 billion to the cost of the bill as requested by President Bush (a total of $103.0 billion was requested).

I was alerted by a former colleague from the Senate staff that page 238 of the committee report also contains the following statement:

“EARMARKS: Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.”

Wow! $21.3 billion in add-ons and not a single earmark! Now, that’s reform! Right?

Not exactly, check out page 291 for the $25 million added for spinach producers. And, page 216 for $60 million for salmon fisheries. And, page 214 for $5 million for aquaculture. Other tables in the report appear to contain many more.

Not earmarks? You could have fooled me. Having worked the congressional pork system for most of the 31 years I was on Capitol Hill, they sure smell, wallow and oink like earmarks to me. The advocates will argue these are all desperately needed due to various crises. Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean they are not earmarks. In fact, there are “emergency earmarks” as they have the “emergency” designation.

(Gouge: WW, Secrecy News)

-- Christian

General, Congressman Frank's on Line One . . .

NEWS RELEASES from the United States Department of Defense

A Statement From Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"Yesterday, during a wide ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, I was asked if I think the current policy as codified in U.S. Code, generally referred to as "Don't Ask Don't Tell," should still hold.

"People have a wide range of opinions on this sensitive subject.The important thing to remember is that we have a policy in effect, and the Department of Defense has a statutory responsibility to implement that policy.

"I made two points in support of the policy during the interview.One, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct.

"I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."

Or we could focus on this war going on . . .

-- Ward

Rummy Still Hanging Around D.O.D.

"Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has left the Pentagon, but not the Defense Department," the Washington Times reports. "On Jan. 4, Mr. Rumsfeld opened a government-provided transition office in Arlington and has seven Pentagon-paid staffers working for him, a Pentagon official said."

The Pentagon lists Mr. Rumsfeld as a "nonpaid consultant," a status he needs in order to review secret and top-secret documents, the official said.

Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides, who include close adviser Stephen Cambone, are sifting through the thousands of pages of documents generated during his tenure.

The Pentagon official said former secretaries are entitled to a transition office to sort papers, some of which can be taken with them for a library, for archives or to write a book.

The transition office has raised some eyebrows inside the Pentagon. Some question the size of the staff, which includes two military officers and two enlisted men.

Gates Speaks

Defense Tech pal Dan Dupont points us to an interesting lecture presumptive Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Here's a snippet:

"In addition to our military .. and intelligence and law enforcement campaign, we also need a positive component to our strategy: a diplomatic, economic, political, humanitarian component that addresses some of the issues in the region that provide fertile recruitment grounds for these terrorist groups," Gates said. "You'll never stop the leaders, but maybe you can make it harder for them to recruit their armies."

With sentiments like these, it's no wonder that Tom Delay, Frank Gaffney, and other neocon-types are wasting no time blasting the Gates nomination, accusing him of "negotiat[ing] with terrorists."

Meanwhile, our pals at 27B are nervous because of AP story, which characterizes Gates as saying that "cyberterrorism could be the most devastating weapon of mass destruction yet." Please, let that be a lazy reporter talking, and not our next SecDef.

Bye, Rummy

Well, here's your first tangible result from last night's election: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld just quit, according to Republican officials. Good riddance.

New Congress: Army Up? (Updated Again)

The Democrats weren't the only winners in last night's elections. The Army and the Marines are looking like they just came out on top, too.

There's a long-standing cliche that, when it comes to military spending, "the Republicans are mostly interested in weapons systems. The Democrats are interested in people," as Gen. Wes Clark told a New Hampshire public radio show, back when he was running for President.

You can buy the old saw, or not. But last night was a major power boost for two lifetime buddies of the people-heavy services. Ike Skelton, who's in line to become the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been close with the Army's leadership for decades. Ditto possible House Majority Leader John Murtha. Both were big Don Rumsfeld haters.

Now, for months, the SecDef's office and the Army have been locked in a cage match over the service's budget. That might change, with Rummy being shoved out. But if it continues, who do you think Skelton and Murtha are going to back?

Phil Carter says to look out for five items as Skelton, Murtha, and Co. move into the big offices on Capitol Hill:

1) An increase in the military's end strength;

2) Some kind of restriction on multiple reserve callups or deployments;

3) Funding for reset of equipment to peacetime readiness levels;

4) Increased pay, benefits, and incentives tied to recruiting and retention; and

5) Policies geared towards making the military more well-rounded, i.e.
incentives to start Arabic and Chinese language programs.

Notice he didn't mention anything about technology programs. That's because, despite the love for the Army, big weapons systems -- like the $300 billion Future Combat Systems effort -- are going to get a whole lot more scrutiny.

Skelton is calling for "re-creating an Armed Services investigation and oversight subcommittee, which Republicans did away with in 1995," according to Aviation Week.

But Skelton could be the least of industry's problems. "I'll tell you the two words that freak then [contractors] out the most," one senior Congressional aide told me a few weeks back, "Chairman Waxman."

That's Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), in line to head the wide-ranging House Government Reform Committee. He's a master of the subpoena. And, Av Week notes, he "has complained about lax supervision under the Republicans and introduced contracting reform legislation in September that would require federal agencies to use at least 1% of their procurement budgets for contract oversight. The bill also requires Congressional hearings to investigate credible evidence of waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement."

If the Republicans hold on to the Senate, things could get even more heated. John McCain likely takes over the Armed Services Committee. He is one of the few people in Congress who truly, truly cares about the Pentagon's out-of-control spending on weapons development. And there is no contractor that pisses him off more than Boeing -- the guys in charge of Future Combat.

UPDATE 1:28 PM: The Navy, which is facing money questions of its own, potentially gets two new, high-profile champions. Retired Admiral Joe Sestak won a congressional seat last night in Pennsylvania. And if former Navy Secretary Jim Webb hangs on in Virginia -- and delivers the Senate to the Democrats, in the process -- he's instantly going to become one of the Dems' most influential voices on national security.

UPDATE 4:56 PM: "Investigations into defense contracting and a re-examination of spending priorities could mean a shift in spending from hardware to troops," former Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas, tells Defense News.

The Army, in particular, is under strain from the war in Iraq, and Democrats may push for permanent increases in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. That means spending more on personnel and the everyday equipment they need to fight.

As a result, Democrats might try to trim spending on big-ticket weapons such as the F-22 stealth fighter, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat Systems in order to pay for more ground forces, Turner said.

Iraq Vet Candidates Fall Short

When the election season started, there was a lot of noise about so-called "Fighting Dems" -- dozens of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, almost all running for Congress on the Democratic ticket, and almost all fed up with how those wars were being run. "The party leadership is calculating that candidates who wore the uniform [could] offer a credible counterpoint on national security to Republicans who have dominated the debate from the campaign trail to Capitol Hill," the Washington Post reported back in February. And with forceful, articulate candidates like double-amputee Tammy Duckworth attracting national attention, it seemed like the calculus was paying off.

But something strange happened last night, amid the Democratic sweep. Almost all of the Fighting Dems lost. Duckworth, running a Republican-leaning district, was defeated by a couple of percentage points. In Maryland, "Democrat Andrew Duck, a former Army intelligence officer in Iraq, lost to Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett," USA Today notes. "Former naval officer Eric Massa lost to Rep. Randy Kuhl, R-N.Y."

There were exceptions, of course: Admiral Joe Sestak beat shady Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania. Nearby, ex-JAG Patrick Murphy is basically tied up with his opponent. But for the most part, these veteran candidates came up short.

How come? Well, the majority of 'em were political neophytes. And knocking off an incumbent Congressman is a tough job, even for an experienced pol. Several of the Fighting Dems never made it out of the primaries, the L.A. Times observes. "Andrew Horne, a Marine Corps reservist in Kentucky's 3rd District, and David Ashe, a Marine lawyer, in Virginia's 2nd. One vet, former Marine Tim Dunn, quit the race for North Carolina's 8th District, citing financial pressures."

More significant, perhaps, was that many of the veterans were running in districts ordinarily toxic to Democrats.

"They made each race much closer than it ever should have been," Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, tells Defense Tech. "Tammy [Duckworth] should have been blown away. [Republican Peter] Roskam had so much more money and a district that always favors an R [Republican]. Her story, and her veteran status, are the only thing that kept her close."

UPDATE 12:06 PM: Several recent veterans did win their Congressional races last night, including former Naval Intelligence officer Chris Carney and Army National Guard artilleryman Tim Walz. But they didn't serve directly in Afghanistan or Iraq.