It was 1994 when the Pentagon last engaged in a seminal examination of what it does, how it does it and why. In Pentagon-speak these issues are known in a neat shorthand as "roles and missions."

At a Pentagon briefing today, two senior defense officials discussed how they will approach the new roles and missions work, outlining the seven main areas of focus. The one issue Congress told the Pentagon to study is whether there are unnecessary duplications of capabilities among and between the four services and other arms of the Pentagon. In addition, the officials told reporters that unmanned aircraft systems, intra-theater lift, cyber war, irregular warfare, Pentagon governance issues, and DoD’s roles and missions in the interagency world.

Note that a senior defense official said that the analysis will be done within existing budget constraints. A senior military officer said that the combatant commanders will have a great deal of input during this effort because the department is looking at how the services and other agencies can “work better together” rather than as a food fight between services for resources and responsibilities. For example, Strategic Command will be a key player in the analysis done about cyber warfare and Special Operations Command will play a major role in the look at irregular warfare.

Congress ordered the Pentagon to do this roles and missions analysis in its 2008 Defense Authorization Act. In addition to the long-standing Quadrennial Defense Review, Congress said that the military should analyze its roles and missions in time for the 2010 budget submission. That would bring it in about a year before the next QDR. Henceforth, the military will perform a roles and missions analysis before each QDR.

The last stab at this sort of thing was the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces. The commission took a year to deliver its final report, “Directions for Defense,” to the nation, issuing it in May 1995.

-- Colin Clark

Gizmodo has an item about a new miracle paint that makes whatever it coats invisible to radar:

A German inventor has developed a paint called AR 1 that can hide a vehicle from radar, and most importantly, "all militarily relevant frequencies." How it works is unclear, though one test researcher proposes it's either by reflecting radar waves in a pattern so they cancel one another out, or by utilizing microscopic magnets to absorb radar radiation. And no, it won't get you out of speeding tickets.

The inventor's story is an interesting one, involving thousands of hours of lab trial and error, as well as international military interest in his product ... that far outshined the response from his own country's military.

But apparently the most promising and equitable use for such a paint could be civilian. Airport towers and buildings have a long history of interfering with flight control radars. And to simply make them disappear would be quite useful—as opposed to calling hangar 12 in for a landing or something.

(Gouge: CM)

-- Ward

A source with inside knowledge of the issue sent me this today and I thought I'd share it with you:

Armor kits to deal with the EFP threat to MRAPs is already in production and some kits are in the shipment/installation pipeline to units in Iraq.

The problem with high tempo military operations is that those on the cutting edge will not turn in their current equipment for upgrade when the alternative is using armored Humvees while the existing MRAP vehicles are being upgraded.

Now, we're still working on finding out what this armor could be -- or do -- and how many are being shipped. But this is truly an important, and intriguing, development.

-- Christian

The F-117 Nighthawk -- the U.S. Air Force's greatly touted stealth attack aircraft -- is gone. At least, we think it's gone -- can one really be certain with a stealth airplane? The aircraft, which won combat honors during operations over Panama, Serbia, and Iraq, was officially retired in late April after a 27-year service life.

"It was a mistake to retire them," said Dr. Richard Hallion, former historian of the Air Force and special assistant to that service's secretary. Hallion explained to this writer that the large number of F-16 and F-15 fighter-type aircraft flown by the Air Force are not stealthy and the number of F-22 Raptors, which do have stealth characteristics, are too few in number to meet the U.S. need for low-observable strike aircraft.

Cited by the Air Force as the world's first operational aircraft designed to exploit low observable -- stealth -- technology, the F-117A entered service in 1982. Through 1990 Lockheed built 59 aircraft at a Burbank facility.

The F-117 first flew in combat during the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 that led to the capture of dictator Manuel Noriega. F-117s were also flown in the air campaign over Serbia in 1999, and were among the first aircraft to strike targets in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One F-117 was shot down by Serbian anti-aircraft fire on 27 March 1999. Serbian forces launched Soviet-provided "Neva-M" missiles (NATO designation SA-3 Goa) to down the F-117A serial number 82-806. The pilot ejected after the aircraft was struck and was subsequently rescued by Allied forces.

According to then-NATO commander General Wesley Clark and other NATO officials, Serbian air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their radars operating on unusually long wavelengths. This made the aircraft visible by radars for short times.]]>The wreckage of the F-117 was not immediately bombed due to possible media fallout from news footage showing civilians around the wreckage. The Serbs were believed to have invited Russian personnel to inspect the remains, inevitably compromising the U.S. stealth technology.

Some of the wreckage is reportedly on display at the Museum of Yugoslav Aviation close to Belgrade's Nikola Tesla Airport.

During the 1991 air campaign against Iraq, the F-117 was the only coalition aircraft to fly over Baghdad. (The Navy's ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles also "flew" over Saddam's capital city.)

F-117s flew combat missions only at night, hence their name Nighthawk.

The F-117 was born at the Lockheed "Skunk Works" in Burbank, California, the same design facility that produced the ultra-secret U-2 and SR-71 spyplanes. A production decision was made in 1978 and the first flight was made on 18 June 1981. The single-seat F-117's low-observable characteristics were derived from both its bat-like shape, with twin turbofan engines "buried" in the "boxy" fuselage. Capable of in-flight refueling, in 1992 F-117s flew non-stop from Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, to Kuwait, a flight of approximately 18-1/2 hours -- a record for single-seat fighters that still stands.

Although designated as a "fighter," the F-117 had no air-to-air capabilities. It was an attack aircraft that could carry some 4,000 pounds of bombs or missiles in an internal weapons bay.

The first F-117s were retired in December 2006. The surviving aircraft will be stored in hangars at a secret location in Nevada. Their special storage is based on retaining the secrecy of their special features rather than any consideration of someday reactivating the planes.

-- Norman Polmar

China is well known for its global cyber espionage efforts. And while the United States has received most of the media attention given to cyber attacks, we are not the only ones dealing with this issue. India is now pointing the finger at China, claiming they have systematically launched a series of attacks on sensitive information systems and networks of Indian agencies. India rapidly responded and now has cyber-security forces down to the division-level to guard against cyber wars. But is that really enough given China's stated ambitions?

China's Cyber Warfare Doctrine is designed to achieve global "electronic dominance" by 2050 which would include the capability of disruption of the information infrastructure of their enemies. This doctrine includes strategies that would disrupt financial markets, military and civilian communications capabilities as well as other parts of the enemy's critical infrastructure prior to the initiation of traditional military operations. With all the attacks that have been attributed to China, there has to be significant intelligence out there about techniques, cyber weapons and strategies that have been used in these cyber assaults. The proliferation of China's cyber capabilities will be the topic of a Congressional hearing in DC on May 20th. This hearing will examine "China's Proliferation Practices and the Development of its Cyber and Space Warfare Capabilities."

Military and intelligence sources have known that Chinese cyber forces have developed these detailed plans for cyber attacks against the United States and others. It is believed that the plans for such an attack were drawn under the direction of the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

China has a significant cyber weapons and intelligence infrastructure in place today. What is alarming is not only do they have the intent, but they have the money. Beijing has the world's second or third largest defense budget depending on where you look for the numbers. Their military budget has been on the rise at 10 percent or more a year for over a decade. This, as well as the attacks, are evidenced by their cyber operational ability to scan, acquire nodes for their growing botnet as well as the continued sophisticated assaults on defense information systems in the US, Germany, UK and India. In addition, in April 2007, Sami Saydjari, who has worked on cyber defense systems for the Pentagon since the 1980s, told Congress: "The situation is grave, with nation-states such as China developing serious offensive capabilities."]]>Recent attacks on the United States and India have brought this threat to the forefront. While diplomatic efforts to address these attacks have been initiated, virtually no progress has been made, according to individuals close to the issue. The following information has been provided by Spy-Ops and represents their assessment of China's current cyber capabilities.

China People's Liberation Army (PLA)
Military Budget: $62 Billion USD
Global Rating in Cyber Capabilities: Number Two
Cyber Warfare Budget: $55 Million USD
Offensive Cyber Capabilities: 4.2 (1 = Low, 3 = Moderate and 5 = Significant)

Cyber Weapons Arsenal:
In Order of Threat -- Large, advanced BotNet for DDos and espionage
Electromagnetic pulse weapons (non-nuclear)
Compromised counterfeit computer hardware
Compromised computer peripheral devices
Compromised counterfeit computer software
Zero-day exploitation development framework
Advanced dynamic exploitation capabilities
Wireless data communications jammers
Computer viruses and worms
Cyber data collection exploits
Computer and networks reconnaissance tools
Embedded Trojan time bombs (suspected)
Compromised microprocessors & other chips (suspected)
Cyber Weapons Capabilities Rating: Advanced
Cyber force Size: 10,000 +
Broadband Connections: More than 55 million
China's Hacker Community: Honker Union, Red Hackers Alliance (The 5th largest hacking organization in the world.)
China's Software Industry: In Q1 2007, the software industry RMB 96.7 billion with a year-on-year increase of 26.9%.

In Q1 2008, China recorded RMB 144.36 billion in software industry sales revenue, up sharply year-on-year.

From all this information one can only conclude that China has the intent and technological capabilities necessary to carry out a cyber attack anywhere in the world at any time. Nations around the world can no longer ignore the advanced threat that China's cyber warfare capabilities may have today and the ones they aspire to have in the near future. Just recently Belgian justice minister, Jo Vandeurzen, claimed that attacks against the Belgian Federal Government originated from China and are most likely sanctioned by Beijing. The Belgian minister of foreign affairs, Karel De Gucht, told their parliament that his ministry is the subject of cyber-espionage by Chinese cyber agents. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Spy-Ops believes that an estimated 140 countries will be working on their cyber weapons by the end of 2008 and that in the next five years we will see countries and extremist groups jockeying for cyber supremacy.

-- Kevin Coleman

I'd heard about this but it only recently popped up on the wires...

New Concerns After 2 Die in MRAP

The deaths of two U.S. Soldiers in western Baghdad last week have sparked concerns that Iraqi insurgents have developed a new weapon capable of striking what the U.S. military considers its most explosive-resistant vehicle.

The Soldiers were riding in a Mine Resistant Ambush Protective vehicle, known as an MRAP, when an explosion sent a blast of super-heated metal through the MRAP's armor and into the vehicle, killing them both.

Their deaths brought to eight the number of American troops killed while riding in an MRAP, which was developed and deployed to Iraq last year after years of acrimony over light armor on the Army's workhorse vehicle, the Humvee.

The military has praised the vehicles for saving hundreds of lives, saying they could withstand the IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, which have been the biggest killers of Americans in Iraq. The Pentagon has set aside $5.4 billion to acquire 4,000 MRAPs at more than $1 million each, making the MRAP the Defense Department's third largest acquisition program, behind missile defense and the Joint Strike Fighter.

But last Wednesday's attack has shown that the MRAPs are vulnerable to an especially potent form of IED known as an EFP, for explosively formed penetrator, which fires a superheated cone of metal through the vehicle's armor.

Military officials are still trying to determine whether last week's attack is a sign of "new vulnerabilities (in the vehicle) or new (weapons) capabilities" on the part of insurgents, said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And I know one other weapon that will slice through an MRAP "like a hot knife through butter" according to a Navy EOD tech I rode with in a JERV in Iraq, but I won't say it here (anyone who knows MRAPs well enough will know what I'm talking about).

I guess it didn't take long for the IED arms race to catch up with the MRAP.

-- Christian

If you're old enough, the pictures of Soviet ICBM missiles presented to the United Nations during the Cuban missile crisis left an indelible mark in your cortex.

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, placed a series of photos on an easel to answer Soviet charges that the US had no proof that the Soviets had placed missiles in the island state and that the Soviets were just helping Cuba develop.

Stevenson told the Soviets that, "we do have the evidence. We have it, and it is clear and it is incontrovertible." And it was. The first pictures were of an area north of the village of Candelaria, southwest of Havana. The first photograph was taken in late August 1962 and it simply showed undeveloped countryside. The next picture showed a few tents and vehicles and several new roads. The next picture, taken 24 hours later, revealed tents for up to 500 men and seven ICBM missile trailers. But the jackpot wasn't hit until mid-October when a U-2 aircraft photographed the area of San Cristobal.

"In only six minutes, US Air Force Maj. Richard Heyser snapped 928 photographs that yielded the first confirmation of offensive missiles in Cuba," according to "Soviet Deception in the Cuban Missile Crisis," an April 2007 article by James Hansen, who served in both CIA and DIA.

The Soviets had lied about the presence of missiles just 90 miles from the US mainland and they had been caught at it. This was probably the first time that Americans were exposed publicly to the art and science of what intelligence types call change detection. But it turns out that what has become one of the touchstones of the fabulous capabilities of spies in the skies -- also known as high-flying planes such as the U-2 and satellites -- was not quite as seminal as it seemed at the time.]]>Many argued that the pictures were proof of the superiority of what became known during the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) as "national technical means."

But, at an April 28 conference held at Georgetown University to celebrate the donation to the university of a lot of personal papers and recently declassified files from former CIA Director Richard Helms, that conventional wisdom was dealt a death blow.

Bud Wheelon, the CIA's first deputy director for science and technology, said that the agency knew about the missiles from other, more prosaic sources beforehand. In fact, human sources in Cuba had obtained detailed information about the Cuban bombers and missiles, Wheelon told me this week.

The first solid information was obtained Sept. 17, he said, from agents on the ground. Using that and other information, the US flew the U-2 and other planes over Cuba to get confirmation and to provide the world with undeniable proof that did not compromise intelligence sources and methods. After all, the Cubans and Soviets knew about the U-2s and other planes because they shot at them. We understand that at least one senior intelligence official -- long since retired -- was secretly awarded one of the CIA's highest honors for the spying done on the ground in Cuba. Senior intelligence officials, including Wheelon and CIA Director John McCone, knew about the intelligence from the agent and believed it. But the intelligence community did not.

A National Intelligence Estimate dated Sept. 19, 1962 concluded the Soviets were unlikely to try and install missiles in Cuba.

"The USSR could derive considerable military advantage from the establishment of Soviet medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles in Cuba, or from the establishment of a Soviet submarine base there. As between these two, the establishment of a submarine base would be the more likely. Either development, however, would be incompatible with Soviet practice to date and with Soviet policy as we presently estimate it," the estimate concluded.

Not the first time they goofed. And it won't be the last. But that is the nature of intelligence. It is the analysis of uncertain information and yields insights that are often wrong. But remember that the U-2 was built. Remember that agent working in Cuba.

And remember those 928 photographs. The process wasn't perfect. But war was averted.

-- Colin Clark

Sorry folks, been on vacation with my family for a few days, but back up now...

On Friday I attended a press conference at the Pentagon -- I called it an end zone dance -- where the Marine Corps talked about its successful deployment to Iraq with its first Osprey squadron.

They've already replaced the VMM-263 with another squadron and the press conference -- which surprisingly lasted about an hour -- was pretty standard stuff.

One thing that the Corps' chief of aviation Lt. Gen. George Trautman said was that the service "had an all-aspect, all-quadrant weapon system" on the Osprey "since the very beginning."

"The reason we don't have an all-aspect gun on this platform is because it's hard to do. Okay? So it's more than just weight with regard to the chin gun.

"I've got a lot of time flying Cobras, and the Cobra is the only helicopter in the Marine Corps that has a forward-firing gun. It is not an easy proposition, even in the Cobra.

Well, SOCOM said the same thing, and it looks like they're getting what they want. BAE Systems has developed an underbelly gun for the spec ops version of the Osprey. And though some claim the mechanism makes the V-22s cargo cabin tighter, Trautman had positive things to say about the design and its ability to track the entire circumference of flight.

]]>"The system that we're looking at now, with the Special Operations Command, is an all-aspect weapon that would be mounted in the belly of the aircraft.

"I actually have a better degree of confidence about this than I've had about any other approach that we've taken. And if it comes out the way that we hope that it will come out -- and I actually have some degree of confidence that it will -- Special Operations Command will have this all-aspect weapon mounted, and they intend to deploy with it early in the fall.

And that brings up another interesting point...So is AFSoc going to deploy with the Osprey in the Fall of '08? There's some rumor that SOCOM wants to deploy with the bird early, so was Trautman showing SOCOM's hand?

We can rehash the whole argument over why the Corps left an all-aspect gun out of their current design, but in the end, it sure goes against the Marines' culture to leave one off. As VMM-263 CO Lt. Col. Paul Rock said:

"Well, I mean, never ask a Marine if you wouldn't want more guns on his airplane. I mean, you know, that's kind of, I mean, more guns is good."

-- Christian

President Bush publicly acknowledged that Syria has been doing something suspicious involving nuclear development and North Korea. Following his lead, other officials are quietly dropping clues about how Syria’s suspicious facility was attacked.

The Israel Air Force's stunning, undetected flight through Syria's air defenses late last year -- as part of a raid on a suspected nuclear facility -- bears electronic fingerprints similar to those left in Baghdad by the U.S. in 1991 and 2003, say U.S. military and IT industry specialists.

The raid on Syria was winked at by the U.S. which also supplied some non-participatory support, they say.

The answer to the question of why the U.S. was involved is that "The Israelis can do things [within the region and Israel's political structure that] we sometimes can't do," says a senior U.S. Air Force official with long background in black operations. Syria's construction of the facility and North Korea's participation "was an area of concern for us as well, so there was some help provided in discussing vulnerabilities and providing other knowledge [of Syria's integrated air defenses and electrical grid]. What occurred, isn't inconsistent with what happened in Iraq twice before."

So what did the U.S. forces do in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 to confound air defenses, communications and the ability to command forces in the field?

Read the rest of this story, see pics of Marine LAVs getting busy and get inside a big 'ole helo gaggle from our good friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian]]> http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004161.html http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004161.html The View from Av Week lowe Mon, 05 May 2008 08:05:55 -0500 The second hull-form of the Littoral Combat Ship class was launched a few days ago in the Austal Shipyard in Mobile, Alabama (Mobile is turning into quite the military manufacturing base when you think about these ships and these ships, existing shipbuilding capabilities and the new Air Force tanker). Looking unlike anything that had graced the seven seas, at least with the US Navy, the three-hulled trimaran floated off its blocks in its drydock on 29 April. Further work and outfitting needs to be completed, but from the looks of it, its will be one wild looking ship as it bears down on a pirate dhow off the horn of Africa. Why do we need these new littoral-capable ships? From the Program Executive Office for Ships: In developing capability to overcome access denial threats from surface and subsurface threats in the littoral, the Navy sought improved mine warfare capability, an effective counter to small, fast, highly-armed boats, and a ship better suited against quiet diesel submarines. These capabilities highlighted the need for a high-speed, shallow-draft vessel with endurance. The littoral combat ships are designed to meet that need. Any way you cut it, having this improved and increased capability in... The second hull-form of the Littoral Combat Ship class was launched a few days ago in the Austal Shipyard in Mobile, Alabama (Mobile is turning into quite the military manufacturing base when you think about these ships and these ships, existing shipbuilding capabilities and the new Air Force tanker).

Looking unlike anything that had graced the seven seas, at least with the US Navy, the three-hulled trimaran floated off its blocks in its drydock on 29 April. Further work and outfitting needs to be completed, but from the looks of it, its will be one wild looking ship as it bears down on a pirate dhow off the horn of Africa.

Why do we need these new littoral-capable ships? From the Program Executive Office for Ships:

In developing capability to overcome access denial threats from surface and subsurface threats in the littoral, the Navy sought improved mine warfare capability, an effective counter to small, fast, highly-armed boats, and a ship better suited against quiet diesel submarines. These capabilities highlighted the need for a high-speed, shallow-draft vessel with endurance. The littoral combat ships are designed to meet that need.

Any way you cut it, having this improved and increased capability in the littoral regions close to shore will expand the toolkit available to the Joint Force Commander regarding available military options. I'm looking forward to seeing this new ship at work.

--Pinch Paisley

If you remember from our stories a couple months ago on the MQ-8B Fire Scout helo-drone, the Navy was in the middle of deciding what ship the UAV would be flown on as the service waits for the LCS to come into service. Since development of the Fire Scout has outpaced the troubled LCS, it made sense to put the drone to use now.

MQ-8B manufacturer Northrop Grumman has announced that the Navy decided to fly the drone aboard an FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate and integrate it into the entire class while LCS progresses.

According to the current schedule, the Navy will conduct Technical Evaluation on the Fire Scout on FFG-7 in the fall 2008 and OpEval in the summer 2009. The Fire Scout will reach Initial Operating Capability soon after OpEval in 2009. The Navy will continue to support LCS Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) efforts in fiscal year 2011.

Again, this marks a significant milestone for a program that was literally on life support a few years ago and proves that when you can get it right, things work out. We'll see how it works on the frigate, but clearly the move shows the Navy's got a lot of confidence in the platform.

Continues Northrop Grumman:

Fire Scout VTUAV restructuring is in the best interests of the Fleet and the U.S. Navy Fire Scout VTUAV program because it enables the Navy to continue supporting LCS integration and will provide a more mature system for LCS deployments.

Fire Scout is capable of landing on all aircapable ships, so integration efforts will focus on dynamic interface testing, supportability assessments and data management. The Navy and Northrop Grumman are working together to define and develop a roll-on/roll-off Fire Scout ship deployment package that will facilitate this effort.

Fire Scout is currently conducting envelope expansion, software validation, payload integration and data link testing at the Webster Field annex of Naval Station Patuxent River, Md.

-- Christian

We're running a story in our headlines at Military.com this morning on alleged security breaches with BAE Systems (a major subcontractor to Lockheed Martin...) on the JSF program.

I received a full rebuttal today from a contact over at BAE and I wanted to share it with you in full:

The DoD IG explicitly found no instances of unauthorized access to classified or export control information on the JSF program. We strongly disagree with the IG's suggestion that nonetheless,such information may have been compromised in some unidentified way by unauthorized access at BAE Systems. There is no basis whatsoever for that conclusion.

BAE Systems takes very seriously their obligation to protect classified and export controlled information and has a compliance program that reflects the highest of standards. BAE Systems has a long and proven track record of safeguarding sensitive information entrusted to it.

BAE Systems also strongly disagrees with the suggestion that we did not perform required audits and fully comply with our Special Security Agreement. That suggestion is simply false.

BAE Systems previously requested a meeting with the DoD IG to resolve what appears to us to be a misunderstanding of the underlying facts.

A major hat tip to DT friend Nick Schwellenbach over at the Project on Government Oversight for breaking this story into the open. Here's a link to the IG report.

-- Christian

Another promising weapon. Another worrying gaggle of mixed directions, uncertain focus and a lack of strategy.

That's the story of Prompt Global Strike, touted as the answer to one of the country's most vexing problems -- how to take out high-value targets far behind the lines and way beyond line of sight with accuracy and great speed. The Government Accountability Office looked at the Pentagon's stop-and-go efforts on this critical capability in a report released yesterday. The report was requested by three stalwart supporters of PGS, Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) , chairwoman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, Terry Everett (R-Ala.), ranking member of the subcommittee, and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), formerly a senior member of the subcommittee and now chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The GAO told them there is no official DoD definition of global strike. The different combatant commanders support different approaches. Global strike does not figure in "any existing or proposed joint doctrine publications." Regional commanders and service officials believe that the Strategic Command -- lead proponent for the capabality -- needs to work with them more "to mitigate any misconceptions commands may have about global strike, particularly in light of frequent staff turnover." Those who would use the capability "have not widely participated in joint exercises and other training, which can increase their understanding of global strike." Correcting these would help the Pentagon better plan and develop a system and how to use it, the report says.]]>Plus the Pentagon needs to conduct a comprehensive assessment of possible systems because it "has not yet begun to develop a prioritized investment strategy," so it doesn't know what choices to make. From past conversations with staff and with intelligence officials it's clear that one of the biggest hurdles for Prompt Global Strike isn't the weapon itself -- though that ain't simple -- it's having the intelligence and a way to link the intelligence with the weapon system. After all, this approach is meant to come up with something that can kill someone or take out a WMD facility pretty much anywhere in the world within half an hour. Perhaps DoD could use that definition and get started?

UPDATE: One congressional aide told me: "Global strike, particularly long-range conventional prompt global strike, hasn’t come very far since its inception in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. One of the reasons is that the Administration’s preferred approach –- Conventional Trident Modification -- was a non-starter with a majority of congress. It took DoD a number of years before this fact set in. There now appears to be consensus in Congress for this type of capability; it will be up to the next administration to put forth a technically and operationally viable concept that is also politically acceptable."

-- Colin Clark

Here are a couple other things I picked up from the SASC Authorization markup.

So it looks like senators included the $102 million the Army wanted for another Land Warrior deployment.

This time it's for an entire brigade, rather than a single Stryker battalion. Lt. Col. Ken Sweat, who's been working on the Land Warrior system for longer than it was even called "Land Warrior," told me in Iraq last winter that if they got the money, the 5th Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division would get the next Land Warrior suite. This is huge news for a program literally on life support and a big win for LW backers who helped folks like me get over to Iraq to cover the system in combat.

Sweat told me 5/2 would be equipped with Land Warrior Next-Gen -- which will include a Blackberry-like soldier control unit instead of the ruggedized mouse device they have now. They'll also move the helmet electronics assembly off the helmet and place the unit on the soldier's chest, they'll shave weight by combining the navigation box and the computer and they'll ditch the GPS unit for Joes and use instead a radio location device so they can be tracked by unit leaders.

Of course, the money still has to make it through the House, then a joint committee markup, but it's a positive first step.

Also, the Senate put its foot down on the Stryker Mobile Gun System. You'll remember my story about the MGS from some interviews I did in Iraq. Now, I know there are some strong fans of the vehicle, but the Joes I talked to hated it.]]>The SASC lawmakers included language in their version of the bill to require "the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) is subject to testing to confirm the effectiveness of actions taken to mitigate the deficiencies identified in Initial Operational Test and Evaluation and Live Fire Test and Evaluation..."

That's a blow to GDLS and the Army, who both think the MGS is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm agnostic on the whole thing and can only go with what the Joes told me. And it looks like the Senate is going to also.

-- Christian

The Senate's draft version of the 2009 defense authorization bill creates new steering boards to review requirements for major weapons systems, targeting one of the main causes of cost growth in weapons systems.

We're still trying to get some details on exactly what the Senate Armed Services Committee means by this, but it sounds as if Congress has finally - after years and years of grumbling from experts and from congressional staff about this - gotten the message that requirements really do matter a great deal and that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and its attendant parts really don't work very well.

There are two big increases approved for weapons systems: $430 million in research and development and $35 million in advance procurement for the Joint Strike Fighter program to support the GE/Rolls Royce F136 engine program.; and $350 million for the Transformational Satellite Communications systems known as T-Sat.

Neither add is a shocker. After all, Congress told the Air Force in 1996 to create an alternative engine program for the JSF. Of course, DoD has tried to whack the funding for three years in a row, eager to move the money to other programs, and the Hill has not so gently reminded the military of the benefits of engine competitions.]]>We understand that, while the Senate authorizers approved this money, their colleagues who appropriate the funds have not yet looked at the T-Sat issue in detail, busy as they are with the looming supplemental spending bill.

The T-Sat increase isn't a great surprise since the key congressional staff dealing with space issues were extremely unhappy with the Air Force for cutting the size of the program's request last year and then virtually gutting the effort in this year's budget request - slicing $4 billion from it over the six years of the 2009 budget request. Those cuts came just when congressional watching this had decided the high-speed communications system was on the right track after years of pushing for more funding than its immature technologies could really sustain.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing are competing for the prime contract on this system.

Two snarky observations on the Senate markup. First, the Senate rarely moves first on a bill but the House Armed Services Committee won't get to its markup til next Wednesday. Second, we applaud the generous but futile effort of Sen. Claire McCaskill to open the Senate committee's work to public purview.

"It is my firm and simple belief that we make better laws when we do our work fully open and transparent to the public. The public deserves to know what our views and our actions are and to be able to freely scrutinize, support or oppose them," McCaskill said Tuesday.

When you talk to Senate aides they usually tell you that their bosses don't want to have to deal with a lot of lobbyists hassling them about details in the draft bill if it were open to the public. Of course, many of those lobbyists have already had their chop, since they get better access than most members of the public. (Sure, we're jealous…) The official reason offered by the committee is that closed session allows them to discuss classified issues at any time.

"It doesn't make sense to close the hearing when we are working on a section of the defense bill that doesn't contain any classified information," McCaskill said. "There's no reason why the committee can't just close the parts of the meetings that do contain sensitive information and open the rest."

More on the Senate markup as we get details from staff through the week.

-- Colin Clark