Absolutely Shocking!!!

Pentagon, Lockheed see price of F-35 going up

The Next Generation of Warfare

A cyber risk to the U.S.

If this doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

Though the Pentagon has a cybercommand, it does not cover the domestic civilian economy, including vital infrastructure systems such as the electric power grid, water supplies and the financial system. Many of the computers controlling those utilities lack adequate security measures and could be devastated by viruses launched by hostile states or even hackers. As it is, U.S. companies, from defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin to e-mail carriers such as Google, are under continual assault from China and Russia, which seek to steal industrial or national security secrets and probe for infrastructure weaknesses.

Unfortunately, instead of more adequately funding programs that can protect the U.S. from cyber attack, our elected leaders continue to choose to fund wasteful programs like the Joint Strike Fighter, dubbed The Wild Blue Squander by The New York Times.  Here is a GAO chart illustrating the cost history of the Joint Strike Fighter:

On Defense, Silver Linings, Golden Opportunities

RMA is back? This discussion should have never been backburnered... here is a quote from the article (commentary after):

Missing, so far, from the conversation that most of the American public has been exposed to is this question: What should the United States military be asked to accomplish in the first half of the 21st century, and is the awesome force slogging away in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, in more routine missions, across the planet properly organized, equipped, and trained to accomplish it? . . .


But the transformation that began during the late 1990s, aimed at pushing the military to evolve the Cold War-era divisions and air wings that dominated it at the time into a force more in tune with 21st century missions and (it was presumed at the time) lower appropriation levels, had real intellectual value. With cuts in the wind and ground wars like Iraq and Afghanistan unlikely to recur any time soon, that debate deserves to restart.


For good reason, this debate got backburnered as counterinsurgency, urban combat, and other tasks the military thought it had left behind in Vietnam demanded fresh attention. But some on the intellectual side of the armed forces kept the idea, known as the "Revolution in Military Affairs," alive, and while it remains on life support, the basic outlines exist of a “win-win” plan to maximize capabilities while reducing the bloated Pentagon budget.

It takes years to develop personnel and, therefore, I don't agree with the idea of cutting personnel as I have said repeatedly. Here are some ideas I found odd in the article:

1. The idea that the U.S. Army should "retain[]at most a single heavy armored brigade for contingencies . . ." is ludicrous. This is the equivalent of telling the USMC that operating in the littorals isn't their job anymore.

2. In addition, the USMC force structure review is wrong in calling for "a 13%reduction in ground combat forces, to include an 11% reduction in infantry, a 20% reduction in cannon artillery, and a 20% reduction in armor." If the U.S. Navy is having trouble cutting the budget already, these personnel reductions are going to do nothing - they will merely allow a few expensive U.S. Navy R&D and weapons program to survive.

Budget cuts will mean troop cuts, chiefs say

Boy do I miss Secretary Gates (pbuh)...

I've said this a million times, but we need to focus on the current conflicts (and end them and not get into any more of them unless our national survival is imminently at risk) and keep personnel, while cutting R&D spending. We don't need "a leap ahead" defense policy. "Steady as you go" is all we need right now. We don't need to support an entire industry dedicated to war. The reason end-strength and personnel are cut and not R&D is this:
In large numbers, and with few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs

See previous posts:

Republican hawks use sharp rhetoric to fight deeper Pentagon cuts

President Obama's Defense Cuts

Gates: The Pentagon's Accountability Cop

A Single-Minded Focus on Dual Wars

"It's been like pulling teeth."

A new national security team

Here are some quick comments on the national security moves:

It appears clear to me that Ryan Crocker will be an upgrade over Karl Eikenberry as ambassador to Afghanistan.

As to the other moves, in my mind, Secretary Gates is the finest Secretary of Defense in our history. Mr. Panetta, although talented, probably won't come close to Secretary Gates. Secretary Gates has been fighting the DoD bureaucracy since the beginning of his tenure asking for budget cuts and to spend money on "stuff" we need now, not 20 years from now; he was a visionary. Mr. Panetta, a Washington insider, is not a visionary.

With regards to the GEN Petraeus move, it seems like a lateral move that just allows him to collect his Army retirement check and a paycheck for being CIA Director, while keeping him in the United States with his family (most of the time). This move also keeps him off the ballot, an added benefit to career politicians that view him as a potential threat.

Finally, Lt. Gen. Allen will do a fine job in Afghanistan if his work in Iraq's MNF-W is any indicator.



Here is an excerpt from the article:

Perhaps the greatest risk of the reshuffle comes in Afghanistan, where the departure of Gen. Petraeus will remove America’s most skilled military commander from a campaign that appears to be teetering between success and failure. Lt. Gen. Allen, however, was a key contributor to the successful turnaround of the war in Iraq; and Mr. Crocker offers a major improvement over his predecessor, Karl Eikenberry, who contributed substantially to the souring of U.S. relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

President Obama's Defense Cuts

I still think that the last thing that should be cut from the DoD budget is manpower. It takes years to build. We can quickly build more planes, bombs, and tanks, but we can't quickly build up end-strength. Unfortunately, both Secretary Gates, who I agree with frequently, and President Obama, feel otherwise. We have a force that is tired and weary; cutting 40,000 of them will only make them more tired as we ask them to do even more.

In large numbers, and with few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs

This is something I have been harping about for more than two years on this blog...

GE and Rolls Royce woo the Pentagon

Once again, the military industrial complex and beholden politicians are making bad decisions. They don't seem to understand that when one door closes, another opens RE: killing this engine. There will be another project...

The GE-Rolls-Royce team is facing an uphill battle at the Pentagon, where Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already threatened to recommend that the defense bills be vetoed if they contain funding for the secondary engine.

The fixed-price offer comes less than a month before congressional defense committees are expected to start considering the fiscal 2011 budget, renewing their tug-of-war with the administration over the benefits of having two engines for the Pentagon’s largest fighter jet purchase.

The defense committees have provided funding to develop the secondary engine despite the Pentagon’s efforts to kill it over the last four years.

Gates Says U.S. Is Prepared On Iran's Nuclear Plan

Perhaps we should invest in volcanoes as our new missile and air defense technology?

Gates makes pitch for major reforms of U.S. controls on sensitive exports

Could this be an argument for a nationalization of the defense industry? Can anyone really expect the developed defense industrial complex to ever get together and put profits second to anything (e.g. a modern day Manhattan Project of some sorts for something important)?

Critics for years have made arguments similar to the ones presented by Gates on Tuesday: The present system does not always control the export of dangerous technologies, while restrictions on the trade of some goods that are now widely available in the commercial market only have the effect of hurting U.S. companies.

Each year the government reviews tens of thousands of license applications for export to European Union and NATO countries. In 95 percent of the cases the export is granted. Additionally, many components of a major piece of defense equipment — such as a combat vehicle or aircraft — require their own export licenses, Gates said.

But we don't want no stinking MEADS!

MEADS, which is scheduled to be delivered in 2018, is designed to intercept short-range and cruise missiles as well as shoot down planes and drones. Unlike the Patriot, the MEADS system is mobile and can be trucked around a battlefield, with its radar swiveling 360 degrees to track targets from any direction.

The only reason the Pentagon wants this thing is to appease Europe. Euro-free-riders need to spend more on defense, their own defense, not us... especially since they think supporting NATO operations is voluntary. Besides, from an angry bear perspective, wouldn't cutting off oil and natural gas to Europe be even more effective than missile strikes? Aren't Russian and Iranian missiles just for May Day and Revolution Day parades anyhow?

Transferring this project from the U.S. Army, which has tactical authority over ground to air defense, to the Missile Defense Agency, which is a strategic authority more in line with SDI/Star Wars type missile defense primarily led by Air Force officers, is a mistake. Where we need to transfer the authority to is NATO HQ and wipe this off of our budget. Oh wait, we basically are NATO. Catch-22.

Northrop Grumman pulls out of tanker deal

Boeing KC-767A

I love how the last paragraphs of the article allude to the most likely reason Northrop Grumman pulled out and Washington-based Boeing will win:

But with Northrop out of the competition, the Pentagon can now "move quickly to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135 tankers," said Washington Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks, who is in line to replace the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as head of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

“I applaud the Northrop Grumman Corp. for its assessment and its decision not to delay the procurement by submitting a bid and requiring the government to conduct another lengthy competition,” Dicks said.

Gates orders Air Force and Navy to study joint weapons system

In the weapons field, the QDR talks of expanding the capability of a new Virginia-class nuclear submarine with long-range cruise missiles, and of pressing ahead with the Navy's unmanned combat aerial system, being worked on jointly with the Air Force. The latter is a fighter-size, carrier-launched unmanned vehicle that can be refueled in flight. It would provide intelligence and go on strike missions before returning to the carrier. The goal is to begin flight testing this year and get delivery of the first operational unit in 2015.
Studies are looking also at defensive and offensive advances in the electronic warfare field to protect U.S. weapons systems and disable those of enemies, in space, air or on land. The QDR says that "to counter the spread of advanced surveillance, air defense and strike systems, the department has directed increased investment in selected capabilities for electronic attack."

Britain's Defense Industrial Complex

Prince William (left) and Prince Harry are feeling the effects of Great Britain's defense industrial complex... Harry Wales can't even afford to get his haircut!

Good news! We aren't the only country with a "broken" defense industrial complex... or does "broken" (in a good government sense) mean that the defense industrial complex is actually healthy (in a "business of America is business" sense)?!

Anyhow, Great Britain's defense procurement process is broken too! The "United" Kingdom, who only spends about 2.4 percent of their GDP on their war machine, has new equipment arriving five years late and 40 percent overbudget and "the incompetence is helping enemies who "are unlikely to wait for our sclerotic acquisition systems to catch up."

"How can it be that it takes 20 years to buy a ship, or aircraft, or tank?" Gray wrote. "Why does it always seem to cost at least twice what was thought? Even worse, at the end of the wait, why does it never quite seem to do what it was supposed to? The issue is a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, shrouded in an acronym."

The report warned of "too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification". It said delays in the shipbuilding programme meant Britain could not have fought a Falklands-style campaign in the last 20 years. "We would have risked significant casualties, the very significant costs of acquiring adequate equipment at short notice (if available) or the embarrassment of not fighting at all."

Blasphemy!!!

The problem with the thesis of this article, which is reproduced below and I agree with, is that the U.S. Navy is a blue water navy ("mask of war") and its leadership wants it to remain that way. Its top leaders are almost always surface warfare officers and its service culture worships the blue water navy. How else has it kept up with all of its traditions like enlisted sailors serving officers on fine china and silver in the officer's mess? Navy personnel look down on operating in the littorals - afterall, that is what the SEALs do and what those Department of the Navy budget sapping U.S. Marines do. Blue water officers don't want to operate in the littorals; afterall, they might get mud on their dress whites if, dare I say it, they have to deploy and lead combat patrols on the Tigris, Euphrates, Amu Darya, Hilmand, Harirud, or Kabul Rivers.

There should be no question that the U.S. needs carriers, cruisers, and advanced aircraft andestroyers, but there are coming realities unless there are unexpected shifts in policy and funding. Without an investment in modern smaller craft en masse, the federal budget will continue to constrict the Navy’s size, limit its abilities in the littorals, and allow non-state actors to rise, hone and possibly share their skills with other actors. A well-balanced force structure is necessary for the U.S. to respond to a variety of threats, but there must be that balance.

Cash for Clunkers DoD style?

It is about time we are seriously considering fuel efficiency in the U.S. military. Considering that the HMMWV gets 4-8mpg, an Abrams tank gets less than one mile per gallon, and God only knows how much fuel the Air Force consumes in its fighters/bombers/cargoes, we are creating our own logistical nightmare during both routine and combat missions and ensuring that we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil. The main question is, will gas guzzling equipment qualify for the "Cash for Clunkers" program? Can the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Chiefs of Staff turn-in equipment to Secretary Gates (pbuh) for a rebate?

To put this in context, the U.S. military is the world's single biggest oil buyer, and accounts for about 80 percent of the federal government's energy demand (and about 1 percent of all U.S. demand). And, for the past few years, the Pentagon has been contemplating an energy diet. It's easy to see the motivation here: In 2008, the military shelled out about $20 billion for energy, more than double the $10.9 spent in 2006, thanks to the spike in oil prices, and no one in the Pentagon sounded terribly thrilled with writing a $10 billion check to the Middle East.

On top of that, in recent years, military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have been saying they'd like to reduce their reliance on fuel convoys, which have been frequently targeted, put soldiers in danger, and divert resources from other operations. There's been a lot of interest in wind power and electric vehicles, in particular. Now, every time stories like these are written, military officials are all protesting that they're not hippie environmentalists. Okay, fine, but all signs are still pointing in an undeniably greener direction.

Pentagon eyes accelerated "bunker buster" bomb; Q2 Earnings Reports

The Air Force will do anything to keep their share of the bloated defense budget, which is almost always the biggest piece of the pie because of R&D and weapons technology. First it was the F-35, F-22, new fuel tankers, and now they are focusing on a new "bunker buster" to counter the perceived threats from North Korea and Iran. Boeing, who posted a 17 percent Q2 profit primarily because revenue from the integrated defense systems unit rose 9 percent to $8.7 billion, is more than willing to get another big government contract and build as many "bunker buster" bombs we "need."

"The Air Force and Department of Defense are looking at the possibility of accelerating the program," he said. "There have been discussions with the four congressional committees with oversight responsibilities. No final decision has been made."

The precision-guided weapon, built by Boeing Co (BA.N), could become the biggest conventional bomb the United States has ever used.

Carrying more than 5,300 pounds of explosives. it would deliver more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according to the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the seed program.

Chicago-based Boeing, the Pentagon's No. 2 supplier by sales, could be put on contract within 72 hours to build the first MOP production models if Congress signs off, Bourland said.

Other defense industrial complex giants did not fare as well as Boeing did in the second quarter of 2009. Only Raytheon posted a profit. Northrop Grumman reported a Q2 profit decline, BAE posted a loss despite producing the MRAPs being used in CENTCOM today, Lockheed Martin reported a decline, and General Dynamics reported a loss.

F-22 Showdown; National Guard Officer on Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Secretary Gates (pbuh) said at the Economic Club of Chicago on July 16, “If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.”

Hopefully, President Obama will back him up with a veto if need be, like he says he will.

On another note, why on earth should the National Guard Bureau get a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Are we permanently federalizing the entire National Guard? Who will they represent; the Soldiers and Airmen that are currently federalized (there isn't a such thing as a Navy National Guard... wouldn't that allow for more influence of the Army and Air Force on the president?) Here is what CQ wrote:

Give the National Guard more clout inside the Pentagon by giving the National Guard chief a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and budgetary power to buy equipment for domestic missions. The measure, by Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., would also hand to governors tactical control of federal troops responding to an emergency inside their state or territory

Now if the government could scrap the Joint Strike Fighter like the article alludes to and prosecute Sen. Dodd for his scandalous actions so he shuts up about defense industrial complex jobs, we could be in business...

A Single-Minded Focus on Dual Wars

Secretary Gates (pbuh) thankfully has moved away from "a leap ahead" and more towards "steady as you go"/"purposeful and measured" defense planning. We know what the generals think from this article (see blockquote below), but the pertinent question is what does Andrew Marshall and the DoD's Office of Net Assessment think of this?

Gates's critics, including some active duty generals and many of the senior officials that he has fired, say that his intense focus on Afghanistan and Iraq threatens to turn the vaunted U.S. military into an army of occupiers and nation-builders. "I am sure the North Koreans fear the MRAP and the Iranians are cringing in their boots about the threat from our stability forces," former Air Force secretary Michael W. Wynne, who was dismissed last year, wrote in an online column. "Our national interests are being reduced to becoming the armed custodians in two nations, Afghanistan and Iraq."
Last year, the four-star generals who run the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps formally "non-concurred" with the classified version of his National Defense Strategy, which called for "taking additional, acceptable risk" in the area of conventional war so that the military could improve its ability to fight irregular wars. Gates met with all of the chiefs to listen to their objections. He then concluded that their concerns were "not compelling," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

A War Fighter's Budget

Gates's budget is a more systematic response -- his attempt to provide "a place at the table for the guys fighting the wars we are in." While downsizing or eliminating some expensive, high-tech programs, the budget would increase resources for health care, intelligence, reconnaissance, Special Forces, theater missile defenses, helicopters and UAVs. It is more of a shift than a revolution -- Gates estimates that only about 10 percent of the budget is devoted exclusively to irregular warfare -- but moving the balance in this direction is entirely necessary...

...when referring to the origins of the recently proposed defense budget, Secretary Robert Gates, normally precise and analytical, speaks with an intensity that comes close to emotion. "What started me down this road was Walter Reed," the Army medical center where wounded soldiers were treated in squalid conditions. "There was a set of assumptions through the first several years of the war that it would be over very soon. So don't spend on a facility that would be closed."

Again and again -- on flawed body armor, the vulnerability of vehicles to roadside explosives, the insufficient number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Iraq -- Gates encountered a Pentagon focused on priorities other than fighting the irregular conflicts in which America is engaged. Iraq and Afghanistan were often treated as temporary distractions from the real military mission of preparing for future conventional wars. Whenever a problem emerged for "people in the field," Gates was amazed "how long and hard it was to remedy that problem."