This was forwarded to us by our friend Winslow Wheeler who writes:

With a Comptroller, William Lynn, who outdid all of his predecessors and successors with the most populous and preposterous budget gimmicks post-Cold War Pentagon spending has seen, with a level of spending that out-did the plan left on the table by that penny-pincher Defense Secretary Richard Cheney, and a level of shrunken, aging forces unready to fight, the Clinton era was the absolute low for post-World War II Pentagon management, up to then. That it was outdone by the mangling of the Bush years — even today — is no reason to think that a return to the precepts of Clinton-esque defense thinking is a good idea.

The New York Times would seem to disagree. While it does not say so explicitly, the Times’ editorial of December 21, “How to Pay for a 21st Century Military,” articulates all the shallow, even gimmick-laden, thinking about DOD management that characterized the Clinton era in the Pentagon in the 1990s. To some it will sound good, if you are unfamiliar with the more detailed facts buried under piles of press releases from think-tanks, members of Congress, and manufacturer brochures, but what the NY Times is really advocating is business as usual with a cosmetic veneer of reform.

This argument is clearly and strongly articulated by a Pentagon insider who has seen it all before and who has demonstrated frequently the character and insight to call it as it is. Franklin (“Chuck”) Spinney wrote for “CounterPunch” an important and informative analysis of the NY Times’ vision of the past guised as Pentagon reform for the 21st Century. Here it is:

Hackneyed Thinking and the Status Quo

The New York Times Flames Out in Defense Dogfight

By CHUCK SPINNEY
Counterpunch (http://​www​.counterpunch​.org/​s​p​i​n​n​e​y​1​2​2​3​2​0​0​8​.​h​tml)

The 21 Dec 2008 editorial in The New York Times, “How To Pay For A 21st-Century Military” purports to advocate tough-minded pragmatism to reform a Pentagon that is clearly out of control. Yet its logic is really another example of the kind of hackneyed thinking that serves to protect the status quo. It also suggests indirectly why the mainstream media are in such trouble.

The editors of the Times present a cut list that includes terminating the F-22, the DDG-1000, the Virginia class attack submarine, the V-22 Osprey, halting premature deployment (not R&D) on ballistic missile defense, cutting nuclear weapons, de-alerting nuclear weapons, cutting two air wings from the active Air Force, and cutting one carrier from the Navy. Some of these recommendations make a lot of sense, but even if one assumes unrealistically that there is no cost growth elsewhere and there are no contract termination costs or base closing costs, the cutbacks would “save” $20 to $25 billion. While $25 billion may sound impressive, bear in mind, the upcoming Defense Department’s core budget could be as high as $580 billion in Fiscal Year 2010, according to news reports.

Put another way, even if we believe in the vanishingly small probability of a best case scenario with no cost growth or contract termination costs, these cuts would reduce the defense budget Mr. Obama is about to inherit by only a little over four per cent — and that would be a reduction from a budget level that the editors say is bloated, because the defense budget was increased recklessly by 40 per cent in inflation-adjusted terms since 2001 (not including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Furthermore, the editors at the Times do not even want to pass on this piddling amount to the taxpayers or Mr. Obama’s infrastructure program, because they say that the “savings” should be plowed back into the Pentagon to increase the size of the Army and Marine ground forces, to buy the Navy’s littoral combat ship, and to resupply the National Guard and Reserve forces. But then they conclude by observing that the era of unlimited budgets is over and that Secretary Gates must make procurement reform a priority.

This is very peculiar logic. And it is made even more bizarre by what the editors of the Times did not say. Consider please just a few things they forgot to mention:

(more…)

Our good friend Winslow Wheeler and his colleagues at the Center for Defense Information have just released a new book examining the jacked up policies that govern the Pentagon’s spending plans and proposing new alternatives to the current array of programs and strategic concepts.

I haven’t even gotten close to decoding the work, but our boy Steve Trimble over at the DEW Line blog pulled this gem from the tome.

Pierre Sprey — father of the A-10, co-father of the F-16 and ardent F-22/F-35 critic — has teamed up with ex-Vietnam fighter jock Col Robert Dilger to propose a fascinating vision for an “effectiveness-based” airpower fleet. (Read more here, pp 159–162)

• 4,000 smaller, more agile A-10s = $60 billion
• 2,500 turboprops as forward air controllers = $3 billion
• 100 new tankers = $28 billion
• 1,000 dirt-strip C-123-like airlifters = $30 billion
• 1,100 smaller, faster F-16s = $44 billion
• 183 F-22s already purchased
• 200 F-35s redesignated as A-35s “to meet commitments to allies” = $50 billion

I’ll take a closer look at the work today and get back with some more of my own takeaways. Also, feel free to mention some of your own and I’ll feature them here.

– Christian

Blackwater USA, the private security and training company, has shut down a large part of its manufacturing subdivision after losing the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program and facing dwindling demand for its “Grizzly” Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle.

Reports had previously indicated that Blackwater would lay off its JLTV workers, some of whom were lured to the Moyock, N.C.-based company from Ford and Volvo. But according to sources the company is shutting down all vehicle manufacturing.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined to specify how many employees were laid off by the cut, but sources close to the company say about 50 workers will lose their jobs.

“Any time a specific business venture doesn’t go as planned it is disappointing,” Blackwater president Gary Jackson told Defense Tech. “After a detailed review of our vehicle manufacturing operation, we made the difficult decision to discontinue this particular business line.”

The cuts do not affect Blackwater’s manufacturing capability for firearms range systems, Tyrrell added.

Company sources also admit that the military’s shift from purchasing new MRAP II vehicles to keeping current MRAPs and outfitting them with stronger armor contributed to Blackwater’s business losses since demand for the Grizzly shrank with requirements. And industry watchers say the military will likely skip over the MRAP II design entirely and take a closer look at the MRAP Light, such as Navistar’s Maxpro vehicle.

The Army recently released a solicitation that called for nearly 10,000 so-called MRAP-All Terrain Vehicles to add to their fleet of 12,000 heavy MRAPs.

Tyrrell said the vast hanger spaces previously used to build Grizzly’s and to design their JLTV prototype will be converted into an aviation maintenance and repair center to build on the company’s already expanding contract aviation support business.

Blackwater will also soon launch a new MRAP vehicle driver’s training course at their sprawling North Carolina compound, using unsold Grizzlies to prepare troops for navigating the topheavy vehicles in tortuous terrain.

(Gouge=SS)

– Christian

Saw this little tidbit from Defense Industry Daily today. Looks like Iraq is in line to get the best tank in the world…

On July 31/08, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced Iraqs formal request to buy M1 Abrams tanks, well as the associated vehicles, equipment and services required to keep these tanks in the field. It is likely that the tanks themselves will be transferred from US stocks, but this has not been verified. With this purchase, Iraq will become the 4th M1 Abrams operator in the region, joining Egypt (M1A1s), Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (M1A2-SEP variant).

I’m having a great time watching as the Iraqi army builds up its capability. We reported several months ago that it had received electronic counter-IED systems for some of their VIP vehicles, I’m seeing a lot more up-armored Humvees over there and quite a few MRAP vehicles on Iraqi patrols as well.

But the request for M1 tanks takes the build-up to a new level. It’s like ordering F-15s for their air force. The DSCA says Iraq wants to buy 140 M1A2M tanks and eight M88A2 recovery vehicles.

But the $2.16 billion wish list doesn’t end there, the Iraqi government also wants:

• 64 M1151A1B1 Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV)
• 92 M1152 Shelter Carriers
• 12 M577A2 Command Post Carriers
• 16 M548A1 Tracked Logistics Vehicles
• 8 M113A2 Armored Ambulances
• 420 AN/VRC-92 Vehicular Receiver Transmitters

And the list doesn’t stop there…

35 M1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET) Truck Tractors, 40 M978A2 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) Tankers, 36 M985A2 HEMTT Cargo Trucks, 4 M984A2 HEMTT Wrecker Trucks, 140 M1085A1 5-ton Cargo Trucks, 8 HMMWV Ambulances w/ Shelter, 8 Contact Maintenance Trucks, 32 500 gal Water Tank Trailers, 16 2500 gal Water Tank Trucks, 16 Motorcycles, 80 8 ton Heavy/Medium Trailers, 16 Sedans, 92 M1102 Light Tactical trailers, 92 635NL Semi-Trailers, 4 5,500 lb Rough Terrain Forklifts, 20 M1A1 engines, 20 M1A1 Full Up Power Packs, 3 spare M88A2 engines, 10 M1070 engines, 20 HEMTT engines, 4 M577A2 spare engines, 2 5-ton truck engines, 20 spare HMMWV engines, ammunition, spare and repair parts, maintenance, support equipment, publications and documentation, personnel training and equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

I want to know who gets the motorcycles.

– Christian

I’m sure you guys have seen this already, but in case you haven’t yet, our friends at Aviation Week ran an interesting piece the other day on the development of a hypersonic demonstrator.

My question is whether this is the first time (at least in a high-ish profile) that Boeing has teamed with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works (I assume Boeing’s Phantom Works crew is involved) for a project that could be a large-scale deal?

I think it’s kind of cool to think that all those 10-pound brains could be getting together to come up with a new plane like this.

This article first appeared at Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Boeing and ATK have joined the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works team bidding to build the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Blackswift hypersonic technology demonstrator.

Northrop Grumman is understood not to have bid, making it likely a contract will be awarded to Lockheed by September. The unmanned, reusable turbojet/scramjet-powered Blackswift is planned to fly in 2012.

Under DARPA’s Falcon program, Lockheed has completed conceptual design of a demonstrator, the HTV-3X, that forms the basis for the Blackswift. The goal of the demonstration is to take-off conventionally, accelerate to beyond Mach 6, maneuver and return to a runway landing.

Skunk Works also is performing subscale tests of the combined-cycle propulsion system, which comprises a high-Mach turbojet and dual-mode ram/scramjet. The turbine is used for take-off and landing, and to accelerate the vehicle to Mach 4, where the ramjet takes over.

Lockheed has ground-tested inlets and nozzles that are shared by the two engines, says Stephen Walker, deputy director of DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. The challenge is in combining both flowpaths over the Mach range during which both the turbine and ramjet are operating, he says.

Be sure to read the rest of this story, a piece on more “war bots” for Joes and a bulkhead-by-bulkhead look at the death of a frigate from our Aviation Week friends at Military​.com.

– Christian

[EDITOR: Good morning folks. I want to introduce to you a new guest blogger we’re going to feature here occasionally. He’s a defense insider and that’s about all I can say here, but you’ll recognize his post from last week on the HK416.

It’s probably the jading effect of being so close to the biz that’s made our new team mate boil over, so for now, we’ll just call him “military curmudgeon” as he tells us how it really is.]

Earmarks are earmarks. I don’t care what is being done with those earmarks right now.

That is not the case, from the perspective of American warfighting capability.

It is the DoD’s responsibility to tell the President/Congress what they need, not for an individual politician to decide for himself what the military needs.

You assume that the people running the DoD actually have the best interests of the fighting man and woman at heart.

They don’t. Not when it comes to funding unsexy things like trucks, amphibious ships and cargo planes over their favored toys.

The various services — who write the requirements that DoD sends to Congress — game the system to get the favored toys paid for, while ignoring the unglamorous and non-career enhancing.

The USAF’s fascination with the F22 over everything has been much commented on here.

How the USAF shorts cargo plane and ground support plane production has been a US Army complaint for as long as there has been a separate air force. The A-10 would not exist at all were it not for legislative log rolling that over ruled the “Fighter pilot generals.”

(more…)

Oh guys, you’re gonna love this one.

From today’s front page of Military​.com:

Gates Cautions Against ‘Next-war-itis’

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The Pentagon must focus on current war demands, even if it means straining the U.S. armed forces and devoting less time and money on future threats, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Meeting the war-fighting needs of the troops now and taking care of them properly when they get home must be the priority, Gates said in a speech to a journalists at a seminar here sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called Next-War-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict,” Gates said.

But in a world of limited resources, he said, the Pentagon must concentrate on building a military that can defeat the current enemies: smaller, terrorist groups and militias waging irregular warfare.

(more…)

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

Most of the Pentagon’s weapon systems cost much more than they should, are built much more slowly than they could be and the entire system needs fundamental reform.

Those were the conclusions of most lawmakers and one senior defense acquisition expert at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington earlier this week.

Perhaps most damning, senior staff member Michael Sullivan from the Government Accountability Office told lawmakers that the system had not really been any better or worse when he started investigating defense procurement in 1986, though he conceded there were some recent small signs of improvement.

The hearing’s poster child for botched Pentagon buying was a $13.2 billion Marine Corps program called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The program for the updated AAV started in 1996 when the Marines issued a contract to General Dynamics. Initially, the program won plaudits for its innovative management and it passed through the program definition and risk reduction phase in mid-2001. Then things began to fall apart. The Marines issued a contract for the next phase of the program which was supposed to cost $712 million but quickly rose by the end of 2006 to an estimated $1.2 billion.

The modernized amtrac, according to a report prepared for the Oversight Committee’s chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), weighed too much to carry combat-ready Marines and still go as fast as it should. It operated only four-and-half hours before requiring major maintenance instead of the planned 47 hours. It was so loud that Marines could not speak to each other and had to wear ear plugs.

(more…)