The Year In Defense

The Year in

defense 2008 Edition

AFRICOM JSF Update Missile Defense World Submarine Survey

Beans, bullets, and boots. Bits and bytes. They don’t just fall fro

© 2008. Science Applications International Corporation. All rights reserved. The SAIC logo and the phrase “From Science to Solutions” are registered trademarks of Science Applications International Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.

saic on temp.indd 1

2/26/08 4:25:55 PM

all from the sky.

Supporting Warfighters’ needs. We take it personally. SAIC is driven to keep the Warfighter supplied. Our integrated logistics systems automatically sense and respond to current stock levels, helping transport supplies when they’re needed. Our RFID system enables asset visibility so you know where the supplies are, whether in stock or in transit. Whether it’s beans, bullets, and boots; bits and bytes; or parts and tools, SAIC systems engineering and integration helps Warfighters get what they need, when they need it, where they need it. For more information, visit www.saic.com

saic on temp.indd 2

A 2/26/08 4:26:10 PM

The SureFire M951 Millennium Universal WeaponLight System is designed with one thing in mind, winning fights. It’s cut from aluminum, features a shock-isolation system to protect the lamp from the rigors of battle and recoil, and includes both a plug-in remote tape switch and a pushbutton switch for redundancy. The M951 produces 65 lumens of brilliant white light with one hour of runtime.

M951 (KIT02)

Includes Picatinny rail mount and IR filter

M951KIT02 NSN: 6240-01-532-4184

RFI READY

ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.ADSTACTICAL.COM

ADS is a premier provider of SureFire Products. Contact us for more information or order our Tactical Products Catalog online. 800.948.9433 • WWW.ADSTACTICAL.COM

WORLDWIDE DLA PRIME VENDOR • DOD EMALL • GSA CONTRACT HOLDER

ads on temp.indd 1

1/30/08 3:44:22 PM

Editors’ Foreword The Government Accountability Office reported on Oct. 30, 2007, that costs had approached $400 billion since 2003 for U.S. efforts in the Global War on Terrorism. Because the Department of Defense, the Bush administration, and Congress responded late in 2007 with an emergency appropriation of more than $94 billion, the total figure now nears $500 billion. This staggering amount represents the kind of information that U.S. citizens may hear on television or read in newspapers and subsequently discuss at the office. But it is only one news story out of a year of challenges faced and successes achieved by the U.S. armed forces. While the “surge” seems to be working, American public opinion is turning against the war, and with the U.S. economy stagnating and inflation rising, every dollar going to the defense budget is likely to be contested in future years. This comes at a time when equipment that is being used at several times its normal rate must be replaced or repaired, aging aircraft being one such example. In addition to fighting the present war against mainly low-tech insurgents, the United States must also be prepared to defend itself and its interests against nations that could more easily be considered peer competitors. From the enormous, wartime fiscal appropriation, today’s service members are receiving, if sometimes belatedly, the best mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, superior communications technology, advanced weapons, network and computer systems, and aircraft that Americans, DoD, and industry can provide. While budget constraints will be of increasing concern in the future, the goal must be to continue to supply our warfighters with the best of what they need to get the job done.



ed fwd.indd 3

3/1/08 6:45:20 PM

www.egginc.com 301.258.6566

MEETING THE DEMANDS OF TODAY AND THE CHALLENGES OF TOMORROW Photos courtesy of Air Force Link, DefenseLink and NASA

eg&g on temp.indd 1

12/27/07 11:22:06 AM

Contents Interview: Alan R. Shaffer................................................................................10 Director, Defense Research & Engineering By Charles Oldham

Top 2007 DoD Contracts Cover Missile Defense, IT, Radios, and Aircraft..........................................................................................18 By Michael A. Robinson

The 2008 Defense Budget............................................................................. 26 By Craig Collins

U.S. Army Year in Review............................................................................... 34 By Scott R. Gourley

U.S. Air Force Year in Review......................................................................... 44 By Robert F. Dorr

U.S. Coast Guard Year in Review.................................................................. 52 By Dr. Joe DiRenzo III and Chris Doane

U.S. Marine Corps Year in Review................................................................ 60 By J.R. Wilson

U.S. Navy Year in Review............................................................................... 66 By Norman Friedman

The Year in Special Operations 2007...........................................................76 By John D. Gresham

New Requirements, Old Realities................................................................... 84 World aerospace developments 2007 By Eric Tegler

Land Forces Developments............................................................................. 90 By Scott R. Gourley

World Naval Developments 2007................................................................ 98 By Norman Friedman



005-007 TOC.indd 5

3/1/08 6:37:08 PM

Our Products make a DIFFERENCE Our Solutions SAVE LIVES

Special dhb onOps.indd temp.indd 1 1

2/1/0811:31:50 3:28:48AM PM 2/8/08

Enter the Dragon............................................................................................ 106 China takes center stage in international – and military – affairs By Craig Collins

The Army Boosts Web-based Tools..............................................................116 Joint networked forces provide awareness, and link sensors, shooters, and commanders By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.

MRAP Procurement/Deployment................................................................. 124 By Scott R. Gourley

The Missile Defense Shield Expands........................................................... 132 Technology upgrades make a limited system more capable, moving toward intercepts in every stage By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.

The (More or Less Bright) Future of the Submarine in the World’s Navies................................................................ 138 By Arthur D. Baker III

The Highs and Lows of Joint Programs........................................................ 146 By J.R. Wilson

Update: Joint Strike Fighter........................................................................... 150 By J.R. Wilson

The Air Force Copes with Fighter Issues...................................................... 158 By Robert F. Dorr

Exporting Freedom and Security:................................................................. 162 American Arms Transfer Programs By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

Soldier’s Home: Shelter for the 21st Century Warfighter...................................................... 168 By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

U.S. Africa Command................................................................................... 178 Bolstering security across the continent By Lee Ewing

Products & Services....................................................................................... 187



005-007 TOC.indd 7

2/27/08 4:58:39 PM

TESSCO Delivers Public Safety Wireless Technology

Wireless Networking

Wireless Video Surveillance

Two-Way Radio Accessories

Network Security

Mobile Data & Asset Tracking

Disaster Preparedness

Founded in traditional two-way communications, TESSCO led the way into the cellular world, supplying the buildout of the nation’s first cellular system. Today, TESSCO is the only supplier of everything from two-way to the latest wireless broadband data technologies over 34,000 wireless products from 350 manufacturers. Wireless Video Surveillance I Wireless Networking Solutions I Two-Way Radios & Accessories Network Security I Disaster Preparedness I Tools & Test Equipment

Delivering Public Safety Wireless Technology 866.352.9655 | www.tessco.com/go/gov

Schedule Holder

tessco on temp.indd 1

2/25/08 5:07:06 PM

The Year in

defense 2008 Edition

North American Headquarters 701 North West Shore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Tel. (813) 639-1900 Fax (813) 639-4344

European Headquarters 5 Ella Mews, Hampstead, London NW3 2NH UK Tel. 44 (0) 207-428-7000 Fax 44 (0) 207-284-2118

Asian-Pacific Headquarters Lvl. 21, Tower 2, 201 Sussex Str. Sydney NSW 2000, Australia Tel. 61 (2) 9006-3370 Fax 61 (2) 8580-5047

Publishers Ross W. Jobson and Peter M. Antell Editorial Director Charles Oldham [email protected]

Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Roberts [email protected]

Editors Rhonda Carpenter Ana E. Lopez

Assistant General Manager Robin Jobson [email protected]

Assistant Editors Iwalani Kahikina Michael J. Tully

Business Development Edward J. Matthews [email protected] Ed Veprovsky [email protected]

Art Director Robin K. McDowall Project Designer Rebecca Laborde Design & Production Daniel Mrgan Lorena Noya Production Assistant Kenia Y. Perez Writers Arthur D. Baker III, Craig Collins Dr. Joe DiRenzo III, Chris Doane Robert F. Dorr, Lee Ewing Norman Friedman, Scott R. Gourley John D. Gresham Clarence A. Robinson, Jr. Michael A. Robinson Eric Tegler, J.R. Wilson Dwight Jon Zimmerman

Project Manager Darren Lewis Advertising Account Executives Jim Huston, Dustin “Doc” Lawson Mark Logsdon, Tom Novak Jay Powers, David Sanis Adrian F. Silva, Matt Sublette Controller Robert John Thorne Assistant to the Publisher Alexis Vars Director of Information Systems John Madden [email protected] Administrative Assistants Heidi Reis, Aisha Shazer

©Copyright Faircount LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction of editorial content in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Faircount LLC. does not assume responsibility for the advertisements, nor any representation made therein, nor the quality or deliverability of the products themselves. Reproduction of articles and photographs, in whole or in part, contained herein is prohibited without expressed written consent of the publisher, with the exception of reprinting for news media use. Printed in the United States of America. Various images and text in this publication in no way are used to imply an endorsement by the Department of Defense or the U.S. government for any claims or representations therein. None of the advertising contained herein implies endorsement by the Department of Defense or the U.S. government of any private entity or enterprise.



masthead.indd 9

3/1/08 6:16:08 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Interview: Alan R. Shaffer Director, Defense Research & Engineering By Charles Oldham

The Year in Defense: What are your goals for the Office of Defense Research & Engineering? Alan R. Shaffer: It’s actually very interesting … One of the things you do Alan R. Shaffer as you go through life is you learn from Director, Defense Research & Engineering people you work with. I thought John Young’s goals were very, very good. His vision statement for defense research and engineering was very good, and that was to develop technology to defeat any adversary on any battlefield. So my goal is to go ahead and do everything we can to present capability options for our warfighters in more than in just traditional systems. We want to be able to protect the Internet; we want to be able to protect the young soldier; we want to give our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines different capabilities to deal with the situation like they’re in in Iraq. We want to really focus on any battlefield, and that could be a traditional battlefield, urban operations or even cyber operations, and against any adversary. That could be a nation-state or a non-nation-state. So that’s the first big goal. The second goal is to accelerate the transition of technology from our laboratories to our young kids – our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. The third thing is to put in place

10

010-017 Interview.indd 10

2/29/08 8:57:01 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

“The value of a lot of things is not technology you can touch. How do you put a value on the Internet? How do you put a value on economic free trade and banking? We can’t reach out and touch that, yet it’s transforming the world.” programs and processes to help America develop scientists and engineers for future national security needs. We need a lot of scientists and engineers in the department. This is more than a Department of Defense issue. We, America, need scientists and engineers in the future. I wanted to ask you about the Joint Unmanned System Common Control (JUSCC). Obviously, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) are important. There are many different types and users. And they operate at all sorts of different altitudes with all sorts of operators at different levels, from the squad on up to the strategic level. Can you speak a little about that? That’s a very small ACTD and I’d prefer to really look toward the future … we’re trying to do everything we can to cut across technology to integrate different types of sensors with different types of command and control systems to give us better control of any battle space. Be that on the ocean or in the skies. And if some of that happens to work out and can apply to the FAA’s problem, great. But again, it’s a matter of where technology is taking us: focusing on integrating communications with sensors, with command and control systems. Today DoD has identified six strategic research areas: Bioengineering Sciences, Human Performance Sciences, Information Dominance, Multifunction Materials, Nanoscience, and Propulsion and Energetic Sciences. How do you think these research areas illustrate how the world and the security environment have changed over the past decade? Oh, absolutely, and furthermore, those six strategic research areas, we have actually gone back and are in the process of updating them further based on a memo that my boss, Mr. [John J.] Young [now under secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics] sent to Secretary Gates in August [2007]. And I’m not going to talk about the six specific research areas, but I’m going to take it to a broader perspective and then give you some specifics. Between 2008 and 2009, we have moved roughly between $3 and $4 billion of the department’s science and technology investment, mostly from what would be considered the traditional sciences – the things that you just cited, traditional platforms, weapons – into what we’re calling now non-kinetic capabilities. And that’s reflective of where science is going. We’ve made specific large investments in human social, culture, behavioral modeling. Because we want to understand other cultures better to give us more

options other than just flat-out warfare. If you look at Gen. [David H.] Petraeus and what he is doing in Iraq, it very much follows the same line of reasoning. By changing our doctrine and tactics, and going out and getting in contact and getting to know other people, the surge is reducing or having an effect on the amount of violence in Iraq is going down. All of that precipitated by having a better understanding of the people you’re out operating with. The department had not invested in the human social, culture, behavioral modeling – really, think of it as advanced anthropological studies. … We’re going into that starting in ’08 with roughly $3 million across the five future years’ defense programs, so six years. That’s a big deal, because if we can understand an adversary better, we might be able to get the outcome we want without having to go into a shooting war. We’re investing a great deal of money, primarily through DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] and the services, in automatic language translators. Again, the same type of thing – if you can make yourself understood and communicate better with the adversary, good things will happen. We’re investing in information technology, information protection much more than we have in the past. We’re investing in network sciences. Because … if you take a look at where the world has gone – the Internet explosion, networks – you can’t really control that, nor should we try to. But we should give our young people the tools to be able to operate with that type of free flow of information, anywhere in the world. So we’re focusing on network sciences, also in our science and technology programs, to provide the power of the network to our young men and women to an area where you may not have a fixed infrastructure. We’re also working on network sciences to provide gateways across different networks. So we may have an air network right now that was developed for all the air combatants to talk, but that network may not communicate seamlessly with the ground network. We’re funding research and development to very easily develop bridges that will allow all of networks to communicate and pass information. That’s a big deal. So, the six strategic initiatives/research areas that you showed, I think are actually illustrative of where our program is going. That’s been a huge shift from what we use to call “the kinetic:” Things you could reach out and touch and feel to the non-kinetic science and technology. To a layman, the kinetic seems so much easier. Right? Oh it is. It’s simple. We all grew up – those of us with graying hair – in a world where you’d make an investment and you’d go out and bend metal. I would go out and buy a

11

010-017 Interview.indd 11

3/1/08 6:34:55 PM

kbr on temp.indd 1

1/25/08 11:46:10 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

How do you put a value net on information free exchange like you’re getting in “Wikis” in the commercial market? We have to develop technology to support the young men and women who’ve grown up in a world that’s materially different than the world we grew up in. car. It’s pretty easy to understand the value of something you can reach and touch. The world is moving on. The value of a lot of things is not technology you can touch, but how do you put a value on the Internet? How do you put a value on economic free trade and banking? We can’t reach out and touch that, but yet it’s transforming the world. How do you put a value net on information free exchange like you’re getting in “Wikis” in the commercial market? We have to develop technology to support the young men and women who’ve grown up in a world that’s materially different than the world we grew up in. Imagine growing up in a repressed country. What’s the value of being able to go on the Internet and see things that you would not necessarily be able to see in the past? I think it’s huge. You mentioned language translation and the successes of research efforts. It does seem that it’s progressing fairly well. We have made a huge investment, as I said, and its nearing $100 million on being able to do automatic translation. Now the interesting thing is: translating the printed word is pretty easy to get the context. We’re up between 90 to 95 percent accuracy, the last I saw at DARPA, with the printed word. The real hard thing is getting the nuance from the spoken word, and we still have quite a bit of work to go there. You can have simple voiceto-voice translators that can do things like “Halt.” “What is your name?” “Where do you want to go?” But when you get down to the substance and nuance of language, that’s a hard problem. I’m glad DARPA is working on it. They’re making huge strides. We’re not going to have a fully reliable operational system for a couple of years. But I’m glad we have places like DARPA working on those types of problems. They’re making progress. All the strides in communications, night vision, sights, etc., have a downside: batteries. One writer pointed out recently that ground troops carry more weight in batteries than ammunition. Could you talk about that and the work to reduce that load? Yes, and by the way, in many cases, that quote you had was absolutely correct. If we have people we’re sending out for several days, they can carry anywhere upward of 40 to 50 pounds of batteries. That’s because we have such an insatiable demand for power now as we’re networking

and outfitting all of our soldiers with advanced sensors and communications gear and computers. All of which is very necessary, but we’ve got to do better in batteries. So, about four or five years ago, we had something called the Energy, Power, and Technology Initiative. It is a cross service [program] with DARPA, the Army, Navy, and Air Force involved investing in advanced things like lithium ion batteries. I am told that they have about doubled the energy density of what we had several years ago with the standard batteries. But we’re also investing under this particular program in some advanced things; some advanced fuel cells, methanol and conversion fuel cells. The real beauty of fuel cells are: A) They can recharged with just some more of whatever your fuel of choice is. B) They last a tremendously long time and they’re very lightweight. With one technology we put out and had developed and prototyped through a commercial firm, we were able to reduce the weight of batteries by about a factor of four. That’s a big deal, huge, in the order of several hundred million dollars investment in energy and power technologies. And that will continue. I don’t foresee, in the near future, the power demands getting less extreme for our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. I see it getting more extreme. We don’t have this solved. By the way, we love good ideas from industry and furthermore, as part of the whole initiative for power and energy, we are hosting our first DDR&E Grand Challenge or prize program. This … follows DARPA’s Grand Challenge program for the robotic vehicle. The Wearable Power prize is looking to develop a combination of advanced batteries or energy efficient systems to allow our young soldiers to go out and operate for an extended period of time with a very low level of weight. We’re kind of excited about that, because what we saw with DARPA’s Grand Challenge was a huge number of teams. I think the first grand challenge in DARPA had well over 100 teams. We’ve had over 130 teams sign up for the Wearable Power prize competition. Other than the basic parameters, I suppose it’s blue skies as far as what you could come up with? Is that part of the idea, that you give people the requirements you’re looking for and let them go invent? Yes. Do you see yourself doing this regularly for different needs or requirements? Seeing what sort of creative thinking there might be out there?

13

010-017 Interview.indd 13

2/27/08 6:08:24 PM

THE EAGLE IS EVERYWHERE.™

Pratt & Whitney designs and builds the most advanced military engines in the world. These engines provide reliable and affordable power for cutting-edge Lightning II and Raptor fifth-generation fighters. In fact, 27 nations count on Pratt & Whitney engines so they can accomplish their missions. From design to maintenance, we power freedom every day. The Eagle is everywhere.

www.pw.utc.com

prattwfull on temp.indd 1

1/23/08 11:39:04 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

“Think about it: 130-plus separate teams coming in for an almost impossible challenge in power and energy, and wearable batteries. I think that’s a tremendous opportunity for people and [wise] use of taxpayers’ dollars.” Yes. A couple of years ago, Congress very much liked the DARPA Grand Challenge and expanded the authorities so that all services can conduct grand challenges. This Wearable Power prize is the first one to be conducted outside of DARPA. But we really are following a lot of DARPA’s leads, how they developed the program and how they conducted and operated the program. [We are] looking at other things for the future for everything from clearing a room to detecting people in enclosed areas, but you’re right: The sky is the limit. One of the great things about America, we have some incredibly innovated people and we want to take advantage of [that innovation]. Someone once referred to America as a nation of inventors. Perhaps that spirit is still here. From what we’ve seen with the DARPA Grand Challenge, and now with our Wearable Power prize, we think it absolutely is. Think about it: 130-plus separate teams coming in for an almost impossible challenge in power and energy, and wearable batteries. I think that’s a tremendous opportunity for people and [wise] use of taxpayers’ dollars. Because what we’re doing is going out and harnessing or trying to harness the intellectual capacity of people in our country. And it’s still possible for somebody out there to come up with an idea that no one’s ever thought of. Isn’t it possible? No, it’s probable. There’re a lot of smart people out there. It seems there are a number of what you would call “green programs” under way. I guess in many ways these things are tied together: the talk about peak oil and looking for alternative fuels and also the environment because of carbon dioxide causing climate change. There are a lot of interrelated things and it does seem there are a number of green programs under way that look into things like High-Efficiency Solar Cells or energy conservation. Could you talk about a couple of those? Sure. Let me fit it into a broad context. In 2005, the department spent $10.9 billion for energy. In 2007, we reduced our usage by about 6 percent and spent $13.2 billion. We spent roughly $2.5 billion more for less energy because of the increase in cost. Although further, we don’t do things specifically for climate change. We recognize we need to be good stewards

of the environment. So, we’ve had an energy security task force looking at a number of different things. One of the ones I’m most proud of is a little program called the fuel efficiency demonstration program being run out of the U.S. Army TARDEC, which is the TankAutomotive, Research, Development and Engineering Center in Warren, Mich. They sent out a broad agency announcement for anybody who wanted to come in and bid on a design for a very High-Efficiency Lightweight Tactical vehicle. They got 40 different bids responding to the request for information. That’s pretty cool. Then you start to think about going back to industry: How do we make things lighter? How do we use better engines? How do we make greater efficiency with some of our fuel/ground systems? I talked a little about the fuel cell, but the methanol fuel cell we funded, again through the Army, has the potential of reducing the weight of batteries by a factor of four. The Air Force is looking at different types of designs of UAVs, where conceptually, you could fly on one tank of gas for a week. That’s pretty cool. That thing is in design. And by the way, we’d have a large enough payload that you’d be able to go up there and serve as a network gateway, or a communications site, or do reconnaissance. The Navy is [researching] a number of thermal energy, electric sites, very much like Iceland, but the Navy also has very active research and development programs in converting ocean temperature differences to electricity. You can do that; it’s basically like running a heat exchange engine. In any ocean, there’s what’s called the thermocline, where you have a huge change in temperature over a short region. If you mix that temperature difference, that produces energy and … you can back out electricity. We’re looking at putting a pilot of that at both Diego Garcia and Guam. That’s a big deal. We also have – and this is in support of actual warfighter needs – been developing systems that we can forward-deploy with our ground troops to reduce the energy needs for fuel by as much as 90 percent under low-to-medium loads. So, we don’t have to send as many convoys out. That was called the Tactical Highly Efficient Power System. That’s gone into what’s known as the Net Zero Joint Capability Technology Demonstration. The idea of Net Zero, or Net Zero Plus, is to provide everything you need to operate for a 30period with no refueling, no diesel for forward-deployed electricity. That’s a big deal.

15

010-017 Interview.indd 15

3/1/08 6:35:36 PM

HSBOOZCVOUDPN

]

BSDEJWFSTJmFEDPN $PPLFWJMMF
5O

8JUI
(SBOOZ
#VOUhT
UIFSFhT
BMXBZT
NPSF
JO
UIF
NJY


$IFDL
PVU
PUIFS
HSFBU
JUFNT
ZPV
DBO
BEE
UP
ZPVS
PSEFST iÜ iÜ iÜ

#JPEFHSBEBCMF
DVUMFSZ 'SP[FO
CJTDVJUT 1JFT
QFDBO
DIFTT

GVEHF




/POGBU
%SZ
.JML $SFNF
$BLFT
$IPDPMBUF

7BOJMMB

0BUNFBM
DPPLJF 3FHVMBS
1BODBLF #VUUFSNJML
1BODBLF %FWJMhT
'PPE (JOHFSCSFBE

'PS
B
DPNQMFUF
QSPEVDU
MJTU
DIFDL
PVU
HSBOOZCVOUDPN
PS
FNBJM
NKBDLTPO!BSDEJWFSTJmFEDPN
PS
DBMM


arc on temp.indd 1

1/28/08 10:30:50 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

“Because what we’re doing is going out and harnessing or trying to harness the intellectual capacity of people in our country.” Isn’t that ambitious? Well, we may not get there. Say we only get two weeks. It’s still pretty cool. One worry, both in the military and civilian research worlds, is what looks to be an inadequate supply of future scientists and engineers. How concerned are you with this problem, and what sort of initiatives are in the works to address the problem? First … whenever you have a challenge, you have an opportunity. A couple of years ago, we started a program called National Defense Education program. That funding is up to just shy of $100 million a year in 2009. And it’s about $70 million in 2008. We have a couple of different projects under that program. But the one that I like to highlight the most is called SMART – Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation. SMART is a program that allows us to go out and fund undergraduate science and engineering degrees for young kids who can get clearances and provide them jobs when they graduate from college. We’ve had SMART in place for a couple of years. We’ve had just under 100 graduates of the SMART program. But this year, in 2008, we had over 1,000 applicants for roughly 100 positions. So now we’re starting to get the word out and we’re funding really top-notch young men and women to come in [with] science and engineering [degrees] for the future for the department. So you’re right, we’re seeing this exodus [of] scientists and engineers in the next 10-15 years. But with that exodus, will leave some openings and we’re trying to get the very best young scientists and engineers we can to backfill in back of that. So that, I think, is a very good initiative. Another initiative we have kicked off this year is our overall basic research funding. This is actually championed by Secretary of Defense Gates. We increased our basic research funding across the department from about $1.4 billion in 2008 to about $1.7 billion in our 2009 budget request. That’s a 16 percent increase above zero real growth for our investment from the Department of Defense, primarily in universities across the country, to work on science and technology problems that are relevant to the Department of Defense. That type of infusion of interest will typically generate more scientists and engineers. That, to me, is kind of exciting. It seems with scientists that they are always having to search for funding. Being able to get that sort of research funded, you’re bound to be able to draw in really bright minds. The real beauty with what Secretary Gates has allowed us to do to structure the program and what we have done with this increase in research money is we’re going after what is known as single investigator research programs: Giving a faculty member dollars for between four and five years and enough money to conduct research with a couple of graduate students. So we’re going to be funding graduate students to go through and get their masters and Ph.D.s at the same time as having the best university faculty, pretty much put on retainer for a four- to five-year period to work on problems that are relevant to the Department of Defense. We’re anticipating seeing some pretty huge payoffs in those things we intend to fund. That’s a good news story.

17

010-017 Interview.indd 17

2/29/08 9:00:50 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Navy photo

An SM-3 standard missile is launched from the Aegis combat system on board the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Decatur (DDG 73) during a Missile Defense Agency ballistic missile flight test on June 22, 2007, while under way in the Pacific Ocean. Minutes later, the SM-3 intercepted a separating ballistic missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii. This was the first time such a test was conducted from a ballistic missile defense-equipped U.S. Navy destroyer. Missile defense programs received $8.85 billion in the budget.

18

Programs & Contracts.indd 18

2/27/08 2:16:52 PM

PROGRAMS & CONTRACTS

Top 2007 DoD Contracts Cover Missile Defense, IT, Radios, and Aircraft By Michael A. Robinson

A

decision by China to shoot down an aging weather satellite had a significant impact on the Bush administration’s Fiscal Year 2008 defense budget – not so much in funding itself but in picking up bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Indeed, after the president battled with Congress in the fall of 2007 regarding his overall budget for the nation and funding for the war in Iraq, he picked up additional money to protect U.S. satellites and knock out those launched by other countries. Consider that a joint House-Senate Conference Committee provided the president with $100 million in extra funding for space situational awareness. The figure represented a 50 percent increase from the president’s original request of $200 million. The president picked up an additional $10 million, or 19 percent extra, for counter-space systems that would warn military officials of threats to U.S. satellites as well as help destroy attackers. The Department of Defense (DoD) received $459.3 billion in FY08 funding, 4.6 percent less than the president originally requested. At press time, Congress had still to approve roughly an additional $107 billion in supplemental spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress had approved in December about $70 billion, and this amount allowed the Army and Marine Corps to defer furloughing civilian employees. All through the fall and into the winter, congressional Democrats attempted to tie the Pentagon’s supplemental funding to a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Repeatedly the president, backed by his veto power and his allies on Capitol Hill, thwarted Democrats in both houses. Funding for key weapons systems in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 includes: • $8.85 billion for missile defense, the largest figure in the budget for weapons systems. That’s a one-year decline of 6.2 percent in funding for initiatives that will continue the production and fielding of ground-based interceptors; development of mobile ground-based interceptors; support the continued production and fielding of forward-based radars; and production and delivery of mobile sea-based interceptors.

• $6.14 billion, an 18.7 percent increase from 2007 levels, for the Joint Strike Fighter, the highly lethal F-35. This joint program will facilitate the development of affordable aircraft and related systems, with transition of key technologies and common components to support future requirements while reducing cost and risk, the Pentagon says. • $4.6 billion for the F-22 Raptor, up 15 percent. Pentagon planners say the F-22 will penetrate enemy airspace and achieve first-look, first-kill capability against multiple targets. Designed to enhance U.S. air superiority, the F-22 eventually will replace the F-15. • $3.66 billion for the Future Combat System, up 8 percent. This is the Army’s principal modernization program. A Pentagon budget document describes the program as “a complex acquisition program that involves developing and integrating a family of 14 manned and unmanned ground vehicles, air vehicles, sensors, and munitions that are linked by an information network.” • $3.46 billion, up 2.7 percent, for the DDG 1000 destroyer. Armed with an array of weapons, the DDG 1000 will provide offensive, distributed, and precision firepower at long ranges in support of forces ashore, the Pentagon says. The ship will incorporate full-spectrum signature reduction, active and passive self-defense systems, and cutting-edge survivability features. The Navy also plans to incorporate technologies developed under the DDG 1000 program into the entire family of new surface combat ships. • $3.08 billion for the CVN-21 Carrier Replacement program, which received an increase of 117 percent. CVN-21-class ships will include new technologies such as an integrated topside island that includes new multifunction radar, a new propulsion plant, monitoring improvements, manpower reduction technologies, and flight-deck enhancements to generate more missions. Although the administration’s budget documents highlight the areas that are expected to receive funding in the fiscal year, by definition they do not detail actual Pentagon contracts. That can only be done on a historical basis, after a defense or other agency signs a particular contract.

19

Programs & Contracts.indd 19

2/27/08 2:17:00 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Air Force photograph by Tech Sgt Justin D. Pyle

An F-22 Raptor from Langley Air Force Base, Va., performs for thousands during an air show at Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, Calif., April 1, 2007. The F-22 Raptor program received $5.05 billion to continue procurement of the superfighter.

For that reason, only an examination of the contracts issued in 2007 will be accurate. Each contract totaling more than $5 million is publicly announced and the press releases remain archived at www.defenselink.mil. To give the reader a look at the largest contracts issued in 2007, a reporter read every press release issued that year. Here is a look at the 2007 top 10 defense contracts: 1. $12.2 billion. The largest defense contract issued in 2007 also turned out to be among the more controversial. That’s because six major companies filed a protest regarding the large and complex ENCORE II defense information program. Issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the ENCORE II contract is designed to provide high-level, enterprisewide information technology policy, communications engineering, and

integration management. DISA wants members of the various military agencies to have access to critical information via the Web. ENCORE II stems from the Pentagon’s new paradigm for net-centric operations. Specifically, it’s part of a program known as Net-Centric Enterprise Services designed to unite the various military agencies with collaborative information sharing for better decision-making and improved mission effectives. Ultimately, the Pentagon wants to have a Global Information Grid that would function like a private, Internet, yielding business, intelligence, and warfighting (information) program. Furthermore, program managers operate their own Web site: www.disa.mil/nces. Under the ENCORE II contract, six companies received contracts covering some 20 task areas that include a wide range of hardware and

20

Programs & Contracts.indd 20

2/27/08 2:24:39 PM

When it’s go time This soldier is connected to a self-healing, self-forming “smart” network developed by experts in systems integration at General Dynamics. A secure, global network that seamlessly links commanders at the core with warfighters on the edge, delivering true, on-the-move connectivity and automatically routing vital bandwidth to soldiers who need it most.

...I just know it works.

But that’s the last thing on this soldier’s mind. All he’s thinking about is getting the information he needs. Fast. To win the battle. To keep his buddies safe. To stay alive.

His needs are what drive innovation at General Dynamics. Everyday. To constantly evolve technologies that give him the edge. To rapidly field new capabilities that outpace emerging threats. To deliver trusted solutions and a decisive advantage to those like him, whenever and wherever it matters most. www.gdc4s.com

Trusted. Core to Edge. © 2008 General Dynamics. All rights reserved.

1-22-08-Year-n-Def-ad-Rubbl.indd 1 gendyn on temp.indd 1

1/22/08 4:18:52 PM 1/23/08 10:37:34 AM

8F¨SF
QSPVE
UP
TFSWF UIPTF
XIP
TFSWF Since 1905, Boar’s Head has been dedicated to producing only the finest quality meats and cheeses. Sure, you’ll find Boar’s Head in fine delicatessens and select supermarkets across the country, but you’ll also find us in many Military commissaries throughout the United States.

They give their best. It’s only fair that they receive it.

boarshead on temp.indd 1

1/7/08 10:10:41 AM

U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. David Richards

PROGRAMS & CONTRACTS

software, Web services, computer telephony, telecommunications support, market research, and prototyping, as well as knowledge engineering for law enforcement and counterintelligence activities. The six companies are Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.; CACI, Inc.; Electronic Data Systems Corporation; Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., Science Applications International Corporation; and Systems Research and Applications, Corp. As originally written, the contract covered five years plus options for another five, taking the award period to March 2017. However, last May, Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC), Unisys, Northrop Grumman, and IBM Business Consulting Services filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the contract. CSC and Unisys alleged DISA failed to evaluate the bids properly. Those two companies, along with Northrop Grumman, worked on the original ENCORE information technology program that ended in 2006. DISA public affairs said agency officials “are working our way through the GAO’s corrective actions, which means we are still in source selection.” 2. $6.2 billion. The Navy granted two companies contracts to provide interim softwaredefined, single-channel, hand-held radios to the U.S. military. The contract will help consolidate handheld radio purchases across participating services to significantly reduce unit costs. Ultimately the contract could be even more valuable. That’s because each of the companies also received four one-year options that, if exercised, would bring the combined contract amounts to roughly $16 billion. DoD officials said the contracts were competitively procured through the Commerce Business Daily Web site and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems e-Commerce Web site, with two offers received. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity, the Pentagon said. The larger contract, with a one-year value of $3.5 billion, went to Thales Communications, Inc., of Clarksburg, Md. The firm is a is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Thales Group of companies, an international electronics and systems group, serving defense, aerospace, services, and security markets. Thales Group employs 70,000 people throughout the world and generated revenues of $12.7 billion in 2006. Thales Communications says it is a global leader in the development of battle-proven, software-defined, tactical radio equipment, and solutions. The company provides critical

Hawker Beechcraft Corp. won a $3 billion contract for lots 14-20 of the T-6A trainer.

communication capabilities for size-, weight-, and power-constrained environments in the tactical, naval/maritime, and homeland security/public safety domains around the world. U.S. pilots shot down in Iraq have used Thales radios to be rescued. Valued at $2.74 billion, the second radio contract went to the Harris Corp., of Rochester, N.Y. Its parent company is an international communications and information technology company serving government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries. Headquartered in Melbourne, Fla., the parent company has annual revenue of more than $4 billion and 16,000 employees. 3. $5.3 billion. These multiple-award contracts for wide-ranging services are similar to those announced by the U.S. Navy in 2006. Although the dollar amount is virtually the same, the number of contractors involved in this year’s multi-command program rose by 56 percent to 391. Agencies involved in the competition for services contract are the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, Military Sealift Command, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Strategic Systems Programs, and the Marine Corps.

The awards have a two-year base period with one five-year award term and one additional three-year award term. These contracts add to an existing 892 previously awarded under the SeaPort Enhanced acquisition program for services procurements. Pentagon officials said these contracts were competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 399 offers received and eight submissions denied. In all, the contracts cover some 22 service-support areas. Some of these include: • Interoperability, Test and Evaluation, and Trials • Human Factors, Performance, and Usability Engineering • Prototyping, Pre-production, ModelMaking, and Fabrication • Measurement Facilities, Range, and Instrumentation • Information Technology • In-Service Engineering, Fleet Introduction, Installation, and Checkout • Network Software, Engineering, Development, and Programming A comprehensive list of the contractors involved would run to several paragraphs. Some of them, chosen at random, include: • Applied Technology, Inc., King George, Va.

23

Programs & Contracts.indd 23

2/27/08 2:24:53 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

• Blackhawk Consulting Group, LLC, Bellevue, Wash. • CellExchange Federal, Inc., Cambridge, Mass. • eScience & Technology Solutions, Inc, Charleston, S.C. • Geomorph Information Systems, LLC, San Diego, Calif. • Micro Systems Integration, Inc., Pawcatuck, Conn. • NextGen Aeronautics, Torrance, Calif. • OMEGA Training Group, Inc., Columbus, Ga. • XtremeConcepts Systems, Arlington, Va. • Zapata Engineering, Charlotte, N.C. 4. $5.05 billion. The Fort Worth, Texas, operations of Lockheed Martin Corp., received a contract modification for the F-22, a super-fighter known as the Raptor. DoD officials said the modification made definite the multi-year aircraft advanced buy, economic ordering quantity, and full rate-production contract for 60 aircraft included in what are known as lots 7-9. This brings the number of Raptors on order to 183, which currently is expected to be the total number produced. Lockheed Martin will complete the work by June 2012, defense officials said, adding that the contract agency is Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. “The multi-year contract allows us to generate savings for the taxpayer and continue to deliver the most capable aircraft in the world to the men and women defending our nation,” said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics executive vice president and F-22 program general manager. “We have worked with our industry partners and the Air Force to make this a win-win for everyone.” According to Lockheed Martin, the Raptor is the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter. The aircraft, which replaces the aging fleet of F-15s will have a 40-year life cycle. 5. $3.91 billion. Actually, this figure comprises the total for three separate but related contracts granted to an Alaskan utility company for work at three facilities in the nation’s largest state. The Defense Logistics Agency announced the contracts for the agency involved, the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. All three contracts awarded to Doyon Utilities, LLC, of Fairbanks, Alaska, cover a 50-year period. The government solicited some 503 proposals, including those through the Internet, and received seven responses. Under the contracts, Doyon Utilities will take ownership of 12 water, sewer, heat, and electricity systems at Fort Richardson in Anchorage, Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, and Fort Greely in Delta Junction. Doyon Utilities is a new joint venture between Doyon Properties, Inc., and Fairbanks Water and Sewer, Inc., according to the Anchorage Daily News. In turn, Doyon Properties is the commercial property management subsidiary of the Alaska Native Corporation Doyon, Ltd. The Doyon parent company says it is one of the 13 Native regional corporations established by Congress under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. With the land entitlement of 12.5 million acres, Doyon is the largest private landowner in Alaska and is one of the larger private landowners in North America. Besides utilities work and property management, the company’s other operating units include tourism,

natural resources, facilities and services management, and drilling. 6. $3 billion. The Air Force granted Hawker Beechcraft Corp., of Wichita, Kan., a contract modification to be used as a framework to procure lots 14-20 for the T-6A aircraft. Those planes will be used to train Air Force and Navy pilots. Hawker Beechcraft said it won the highly competitive Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) by offering what it says is the safest, most capable, and most affordable trainer in the field. The aircraft offers an unparalleled training experience to the widest variety of pilots of any trainer in the world, the company said. To date, more than 435 T-6A aircraft have been delivered to various services, and the fleet has accumulated more than 625,000 hours training pilots. Overall, the JPATS program calls for nearly 800 deliveries through the year 2017, with additional international sales also expected, Hawker Beechcraft said. For U.S. services, the T-6A is replacing the Air Force T-37B and the Navy T-34C, both of which were developed in the 1950s. The Hellenic Air Force of Greece and the NATO Flying Training in Canada program use the aircraft as a primary trainer as well as for weapons and navigation. This contract also provides for procurement of related items such as ground-based training systems, field service support, and aircraft change modifications. 7. $2.5 billion. Technically speaking, the figure entails a dozen contracts granted to several companies. However, all the contracts were related to military medical needs and were announced on the same day by the same contracting agency and the awards had sequential numbers identifying them. Interestingly, the contracts illustrate that, while major weapons programs generate more publicity, the U.S. military spends billions a year on personnel – on feeding, clothing, housing, and training them, and also keeping them healthy. In this instance, the contracts cover all the armed services under the Pentagon, federal civilian agencies, the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and other non-DoD organizations. The bulk of the contracts for a wide range of medical and surgical needs went to two companies. Owens & Minor, of Glen Ellen, Va., received six of the contracts for an award total of approximately $1.4 billion. Owens & Minor is a supply-chain solutions company and says it is the nation’s leading distributor of name-brand medical and surgical supplies. It operates an extensive distribution network, and serves more than 4,000 acute-care hospital customers nationwide. Based in McGraw Park, Ill., Cardinal Health 200, Inc., received four contracts totaling about $904.2 million. Cardinal Health says its products and services help hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies reduce costs, and improve safety, productivity, and profitability, while delivering better care to patients. American Medical Depot of Opa Locka, Fla., and Midwest Medical Supply Co., of Earth City, Mo., each received medical supplies contracts totaling $100 million. All 12 of the contracts came from the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia, Pa.

24

Programs & Contracts.indd 24

2/27/08 2:17:32 PM

PROGRAMS & CONTRACTS

8. $2.44 billion (estimated). Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., of Fort Worth, Texas, received an advanced acquisition contract related to six F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) for the Air Force and six Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Air Systems for the Marine Corps. Specifically, the award covers long-lead components, parts, and materials associated with the lot 2, low-rate initial production. In addition, the contract provides for associated, ancillary mission equipment, sustainment support, special tooling, special test equipment, and technical and financial data. The F-35 features an advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, propulsion systems, stealth, and heavy firepower. About 75 percent of the work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas; about 15 percent in El Segundo, Calif., and the rest in Samlesbury, U.K. Besides the U.S., eight nations are involved in the development phase – Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Together, these allies have announced roughly $4.5 billion worth of support. A single-engine, single-seat aircraft, the F-35 will replace several aging classes of planes for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. 9. $2.4 billion. The new LHA-6 amphibious assault ship will figure prominently in the Navy’s future fleet. Relying on gas-powered turbine propulsion, the ship will support the Marine Corps’ F-35B short takeoff and landing joint strike fighter and the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. In place of a well deck, the LHA-6 will have an extended hangar deck with two overhead cranes. Designed to replace the LHA-1 Tarawa class of amphibious assault ships, the LHA-6 will be the nucleus of an expeditionary strike group and also will form part of the future maritime prepositioning force (MPF). Pentagon planners say the future MPF will be crucial for the Navy’s “seabasing” concept. Seabasing refers to the ability to conduct and support Marine landings from ships at sea. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, of Pascagoula, Miss., received a fixed-price incentive modification to a previously awarded contract for the ship’s detail design and construction. About 5 percent of the work will occur in New Orleans, with the remainder scheduled for Pascagoula, also on the Gulf Coast. DoD officials said work on the ship will be completed in 2012. 10. $2.35 billion. The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) is used to monitor global environmental conditions as well as collect and disseminate data related to weather, atmosphere, oceans, land, and the near-space environment. As such, it will reduce the number of polar-orbiting systems from four U.S. satellite groups to three and will combine activities under a single national program. In addition, NPOESS increases the timeliness and accuracy of forecasts for severe weather. The craft also includes a far-reaching program of sensor development and satellite transition and evolution to provide complete coverage of meteorological conditions for civil, military, and scientific purposes, officials say. Northrop Grumman Space Technology, of Redondo Beach, Calif., received a cost-plus-award-fee contract modification with multiple incentives for NPOESS. DoD officials explained the modification incorporates engineering changes directed under a June 2006 memorandum. Key features of the modification are: two engineering, manufacturing development satellites with a production option for two additional satellites, and the revised fee structure emphasizes incentives for cost, schedule, and technical performance. Under the program, the sensor suite has been reworked to conform to the specifications contained in the memorandum. Five sensors were removed from the manifest “to reduce risk,” according to a DoD press release on the contract. Work is scheduled to be completed in September 2016.

:( 9(%8,/7 21/