Armoredd.com

Patrick Walters, National security editor | July 02, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE Rudd government’s new $60 billion defence capability plan will create 5000 jobs and fund 110 major equipment projects, led by the F35 joint strike fighter, new navy helicopters and early planning for the next-generation submarine.

The government has also flagged a major defence industry policy statement later this year and detailed the industry capabilities it regards as vital to Australia’s long-term security, including electronic warfare, high-frequency radars and combat clothing for the three services.

Defence Minister John Faulkner said the new DCP, released yesterday, would generate 5000 extra jobs over the next four years, with annual defence industry spending in Australia topping $5bn.

The 220-page DCP outlines 17 major acquisitions planned for government decision within the next two years, including three F35 squadrons due to enter operational service in 2017, as well as artillery for the army and upgrades to the C-130 Hercules fleet. Senator Faulkner yesterday confirmed that the government had abandoned the customary 10-year DCP in favour of a

four-year cycle running until 2013, which covers the federal budget’s forward estimates period.

The decision to truncate the DCP to a four-year cycle with annual updates remains a key concern for Australia’s defence industry, which would prefer longer defence-acquisition timetables in order to plan for major capital investments and skilled workers.

But Senator Faulkner and Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet defended the new DCP as a more detailed guide to the government’s defence-acquisition budget, which would provide more certainty to the local defence industry.

“The government’s objective is to provide the defence industry with substantive and reliable information about intended capability acquisitions to help inform future investment decisions and to facilitate quality tenders for upcoming projects,” Senator Faulkner told the annual defence and industry conference in Adelaide.

Mr Combet said previous 10-year capability plans had often failed to deliver on decision timetables, or had been dropped altogether. “It is better to have four years of accurate and reliable information that provides the industry with certainty, than 10 years of largely inaccurate information that cannot be relied upon with a satisfactory degree of certainty.”

He said the government was determined to update the DCP regularly and reshape its contents to deliver better investment guidance to industry and transparency for taxpayers.

A key factor in adopting a shorter timetable for the DCP was the move to a five-yearly defence white paper cycle.

The defence ministers have also decided to reverse a previous decision not to make public the list of specific industry capabilities the government has determined should be maintained in Australia with taxpayer support if necessary.

The “priority industry capabilities” included acoustics technologies, selected ballistic munitions and explosives, infantry weapons and ship dry-docking facilities.

“The government may decide to intervene if a PIC is deemed to be ‘unhealthy’ — this intervention may range from assistance in skills development all the way to ensuring there is enough work available to maintain the specific capability,” Mr Combet told the conference.

The five most strategically significant projects detailed in this year’s document are the F-35 JSF, the future submarine, the defence force’s new battlespace communications, replacement field vehicles for the army and patrol boats for the navy.

By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 06/11/09 09:24 PM [ET]

National Guard leaders from 48 of the 50 states sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services committees on Thursday warning that a budget decision made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates would weaken national security.

The adjutants general from the states, along with three representing U.S. territories, are challenging Gates’s request to halve the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft program and transfer all responsibility to the Air Force, in a rare rebuke of the secretary outlined in their letter.

To make their point, the 51 adjutants general who signed the letter indicated the decision “decimates the Joint Cargo Aircraft program [and] is a cause of grave concern.” The National Guard leaders wrote that it would weaken national defense and that they have a hard time understanding “how such a colossal shift in strategy can be rationalized.”

The Army and Air Force so far have shared the program expected to field at least 78 cargo aircraft, mostly for National Guard units. Gates’s fiscal 2010 request would cut the number of planes to 38.

“The cuts would have a devastating impact on the National Guard and weaken our national defense,” the adjutants generals wrote. “Whether responding to regional wind and ice storms, hurricanes on the coastlines, or a large scale terrorist incident, the National Guard needs the [C-27J] to timely deliver personnel and emergency supplies to areas that would otherwise be inaccessible.”

At press time, a spokesman for Gates could not be reached for comment.

While the adjutants general are expressing concern about the impact of the budget decision, they are also sending a clear message that the Guard and Reserve leaders still are not included in major Pentagon decisions despite Congress’s efforts over the past couple of years to ensure that happens.

“Canceling a program for which there is no alternative and that resides primarily in the National Guard to serve both the Governors and DoD [the Department of Defense] without consulting with the leadership of the National Guard is precisely the type of behavior the National Guard Empowerment Act was meant to end,” the adjutants general wrote in the letter.

As the military representatives answering to state governors, the adjutants general have considerable clout, and their decision to send a strongly worded letter to Congress will likely spur widespread grassroots support for the program.

The Guard leaders call the Pentagon’s decision to slash the program in half and transfer control solely to the Air Force “readiness-eroding” and “unilateral.” They argue that the national security repercussions from this decision “cannot be overstated.”

The letter comes at a critical time, with the House Armed Services Committee tackling the 2010 defense authorization bill this week. Sources told The Hill that the letter results from the annual meeting of the Adjutants General Association of the United States, which took place last week in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

The adjutants general voted at the meeting on a resolution that supports buying at least 78 C-27J planes and splitting the program between the Army and Air Force — as initially planned and approved by Gates himself several months before the new budget request was submitted to Congress in May.

Gates recently told House and Senate defense authorizers that he was a bystander when Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz discussed and agreed on the change to the C-27J program.

The 2010 budget submission had Gates’s stamp of approval.

The Army in particular has been adamant about buying a smaller cargo aircraft that can go deep into the battlefield to deliver supplies to troops.

The Army has been relying heavily on its Chinook helicopters for that purpose. Army officials have argued for months that Afghanistan’s terrain, for example, has put great pressure on these helicopters, which are now filling the void of a cargo aircraft that can fly “the last tactical mile.”

The C-27J, under contract to L-3 Communications and Alenia North America, was supposed to replace the decades-old C-23 Sherpas.

Maj. Gen. Terry Nesbitt, the Georgia adjutant general, recently expressed his frustration with the Pentagon’s decision to The Macon Telegraph:

“There’s probably been more studies and staffing of this program than any I’ve seen,” Nesbitt told the paper last week. “If there has ever been a joint program that’s been done right, it’s this one. It went through several years of work. Now, somebody with the stroke of a pen decided to change all that.”

The Army National Guard was expecting to receive the C-27J in 12 states: California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Alaska and Washington state. Each was supposed to receive four airplanes. Alaska was supposed to share its airplanes with Guam.

Under the initial plan, the Air Force was expected to receive 24 of the 78 C-27Js — four planes in six states across the country: Connecticut, Michigan, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and Mississippi. Under the proposed plan, those states get their planes and the other 14 planes will likely go into the active Air Force.

The Air Force was expected to receive the planes a couple years after the Army, which has already received two C-27Js and has 11 others under contract.

It’s yet unclear how the transfer of program control and responsibility is going to play out. The vice chiefs of the Army and the Air Force were supposed to brief Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn on the transfer plan in May, but that briefing has been pushed back to as late as the end of June.

Adjutants generals from Texas and Florida did not sign the letter.

Souce: The Hill

16:5009/06/2009

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Global military expenditure in 2008 is estimated to have totaled $1,464 billion, an increase of 4% in real terms compared to 2007, and of 45% since 1999. Military expenditure comprised approximately 2.4% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) writes in its Yearbook 2009.

The Swedish analysts write that the driving forces behind the increase were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia’s return to the global scene, as well as the growth of China. This may be so, but it appears that growing world tensions were the root cause of these and other factors.

According to SIPRI, the United States’ military expenditure was the largest in the world in 2008, $607 billion (41.5% of the world’s total). Other large military spenders were China ($84.9 billion), France ($65.7 billion), Britain ($65.3 billion), and Russia ($58.6 billion).

Twenty-five years ago, the world was divided into two warring camps. But the Cold War they were waging, although it cost them much money and effort, actually had a stabilizing effect on the world. The two superpowers controlled their satellite countries, and although the global arms stockpiles were sky-high and mutual rhetoric was very harsh, the number of local conflicts taking place simultaneously was relatively stable.

The disintegration of the socialist bloc and subsequently the Soviet Union disrupted the balance, and the probability of conflicts grew dramatically. New players tried to fill the military vacuum, which resulted in new local wars, including in the former Soviet Union. The number of simultaneous conflicts grew from 25-30 in 1972-1974 to 30-35 in 1985-1986, and peaked at 45-50 in 1992-1993.

After that, their number plummeted, only to start growing again in the 21st century, when the Soviet Union’s adversaries in the Cold War increased their military activity.

Many analysts believe that the conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans would have been unimaginable when the Soviet Union was strong, because its influence alone could prevent Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent U.S. Operation Desert Storm to liberate it, and also the interference of foreign powers in the internal Yugoslav conflict.

By the end of the 1990s, NATO and above all the United States unambiguously demonstrated their intention to use military force to solve domestic and global problems. After the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, Washington ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to liquidate terrorist organizations and lower the terrorist threat. However, these goals have not been attained to this day.

The civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were provoked by foreign interference, which local people view as occupation. As a result, more and more innocent civilians are dying in terrorist attacks there and in other countries.

The growing threat of military conflicts has encouraged many countries to increase spending on the acquisition of modern weapons and training of their armed forces. The trend has spread worldwide, from Southeast Asia to Latin America.

Another factor spurring military expenditure is the growing prices of weapons and military equipment. This explains why military expenses are growing although the number of military systems each particular country has is decreasing. A modern fighter plane now costs $30-$100 million compared to $8-$10 million 25-30 years ago, even though the dollar has become considerably weaker.

The Untied States, although it spends over $600 billion on its armed forces, has to gradually cut the number of the main types of armaments, from aircraft carriers to armored personnel carriers. The same is true of other countries, including Russia.

The number of weapon systems is decreasing, but the world is not becoming a safer place.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst
Published: June 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM

WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) — The Russian government doesn’t believe that military forces should be reduced in the coming decades, unlike American liberals, but it does believe in global warming, unlike many American conservatives.

The combination of these two views has resulted in the development of a long-term program for the next 12 years to boost Russia’s security forces and military presence in the resource-rich Arctic Ocean.

The Kremlin has plans to slowly assemble a collection of military and security units in the arctic region, but it has no intention of militarizing the arctic, a spokesman for the Russian Security Council announced March 27.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told RIA Novosti the Russian Security Council had published an official policy paper on its Web site titled “The fundamentals of Russian state policy in the Arctic up to 2020 and beyond.”

That policy paper gave a revealing insight into Russian grand strategy and official thinking about the development of the world in the coming decades.

Russia is potentially highly vulnerable in the coming years. At a time when the global population continues to expand to record levels, Russia’s is imploding. Its population is believed to be around 140 million and actually diminishing, due to very low birth rates, relatively high death rates, especially for middle-aged males, and an enormous number of abortions relative to the population every year. Russia is now believed to have a smaller population than the nation of Pakistan, or the single Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. It is also smaller than Nigeria’s. Fifty years ago, these developments would have been regarded as inconceivable.

While many of the major nations in the world may be driven to future wars to project power in order to assure increasingly scarce resources for their rapidly increasing populations, Russia has the opposite problem. It needs to protect and assure its resources in the face of potential challenges from more numerous and far more rapidly increasing populations around it. But the end result of this dilemma is clear, Russia is looking to maintain and increase the power of its armed forces and their capability to guard the nation’s natural resources, especially in oil and gas.

This year’s policy paper described the principles guiding Russian policy in the arctic and said this would involve establishing significant Russian army, border and coastal guard forces there “to guarantee Russia’s military security in diverse military and political circumstances,” RIA Novosti said.

“However, it does not mean that we are planning to militarize the arctic. We are focusing on the creation of an effective system of coastal security, the development of arctic border infrastructure, and the presence of military units of an adequate strength,” the Security Council spokesman told RIA Novosti.

The report cited unnamed government sources in Moscow as saying that this new Arctic Group of Forces would come under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federal Security Service, or FSB.

The report also noted that the former head of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, is now the secretary of the Russian Security Council and was a forceful champion of Russia adopting an energetic, forward and “aggressive” state policy in the arctic.

© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Computer, Pandemic Threats Addressed

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

President Obama announced yesterday that he will merge the staffs of the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council to speed up and unify security policymaking inside the White House.

The combined national security staff, about 240 people, will report to national security adviser James L. Jones.

The White House also will add new offices for cybersecurity, for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, and for “resilience” — a national security directorate aimed at preparedness and response for a domestic WMD attack, pandemic or natural catastrophe, officials said.

“The challenges of the 21st century are increasingly unconventional and transnational, and therefore demand a response that effectively integrates all aspects of American power,” Obama said in a statement.

Obama’s changes to the national security structure, to be implemented over six weeks, address concerns that President George W. Bush created an overlapping White House bureaucracy by establishing the Homeland Security Council after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission, among others, recommended merging it into the NSC.

Instead, Obama will preserve the Homeland Security Council’s role as the main forum for government policymaking on issues such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, natural disasters and pandemic influenza. Doing so will improve state and local officials’ access to the White House and does not require an act of Congress, aides said.

“The idea that somehow counterterrorism is a homeland security issue doesn’t make sense when you recognize the fact that terror around the world doesn’t recognize borders,” Jones told reporters in a briefing. “There is no right-hand, left-hand anymore.”

John O. Brennan, Obama’s assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, will continue to report to Jones as a deputy and maintain direct access to the president.

“There’s no diminishment at all of the effort on” counterterrorism, Brennan said.

Jones and Brennan, whom Obama tapped Feb. 23 to lead a 60-day organizational review, said the changes will strengthen the White House security staff, which includes aides detailed from other departments.

Among other things, Obama is establishing a new global engagement directorate to coordinate U.S. communications with other countries and to streamline U.S. diplomatic, aid, environment and energy policies in support of security objectives, officials said.

Jones said the biggest pitfall for the new structure will be if he and Brennan “don’t achieve this degree of collegiality that we’ve achieved,” adding: “If we don’t do this well . . . that will contribute to instability.”

Senior lawmakers in Congress and former Bush aides generally praised the moves.

Kenneth Wainstein, Brennan’s immediate predecessor, praised the administration’s “inclusive” approach and said it allayed fears that changes “might diminish the perceived importance of homeland security issues.”

“It doesn’t bury the homeland equities,” said Frank J. Cilluffo, director of George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute, who served as assistant to the president for homeland security in 2003.

However, Frances Fragos Townsend, who served in Brennan’s role from 2005 to 2008, cautioned in an e-mail that he “will no longer have direct control of the resources required to the job.”

“John Brennan and Gen. Jim Jones are experienced, competent professionals and they will bear the burden of ensuring the necessary resource allocations across the broad spectrum of threats against the United States,” Townsend wrote.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Republican on the Senate homeland security committee, said she remained “concerned” that changes may dilute the focus of Brennan and homeland security staffers.

Source: Washington Post

By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 05/22/09 06:56 AM [ET]
A $91.3 billion supplemental budget measure easily passed the Senate Thursday night after it was untangled from two of its most controversial elements.

Senators voted 86-3 for the budget, which will provide about $85 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30 and including the addition of an extra 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The measure also includes a $5 billion proposal to increase the borrowing authority of the International Monetary Fund.

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) were the only ‘no’ votes. The supplemental now moves into conference with the House.

The vote was the Senate’s last before its week-long Memorial Day recess. The chamber does not reconvene again until Monday, June 1.

The supplemental passed easily because senators had already resolved its two biggest controversies: The IMF funding, and $80 million to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Guantanamo funding was already yanked from the supplemental on Wednesday, following a months-long battle between Democrats and Republicans, and senators on Thursday voted 64-30 to defeat an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) that would have struck the IMF funding.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) issued a statement saying he regretted the distractions of the Guantanamo prison debate.

“Too much of the past week has been dominated by a debate on Guantanamo, when in fact we should have been focusing on the best ways to support our troops in the field,” Inouye said.

The fight isn’t over, however, since Democrats have signaled their intent to revisit funding to close the prison later in the year. Such public declarations have prompted Republicans to vow to stay on the offensive.

“Closing Guantanamo Bay may placate the president’s liberal supporters who want him to uphold his campaign promise, but decisions about national security shouldn’t be based on political promises,” said GOP Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

Source: The Hill

By Andy Dolan
Last updated at 10:29 PM on 20th May 2009

Top secret submarine blueprints were sent to the boss of a metal firm after a blunder by defence workers.

Mark Chambers received a total of 12 boxes of ‘restricted’ files which also included plans of Ministry of Defence buildings.
When Mr Chambers called the MoD to alert officials, however, they had no idea what he should do with the boxes - and told him to submit a query on the ministry’s website

Instead, Mr Chambers sent the packages back to an MoD base in Bristol using the same courier that delivered them to his company in Swadlincote, Derbyshire.

The 44-year-old later received an angry call from a defence official demanding to know how he had got hold of them.

The files, marked ‘MoD: Bristol’, were delivered to Lecky Metal Ornaments, which manufactures hinges, rivets and metal ornaments for gates and railings, by the courier firm TNT on Tuesday.

Mr Chambers said: ‘The first box had drawings of submarines. I don’t think they were nuclear but then again I’m not an expert.
‘There were also lots of floor plans for buildings, some marked “military”, others “civilian”.’

The MoD has begun an urgent investigation.
A source said: ‘It’s embarrassing, but it looks like the documents have come from a firm contracted to the department.’

In September, defence chiefs issued an alert to 50,000 current and former RAF staff after personnel files containing career details of pilots, ground staff and civil servants were stolen from computer hard drives at RAF Innsworth, Gloucestershire.

A senior Whitehall official who left highly classified intelligence documents about Al Qaeda and the Iraqi security forces on a train was fined £2,500 the following month after admitting negligence.

Source: Mail Online

Sat May 16, 2009 2:30am BST

By David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday revived the system of military trials for foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo, angering supporters who said he had broken a promise to end the controversial tribunals set up by the Bush administration.

The Democratic president said the commissions would be restarted as an option for trying prisoners at the U.S. military base in Cuba after undergoing several rule changes, including barring statements made under harsh interrogation and making it more difficult to use hearsay evidence.

“These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law,” said Obama, who opposed the law that created the tribunals during the administration of his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush.

“He (the president) is determined to reform the military commissions as an available form, along with the federal courts, for prosecution of detainees at Guantanamo,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

Republicans welcomed the move. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it an “encouraging development.” Obama’s presidential rival John McCain said it was a step towards a comprehensive detainee policy that “accords with our values and protects our national security.”

RIGHTS GROUPS CRITICAL

Rights groups, which have been long been critical of Washington’s treatment of foreign terrorism suspects and the use of the detention centreat Guantanamo Bay, condemned the decision.

“By resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda,” said Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch.

Amnesty International accused Obama, who took office in January, of breaking a major campaign promise.
“These military commissions are inherently illegitimate, unconstitutional and incapable of delivering outcomes that we can trust. Tweaking the rules of these failed tribunals so that they provide ‘more due process’ is absurd,” said Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The decision was the second in less than a week to anger Obama’s liberal supporters. Earlier this week, he reversed a previous decision and announced he would seek to prevent the release of photographs showing alleged abuse of prisoners, saying the images could endanger U.S. troops abroad.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, asked at a briefing if Obama was worried about alienating his most loyal supporters, defended the decisions.

“Look, first and foremost the president of the United States is going to do what he believes is in the best security interests of the people of the United States,” he said.

Obama has promised to close Guantanamo Bay prison by 2010. The prison was set up in 2002 at the U.S. base on the southeastern tip of Cuba to house foreign prisoners in the U.S. war on terrorism that Bush declared after the hijacked plane attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

Gibbs said the decision to proceed with military commissions would not block the closure, but the administration was working to determine where the tribunals could be held once Guantanamo closes. He also indicated some prisoners would be shifted to the U.S. court system.

DEATH SENTENCES POSSIBLE

Among those facing trial at Guantanamo are self-described September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants who could be executed if convicted of nearly 3,000 murder charges stemming from the plane attacks.

When he took office in January, Obama ordered a four-month freeze on Guantanamo court proceedings to give him time to decide whether to move the prosecutions into the regular U.S. civilian or military courts or keep the special tribunals.
The freeze order had been seen as a death knell for the Guantanamo war crimes court, which has completed only two full trials since the detention camp opened.

The administration asked on Friday for a delay in the court proceedings to allow time for the new rules to take effect. The rule changes must be shown to Congress 60 days before they go into force.

“The secretary of defence will be sending to Congress several changes to the rules for military commissions,” Whitman said.

He said the rule changes included:

- A ban on using statements obtained during cruel or inhumane interrogation

- A rule making it more difficult to use hearsay evidence

- Greater latitude for the accused to choose a defence counsel

- More protections for a defendant who refuses to testify.

U.S. authorities on Friday also released a Guantanamo Bay detainee who was part of a landmark Supreme Court case that granted inmates at the U.S. military prison the legal right to challenge their confinement, officials said.
The detainee, Algerian national Lakhdar Boumediene, was released from custody and flown from the U.S. Navy base to waiting relatives in France, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

(Additional reporting by David Morgan in Washington and Jane Sutton in Miami, Editing by Eric Walsh)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved.

By Molly K. Hooper
Posted: 05/14/09 08:18 PM [ET]
The Hill

The House on Thursday approved a $96.7 billion war-funding measure over the objections of dozens of Democrats who are exasperated with the Iraq war and growing impatient with the conflict in Afghanistan.

It is the first war-funding bill approved since President Obama was sworn in, and the relative ease with which it passed contrasts sharply with when Democratic leaders and President Bush clashed in 2007 on funding the wars.

The spending passed 368-60 but was rejected by eight committee chairmen and 43 other Democrats. Nine Republicans voted against the bill, whose price tag exceeded Obama’s request by nearly $12 billion.

Even though the House bill mirrored many of the policies Obama sought, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) did not include money for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba. Obey is among many Democrats and Republicans who want more details on Obama’s plan to close the facility at Guantánamo.

“It’s not about closing Guantánamo Bay or not. Guantánamo Bay, whether you like it or not, is going to be closed. What we’re talking about is, How do you dispose of and what do you do to the detainees?” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) said during the debate on the House floor.

Some Democrats were nervous that the rule bringing the bill to the floor would not pass as anti-war lawmakers threatened to reject it. But the procedural motion passed 247-178, with only eight Democrats crossing party lines.

Obey this month suggested Obama has one year to make substantial progress in the war in Afghanistan, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to put any troop-withdrawal timetables on that war.

In a move that pleased most Democrats, Obama earlier this year announced U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq by the middle of next year.

Still, Iraq war critics are worried that the Pentagon does not have a viable long-term strategy in Afghanistan, where

U.S. troops have been stationed since 2001.

During his presidential campaign last year, Obama vowed to capture or kill Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.

“Bin Laden and al Qaeda are our No. 1 threat when it comes to American security,” Obama told reporters in 2008.

“We’re going to do everything in our power to make sure that they cannot create safe havens that can attack Americans.”

Many military experts believe that bin Laden is hiding along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a release after the vote, Pelosi said, “History will look back at the Iraq war as a tragic miscalculation that cost America far too many lives, far too much money, and distracted us from the real fight against terrorism for far too long.

Today, the House begins to close this sad chapter in our history, to end the war in Iraq and to refocus on the real fight against terrorism in Afghanistan.”

Obey voted for his bill but acknowledged his reservations: “This is a no-win bill no matter how you vote on it.”

Other than war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, the House bill seeks emergency funding for the pandemic flu, the U.S. Capitol Police, combating wildfires and nuclear non-proliferation initiatives.
Chairmen who rejected the bill were: Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.),

Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.).

The nine Republicans who voted no were Reps. John Campbell (Calif.), John Duncan Jr. (Tenn.), Vernon Ehlers (Mich.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Timothy Johnson (Ill.), Ron Paul (Texas), Tom Petri (Wis.), James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) and Ed Royce (Calif.).

The Senate has yet to clear its war supplemental bill, but is expected to do so next week. A $91.3 billion supplemental funding measure was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, but GOP amendments on Guantánamo are expected to be offered on the floor next week

J. Taylor Rushing contributed to this article.

By CHELSEA J. CARTER, AP
AOL News

BAGHDAD -Lower oil prices are threatening Iraq’s efforts to build a military capable of defending the country, raising the possibility that the Iraqis will need substantial U.S. help for years after the Americans leave by 2012.

The budget crunch not only affects ground forces that bear the brunt of the fight against Sunni and Shiite extremists — it also slows development of an air force capable of defending the skies and a navy able to protect vital oil exporting facilities in the Persian Gulf from terror attacks.

All that is forcing U.S. and Iraqi planners to make tough choices during the countdown to the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011. With the Obama administration shifting resources to Afghanistan, the U.S. is not in a position to finance the Iraqi budget shortfall.

“Realistically, as we look out to 2011, this year’s budget will not keep them on track they need to be on,” said Army Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick, the American officer in charge of training the Iraqi security force.

“These ministers in defense and interior are having to make very, very difficult decisions, having to prioritize their requirements.”
Iraq’s security plans have gone off course because of the slump in oil prices, which now stand around $60 a barrel after hitting highs last summer of nearly $150 a barrel.

Oil sales account for more than 90 percent of government revenue. When prices were soaring last summer, the U.S. Government Accountability Office predicted Iraq could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus.

Instead, Iraq’s government had to slash its 2009 budget to $58.6 billion from an initial figure of $79 billion. The higher figure was based on the assumption that oil prices would average $80 a barrel this year.

Instead of wallowing in a surplus, Iraq is tightening its belt. There’s little chance of a windfall unless oil prices rebound or the government can boost production substantially — which would require a deal with the Kurds over control of fields in their self-ruled northern region.

Helmick said the Defense Ministry this year needed $8.5 billion but received about $4.5 billion, and the Interior Ministry needed about the same and received about $5 billion. About 70 percent of the defense budget goes to salaries, Helmick said.

If oil prices fail to rebound, Iraq’s budget — and its defense spending — in 2010 and 2011 will again be curtailed, making it nearly impossible to have its security forces adequately trained and equipped by 2012.
“It would be a really tough year in 2010, if they get the same budget or less,” Helmick said.

Abbas al-Bayati, chairman of parliament’s security committee, played down the cuts in Iraq’s defense spending. He said the budget covered most requests, including building new bases and providing training and arms — though there was no mention of naval or air power.

U.S. military advisers are working with the ministries to re-prioritize how to create a fully functioning security force, examining every possibility from cutting back on purchasing military equipment to creative financing.

Among the priorities being discussed by the government, Helmick says, is whether to increase its army logistics units, buy ships for its navy or buy aircraft to train pilots.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Wednesday that Iraq may ask the British navy to help the Iraqis protect ports and export facilities after the British withdraw by the end of July. Al-Dabbagh said such an arrangement could allow for fewer than 400 British service personnel to carry out tasks inside Iraqi waters.

Last January the Pentagon reported that only 17 of the Iraqi army’s 175 combat battalions could operate without U.S. support, largely because of supply and logistics problems.

Chief among U.S. concerns is bolstering Iraq’s protection of its oil platforms, borders and skies. They are areas considered critical by American commanders — especially oil platforms which are vulnerable to seaborne terrorist attack.

Iraq’s air force has no fighter jets to defend against possible incursions by neighbors including Iran, Turkey and Syria. Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Askari said the government is negotiating with the United States to buy F-16 warplanes.

The target calls for the aircraft to be patrolling the skies by 2016 — four years after the current U.S. withdrawal deadline. But Iraq doesn’t have the money to buy the planes and train the pilots.

“We can’t really train enough fixed-wing pilots right now, because we don’t have enough fixed-wing trainers to do that,” Helmick said.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been making the rounds with world leaders, and defense and interior ministers have been meeting with foreign counterparts as part of an effort to expand the country’s revenue sources, boost oil production and, perhaps, buy less expensive military equipment.

Iraq has purchased nearly $5 billion in military items from the U.S. since 2006, and recently asked to buy $3.8 billion more. It has not funded that request.
—
Associated Press Writer Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad contributed to this report.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
2009-05-13 20:19:29

Marine Wife Honored During Annual Military Spouse of the Year Awards Ceremony in Washington

WASHINGTON, May 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The second annual national Military Spouse of the Year (MSOY) was announced today during an awards ceremony attended by high ranking officials in Washington. Marine wife Mrs. Tanya Queiro, of Jacksonville, N.C., was selected for her selfless efforts in support of the military community. Military spouses Diane Jones, wife of General Jim Jones, National Security Advisor, and Babette Maxwell, Co-Founder and Executive Editor, Military Spouse magazine, presented the 2009 award at a special luncheon put on by Military Spouse magazine and presented by USAA. Queiro was honored for her commitment to the troops, her ongoing support of active duty husband Gunnery Sergeant Jose Queiro, and her volunteer work and many community contributions.

Mrs. Queiro, a 13-year military spouse, also previously served as an active duty Marine herself. As a devoted and tenacious mother, she raises three active children while also managing the household as her husband GySgt Jose Queiro deploys. On top of all of these duties, Mrs. Queiro works full time outside the home and is a student pursuing a Doctorate degree in Organization and Management.

To further demonstrate her community service, Queiro is a USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) New Leader Program graduate, an active Civilian Career Leadership Development participant and mentor, American Military University Career Mentor, and Operation Noble Heart volunteer. She has volunteered as a Lifestyle Insight, Networking, Knowledge, and Skills (LINKS) mentor; Onslow County Women’s Shelter Victim Advocate; and Key Volunteer. She is also a lifetime member of the Women’s Marine Association.

To call her Superwoman would be a gross understatement.

VIPs at the national MSOY award ceremony included current senior military spouses Mrs. Annette Conway, wife of General James Conway, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps; Mrs. Ellen Roughead, wife of Admiral Gary Roughead, USN, Chief of Naval Operations; Mrs. Suzie Schwartz, wife of General Norton Schwartz, USAF, Air Force Chief of Staff; Mrs. Pamela Allen, wife of Admiral Thad Allen, USCG, Commandant of the Coast Guard; Mrs. Beth Chiarelli, wife of General Peter Chiarelli, USA, Army Vice Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. and Mrs. Jack C. Stultz, Chief of the Army Reserve; in addition to Members of Congress and other senior military officials.

“Tanya’s devotion to her family and others in need makes her a most deserving recipient of the 2009 Military of the Spouse Year,” said Babette Maxwell, Co-Founder and Executive Editor, Military Spouse magazine. “Without hesitation Tanya puts others before herself, sees and fulfills needs of those around her, and works for the betterment of ‘community.’”

“The reason USAA exists is to help military families with their financial security and the peace of mind that brings — especially to the military spouse who shoulders so much responsibility,” said Joe Robles, USAA’s CEO and a retired major general. “I know I couldn’t have done what I did for the Army if my wife, Patty hadn’t taken care of everything else.”

Queiro was chosen from more than 650 Military Spouse magazine reader nominees. One finalist was chosen for each branch, based on voting from readers and an outside military spouse selection committee. Branch winners included Susan Webb of Glasford, IL (Air Force); Misti Stevens of Fort Campbell, KY (Army); Trish Pruett of Miami, FL (Coast Guard); Tanya Queiro of Jacksonville, NC (Marine Corps); and Christy Kuriatnyk of Ellerslie, GA (Navy). The 2009 MSOY award represents the positive qualities of a military spouse. Criteria used to select the recipient included impact on community change, volunteerism, personal sacrifice, education and career pursuits, and other spouse-related efforts. The 2008 Military Spouse of the Year was Army wife Mrs. Chelle Brewer.

Military Spouse magazine, published by veteran-owned Victory Media, is the leading national magazine for the nation’s 1.1 million current and 20 million former military spouses. The company also publishes G.I. Jobs (www.gijobs.com) and Vetrepreneur (www.NaVoba.com). The MSOY award and ceremony are sponsored by USAA. For more information, including a video on Mrs. Queiro, visit http://msoy.milspouse.com/.

USAA, a diversified financial services group of companies, is among the leading providers of financial planning, insurance, investments, and banking products to members of the U.S. military and their families. For the past three years, BusinessWeek magazine ranked USAA among the top two “Customer Service Champs,” highlighting our legendary commitment of providing highly competitive financial products for more than 6.8 million members. For more information about USAA, or to learn more about membership, visit usaa.com.

SOURCE Military Spouse magazine

April 22, 2009

by Mackenzie Eaglen
Special Report #50
Introduction
The Heritage Foundation

America’s armed forces are facing a convergence of events that poses challenging questions for the future. Eight years of warfare in two theaters have understandably consumed the energy and institutional focus of the military ser­vices–particularly the U.S. Army and Marine Corps–and worn out equipment at a rate that will require consider­able recapitalization. Furthermore, a robust defense requires a growing U.S. economy, but the economic recession has placed a tremendous burden on the federal government and taxpayers, swelling the chorus of voices calling for cutting the defense budget to pay for domestic initiatives. Many policymakers are searching for another peace divi­dend, which simply does not exist. Finally, President Barack Obama and Congress have openly committed to change the course of American foreign and defense policy.

The U.S. military’s grueling counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations in this decade have focused the Pentagon’s attention on near-term priorities of winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, training for counterinsurgency, shifting a majority of stateside equipment to Central Command, using the Guard and Reserves as operational forces, dramatically increasing the pay and benefits of servicemembers and their families, and reforming the acquisition process to field platforms more quickly. The military’s enhanced proficiency in irregular warfare–especially given that the U.S. shed these capabilities after the Vietnam War–is a welcome contribution to building a force capable of the full spectrum of military missions. However, the unpredictable international security environment and the long-term planning necessary to field new weapons systems require a military capable of accomplishing a number of broadly defined objectives. These include a Navy that can project power through the maritime domain, an Air Force that can control the skies, an uninterrupted global logistics network, and appropriately sized U.S. ground forces that are sufficiently trained and equipped for both conventional and irregular warfare missions.

The Battle of the Defense Budget

The level of spending required to perform a broad range of missions will require steady, robust funding for sev­eral years. Predictable levels of defense spending will allow the military to reset, rebuild, and modernize arsenals and train forces for all types of warfare. However, forcing the military to make unnecessary trade-offs, accepting too much risk, assuming that potential threats will never materialize, or not reducing global military commitments in line with changes in defense strategy could ultimately produce a hollow force that is unready, unable, or too small to fulfill its operational demands or that is at a technological disadvantage on the battlefield.

The current global economic downturn has prompted many to observe that it is somehow necessary to reduce spending. Regrettably, the U.S. defense budget is typically the first target of budget cuts to free funding for domestic programs. Declarations that “tough choices” will be needed on military procurement in the coming years are wide­spread. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reiterated this mandate during recent testimony before Congress.[1] He then followed through with this mandate by proposing a number of significant procurement changes within the defense budget next year.[2]

Modernizing Military Compensation

Instead of discussing what the military can do without–sacrifices that are often paid with life and limb–the debate over hard choices should focus on the unsustainable costs of the military’s archaic compensation system. Restructuring how Congress pays the military to make it more cost-effective and responsive to the needs of today’s highly mobile workforce would produce significant cost savings for the military. It would also enhance the ability of the all-volunteer force to recruit and retain the most talented individuals the nation has to offer.

Congress should promote the principles of choice and flexibility for military benefits, particularly health care and retirement. Congress should begin by launching a five-year pilot program to replace some current in-kind ben­efits with cash as proposed by the Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation. Congress should mandate that the Pentagon report on ways to focus the TRICARE military health care system more on prevention and adopt civilian practices such as an open enrollment period. These types of reforms would help to stabilize and ultimately reduce overall personnel costs. Dollars freed within the defense budget should immediately be reinvested, specifi­cally for modernization.

Reforming Defense Acquisition

While defense acquisition reform is popular in theory, the sheer size and scope of defense acquisition will make reform difficult unless it is broken down into manageable pieces. First, Congress needs to learn to abstain from typ­ical risk-averse behavior patterns. Members of Congress have often given in to the temptation to overregulate the defense market, which contributes to cost overruns and often inhibits small businesses from breaking into the defense market. Funding a robust procurement account will allow for higher build rates, which will stimulate con­tractor competition, increase per-unit savings, and provide a steady workload for the nation’s defense industrial base. Congress should also restore the balance between research and development (R&D) and procurement to pro­vide incentives for contractors to push programs into the hands of the military.

Pentagon leaders should work to shorten the contract bidding process and to create an enduring template for producing simple acquisition criteria to reduce the number of protests. As it grows, the defense acquisition work­force must bolster its systems engineering capabilities within buying divisions to reduce reliance on contractors. Finally, Congress should carefully review and approve ways to allow defense contractors to broaden their base of customers abroad, which will reduce costs to the U.S. military and bolster interoperability among allies.

Mackenzie M. Eaglen is Senior Policy Analyst for National Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Eric Sayers, a Research Assistant in the Allison Center, contributed to this report.

More here

By GERARD O’DWYER
Published: 7 May 2009 13:42
Defense News

HELSINKI, Finland - The Danish government wants to boost defense spending and retain its original plan to acquire 48 multirole combat aircraft, Defense Minister Søren Gade said.

“The information for making any decision on the aircraft is not ready just yet. Negotiations on the national defense plan must take priority now. As for defense budget increases, nothing has been decided,” said Gade.

The annual increase could be as high as $100 million, said Soren Espersen, the defense spokesman for the Danske Folkparti (Danish People’s Party), an opposition party.

The government is talking with opposition political groups about national defense before it completes a national defense bill.

The Ministry of Defense (MoD) hopes to bring the overdue bill before parliament in May or June; the delay has forced the government to postpone its decision on the combat fighter choice until September or October.

Several of Denmark’s biggest opposition parties, and in particular the Social Democrats (SDP), oppose increases in defense spending and the aircraft purchase.

The SDP is also against raising funding for Denmark’s military operations in Afghanistan.

The SDP wants a “lower defense spend to reflect a more intelligent” approach by government to cutting the defense allocation in the face of serious economic challenges, said John Dyrby Paulsen, the SDP’s spokesman on defense. “We have made our position clear. In these tough economic conditions, the government must act in the best interests of the country. We are not convinced that Denmark needs to buy 48 new combat aircraft. That is a Cold War-era figure, and our needs now are halve that number.”

The MoD are looking for an year-on-year increase in the order of $90 million to $100 million, Espersen said.

Danish defense budgets and security policy have been organized on a five-year agreement systems since 1988, a process that requires the government to secure a broad parliamentary majority and support from the main opposition political parties.

The latest defense agreement, which covers 2005 to 2009 and which was signed in June 2004, allocated the military an annual budget of $3.87 billion. 40 percent of the budget goes to the Danish Defense Forces’s (DDF) combat operational capability, while 40 percent is for the DDF’s support structures.

All content © 2009, Army Times Publishing Company

06 May 2009

Air Force Technology

The Pentagon’s next five-year budget is likely to build on far-reaching 2010 recommendations rather than map out even greater changes, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said on Tuesday.

Lynn said Defense Secretary Robert Gates was able to draft a more strategically significant 2010 budget plan than normally seen in the transition between administrations since he had stayed on in office under President Barack Obama and had already had two years to “develop his thinking.”

“In that sense, I think what you should expect in the QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review) and the fiscal ‘11 to ‘15 programme is that he is going to build on those decisions,” Lynn said when asked if the next budget would contain even greater changes.

Lynn said the Pentagon would continue to focus on taking care of the all-volunteer US military force, shifting resources from conventional to irregular warfare, and continuing acquisition reforms begun in the 2010 budget.

The Pentagon is also inviting other departments and agencies to participate in the congressionally mandated major defence review conducted every four years, as part of a drive by Gates to ensure that diplomacy and other non-military initiative can help augment military programmes.

That is particularly important in the area of reconstruction after military conflicts, Lynn said.

Gates is recommending big shifts in major weapons programmes as part of a $534bn defence budget for fiscal year 2010, not including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Details of the Obama administration’s fiscal 2010 budget are due to be released on Thursday, Lynn said.

Lynn, a former defence official and top lobbyist for Raytheon, acknowledged that lawmakers have raised concerns about specific programmes decisions in the sweeping changes unveiled by Gates on 6 April, but the overall reaction has been positive.

“I’m not uncomfortable with where we are,” Lynn said, when asked about congressional reaction and moves by some lawmakers to add funding for programmes being axed or cut back by the Pentagon.

Lynn said the department is determined to get a handle on chronic cost overruns and schedule delays in major weapons programmes, including preliminary design review earlier in the process, better cost estimating and steps to ensure technology readiness during each stage of the development process.

“We think that will inject more discipline into the process and start to pull back from some of this requirements creep,” Lynn said.

By Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters.

Patrick Walters, National security editor | April 25, 2009
Article from: The Australian

KEVIN Rudd is set to announce Australia’s biggest military build-up since World War II, led by a multi-billion-dollar investment in maritime defence, including 100 new F-35 fighters, a doubling of the submarine fleet, and powerful new surface warships.

The new defence white paper will outline plans for a fundamental shake-up of Australia’s defence organisation to ensure that the nation can meet what the Prime Minister sees as a far more challenging and uncertain security outlook in Asia over the next two decades.

China’s steadily growing military might and the prospect of sharper strategic competition among Asia’s great powers are driving the maritime build-up, which will see new-generation submarines and warships equipped with cruise missiles, and a big new investment in anti-submarine warfare and electronic warfare platforms, including new naval helicopters.

The white paper will consider the emerging non-traditional threats to Australia, including cyber security, climate change and its associated risk of large uncontrolled people movements.

Senior government sources say Mr Rudd has insisted that defence spending remain largely insulated from the Government’s budget difficulties, but the Defence Department will still have to find at least $15 billion of internal savings over the next decade to help pay for the $100 billion-plus long-term equipment plan.

Mr Rudd said yesterday the delivery of the white paper was proving “acutely challenging as we work to defend ourselves from the global economic storm”.

“It is the most difficult environment to frame the Australian budget in modern economic history. It is also the most difficult environment to frame our long-term defence planning in modern economic history as well,” he told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce. “Nevertheless the Government will not resile even in the difficult times from the requirement for long-term coherence of our defence planning for the long-term security of our nation. This is core business for government. That is why we have forged ahead in our preparation of the defence white paper because national security needs do not disappear because of the global recession. If anything, those needs become more acute.”

Funding pressures will mean the navy will not get a fourth air warfare destroyer, and the delivery of the first batch of the RAAF’s F-35 joint strike fighters will slip by at least one year to 2014-15.

The huge cost of paying for the next-generation defence force, due to be detailed in the white paper and the forthcoming 10-year defence capability plan, will have little impact on the defence budget over the the next four years.

Apart from the air warfare destroyers and the F-35 fighters, most of the planned defence purchases will not have to be paid for until well into the next decade and beyond.

Mr Rudd and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon are expected to release the long-awaited white paper as early as next week, with the more detailed 10-year defence capability plan due to be published by mid-year.

The naval build-up will be led by a planned 12-strong submarine fleet expected to replace the Collins-class boats from 2025. It will enable the RAN to deploy up to seven boats to protect Australia’s northern approaches, including key maritime straits running through the Indonesian archipelago, at times of high threat.

The white paper will outline the requirement for a new class of eight 7000-tonne warships equipped with ballistic missile defence systems similar to the three air warfare destroyers already on order that will eventually replace the Anzac frigates.

A new class of 1500-tonne corvette-size patrol boats able to take a helicopter is slated to replace the Armidale-class vessels from the mid-2020s.

The more robust maritime force will also mean the RAAF’s veteran AP-3 Orion fleet being replaced with a mix of at least eight P-8 Poseidon long-range surveillance aircraft, together with up to seven unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, possibly the US-made Global Hawk, operating out of an expanded Edinburgh air base in South Australia.

The navy is also expected to acquire up to 27 anti-submarine helicopters.

Mr Rudd has foreshadowed the maritime build-up as pointing to the need for Australia to accommodate “huge increases in military spending here in our own region”.

“If we are going to defend our sea-lines of communication to the rest of the world, we have got to make sure that we have got the naval capability to underpin that. And Australia must therefore have necessary maritime power in the future in order to give that effect,” Mr Rudd said late last year.

As well as re-equipping with up to 100 F-35 fighters, the air force is expected to get up to six extra C-130J Hercules transport aircraft and a replacement for the Vietnam war-era Caribou light transport, expected to be the C-27J.

The $10 billion long-term expansion and “hardening and networking” of the army will continue with the regular army growing to about 30,000, including eight infantry battalions.

The army’s Chinook helicopter fleet is expected to expand from six to 10 aircraft and the land force is expected to be re-equipped with self-propelled and towed artillery in the next decade.

The army will also acquire a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles from 2020.

The new white paper says Australia’s defence force should be capable of taking the lead security role in Australia’s neighbourhood, particularly the South Pacific, as well as having the ability to deploy military forces further afield.

Senior government sources say this year’s white paper is a more broad-ranging and ambitious document than the 2000 white paper. It aims to give Australia more strategic weight and the Government more options when it comes to deploying military forces in the neighbourhood or further afield.

The white paper has moved defence doctrine back to a more regionally-focused approach firmly founded on the defence of Australia. It rejects the notion that terrorism and unconventional intrastate conflict should be a primary driver of the defence force structure.

The Rudd Government’s focus on expensive war-fighting equipment underlines the Prime Minister’s view that Australia must face up to a much broader range of contingencies, including the strategic consequences of inter-state conflict in Asia.

For the first time the white paper will address in detail electronic warfare trends, particularly the growing cyber security threat to Australia’s national security network.

The Government is already investing millions of dollars to bolster Australia’s cyber defence capability, led by the Defence Signals Directorate, and will invest even more heavily in the years ahead to protect critical infrastructure from cyber attacks already being mounted by a number of countries led by China and Russia. The Government is also moving quietly to bolster Australia’s ability to mount offensive cyber operations.

The threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation in the Asia-Pacific will also be carefully monitored by Defence but the Government has ruled out any early development of a dedicated ballistic missile defence system for Australia. The biggest challenge to the blueprint remains the global economic crisis.

Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:40pm EDT

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Senator Richard Shelby are due to meet on Thursday to discuss Shelby’s concerns about a long-delayed aerial refueling plane competition, which prompted him to put a hold on the nomination of a new chief Pentagon weapons buyer.

Shelby’s spokesman Jonathan Graffeo said the two men would meet at Shelby’s congressional office on Thursday, following Shelby’s meeting on Monday with Ashton Carter, President Barack Obama’s nominee for defense undersecretary for acquisitions.

Shelby on Monday said he was encouraged by his meeting with Carter, but would maintain a hold on his nomination until after he met with Gates. He said Carter assured him that he wanted to buy the best value tanker and cost was not the only criteria.

Shelby and fellow Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, both of Alabama, are holding up Carter’s confirmation by the Senate.

They are worried that a new competition for aerial refueling tanker could result in a price “shoot out” that would work against the larger plane proposed by Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) and its European partner, EADS (EAD.PA).

Northrop was awarded a $35 billion tanker contract in February 2008, and planned to build that plane in Alabama, but the Pentagon canceled the deal after government auditors upheld a protest filed by losing bidder Boeing Co (BA.N).

Northrop officials have said an Air Force debriefing given to Boeing after the contract award may have included pricing data that could give it an advantage in the new competition.

Northrop also wants to ensure that the new competition includes a mechanism to weigh the greater capability offered by its larger A330-based tanker versus that of the smaller 767-based tanker offered by Boeing.

“These planes are very different. In our view, the plane that offers greater capability needs to get credit in the selection process,” Belote said.

Gates told reporters last week that he expected movement on the nomination soon, and that the Pentagon would let lawmakers review the new criteria for the tanker competition and get their input before proceeding with any contract award.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved Carter’s nomination earlier this month, but it cannot be voted on by the full Senate until Shelby and Sessions lift their hold.

The Pentagon plans to launch a new tanker competition this summer, and hopes to award a contract next year.

It will be the Air Force’s third bid to replace its aging fleet of KC-135 refueling planes, which are nearly 50 years old on average. The Air Force’s first plan to lease and buy 100 Boeing 767s died in 2004 amid a major procurement scandal.

Gates scrapped the subsequent revamped competition, initially won by Northrop, after congressional auditors found problems in the Air Force’s handling of the competition.

Gates opposes a proposal by some lawmakers to accelerate purchase of the new tankers and buy some from both teams, a move they say would avoid further protests and delays. Gates argues that such a move would double the projected development cost for a new tanker from $7 billion to $14 billion.

But supporters of the dual award strategy say it could actually save as much as $39 billion in the long run by keeping both companies competing for the work and avoiding the cost growth often associated with sole-source programs.

Logistics and training costs for two new tankers could be offset by using the extensive supply chain and logistics networks already in place to support the commercial variants of the two tanker aircraft, they say.

If confirmed, Carter, a Harvard University professor and former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, would replace John Young as undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Carol Bishopric)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

16 April 2009

Air Force Technology

A review of defence programmes produced every four years could bring big changes in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2011 budget, beyond the sweeping overhaul already unveiled for 2010, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.

“We have to be prepared for the wars we are most likely to fight, not just the wars we’re best suited to fight, or threats we conjure up from potential adversaries with unlimited time and resources,” Gates told officers at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama.

The government’s fiscal 2010 year begins on 1 October.

Gates said he has put off decisions on several weapons programmes until the Pentagon completes an accelerated quadrennial defence review (QDR) later this year. Those programmes include amphibious military operations, a next-generation cruiser and work on a new bomber.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Gates plans to sign off on the ‘terms of reference’ for the review soon. Both the defence review and an examination of US nuclear weapons policy will factor into the 2011 budget deliberations, he said.

Gates said the review will let the Pentagon fully incorporate lessons from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other rapidly evolving threats, for future weapons. “War in the future will be often be a hybrid blend of tactics,” he said.

As part of the quadrennial defence review, Gates said the air force faces critical questions about the requirements for a new manned bomber and the implications that the growing use of unmanned aerial systems has for the manned fighter fleet.

For example, the Reaper unmanned system built by Northrop Grumman has a range of 3,000 miles, far more than the Pentagon’s manned F-16 fighters, and can be loaded up with many weapons, he said.

Decisions on a new manned bomber, which the air force had hoped to have in service by 2018, would also be affected by the outcome of new arms control negotiations between the United States and Russia, Gates said.

Another question, he said, is how many aerial refuelling tankers the air force will ultimately need, given that unmanned aerial vehicles, which are an increasingly important part of the fleet, do not refuel in mid-air.

“As we look towards the future, I have directed the QDR team to be realistic about the scenarios where direct US military action would be required,” he said.

The Pentagon also remains too focused on buying weapons for individual services “that are so costly and complex that they take forever to build and only then in very limited quantities,” Gates said. That is why any new competition to build search-and-rescue helicopters will be a joint programme, rather than the now-scrapped air force competition, he said.

Gates defended his recent decisions to halt production of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter at 187 fighters and boost funding for the F-35 fighter, also being developed by Lockheed, from $6.8bn to $11.2bn. Russia, he said, is six years away from fielding a new fifth-generation fighter while China still needs ten to 12 more years.

“Looking forward, the goal of our weapons buying is to develop a portfolio – a mixture of weapons whose flexibility allows us to respond to a spectrum of contingencies,” he said, adding that old definitions of conventional and unconventional war are no longer useful.

“Focusing exclusively, or obsessively, on a single weapons system designed to do a specific job or confront a single adversary ignores what a truly joint force can and must do in the 21st century,” Gates said.

Gates said the US military needs more rigorous analysis to help it make difficult choices on which weapons systems to pursue, and which to set aside.

Analysts have mixed views on the expected impact of the quadrennial defence review on the defence sector.

Rob Stallard with Macquarie Securities said in an analyst note on Wednesday that earlier efforts to stamp out defence programme cost overruns and delays have not yielded many results, and he does not foresee ‘any radical changes to the programme priority list beyond what has already been announced’.

Joseph Nadol at JP Morgan said Boeing’s defence business would be the ‘chief casualty’ of Gates’s proposed budget cuts and could shrink considerably if Gates prevailed in the coming fight with lawmakers over key programmes.

Gates acknowledged that he faces some resistance in Congress over his plan for a sweeping overhaul of weapons spending, but said he hopes to leverage acquisition ‘horror stories’ from years past to get support from lawmakers.

He said he is ‘laying [his] body down across the tracks’ to oppose moves by lawmakers to split the purchase of air force aerial refuelling tankers between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

Meanwhile, Gates said his continued support for the littoral combat ship being developed by Lockheed and General Dynamics is based on its versatility and ability to go places too dangerous for the Navy’s larger vessels.

“As we saw last week, you don’t necessarily need a billion-dollar ship to chase down a bunch of pirates,” Gates said.

By Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters.

By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 14 Apr 2009 20:24
Defense News

ABOVE SOUTHWEST GEORGIA AND FORT RUCKER, Ala. - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he has had no direct conversations with lawmakers about the raft of major program decisions he unveiled last week. He also threw a new wrinkle into the Air Force’s KC-X tanker program, saying buying both competitors’ planes would drive up program costs by as much as $14 billion.

Gates last week announced about 50 decisions on major acquisition programs that will be included in the Obama administration’s 2010 defense budget plan. That announcement was answered by criticism from both sides of the aisle from lawmakers concerned that his decisions could impact their districts and states.

Among other moves, his 2010 plan ends F-22 production, and increases and accelerates F-35 production. Gates several times last week urged lawmakers to “rise above parochial interests.”

Gates said he has been “pleasantly surprised” by the reaction from Capitol Hill since his program announcement. What defense officials have heard from lawmakers, he said, is “a number of responses” that he labeled “thoughtful.”

The secretary quipped that he wonders “if I am in the eye of the storm” because Congress is still in recess for Easter.

He spoke to a group of reporters on April 14 traveling with him to Fort Rucker, Ala., where he toured facilities and spoke with helicopter pilots. Gates will give remarks on April 15 at another Alabama military base, Maxwell Air Force Base.

The two-day swing is an opportunity, according to defense officials, for Gates to explain some of the decisions that shaped the Pentagon’s 2010 spending plan, due to Congress next month.

He is visiting those two Alabama bases, he said, because “those are places where our future generals and admirals are doing their schooling.”

During a press briefing the same day moments before leaving Fort Rucker, Gates reiterated his opposition to splitting a 179-plane, $35 billion Air Force contract for new aerial refueling tankers between Boeing and a rival team composed of Northrop Grumman and EADS.

The secretary said splitting the contract would increase tanker development costs by $7 billion to $14 billion. Gates told reporters “we do not need” the two costly maintenance, logistical and training systems that buying planes from each team would make necessary.

Some prominent lawmakers, such as Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, have signaled they may insert language - and additional monies - into fiscal 2010 defense funding legislation to split the buy. Murtha and other lawmakers feel such a move is the lone way out the scandal- and protest-ridden KC-X competition, which has been started and stopped several times this decade.

He also reinforced his plans to re-start the program this summer and possibly award a single contract early next year. While some lawmakers and defense analysts say a single-source award will inevitably lead the losing side to again delay getting new flying gas stations on the ramp, Gates said so long as the Air Force runs a “clean competition,” he is confident the program can finally be completed.

The secretary told reporters aboard his plane en route to Fort Rucker that the 2010 defense budget will “put some money” into several new ISR systems, including ones designed to give warfighters full-motion video and information exploitation tools.

Gates said he plans to tell the troops during the two-day swing that, as future leaders, he wants them to think differently - including about the kinds of systems their services should buy in the future.

“I want them to think anew,” Gates told reporters. Specifically, he said future military leaders should pursue weapon systems that give the military “capabilities with the maximum possible flexibility … for the widest range of conflicts.”

His visit to Fort Rucker featured ample focus on his plans to increase Army helicopter accounts by $500 million in 2010. Those funds would go toward training more flight and maintenance crews that are needed to get more rotorcraft in the air in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense officials have said since Gates rolled out his 2010 plan that unmet helicopter requirements in those theaters are not because of a lack of airframes, but because the Army lacks sufficient personnel to keep the current inventory of helicopters flying.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of Training and Doctrine Command, which includes Fort Rucker, told reporters here that the command currently trains about 1,200 new helicopter pilots each year. The current demand is for about 1,500 annually.

Dempsey said the $500 million should help close the 300-pilot gap. The four-star said he expects to bring the level of newly trained pilots in line with the yearly operational requirement in about two years.

All content © 2009, Army Times Publishing Company

12 Apr 2009, 0033 hrs IST, Rajat Pandit, TNN
The Economic Times

Call it asymmetrical, irregular, low-intensity, proxy, dirty or even fourth-generation warfare, it remains a clear and present threat. This threat can only grow, forcing military strategists to jettison the traditional strategy of readiness for only conventional or “linear” warfare.

That’s probably why US defence secretary Robert Gates announced a fundamental shift in the Pentagon’s spending priorities just a few days ago. He said the US would be moving away from the billion-dollar Cold War-era weapon systems and platforms to technologies geared for asymmetrical warfare.

The US will now put more money into improving ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities, bolstering special forces, stepping up production of armed drones such as Predators and Reapers and inducting armoured vehicles and smaller warships for coastal combat operations and the like.

Programmes like the futuristic F-35 joint strike fighters will certainly continue but the US clearly wants to be ready to battle non-state actors rather than big nation-states. Should India be taking note? Yes, says former Army chief General V P Malik. “The threat is getting more and more asymmetrical and the whole nature of warfare is changing…We must take cognizance of it.”

Former Navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash points out that India has been fighting an asymmetric war “for a long time”. He says that even though the Indian Army has shown “great flexibility” in fighting this irregular war in J&K and elsewhere, “our armed forces have not really adapted to asymmetrical warfare, in terms of equipment, doctrine or strategy. We need to act and fast.”

Of course, India faces very different challenges from the US, which is getting bogged down by the asymmetrical war it’s fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, far away from home territory. A serving Indian major-general says the new American push to deal with asymmetrical war is badly needed because “US armed forces need restructuring and re-equipping in a big way to handle it”.

The problem for India is that it is fighting an irregular war within its own territory. Though success is important, India’s biggest challenge still remains conventional military threats because of its border problems with Pakistan and China. This is why, says defence analyst Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal, “we need to prepare for the entire spectrum of conflict, from sub-conventional to conventional, and even nuclear. We need light, lethal and wired armed forces to deal with the wars of the future.”

For starters, India desperately needs to formulate long-term strategic plans to dovetail military capabilities with geopolitical objectives. Apart from political apathy and bureaucratic roadblocks, this has not happened mainly because India does not have a chief of defence staff (CDS) to bring about much-needed synergy in the armed forces. The result is much jostling among the Army, Navy, IAF and Coast Guard for a piece of the limited budgetary pie.

The first casualty of this short-sighted approach is systematic planning in building military “capabilities”. For instance, the draft ‘national security strategy’ prepared by the fledgling integrated defence staff, was forwarded to the national security adviser and the Prime Minister’s Office in January 2007. It’s been gathering dust since then.

Similarly, India’s 11th Defence Plan, which covers the 2007 to 2012 period, and the much-touted Long-Term Integrated Perspective Plan 2007-2022 (LTIPP) are both yet to be finalized. This is partly because of finance and defence ministry wrangling over allocations and priorities. In effect, though India spends a lot to import weapons systems, over $28-billion worth of procurement since the 1999 Kargil conflict, it’s done in a haphazard fashion.

This is why the armed forces, for instance, have to make do with largely obsolete air defence radars, missile and gun systems, all of which are crucial if Indian airspace is to be kept safe from linear or asymmetrical threats.To take another example, the special forces, tasked with conducting “clandestine” or “irregular” warfare deep behind enemy lines, continue to suffer under poor command and control structures and inadequate specialized equipment.

These are not isolated cases. It needed the horrific 26/11 attacks on Mumbai to get the government moving on the need to revamp the coastal security system. “Fast-attack crafts and interceptor boats are now an important part of the Rs 6,805-crore coastal security plan approved by the government. Big warships, after all, are not much use in countering asymmetrical threats,” comments a senior officer. The challenge is to stay abreast of warfare trends and bolster deterrence by improving strategic defenses.

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 12, 2009; Page A02

The infrastructure and social services on Guam in the next five years will not meet the needs of the more than 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents expected to relocate there, even as other U.S. military facilities on the Pacific island are expanding, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Under a 2005 agreement with Japan, the Marines will transfer from Okinawa to Guam by 2014. At the same time, a $13 billion expansion is planned for Air Force bases and Navy port facilities on the island. Together, the changes will increase Guam’s population by almost 15 percent and “substantially” tax the island’s infrastructure, the GAO said in a report sent to Congress on Friday.

Guam’s water and wastewater systems “are near capacity and demand may increase by 25 percent,” the GAO said. The island’s solid-waste facilities have “reached the end of their projected useful life,” and the military construction demands “will exceed local capacity and the availability of workers on Guam,” the GAO added. As a result, outside workers will need to move to the island, the report said.

Also citing what could be an inadequate electric grid capacity and an overload for Guam’s only two major highways, the GAO called on Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to urge that other government agencies make the island’s problems a higher priority in their budgets.

Although the Defense Department is expected to pay for infrastructure projects directly related to the military buildup and contribute toward utilities and roads, the Guam government “is largely responsible for obtaining funding for civilian requirements related to the buildup,” the GAO said.

At a May Senate hearing, Gov. Felix P. Camacho (R) said Guam would need $6.1 billion for fiscal 2010 to support the military buildup. Guam’s revenue for fiscal 2010 is projected at $532 million.