USAF Scaled Back Vision for New Bomber

The U.S. Air Force's new bomber will be less ambitious in its performance goals than once envisioned, the service's top uniformed leader said.
"We're not going to be as ambitious as we perhaps were at one time," said Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, during the National Defense Industrial Association's Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict Symposium on Feb. 9, referring to the nascent long-range strike program.

Related Topics

• Americas
• Air Warfare

Schwartz said the less ambitious performance targets will make it easier for the Air Force to manage the program and for industry to deliver an operational aircraft on time and on budget.
"And that kind of thing will make it easier for us to manage and less challenging for industry to keep their promises," he said.
Schwartz said that in these difficult budgetary times, there is no leeway for "wishful thinking." He told industry, "It's a simple thing for me: Deliver what you promised."
One way the Air Force might scale back its ambitions might be to build the new aircraft using an incremental block approach to adding new capabilities, said Paul Kaminski, chairman of the Defense Science Board. He advocated an open systems approach that would allow the service to add new features to the aircraft as technology advances and as the threat evolves.
Most important, the Air Force must limit its ambitions for the first increment of the new bomber, he said.
"You want to be careful not to overreach with the first block," he said.
However, Kaminski said the new bomber should include the necessary hookups to incorporate those new features from the onset, because retrofitting such equipment would be exceedingly difficult and costly.
Retrofitting the aircraft with the needed electromagnetic hardening for the nuclear role needs to be planned in advance, he said. Thus, the new bomber should include the necessary space and wiring for a nuclear capability even if the plane will not receive that ability until later in its operational life.

India: No F-35 Offer From U.S.

Bangalore - India has received no U.S. offer to sell any fifth-generation aircraft, Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony said Feb. 9, rebutting reports that Washington had proffered the F-35 Lightning II.
Speaking to reporters after opening AeroIndia 2011 here, Antony said India is not going back on its commitment to help Russia develop a fifth-generation combat jet.

He said Moscow and New Delhi have resolved all of their differences on the project, which aims to produce an aircraft that can enter service with the Indian Air Force in 2017.
On the keenly contested $10 billion Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), Antony said the contract would be signed in the fiscal year that begins April 1. He said the rival aircraft are being evaluated, and a decision would be made on technical, not political, grounds.
Five of the contending aircraft flew to AeroIndia: Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin's F-16 and Saab's Gripen. The sixth contender, the MiG-35 built by Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG, did not.
Antony said the first version of India's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), 15 years late after 26 years of development, would enter the Air Force in 2013. The LCA Mark II, powered by a higher-thrust General Electric engine, would be inducted in 2015.
The eighth edition of the biennial show, AeroIndia 2011 has drawn more than 42 foreign delegations. Organized by the Indian Defence Ministry and an industry lobbying agency, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), the show will display aircraft, weapons, sponsors, and aerospace technologies and products from 675 exhibitors, including 380 from 29 foreign countries.
The United States has the largest foreign delegation with 250 members, followed by Germany with 35 and Italy with 10.

A Faulty Connection

Now that the dust has settled from Chinese President Hu Jintao's recent visit to Washington, we should pay attention to an Obama administration policy statement that could pose risks to U.S. national security. Two Cabinet secretaries have said the U.S. should be willing to sell advanced technology to China if the Chinese make sufficient economic concessions.
In a major speech on U.S.-China relations, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Jan. 12 that "China wants more access to U.S. high-technology products" and that "[w]e are willing to make progress on these issues, but our ability to move ... will depend, of course, on how much progress we see from China."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her own speech a couple of days later, where she echoed Geithner by saying that "on the economic front," the U.S. will let China buy more U.S. technology if China stops discriminating against American companies.
This link was reinforced when Hu met with House lawmakers. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., said, "If they want us to relax export controls, then they need to take vigorous steps on the protection of intellectual property."
That may sound like a routine diplomatic trade-off, but what is the nature of those controls on high-technology exports that Geithner and Clinton said they would loosen? Generally, they are controls that the State and Commerce departments maintain on the export of U.S. technology that could assist China's military development.
For instance, the Commerce Department closely restricts the export to China of certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment, since advanced semiconductors are a key element of weapons. Controlled dual-use technology is often appropriately licensed to China for commercial customers, but only after careful interagency review based on national security policy.
The Geithner and Clinton statements appeared to disregard the continued national security rationale for these controls, even though the administration has recently emphasized the risks posed by the lack of transparency in China's military.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said just the week before that he finds China's military spending "worrisome."
There have been no announced changes to U.S. controls on exports to China since the Obama-Hu summit. Moreover, China is not included in the export reform proposal the administration published last December.
However, the leaders announced that "China welcomed discussion between the two sides on the ongoing reform of the U.S. export control system and its potential implications for U.S. exports to its major trading partners, including China, consistent with U.S. national security interests."
Does this mean that the administration might follow through later on the Geithner/Clinton position of using export controls as a bargaining chip? President Barack Obama has signaled the same willingness to reduce U.S. national security controls for the sake of increased exports in other contexts.
In his 2010 State of the Union speech, the president said he would revise U.S. export controls to increase exports. Similarly, in his National Export Initiative speech last March, Obama emphasized that reforming controls would promote U.S. exports.
These comments were of concern at the time because the administration has embarked on a major initiative - managed out of the White House - to fundamentally reform our export control system. There is bipartisan support for updating these rules to focus them on the national security goals of the 21st century. The Bush administration worked hard on this, seeking to focus controls on end-users that posed particular concerns and streamlining exports to close allies such as Australia and the United Kingdom.
As Gates has argued, in some ways the current system undermines our national security objectives. For instance, the rules delay the execution of major international projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter and drive up their cost.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft led a major study at the National Academies that recommended significant reforms based on U.S. national security interests. Even with regard to China, there are probably certain U.S. restrictions that have become ineffective from a national security standpoint as a result of advances in technology made by the Chinese or other suppliers.
Yet Geithner and Clinton are wrong to link U.S. export control reform to market access. The policy must be based on national security interests, not economic factors. This error is especially worrisome in the context of China.
Further, the administration will jeopardize allied support for maintaining export controls, as well as domestic support for its hard work on export control reform, if it sacrifices national security controls for economic objectives.
Until now, a bipartisan consensus has ensured that the U.S. guards against exports to potential adversaries that would impair our military advantage. Obama should be careful to ensure that as his administration promotes exports to China and around the world, it does not thoughtlessly trade away these important controls for short-term economic gains.
Peter Lichtenbaum is former assistant secretary of commerce for export administration in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

DoD: No Mergers of Top Firms

The Pentagon will not support the merger of large defense companies, which would further consolidate the number of prime contractors at a time when the Defense Department is looking to increase the number of competitive contracts.

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter called for transparency between the industry and DoD during an expected increase in mergers in the near future. 

DoD acquisition executive Ashton Carter warned against further consolidation in the defense industry during a speech at an investor conference in New York this morning. Carter stressed the Pentagon's desire for competition, a major focus of the "Better Buying Power" initiative first announced by Defense Secretary Robert Gates last September.

"A number of our specific Better Buying Power initiatives are aimed at increasing competition among all our suppliers and throughout our procurement of goods and services," Carter said in his speech, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon. "Sometimes competition is provided by having two or more providers of the same thing go head-to-head, but where this is not possible, we can still harness this power through a wide variety of other competitive strategies that provide real incentives for increased productivity."
That said, Pentagon officials expect market forces to lead to an "uptick" in mergers and acquisitions "and other industry adjustments in the coming period," he said.
DoD "welcomes needed adjustments that lead to greater overall efficiency, but will require transparency with respect to all contemplated transactions," Carter said. "We will examine these transactions to ensure that the Department's long-term interests in a robust and competitive industrial base dominate any near-term or one-time proposed savings, that potential organizational conflicts of interest are avoided or carefully mitigated, and that we have full visibility into restructuring costs and the potential for continuing capital investment and R&D."
Still, DoD will keep the interests of taxpayers and troops in the "forefront in our minds as we review proposals that may result in the creation of weaker stand-alone firms less likely to thrive without the necessary capital structure that their larger parent company is able to provide," Carter said.
Throughout this period, he called for transparency between the industry and DoD.
"The Defense Department would not want to see its industrial base experience what has happened in some other sectors of the economy: poor risk management, unnecessary leverage and excessively short-term behavior at the expense of long-term health," Carter said. "Transparency allows all these things to be addressed early in the process, which is in the interest of all involved."
Carter also stressed the importance of healthy lower-tier suppliers, which "are centrally important to a healthy industrial base."

Inter-Korean Talks Collapse After North's Walkout

SEOUL - Military talks aimed at easing high tensions between North and South Korea broke down Feb. 9 when the North's delegation walked out, Seoul's defense ministry said.
The two sides had been meeting for the first time since the North's deadly shelling of a South Korean island on Nov. 23, which briefly sparked fears of war.

A ministry spokesman said that the delegates even failed to discuss when to meet again. "Under the current situation, we can say the talks have collapsed."
After two days of working-level discussions aimed at setting the agenda for a high-level military meeting, North and South remained far apart.
The South demanded an apology at the proposed senior-level meeting for two bloody border incidents last year.
Four people, including civilians, died in the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island near the disputed Yellow Sea border.
The South also accuses the North of torpedoing a warship last March near the border with the loss of 46 lives, a charge it denies.
Earlier on Feb. 9, the South agreed in principle to hold separate Red Cross talks on reunions for families separated since the 1950-53 war. But the unification ministry said these could not now go ahead.
The island bombardment, the first attack on a civilian area in the South since the war, sparked outrage in South Korea.
Seoul said Pyongyang must apologize at high level talks both for the shelling and the warship sinking and punish those responsible.
The North, however, said the talks should focus on halting all military actions that can be considered provocative by the other side.
Pyongyang flatly denies involvement in the sinking of the South's warship.
It says its attack on Yeonpyeong was in response to a South Korean live-fire drill there, which dropped shells into waters claimed by the North.
The South's chief delegate Col. Moon Sang-Gyun told reporters the North had described the warship allegations as a plot instigated by the United States to justify a policy of confrontation on the peninsula.
It repeated its earlier claim that the Yeonpyeong bombardment was caused by provocations from the South.
Moon said he rejected the assertions as "nonsense."
North and South had agreed to talk soon after their respective superpower patrons, China and the United States, called jointly for inter-Korean dialogue.
"Both sides are now under international pressure to continue dialogue," Dongguk University Professor Kim Yong-Hyun said.
"I don't think the collapse of talks will escalate tensions again. After a cooling-off period, I believe the North will make a fresh proposal for a new round of military talks."
After dire predictions late last year of nuclear war, the North abruptly changed tack in January and launched a spate of appeals for dialogue.
Some analysts say the events fit a pattern in which the North manufactures a crisis, and then suggests negotiations in hopes of aid concessions.
South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said Feb. 9 that a North Korean diplomat, at a meeting in New York last month, had asked the United States to resume the food aid it suspended in 2009.
China for its part is striving to revive six-party talks that offer the North economic and diplomatic benefits in return for nuclear disarmament.
But the United States says the North must mend ties with the South before the nuclear dialogue can resume.
North and South were briefly "in the same bed but dreaming different dreams," said Hong Hyun-Ik of Seoul's Sejong Institute think-tank.
"The South believes the North's dire economic situation will force it to accept responsibility for the incidents, but the North cannot swallow its pride for the sake of opening talks with the South," Hong said.
"The North will now say to the U.S. and China that it did all it could to resume dialogue with the South."

SOCOM Moved Quickly To Create Daytime Gunship

Direct acquisition authority has allowed U.S. Special Operations Command to quickly and quietly deploy a heavily modified C-130 cargo hauler that can strike ground targets with precision-guided weapons.
The MC-130W Dragon Spear went from concept to flying with a minimum capability in less than 90 days and deployed in 18 months, according to SOCOM chief Adm. Eric Olson.

"This is light speed in the acquisition world, but we were able to do it because we do have the authorities and, frankly, the talent to make that kind of thing happen," Olson said.
The MC-130W has already deployed to Iraq and is now flying in Afghanistan, Olson said.
Unlike traditional acquisition programs, which are run by the individual services and overseen by the weapons buying division of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, SOCOM ran the development and fielding of the Dragon Spear.
"It was in some ways a pilot project for us," Olson said Feb. 8 during a presentation at a National Defense Industrial Association-sponsored conference in Washington, D.C. "We formed a joint acquisition task force within Special Operations Command, grabbed control of this project and have delivered."
The Dragon Spear program installs a gun, sensor and standoff precision weapons on the MC-130, an aircraft typically used for inserting special operations forces and aerial refueling helicopters. Unlike Air Force Special Operations Command-operated AC-130 gunships, the precision weapons allow the Dragon Spear to fly daytime missions - and at a greater standoff distance.
The four-star admiral also touted a system used in Afghanistan that involves an "airborne-mounted overt laser that projects a beam that illuminates a spot on the ground."
Commanders "are finding more and more uses for an illuminated spot on the ground," he said. "It can prevent fratricide, it can cause people to muster against a target, it can have a powerful psychological effect if you are standing in the beam." SOCOM officials are currently building tactics, techniques and procedures for the system.
In addition to these rapid-acquisition initiatives, SOCOM is preparing for some new weapons, including undersea and surface mobility, as well as air, land and sea remotely piloted systems.
For years, SOCOM tried to field the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), a mini-submarine designed to carry special operations forces during covert missions. Although contractor Northrop Grumman delivered the first ASDS in 2003, the craft suffered from reliability issues and design flaws. The Pentagon scrapped plans to buy more mini-subs in 2006. The program came to a halt in 2009 after a fire burned out the vessel's interior.
"We're working on revamping our undersea mobility," Olson said. "We didn't focus on that for a while, but we're revamping that program."
As for maritime surface mobility platforms, the Navy's Mark V special operations boat "is reaching the end of its service life," Olson said.
SOCOM is also using a deployable solar-fueled system that can power a forward operating base. A prototype system is already deployed.

Unanswered Challenges

The admiral noted that he has not "received satisfactory answers" to a number of challenges he posed to the defense industry back when he was SOCOM vice commander. Olson wants to know how the Pentagon's investment in simulation technology has reduced operational and training costs and how the investment in reach-back technologies has reduced the number of forward-deployed troops.
He also asked that programs designed to save people and money follow through with promises and younger people present these programs to him.
"I won't say they're completely unanswered," Olson said. "We've made starts in each of those areas, but largely we are still a community that's found ourselves unable to take full advantage of the potential of technological development, and I think we do it better than most of the rest of the [Defense] Department does. Even within the special operations forces, we've struggled to do that."
To accomplish this, cultural change is required, he said.

Shakeup Atop Russia's No. 1 Arms Exporter

MOSCOW - Almaz-Antei, Russia's leading arms exporter, replaced the head of its design bureau, according to a Feb. 4 statement on the company website.
Igor Ashurbeili, was replaced by his first deputy, Vitaly Neskorodov, after a unanimous vote by the design bureau's board of directors, the statement said.

Industry insiders quoted in the Russian press described by the conflict between Ashurbeili and the concern's leadership. Ashurbeili, who had run the design bureau since 2000, was said to be defending commercial independence of his design bureau that directly dealt with the Defense Ministry and the state arms export monopoly, Rosoboronexport.
Almaz-Antei, which develops and produces anti-aircraft missiles, had 2009 defense revenues of $3.3 billion.
The design bureau, formerly NPO Almaz, which was merged with rival NPO Antei in 2002 to make Russia's biggest defense company, has developed and produces powerful S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile defense systems popular on the international market. The bureau develops prospective S-500 anti-aircraft, anti-missile system for the Russian military.