April 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace
By THERESA HITCHENSon April 16, 2020 at 4:28 PM
WASHINGTON: The Air Force wants Congress to approve new powers allowing the service to fund space acquisition in ‘blocks' that would allow it more freedom to shift funds from one specific program to another, says service acquisition head Will Roper.
The idea, he told reporters today, is to give the Space Force acquisition authorities that mimic those used by fast-moving and highly capable organizations such as the Special Capabilities Office and the NRO. The mechanism: putting multiple programs into one budgetary program element (PE) number so priorities can be juggled or monies shifted to ailing programs to help them cope with cost or schedule overruns.
“One of the things that we are very passionate about for space acquisition is trying to consolidate the space portfolio into a few number of program elements,” Roper said, noting that when he headed the SCO “we funded almost all of our programs out of one program element. That's really important because it let me optimize the portfolio of programs, not just do individual programs,” he explained. “Well, the way that the Air Force and now Space Force put their budget submissions into Congress, it puts all of the programs into individual program elements, and that's like locking [each] program into a little financial prison.”
Although it is true that other organizations with acquisition powers — including SCO, NRO and the Missile Defense Agency — have such flexibility, it is unclear whether Congress will acquiesce to the same for the Space Force. The 2016 NDAA created a new “major force program” — MFP 12 — for DoD reporting on the national security space budget precisely to overcome: a) the lack of transparency in DoD budgeting for space programs, and b) the long-standing Air Force practice to shift space funds to air power programs that were suffering setbacks. However, an MFP does not allow the Air Force or other space services to move money around without congressional assent.
As late as the 2020 budget request, DoD admitted that it still had not sorted out how exactly to meet the MFP-12 requirement as it was still developing standard practices for determining what should be included or not.
Joshua Huminski, director of the National Security Space Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress (CSPC), said wryly that the Air Force request is likely to “require very artful selling to Congress.” He explained in a phone conversation today that congressional leaders already are keeping the Air Force on a short leash regarding space acquisition.
Roper said the request for such new authorities will be included in the space acquisition report Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett is required to send to Congress under language in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That report was due March 31 but has yet to be transmitted.
Roper said the report is finished but is being reviewed by Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
As I've reported, Barrett's report will punt on the question of whether the NDAA-required Space Force acquisition executive will be a fully separate office or will be organized in some fashion as a subunit of Roper's current shop. It's no secret that Roper has strenuously opposed a fully bifurcated space acquisition office.
Roper confirmed today that the pending report is concentrating on how the service hopes to use its current, and newly proposed, acquisition authorities to speed the often decades-long process of moving new space capabilities from design to procurement. He explained that the Air Force will wait until after Congress decides on its proposal for future space acquisition authorities before circling back to the organizational question — in effect, meaning that the service will not address the issue until after the 2021 NDAA is passed.
“And then once we determine what will be given to us or not, then for round two, we'll look at what's the right way to organize with these new authorities, and at that point we'll take on the question of whether there should be one or two service acquisition executives,” he elaborated.
The service has until October 2020 to establish the controversial new space acquisition post.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/af-seeks-freedom-to-shift-between-space-programs
May 17, 2023 | International, C4ISR
Command posts of the past were relatively stationary, cumbersome to set up and break down, and often identifiable by the heat and noise they emit.
February 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The words “classified program” conjure up images of experimental planes, highly advanced super weapons and unidentified flying objects operating under cloak and dagger at Area 51. But as the U.S. Air Force gears up to defend its fiscal 2021 budget on Capitol Hill, lifting the veil of secrecy on some of these programs will be key to getting lawmakers on board with controversial retirements of legacy aircraft, defense analysts said. In its FY21 budget proposal, the Air Force asked to cut 17 B-1 bombers, 44 A-10 jet aircraft, 24 Global Hawk Block 2 and 3 surveillance drones, as well as 13 KC-135 and 16 KC-10 tankers. It is also cutting the number of contractor-flown MQ-9 Reaper combat air patrols, and it will replace 24 C-130H airlifters with 19 C-130Js coming online. Those reductions net $21 billion in savings over the next five years, with about 40 percent of that spent on classified programs buried in the black budget, creating the initial appearance of capabilities disappearing without any kind of a replacement and no obvious boost to research and development funds. That could create a challenge for the Air Force as it tries to get members of Congress and their staff on board, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein acknowledged during an exclusive interview on Feb. 18 with Defense News. “Most of what we're giving up is unclassified. On the minus column you're going to see things that are real, that are flying right now that are all legacy, real legacy capability. It's a real risk to combatant commanders today. What we're buying — not all but a lot of it — is in the classified realm,” Goldfein said. “As we go forward with Congress, I think our biggest challenge, quite frankly, is we were able to talk up to the secret level and above inside the Department of Defense in most of our conversations. That's harder to do with Congress,” he added. The Air Force is trying to combat that by “doubling down” on office calls with lawmakers and congressional staff to discuss the classified investments. Goldfein said the service has done “well over 20” meetings with members of the congressional defense committees and is on track to brief every lawmaker willing to sit down for a classified briefing before public budget hearings start next month. But Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense budget expert at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that such briefings are time-consuming and may not be of interest to most lawmakers. "The members that are going to take the time to go to a [secure room] and get read in and figure out what's what — there are even some members of the armed services [that won't do that]. It's pretty limited who is going to have that kind of time,” she said. It will be important for the Air Force to publicly justify — at unclassified hearings and other venues — what its classified investments are going to enable, said Todd Harrison, a budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “How does it contribute to implementation of the [National Defense Strategy]? How does it address vulnerabilities in the force? How does it create strategic challenges for our adversaries? If they can talk about that and then [be] more explicit with Congress about how the money is being used, I think that could help mitigate some of this,” Harrison said. “If you can't talk about the new investment, the positive aspect for 40 percent of the cases, I think the Air Force is effectively going into this fight with one arm tied behind its back.” While the large investment in classified programs is a challenge, it is not insurmountable, said David Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and a retired Air Force lieutenant general. “Because a good chunk is classified, that's a good thing. These are truly strategic advantages that we're investing in, and they're not items that you'd want out there in the public space,” he said. Goldfein is confident he will be able to convey to Congress the importance of retiring key aircraft at this point in time. “At least we can lay out the why,” he said. “It's going to be hard. Asking Congress to retire legacy aircraft is always hard. But I think we have a really positive story to tell, with the analysis behind it.” Across the board — whether the Air Force has to defend cuts to the B-1, A-10, Global Hawk or tanker fleet — the argument comes down to fleet management, he said. “We're putting on the table 17 B-1s, at least to this point,” Goldfein said. “Many of those 17 B-1s are on the ramp, but they were not flying. Then you do your business case on what it would take to actually get them back to a high enough readiness rate, and the business case actually doesn't justify it. “You'll see the same methodology we used for each of those weapons systems. How do you retire the oldest of each, refunnel that money into the remaining fleet so you can keep that fleet flying for longer?” But any skeptics in Congress will want to see hard data proving there are benefits to retiring some of these aircraft, or a plan to drive down risk, Harrison said. For instance, the Air Force is retiring its oldest, least capable B-1 bombers, but it will keep all associated maintainers and infrastructure, which cuts down on the savings. To make a case to Congress, the Air Force must make a strong argument on why that reduction could improve mission-capable rates, and the service must provide the statistics, he said. Regarding the KC-10 and KC-135 tanker reductions, Harrison said the Air Force must describe exactly what it will do to ameliorate a demand for aerial refueling that already exceeds what the service can provide. “What is the Air Force going to do over the next few years to mitigate the lack of tanker support? Is the Air Force going to go forward with some of the plans they've previously had to do contracted tanking as an interim solution like the Navy has been doing?” he wondered. And to justify the Global Hawk fleet, Harrison said, the Air Force may be called to defend why it is getting rid of those highly utilized assets instead of the aging inventory of U-2 spy planes. The biggest arguments in favor of keeping legacy aircraft will likely come from lawmakers in districts affected by retirements of legacy aircraft. It will be up to the Air Force to explain to those members what capabilities will come on board to replace it, or why these divestments need to take place even if there is no immediate replacement, Deptula said. “We'll see what happens,” he said. “I think in some districts you'll see understanding and support. If you look at the bomber issue ... with the promise of modernized B-21s that are coming on board, I think that there are some congressional districts and members who will go: ‘Yeah, OK, we understand that logic.' ” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2020/02/24/convincing-congress-secretive-programs-could-prove-harmful-to-air-force-funding-plans/
June 2, 2022 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
After a two-year hiatus, thousands of attendees from across the globe gathered at this year's EBACE to see what new and exciting products and services would be revealed.