September 22, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
Contracts for September 21, 2021
Today
April 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace
AF Seeks Freedom To Shift $$ Between Space Programs
"[T]he 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," Roper said, "and that's like locking [each] program into a little financial prison."
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
On the same subject
-
-
July 31, 2024 | International, Land
Rheinmetall expands presence in Hungary with ammunition plant
With production set to begin in October 2024, the facility will play a role in the region's military-industrial complex.
-
December 19, 2018 | International, C4ISR
CENTCOM chief: The future of warfare demands more cyber authorities
By: Justin Lynch The Pentagon has received more power to conduct cyber operations in the past 18 months. But for the top Army commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, the new authority is not enough. The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, wrote in a Dec. 18 paper that the Pentagon must “normalize” electronic warfare and cyberattacks and incorporate them into daily operations. “Normalizing the cyberspace domain means broader authorities that are more responsive than current bureaucratic processes,” Votel wrote in the Army's Cyber Defense Review. “It also means we need simple and streamlined organizations and processes to increase lethality and enhance performance.” The paper was coauthored by Votel, Maj. Gen. Julazadeh and Maj. Weilun Lin. “Our failure to operationalize and normalize the cyberspace domain effectively cedes it to our adversaries, gives them a competitive advantage and, ultimately, creates an increased attack vector against our objectives,” the authors said. President Trump gave the Pentagon new authorities to conduct cyber operations in August and minimized the process where other agencies can object to cyberattacks, known as “deconfliction.” Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis can conduct hacking operations without approval from the White House so long as they do not interfere with the American “national interest,” according to four current and former White House and intelligence officials who were either part of internal deliberations or briefed on the changes. Yet some current and former U.S. officials are skeptical that the new authorities will mean more effective hacking operations for the Pentagon, because it does not solve the nuances of cyberattacks. But the new mandates do not go far enough for the three officer authors, who argued that cyberwarfare should be under the same authorities as other types of operations. “We must not see cyberspace as drastically different and separate from other domains that we create new processes to prepare, plan and fight in this new domain. We continue to seek processes that smooth and simplify operations, reducing friendly friction and accelerating decision-making.” Current and former Pentagon officials have pointed to conducting cyberattacks against enemies that use networks of neutral or partner nations as an area where the Pentagon has changed its decision-making process in recent years. Those officials also pointed to how the Pentagon was able to use hybrid warfare tactics during the 2016 liberation of Mosul, Iraq, as a textbook example of future hybrid operations. Votel, Julazadeh and Lin echoed the sentiment of other Pentagon officials who have advocated for cyberattacks, electronic warfare and other information operations to be integrated earlier in military operations. “We need to proactively execute cyberspace and information operations early in 'Phase 0 / steady state' of the planning process — well before operation execution. Only then can we shape the [information environment], hold our adversaries' capabilities at risk and execute at the speed of war,” the three wrote. For example, Pentagon officials say they closely monitored Russia's 2014 hybrid war in Ukraine and learned from Moscow's tactics. Votel, Julazadeh and Lin shed light on the changes, writing that information operations were previously “integrated as an afterthought.” Yet over the last two years, Central Command has incorporated cyberattacks, electronic warfare and military deception at the “strategic level.” And this hybrid warfare has driven new acquisition demands in the Pentagon. “We need technology and capabilities to keep pace with the operational environment and continue to build the partnerships to do so,” the three officers wrote. In recent years, Central Command has bolstered its hybrid warfare through new contracts. The centerpiece of that effort is a July 2017 contract worth $621 million to Science Applications International Corporation for IT support to Central Command that could last seven years. In August 2018, Vistra communications was also awarded a $22 million contract to support offensive and defensive cyber operations for Central Command. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2018/12/18/centcom-chief-the-future-of-warfare-demands-more-cyber-authorities