'Next-War-itis' Rampant in US Military
May 14, 2008

Oh guys, you're gonna love this one.

From today's front page of Military.com:

Gates Cautions Against 'Next-war-itis'

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The Pentagon must focus on current war demands, even if it means straining the U.S. armed forces and devoting less time and money on future threats, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Meeting the war-fighting needs of the troops now and taking care of them properly when they get home must be the priority, Gates said in a speech to a journalists at a seminar here sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called Next-War-itis - the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.

But in a world of limited resources, he said, the Pentagon must concentrate on building a military that can defeat the current enemies: smaller, terrorist groups and militias waging irregular warfare. ]]>If it means putting off more expensive weapons for the future or adding to the stress on the Army - that is a risk worth taking, he said.

All this coming during 09 budget markup season, supplemental funding fights and the Air Force UAV smackdown. Now I'm beginning to thing Gates really has some Rumsfeldian guts to challenge convention and service momentum...

He also issued a warning to the military services, which have long set their sights on pricey, sophisticated weapons systems that take decades to develop and get onto the battlefield.

The Army has its $200 billion Future Combat System, the Air Force has its F-22 jet fighter. Both programs have been plagued by delays and escalating costs, as well as criticism from Congress.

Going forward, such weapons programs will have show they can be useful now against terror groups and insurgents, he said.

In a recent visit to Red River Army Depot in Texas, Gates saw some pieces of the FCS that can be sent to the war front now - and he said that must continue in order for the program to continue to be viable. Gates, however, will be leaving office long before the FCS or F-22 programs are fully fielded. In his speech Monday night at the 50th anniversary of the launch of NORAD - the North American Aerospace Defense Command - Gates reminded the crowd that his stint as Pentagon chief will end in exactly 254 days.

...and I'm sure there aren't too many Air Force and Army PMs that are crying about that...

-- Christian

A Super Secret Sub Base?
May 14, 2008

Has China "secretly built a major underground nuclear submarine base that could threaten Asian countries and challenge American power in the region"? Thomas Harding, writing in the London Daily Telegraph early this month, has declared that it is.

According to Hardy, "Satellite imagery, passed to The Daily Telegraph, shows that a substantial harbour has been built which could house a score of nuclear ballistic missile submarines and a host of aircraft carriers."

The threat from Chinese submarines, long touted by "hard liners" in the West, now includes the ballistic missile submarine base and protective tunnels for the craft being constructed at Sanya on the southern tip of Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

The report comes almost simultaneously with word that a Chinese Type 094 (NATO Jin-class) ballistic missile submarine was sighted at the base in satellite images. Also visible was a newly constructed pier that appears to be a demagnetization facility for submarines. Demagnetization is conducted before a submarine deploys to remove residual magnetic fields to reduce the craft's vulnerability to magnetic mines.

The satellite image was taken by the QuickBird commercial satellite on 27 February 2008, and purchased by the Federation of American Scientists from DigitalGlobe.

China is believed to have completed two Jin-class SSBNs with at least one more unit under construction. (An older SSBN is also in service; see below.) The U.S. Intelligence Community estimates that China would probably build five SSBNs if it wants to have a near-continuous deterrent at sea. Each Jin-class SSSBN will carry 12 JL-2 nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. A "score" of such submarines -- as reported in some newspaper accounts -- seems highly unlikely.

While some Western defense analysts as well as journalists are touting this new Chinese capability, it should be noted that there have been submarine tunnels in southern Hainan for probably two decades or more and that similar (albeit smaller) tunnels are also found at the Northern Fleet's Jianggezhuang naval base. Indeed, China has long constructed tunnels for military (and civilian) purposes in the even of a nuclear conflict. This writer visited some of those near the base complex of Dairen, near the Soviet-Russian border.

Further, while submarines could be "hidden" in the tunnels, they could be observed by U.S. reconnaissance satellites as they enter and leave the tunnels. This possibility, coupled with the likely noise level of the Jin-class SSBNs would increase their vulnerability to U.S. detection and surveillance methods.

Also, in wartime, any submarines in the tunnels at the outbreak of hostilities would be vulnerable to the tunnels being easily blocked by U.S. conventional or nuclear weapons.

Certainly the Chinese Navy is being modernized, although it is significantly smaller than it was during the Cold War era. The slow development pace of China's SSBN force, the failure of the first Chinese SSBN, the Type 092 (NATO Xia) completed in 1988, to have ever made a deployment, and persistent reports that a ballistic missile for the SSBNs is not yet available, raise major questions about this aspect of the "Chinese threat."

-- Norman Polmar

The Real Reason for Boeing's Protest
May 14, 2008

What's the real reason Boeing filed a GAO protest over the tanker award to Northrop Grumman? After all, the GAO rarely overturns such awards and the Air Force appears to have acted about as transparently as anyone could hope for.

Of course, it's extremely difficult to get a good grip on just how strong -- or weak -- Boeing's case might be since most of the information that would really make that clear is considered extremely sensitive proprietary data.

It looks as if Boeing has two main goals. The first and most easily understood is that Boeing wants to get paid back for the costs it incurred preparing its bid. The second goal is to give the company the 100 days to trumpet its various claims, spread money around Capitol Hill and advertise, advertise, advertise.

I spoke about all this with a lobbyist and a defense finance expert, both of whom have to remain very anonymous. Both have a tight grasp on defense acquisition battles and their dynamics. We concluded that Boeing doesn't really care about the GAO protest, though the finance expert said Boeing may have a stronger case than first appears obvious. They both agreed that the company's main object was to carve out a window to give it time to hammer lawmakers, their staff and the public about just fabulous their plane really is and to create so much white noise that Northrop Grumman/EADS is forced to either share the deal or, best of all, get Congress to award the contract to Boeing.]]>The lobbyist said he had used a similar strategy on a smaller program several years before and it worked like a charm.

The finance person said there are two financial reasons Boeing filed the protest. First, it stands a decent chance of getting back the cost of preparing its bid, which he estimated at around $20 million. But the biggest reason for Boeing's actions may have little to do with its defense business, although $32 billion is not chump change even for one of the big three defense contractors. And the enormously cyclical nature of the civil aviation business may pose enormous long-term risks for the Chicago-based company.

So Boeing would like to guarantee revenue from its reliable government customer. Should the 787 Dreamliner face longer delays than it has already wracked up, our finance expert said the company faces penalties that reach as high as $20 billion.

[PHOTO: Boeing Co.]

-- Colin Clark