Thirty Years of the Shuttle

Well, I knew I wasn't going to get through today without some sort of retrospective thought on the Space Shuttle. So, here it goes.

Just to age myself neatly, I was just about 12 years old when the first flight of Columbia occurred, April 12, 1981 (the 20th anniversary of the first human in space, Yuri Gagarin). I was 12 when STS-2 flew in November of that year. My dad arranged for a car pass for the causeway six miles away from the launch site (Launch Complex 39A, as I recall). I was a nutcase. Florida, in November, and with a chance to get away from junior high for a couple days? Perfect!

STS-2, November 12, 1981

Near as I can recall, Dad had a friend with a condo on the beach near the Cape. I got awakened at sunrise and was treated to a splash of gold across a placid sea. Spent a lot of time reading, as I recall. Dad got me the STS-2 press kit, which I held onto until my late 20s ("NEVER loan a pretty girl anything!" became my new motto on that for awhile), so I stayed entertained until launch time. I came well equipped: a pair of binoculars and two cameras. I looked like an overachieving tourist, which I was. Anyhow, come launch time, my jaw dropped, cameras and binoculars forgotten. I needed to see this with my own eyes. Meanwhile, as Columbia ascended skyward, my dad was trying to grab the camera from around my neck and take pictures. I was already a Star Wars fan by that point, so I had John Williams music going through my head as the mighty beast roared into the air. I think I was shuddering for a couple of days.

So okay, fast-forward 30 (yep, 30) years later. Through various twists and turns, I've found myself living the dream that my 12-year-old self scarcely believed was possible: writing for NASA. I know how the rockets work now. I have more reasons to get keyed up and nervous as the time approaches T-minus 1 minute.

I've got divided duties now: part supporting Marshall Space Flight Center, part supporting the SERVIR program, and I split my day 50/50 between them. Unfortunately, the launch occurred when I was at SERVIR. I say that because Marshall is the place where they design and manage the Shuttle propulsion systems: the four-segment solid rocket boosters and the three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), fueled by thousands of tons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen from that big, orange external tank. There are lives, careers, and a great deal of pride tied into those things that make fire and smoke.

As it was, a couple minutes before launch, I went downstairs to watch the big TV, where maybe a dozen others had the same idea. As zero time approached, I found myself fidgety, even emotionally stirred (okay, yeah, I was holding back tears). My eyebrows raised as the countdown stopped at T-minus 31 seconds and listened to the radio chatter, quickly clueing in on the fact that they were worried about a d@mned camera. Nothing critical. And sure enough, the countdown restarted, and the fire started. I was so glad I emailed my sister and got her to have her kids--7 and 5--to watch the launch. They needed this feeling.

STS-135, July 8, 2011

Atlantis headed up into the clouds. Much to my surprise the cameras stayed locked on for much of the ascent. My eyes are watching the details like a professional now: are the SRBs doing anything funky? How much foam is coming off the external tank? Is the bird getting all the way to orbit? (And there I had a media-criticism moment, as these TV people think once the fire and smoke is no longer visible from the ground, the "launch" is over. It isn't, people: the bird has to get all the way to orbit, Main Engine Cutoff--MECO--before the job is done.) So I hauled myself back upstairs and watched the rest of the ascent. The tank fell away clean, though I did see some other little bits of junk flying off of it. At the end of it, I was comfortable enough to think to myself, "Well done, guys," and relax. Maybe the media will get their coverage right when SpaceX starts launching people to orbit, but I'm not holding my breath.

And there we are. Thirty years later, and the Space Shuttle program is about to come to an end. What does this mean for NASA, for the future of human spaceflight? I'm going to offer some Bartish thoughts here, none of which is particularly controversial, but some of which will still irritate one or another friend of mine in the space business.

In the near term, any future astronauts, experiments, or food and water will be shipped up to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard Russian Soyuz and Progress rockets. In the next 2-3 years (hopefully), American private-sector companies like SpaceX will be launching crew and cargo. But for now, there is nothing on this continent to replace the Shuttle, and the Constellation program to send human beings to the Moon and Mars has been scrapped, taking thousands of jobs with it. We have lost something critical to our national character, but I don't think everyone has felt it yet.

Do I want the commercial guys to succeed? Absolutely. The sooner the better, because as soon as the Shuttles are sent off to museums and the workers laid off, the price for a seat on the Russian rockets will probably (pardon the expression) skyrocket. But I liked Constellation. I wanted the U.S. committed to a 20- or 30-year plan to establish bases on the Moon and Mars. That is now not to be. The future is uncertain. Is it improvable? Yes. But that won't stop those of us who like the Shuttle from feeling that, yes, we're losing something important.

Didn't We Just Leave This Party?

Okay, so it's February again, and that means it's time for the President to submit his budget for the coming fiscal year. Regular readers might recall that last year's budget was a bit traumatic for those of us in NASA's human spaceflight community, as the administration announced the cancellation of the Constellation Program. The ramifications of that decision have taken more than a year to unfold, but here in Huntsville that's translated into 700 people being laid off. Your Humble Narrator, while still employed, is no longer working Constellation/Ares, but is instead supporting Marshall Space Flight Center in whatever writing capacity he is needed: reports, speeches, white papers, whatever, dude. I'm there. Mind you, the silliness for fiscal year (FY) 2011 isn't over yet because the previous Congress and the current Congress have yet to pass a budget beyond March 4.

And for a refresher, here's where the budget stands now: the previous Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) to keep not just NASA but the entire government operating, but at 2010 budget levels. NASA's 2010 budget also included specific wording that said it could not shut down the Constellation Program. A CR means NASA must continue to operate under that law, but it did get some guidance that it could start planning work on the Senate version of the Administration's future plans (commercial crew/cargo to the International Space Station, building a new heavy-lift launch vehicle). Constellation exists, then, but rather in zombie mode, since we know it's to be cancelled, but the budgetary laws forbid NASA from doing so outright.

In the meantime, Congress did pass a new Authorization Law for NASA, which gives the agency its new direction. An Authorization Law says, "This is what we want you to do." An Appropriations Law signs the check and says, "Here's the money, go do it." All the agency has is an Authorization, not an Appropriation. (For a snarkier version of this story, see this YouTube video.) The current appropriation for FY11, again, is a CR based on the 2010 budget and Authorization, and it is valid through March 4. If one operates under the theory that misery loves company, NASA employees can take some small comfort that they are not alone--the entire U.S. government is operating under these CR rules.

This year promises to be challenging as well because we now have a new Congress which, rightly, is trying to rein in spending. However, some of them are more eager than others, and NASA has always made a big, juicy target. This is what my more savvy political-observer friends call the "posturing" phase of the budget. One member of Congress is proposing a 25 percent cut of NASA's budget. The President will announce his budget requests February 14. What will FY12 look like? Well, given that Congress hasn't been able to pass a budget for the remainder of FY11, which ends September 30, it's almost impossible to predict.

The best bet is that NASA and the rest of the government will receive a CR for the rest of FY11. FY12 will most likely be tight, as Republicans impose serious budget cuts...and really, I voted for 'em, so I can't complain. If the government takes in $2 TRILLION in taxes and continues to spend $3 TRILLION, something's seriously awry. My mother has a phrase for that sort of behavior, and it's called "Living beyond your means." Individuals go bankrupt doing that if they keep it up long enough. But then comes the pragmatic planner in me, who asks, "If you're going to cut, why not cut larger parts of the budget where there is obvious waste going on--Defense, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and the like?" Those budgets are in the hundreds of billions while NASA's is a paltry $19 billion, and unlike most parts of the government, actually produces high-technology hardware and universe-spanning knowledge. However, I am not an elected official. I don't see things as they do. They see NASA and consider it ALL pork, even the stuff and people that actually work (like me, I add humbly). They see bright, shiny objects flying into space before a crowd of thousands at Cape Canaveral and figure that it MUST be expensive and wasteful. 

Anyhow, in reality, the 25 percent cut probably won't happen, but NASA could get kicked back to 2010 or 2008 levels (around $17 billion). That's not exactly huge in the cosmic scheme of things, but it's not small change, either: that'd be a 10 percent cut, and it would mean cutting back missions: Shuttle, ISS, science, you name it. That translates not just into hardware not built, but jobs cut. What does that mean? This article from the UK crystallizes the effects on the area around Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Yet is NASA nothing more than a jobs program for engineers? I think if you ask the average American how they feel about the Space Shuttle or our nation's other exploits in space, you'd get a different answer.

I honestly don't know what direction space activities will take from here. I know what the plans are, but that doesn't mean the plans will come out as intended. Will the private sector truly be able to launch astronauts to ISS on the timeline NASA wants? I hope so. But what will become of NASA's fabled history of sending human beings into space for exploration? Will we leave the Moon to China, Russia, and India because our elected officials aren't able to pass a budget for more than a few months at a time? You can't run a railroad that way, much less an ambitious space program. If you are upset that your nation isn't doing great things in space, don't blame NASA--write your congressman/woman. As the saying goes, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." And in a time of general pessimism, we need Buck Rogers more than ever.

What Should Be Done With NASA?

The National Space Society issued a press release yesterday on the Obama administration's 2011 budget. The whole thing is worth reading, but the first paragraph crystallizes the argument:

The National Space Society (NSS) commends NASA and the Executive Branch for proposing to increase spending for science, technology, and sustainable economic development in space; however, we believe the President’s 2011 budget request would leave the job only partly done. NSS calls for the President and Congress to restore funding for human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit. NASA’s goal should be to make it possible to incorporate energy and resources from space into our economy and to extend human presence throughout the solar system.

If you are interested in changing the future of the space program and continuing to send Americans beyond low-Earth orbit, register now for NSS Legislative Blitz. We are organizing citizen lobbyists to visit Congressional and Senate offices February 21-23 to tell our elected officials why it's important to do so. You don't need a lot of fancy training (one day should do it); just dress nicely and be prepared to speak clearly with whatever passion you can bring to bear. Space exploration needs all the help it can get.

Potpourri CXIX

Here's what today's surfing sampler turned up...

Scott “Doc” Horowitz on the role of commercial spaceflight.

Airline industry hoping for stability in 2010…them and everybody else.

NASA looking at VASIMR engine for lunar tug.

Democrats are about to become Born Again Budget Cutters just in time for the 2010 elections…who’s buying this?

This story on Endeavor includes a note that the U.S. Air Force is trying to make weather data from White Sands Test Facility classified. Really? Ever heard of Las Cruces, New Mexico?

The Wide-Field Infrared Explorer (WISE) has found its first near-Earth object (NEO).

There will be temporary flying restrictions around the Super Bowl in Miami February 7.

Very cool image of Sun during an eclipse.

You’ll miss capitalism when it’s gone…

Never mind asteroids, the Obama administration failing in its efforts to prevent WMD proliferation.

The mother of the cast member who died in Walt Disney World’s monorail crash is suing the company.

Zero gravity furniture?

Jerry Pournelle on parties, platforms, and conservatism.

Just an interesting group of folks to work with: Zero Point Frontiers Corp. They were very gracious about helping me correct some technical points on my in-work novel.

Potpourri LXXVII

All sorts of Apollo 11 and other space stuff today (and rightly so!):

• An Australian newspaper on the prospects for space.


• Neil Armstrong reflected on those who gave their lives in the quest for space.


• Ares V imagery.


• Alan Stern on the greatest impact Apollo 11 had.


• Apollo seen by another writer as a dead end rather than a great beginning.
• Jeff Foust reviews several Apollo 11-related books.
• Best moon landings in movies.
• It looks like the Augustine Panel's public meeting in Huntsville has moved to July 29.
• NASA released a Neil Armstrong statement on the death of Walter Cronkite:
  "For a news analyst and reporter of the happenings of the day to be successful, he or she needs three things: accuracy, timeliness, and the trust of the audience. Many are fortunate to have the first two. The trust of the audience must be earned.
  "Walter Cronkite seemed to enjoy the highest of ratings. He had a passion for human space exploration, an enthusiasm that was contagious, and the trust of his audience. He will be missed."
• Popular Mechanics has a series of "untold stories" about Apollo 11.
• Space.com has several good stories, including this one...
• Apollo astronauts advocating trip to Mars.
• From Martin, an AOL list of fun space facts.
• And Darlene the Science Cheerleader has a nice roundup of some other Apollo 11 links.

Some stuff from Lin:

• The White House is delaying its budget report.
• This mind-bending financial bail-out could top $23 trillion in cost.
• "Earmark" is now part of the dictionary. Oh, goody. Another unwelcome addition to the vocabulary.
• An editorial recommends making businesses use electronic background checks of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, if only to verify that they're not on the DHS terrorism watch list. Maybe, says I. However, the watch list remains unreliable.
• Amazon.com can wipe out books from your Kindle if they find something amiss with them. Hmmmm.

From Cousin Katherine, a travel planning site recommendation. This might've been useful for the Europe trip when I was earlier in my process. Still might be good for future trips.

The wickedly funny gnomes at NeedCoffee.com are trying to wean themselves off of advertising by going to a subscription-only site as a means of paying their bills...at least the bills having to do with running the site itself. It's a reasonably sound business model: Jerry Pournelle runs Chaos Manor in this fashion--sort of like PBS. My fellow SF geek Doc, a part-time contributor to Need Coffee, referred me to the site, and I have been pleasantly amused with their content. NC is a media review site, if by "media" one can include items as diverse as TV shows, movies, video games, YouTube videos, and caffeineated energy drinks. Their rates are reasonable (starting at $1/month) and their range of attitudes and opinions suitably entertaining that even a cranky GenX conservative like me can laugh at their stuff on a regular basis.

Say What?

My buddy Doc and I had a brief, relatively conflict-free discussion about healthcare legislation yesterday, something that excites me about as much as talk about someone else's diet. However, Doc has interesting thoughts, so I held on. He did make one assertion that just astounded me: he told me that Medicare/Medicaid were underfunded! Wow. I didn't have the figures in front of me at the time. I do now. From the Congressional Research Service:

The President [Bush]’s 2009 budget estimates current law Medicare net outlays of $413 billion in FY2009. The budget includes Medicare legislative proposals with estimated savings of $12.2 billion in FY2009 and $178 billion over the five-year budget window. (Emphasis mine.)

Dang. $413 billion. That's just over $1,375 per American citizen, which covers most private insurance premiums for a year, if that's the way the program were run, but of course it's not. Direct handouts or insurance vouchers to citizens could work if they were allowed to purchase private plans, but that's not how federal bureaucracies work. Last time I looked, 72 cents out of every dollar in Medicare/Medicaid goes to covering overhead--government employees.

But let's go back to just talking money. Not everyone is being covered by Medicare and Medicaid. So that means that MORE than $1,375 of federal dollars per person are being spent on Medicare/Medicaid insurance. When is enough enough?

*

On the plus side, Doc and I get along on a sheer geekitude level (he's much more savvy on both English lit and science fiction than I am, plus a master on things like comic books and the internet), and he did have a couple of cool links of interest, which I must share:

• Last Exit to Nowhere, a site that sells shirts for companies or organizations that appear in movies. For example, Cyberdyne from Terminator or the Tyrell Corporation from Blade Runner.
• Shirt.Woot, which offers up a variety of clever logos from random(?) artists, which visitors vote on. The logos that get the most votes get their shirts published.

These are both akin to CafePress, which neither of us could think of at the time. Self-publishing for t-shirts: the internet is an interesting place.

Then D@mn It, Man, Stop Spending!

Obama says we're out of money. Wow. Chutzpah.

Potpourri XXXIX

Morgan keeps going strong, and is handling her life with a lot more grace and positive attitude than I did today. When you can no longer respond rationally and lose your temper, you've lost the argument...whatever it is. Stupid. I should know better.

Got an email from Dan Linehan, author of SpaceShipOne: An Illustrated History. He's doing well. The book is on its second printing, which is great after being in print for a year in this economy. If you haven't bought a copy, it's worth a look. Some great behind-the-scenes photography of Burt Rutan's operation. My review can be found here.

If you're interested in how I earn pay during my day job, here's a sample. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

Aviation Week has an interview with Norm Augustine, for those interested in learning what the guy reviewing NASA's human spaceflight program is thinking. And along those same lines, here's the last report Mr. Augustine chaired for NASA.

Oh, for gosh sakes...President Obama says that our current level of borrowing and spending is "unsustainable," but he's the one whose budget exceeds all of the 43 presidents who came before him! Boy oh boy, I'm glad we got that hope-and-change thing going.

Kudos to whoever found this: a site featuring the worst or "best" (depending on your point of view) text messages/exchanges you or your friends have sent. Warning: deplorable language and morals included.

Headline of the day from Hu: "2060: Humvee-sized, bulletproof man-eating spiders." Never mind the Zombie Apocalypse...

From Scott, a couple of links regarding the Buffalo crash:

• http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2009/Buffalo-NY/AnimationDescription.htm
• http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/418693.pdf

That's all, I guess. Long week. Hoping for more sanity (from me, not the world) next week.

Potpourri XXXIV

Lots of stuff out there about the NASA budget and the upcoming review being led by Norm Augustine.

Speaking of the budget, the Obama administration has released its $3.4 TRILLION budget. Dang. I mean, really. Trillions. And I learned from Tracy that the theme of the 2010 budget is--wait for it, put your drink down first--fiscal responsibility. They're going to save(!) $17 billion by cutting a couple of token programs. I heard somewhere that the 2010 Obama budget racks more debt in one year than all of the other presidents built up combined, from George Washington to George W. So if the economy is recovering do we really need a high-debt budget that we can't afford? "Fiscal responsibility." Wow. Pardon me while I LOL.

The Orion crew exploration vehicle now has a presence on Facebook (must be a member to view). Ares is coming soon--promise!

Hat tip to Father Dan for this reminder: starting June 1, you will need a passport to enter Bermuda, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean region.

Tip o' the fedora to Marianne for finding this editorial on why the Law of the Sea Treaty is bad for the energy industry.

Two thumbs up to Tracy for finding this useful statistic comparing Apollo exploration and the Mars rovers:

On Apollo 17, the total EVA distance covered by two astronauts was 22.2miles (19.3 nautical miles). This included 4 hours and 29 seconds of LRVtravel. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-30_Extravehicular_Activity.htm

Compared to around 12 miles covered by 2 robotic rovers in 5 years.

I am impressed and proud as I can be of the Mars rovers and the folks who built them. But just imagine how much more can and will be done when we send humans there!

Speaking of humans in space, here's a YouTube video of the two shuttles on the pad--last time this will happen, folks! The one with the three big towers around it is Launch Complex 39B, where Ares I-X will be launched later this summer.

Some warm and fuzzy reading courtesy of Brother Allison to help rock you to sleep at night: bio-war in the 21st century.

Rick Steves has a new book out titled "Travel as a Political Act." That means, yes, he's going to talk about politics. And being a good liberal, Mr. Steves will have many admiring things to say about European socialism. I'm not a fan myself, maybe because every time socialism has been tried in the U.S., our politicians have overreached, and people have inevitably pushed back when the programs became too expensive or intrusive (witness the election of Nixon after Johnson, Reagan after Carter, and the 104th Congress after Clinton's attempt at "HillaryCare." But Steves is no fool, and he's traveled and spoken with enough people around Europe for decades to find things to like. He made a video on this topic, which I got as part of my European tour welcome stuff.

I'm guessing he's going to lecture his reader quite a bit. As if someone going to Europe needs someone reminding them "Now, don't forget to learn things from other cultures, and don't forget that they have different ideas from you, and don't be an ugly American..." (Rolling eyes, "Yeesssss, Mom.")

I'm very much looking forward to my Rick Steeves tour. I've been aware of his political opinions for awhile, but that's not influencing my approach to taking one of his tours. When I go somewhere new, I'm there to watch, listen, and learn. If someone asks me where I'm from or what I think, I'll tell them, but I'm not there to be the "ugly American" and shove my way of doing things down someone's throat. The locals will have their views on things, and I might agree, but then again I might respectfully disagree. Travel should be a learning experience (in both directions!) but it always makes me appreciate my home that much more when I get back. And if people from other countries wouldn't want to trade passports with me, well, the feeling's mutual. Fine. Next topic?

Space Potpourri

I consider this entry from the Space Cynics important reading. Here's the most important part, from a space perspective or a political economy perpsective:

The reason I decided to show this here is not to engage in a “who can spend more like a drunken sailor on shore leave” debate between the righties and the lefties - since both parties have long since given up any semblance of fiscal conservatism, proving once again that the old saying:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy….”

The reader comments afterward also provide good food for thought. When the federal budget balloons to an absurd $3 trillion and human space exploration receives a comparative pittance ($400 million--about the price of a fully-loaded A380), you quickly get the hint that space is not a priority. Most of that money is going toward domestic spending--that is to buy votes--your votes. If you're kept fat and happy through largesse from the treasury, you might not notice that you yourself are paying for that largesse through higher taxes, a weaker dollar, a weaker economy, and slower technological progress.

I return to the analysis I made of a book by W. D. Kay, Can Democracies Fly in Space?, while in grad school. He closed the book by repeating the title question and then answering, "It depends on how badly they want to." Of course Kay completely dismissed the idea of a libertarian, business-focused space effort, but then the book was written in 1995, well before the current round of "New Space" entrepreneurs started working. But Kay's thesis was based entirely on the notion that only national governments can afford to go into space, a premise I heartily challenge. Also, a national space program, as we have seen, has political constraints that businesses do not. Businesses exist to make a profit, that's it. A government-funded program has to justify its existence year after year in a partisan environment where much larger and more expensive concerns are being debated, like war, health care, and (now) business "bailouts."

Maybe I need to go to bed. Reading and thinking about all this is a little too discouraging to read the day before Monday. Ciao.

Analysis: Department of Defense Budget Statement

As promised, my slice-and-dice of SecDef Robert Gates' statement on the DoD budget...anything in Arial font, bold, is mine.

Today, I am announcing the key decisions I will recommend to the president with respect to the fiscal year 2010 defense budget. The president agreed to this unorthodox approach – announcing the department's request before the White House submits a budget to the Congress – because of the scope and significance of the changes. In addition, the president and I believe that the American people deserve to learn of these recommendations fully and in context, as the proposed changes are interconnected and cannot be properly communicated or understood in isolation from one another. Collectively, they represent a budget crafted to reshape the priorities of America's defense establishment. If approved, these recommendations will profoundly reform how this department does business.

Well, at least they came right out and said it: they're changing the DoD's priorities.

In many ways, my recommendations represent the cumulative outcome of a lifetime spent in the national security arena and, above all, questions asked, experience gained, and lessons learned from over two years of leading this department – and, in particular, from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. I reached the final decisions after many hours of consultations with the military and civilian leadership of the department. I have also consulted closely with the president. But, I received no direction or guidance from outside this department on individual program decisions. The chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in complete accord with these recommendations. The chairman is traveling abroad but he has provided a statement that we will distribute at the end of the briefing.

My decisions have been almost exclusively influenced by factors other than simply finding a way to balance the books or fit under the "top line" – as is normally the case with most budget exercises.

Cost wasn't a factor at any point in the process? Really?

Instead, these recommendations are the product of a holistic assessment of capabilities, requirements, risks and needs for the purpose of shifting this department in a different strategic direction. Let me be clear: I would have made virtually all of the decisions and recommendations announced today regardless of the department's top line budget number.
The decisions have three principal objectives:

• First, to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all-volunteer force, which, in my view represents America's greatest strategic asset;
• Second, we must rebalance this department's programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies.
  As I speculated previously, they're going to split the difference between an all-counter-insurgency force and an all-conventional force.
• Third, in order to do this, we must reform how and what we buy, meaning a fundamental overhaul of our approach to procurement, acquisition, and contracting.

People
With regard to the troops and their families, I will recommend that we:

1. Fully protect and properly fund the growth in military end strength in the base budget. This means completing the growth in the Army and Marines while halting reductions in the Air Force and the Navy. Accomplishing this will require a nearly $11 billion increase above the FY09 budget level. This could signal a greater emphasis on power projection (Navy, Air Force) and reduced emphasis on ground forces.
2. Continue the steady growth in medical research and development by requesting $400 million more than last year.
3. Recognize the critical and permanent nature of wounded, ill and injured, traumatic brain injury, and psychological health programs. This means institutionalizing and properly funding these efforts in the base budget and increasing overall spending by $300 million. The department will spend over $47 billion on healthcare in FY10.
4. Increase funding by $200 million for improvements in child care, spousal support, lodging, and education.

Many of these programs have been funded in the past by supplementals. We must move away from ad hoc funding of long-term commitments. Thus, we have added money to each of these areas and all will be permanently and properly carried in the base defense budget. Together they represent an increase in base budget funding of $13 billion from last year. No more funding of the war as a separate issue. This makes sense from a political point of view because the war is unpopular with many Democrat voters, and some congressmen and senators don't like going on record as voting for the war. The operational problem with this is that wars can have unexpected setbacks and expenses not covered under normal DoD appropriations.

A Home for the Warfighter
As I told the Congress in January, our struggles to put the defense bureaucracies on a war footing these past few years have revealed underlying flaws in the priorities, cultural preferences, and reward structures of America's defense establishment – a set of institutions largely arranged to prepare for conflicts against other modern armies, navies, and air forces. This could mean a greater emphasis on counterinsurgency forces, which would contradict some of my statements above. I really can't tell what's going on here, the more I look at it.

Programs to directly support, protect, and care for the man or woman at the front have been developed ad hoc and funded outside the base budget. Put simply, until recently there has not been an institutional home in the Defense Department for today's warfighter. Our contemporary wartime needs must receive steady long-term funding and a bureaucratic constituency similar to conventional modernization programs. I intend to use the FY10 budget to begin this process.
First, we will increase intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for the warfighter in the base budget by some $2 billion. What about satellites? Those capabilities are still critical--not just for communication, but also for guiding UAVs and missiles. This will include:

• Fielding and sustaining 50 Predator-class unmanned aerial vehicle orbits by FY11 and maximizing their production. This capability, which has been in such high demand in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will now be permanently funded in the base budget. It will represent a 62 percent increase in capability over the current level and 127 percent from over a year ago.
• Increasing manned ISR capabilities such as the turbo-prop aircraft deployed so successfully as part of "Task Force Odin" in Iraq.
• Initiating research and development on a number of ISR enhancements and experimental platforms optimized for today's battlefield.
• We will also spend $500 million more in the base budget than last year to increase our capacity to field and sustain more helicopters – a capability that is in urgent demand in Afghanistan. Today, the primary limitation on helicopter capacity is not airframes but shortages of maintenance crews and pilots. So our focus will be on recruiting and training more Army helicopter crews.
• To boost global partnership capacity efforts, we will increase funding by $500 million. These initiatives include training and equipping foreign militaries to undertake counter terrorism and stability operations.
• To grow our special operations capabilities, we will increase personnel by more than 2,800 or five percent and will buy more special forces-optimized lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft.
• We will increase the buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions – from two to three ships in FY 2010. Our goal is to eventually acquire 55 of these ships.
• To improve our inter-theater lift capacity, we will increase the charter of Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) ships from two to four until our own production program begins deliveries in 2011.
• We will stop the growth of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) at 45 versus 48 while maintaining the planned increase in end strength of 547,000. This will ensure that we have better-manned units ready to deploy, and help put an end to the routine use of stop loss.
• This step will also lower the risk of hollowing the force.

Conventional and Strategic Modernization
Even as we begin to shift resources and institutional weight towards supporting the current wars and other potential irregular campaigns, the United States must still contend with the security challenges posed by the military forces of other countries (Again, they could be settling for a mixed conventional-counterinsurgency force, but I'm a-guessin' here) – from those actively hostile to those at strategic crossroads. Last year's National Defense Strategy concluded that although U.S. predominance in conventional warfare is not unchallenged, it is sustainable for the medium term given current trends. This year's budget deliberations focused on what programs are necessary to deter aggression, project power when necessary, and protect our interests and allies around the globe. To this end, I will recommend new or additional investments and shifts in several key areas:

1. To sustain U.S. air superiority, I am committed to building a fifth generation tactical fighter capability that can be produced in quantity at sustainable cost. Therefore, I will recommend increasing the buy of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from the 14 aircraft bought in FY09 to 30 in FY10, with corresponding funding increases from $6.8 billion to $11.2 billion. We would plan to buy 513 F-35s over the five-year defense plan, and, ultimately, plan to buy 2,443. For naval aviation, we will buy 31 FA-18s in FY10.
2. We will retire 250 of the oldest Air Force tactical fighter aircraft in FY10. I presume this would be the F-15 or F-16.
3. We will end production of the F-22 fighter at 187 – representing 183 planes plus four recommended for inclusion in the FY 2009 supplemental. Jeez, how many fighters do we have left? We had something like 2,000 during the 1980s...
4. To better protect our forces and those of our allies in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, specifically the terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) programs. This might be good news for Huntsville/Redstone, if either of those programs is based out of here.
5. We will also add $200 million to fund conversion of six additional Aegis ships to provide ballistic missile defense capabilities. Good.
6. To improve cyberspace capabilities, we will increase the number of cyber experts this department can train from 80 students per year to 250 per year by FY11. Good.
7. To replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet, we will maintain the KC-X aerial re-fueling tanker schedule and funding, with the intent to solicit bids this summer. Will you raise heck if Airbus wins the contract again?
8. With regard to our nuclear and strategic forces:
   --In FY10, we will begin the replacement program for the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine program.
   --We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.
   --We will examine all of our strategic requirements during the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and in light of Post-START arms control negotiations. Which means the B-52 will be in the inventory for another decade. Saaaaa-LUTE!
9. The healthy margin of dominance at sea provided by America's existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow production of several major surface combatants and other maritime programs.
   --We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040. If they can do this for aircraft carriers, why not the Constellation Program?
   --We will delay the Navy CG-X next generation cruiser program to revisit both the requirements and acquisition strategy.
   --We will delay amphibious ship and sea-basing programs such as the 11th Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ship and the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) SHIP to FY11 in order to assess costs and analyze the amount of these capabilities the nation needs.
10. With regard to air lift, we will complete production of the C-17 airlifter program this fiscal year. Our analysis concludes that we have enough C-17s with the 205 already in the force and currently in production. All depends on what assumptions you're making about the future, doesn't it?

Acquisition and Contracting Reform
In today's environment, maintaining our technological and conventional edge requires a dramatic change in the way we acquire military equipment. I believe this needed reform requires three fundamental steps.

First, this department must consistently demonstrate the commitment and leadership to stop programs that significantly exceed their budget or which spend limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. Our conventional modernization goals should be tied to the actual and prospective capabilities of known future adversaries – not by what might be technologically feasible for a potential adversary given unlimited time and resources. I believe the decisions I am proposing accomplish this step. Great...until someone does build something really radical.

Second, we must ensure that requirements are reasonable and technology is adequately mature to allow the department to successfully execute the programs. Setting minimum technology readiness levels (TRLs)? Again, my decisions act on this principle by terminating a number of programs where the requirements were truly in the "exquisite" category and the technologies required were not reasonably available to affordably meet the programs' cost or schedule goals.

Third, realistically estimate program costs, provide budget stability for the programs we initiate, adequately staff the government acquisition team, and provide disciplined and constant oversight. No one in government does this well, from what I've seen. How well does the private sector do?

We must constantly guard against so-called "requirements creep," validate the maturity of technology at milestones, fund programs to independent cost estimates, and demand stricter contract terms and conditions. I am confident that if we stick to these steps, we will significantly improve the performance of our defense acquisition programs. But it takes more than mere pronouncements or fancy studies or reports. It takes acting on these principles by making tough decisions and sticking to them going forward.

I welcome the legislative initiative of Senators Levin and McCain to help address some of these issues and look forward to working with the Congress in this regard.

This budget will support these goals by increasing the size of defense acquisition workforce, converting 11,000 contractors (I presume this means converting them into civil servants, not Jehovah's Witnesses...) and hiring an additional 9,000 government acquisition professionals by 2015 – beginning with 4,100 in FY10. I am curious about the rationale for this. How do they expect an additional 20,000 civil servants to improve DoD's costs?

Fully reforming defense acquisition also requires recognizing the challenges of today's battlefield and constantly changing adversary. This requires an acquisition system that can perform with greater urgency and agility. We need greater funding flexibility and the ability to streamline our requirements and acquisition execution procedures.

The perennial procurement and contracting cycle – going back many decades – of adding layer upon layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build must come to an end. There is broad agreement on the need for acquisition and contracting reform in the Department of Defense. There have been enough studies. Enough hand-wringing. Enough rhetoric. Now is the time for action.

First, I recommend that we terminate the VH-71 presidential helicopter: Fine.

• This program was originally designed to provide 23 helicopters to support the president at a cost of $6.5 billion. Today, the program is estimated to cost over $13 billion, has fallen six years behind schedule, and runs the risk of not delivering the requested capability.Some have suggested that we should adjust the program by buying only the lower capability "increment one" option. I believe this is neither advisable nor affordable. Increment One helicopters do not meet requirements and are estimated to have only a five- to 10-year useful life. This compares to the current VH-3 presidential helicopters that are 30 to 40 years old.We will promptly develop options for an FY11 follow-on program.
• Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach.
• Third, we will terminate the $26 billion Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program, and instead will purchase two more Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites as alternatives. Is this a good thing? I have no idea.
• Fourth, in the area of missile defense:
  --We will restructure the program to focus on the rogue state and theater missile threat.
  --We will not increase the number of current ground-based interceptors in Alaska as had been planned. But we will continue to robustly fund continued research and development to improve the capability we already have to defend against long-range rogue missile threats – a threat North Korea's missile launch this past weekend reminds us is real. Good...I suppose.
  --We will cancel the second airborne laser (ABL) prototype aircraft. We will keep the existing aircraft and shift the program to an R&D effort. The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems and the program's proposed operational role is highly questionable. Bummer. This is a cool program.
  --We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement.
  --Overall, the Missile Defense Agency program will be reduced by $1.4 billion. This is NOT good for Huntsville/Redstone.
• Fifth, in this request, we will include funds to complete the buy of two navy destroyers in FY10. These plans depend on being able to work out contracts to allow the Navy to efficiently build all three DDG-1000 class ships at Bath Iron Works in Maine and to smoothly restart the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer program at Northrop Grumman's Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Even if these arrangements work out, the DDG-1000 program would end with the third ship and the DDG-51 would continue to be built in both yards.If our efforts with industry are unsuccessful, the department will likely build only a single prototype DDG-1000 at Bath and then review our options for restarting production of the DDG-51. If the department is left to pursue this alternative, it would unfortunately reduce our overall procurement of ships and cut workload in both shipyards. Why? This looks like we're going backward on our naval capabilities.
• Sixth, and finally, we will significantly restructure the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. We will retain and accelerate the initial increment of the program to spin out technology enhancements to all combat brigades. However, I have concluded that there are significant unanswered questions concerning the FCS vehicle design strategy. I am also concerned that, despite some adjustments, the FCS vehicles – where lower weight, higher fuel efficiency, and greater informational awareness are expected to compensate for less armor – do not adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency and close quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current vehicle program, developed nine years ago, does not include a role for our recent $25 billion investment in the MRAP vehicles being used to good effect in today's conflicts. This is perhaps the most definitive technology change that reflects the new Obama DoD--he's adjusting the Army's combat systems to fight counterinsurgency, not conventional warfare.

Further, I am troubled by the terms of the current contract, particularly its very unattractive fee structure that gives the government little leverage to promote cost efficiency. Because the vehicle part of the FCS program is currently estimated to cost over $87 billion, I believe we must have more confidence in the program strategy, requirements, and maturity of the technologies before proceeding further.

Accordingly, I will recommend that we cancel the vehicle component of the current FCS program, re-evaluate the requirements, technology, and approach – and then re-launch the Army's vehicle modernization program, including a competitive bidding process. An Army vehicle modernization program designed to meet the needs of the full spectrum of conflict is essential. But because of its size and importance, we must get the acquisition right, even at the cost of delay.

A final recommendation that will have a significant impact on how defense organizations are staffed and operated. Under this budget request, we will reduce the number of support service contractors from our current 39 percent of the workforce to the pre-2001 level of 26 percent and replace them with full-time government employees. Our goal is to hire as many as 13,000 new civil servants in FY10 to replace contractors and up to 30,000 new civil servants in place of contractors over the next five years. Again, I'm drawing a blank on how 30,000 additional CS's will improve efficiency or reduce costs. This would hurt a lot of small businesses by culling their employees and killing their contracts. What's the story here? More nationalization?

So these are the principal recommendations I will make to the president. There are a number of others that I have not mentioned, including classified programs. This is a reform budget, reflecting lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan yet also addressing the range of other potential threats around the world, now and in the future. I know that in the coming weeks we will hear a great deal about threats, and risk and danger – to our country and to our men and women in uniform – associated with different budget choices. Some will say I am too focused on the wars we are in and not enough on future threats. The allocation of dollars in this budget definitely belies that claim. But, it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk – or, in effect, to "run up the score" in a capability where the United States is already dominant – is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable.

That is a risk I will not take.

As I told the Congress in January, this budget presents an opportunity – one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity; to critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements (really now...) – those things that are desirable in a perfect world from those things that are truly needed in light of the threats America faces and the missions we are likely to undertake in the years ahead. An opportunity to truly reform the way we do business.

I will close by noting that it is one thing to speak generally about the need for budget discipline and acquisition and contract reform. It is quite another to make tough choices about specific systems and defense priorities based solely on the national interest and then stick to those decisions over time. To do this, the president and I look forward to working with the Congress, industry, and many others to accomplish what is in the best interest of our nation as a whole. The trick will be to win over the brass and the civil service bureaucracy. I'd say the latter will be a slam-dunk, given the heavy emphasis on civil service hiring. However, Gates and Obama might have to fire a few admirals and generals until they get some willing to play ball.

Thank you. You're quite welcome. Though I do find it weird that this statement didn't mention the overall, final budget number anywhere. Give us a clue: $600B? $400B? $1T? Inquiring minds want to know!

Potpourri XV

Brain hurts tonight, so I'll do another dose of potpourri. I've done my analysis of the Department of Defense budget, but the blog entry will have to wait.

Fedora tip to Cousin Susan for a hiking shoe recommendation for the Europe trip. A little pricey, but not much worse than the pair of Eccos I bought last summer. Thanks, cuz!

This item came from my historian buddy Tracy...a little lesson on manners in the age of the PDA. I loved her attached comment: I've noticed more often that my teenaged daughter will text and text, and then say, "Oh, I'm just going to call them." What a concept.

Speaking of the DoD budget, here's an editorial complaint about said budget. Not sure I agree with that perception, though I do find it odd that Gates's original statement did not include a final price tag for everything, just a list of changes up or down.

Another link from Hu, this time on the Air Force treating Predator drones/UAVs as "fighters." And while I'm at it, I might as well give a plug for Hu's defense, space, and technology business research service, "MyKickStart." Hu is based in Huntsville, so the slant is providing articles of interest for companies based here in HSV, but he gets good stuff from around the world, some of brilliant, some of it hilarious. For subscription information, send Hu an email at subscribe@mykickstart.com.

Feel like shipping wine somewhere in the U.S.? Best read this first. Then this. (Fedora tip to Melissa for finding these.) My current plans involve shipping wine to family and friends in Florida from Europe. It's not worth the aggravation and the paperwork.

And a last thought about Microsoft Office 2007. I finally attended a couple classes today on the new versions of Word and Excel (PowerPoint tomorrow). Looking back on it, I probably should have taken these classes before my computer made the transition. The training session consisted of receiving a couple of handouts and listening to a Microsoft employee (sales dude) on a telecon about the new features of the programs. And let there be no doubt these are mostly new programs. Some keystrokes are the same for those of us who don't like the mouse. Most of the icons are the same. But the menu logic and organization of most basic functions have completely changed. This has led me to a few assumptions about how Microsoft developed this software set:

• The programmers are mostly under 30. The interface has a heavy emphasis on mouse- and button-driven functionality.
• The programmers assumed that users would receive some sort of training.

The transition to this new software was not designed for companies with little to no training budget. It was not designed for long-time Microsoft users who are self-starters and rarely RTFM. I say this because users like me--who just jump right in and figure they're getting the same stuff with a few extra bells and whistles--find or found the transition utterly frustrating because of the radical changes to the interface. My only suggestion for self-starters is: don't. Find a class. Press F1, or RTFM. Save yourself the aggravation. Microsoft Office 2007, like Vista, is almost a completely different animal. It takes a special sort of software to irritate me on the very first screen ("Where's the friggin' 'open document' icon??").

Potpourri XIV

First, some travel product links from Scott in the Land Down Yonder (New Zealand, as opposed to Australia, the Land Down Under:

• www.travelsmith.com
  
• http://www.scottvest.com/
  
• www.sierratradingpost.com
  
• Want to know where unclaimed baggage ends up? I recall Mad Magazine speculating that all lost luggage ended up in Muncie, Indiana. Turns out some of it, at least, ends up at the Unclaimed Baggage Center in Scottsboro, Alabama, just down Route 72 from Huntsville.
  

Some links from my buddy Hu(gh) about the North Korean missile launch:

• The missile was tracked from the moment of liftoff.
  
• Multiple "eyes" were on the target.


• The USNS Observation Island was also in the neighborhood...
  
• And the Arms Control Wonk has an interesting take on this flight.

And another unrelated link from Hu: Huntsville has been listed as one of the top cities in the country for defense jobs. At least until the DoD budget is passed.

Here's a site dealing with space activities within Russia.

While researching some stuff for my day job, my buddy Tracy referred me to the following links:

• The Apollo 8 flight journal--Mission Control transcripts from the mission
  
• A variety of sound and movie files from the Apollo program

On a completely different note...some guy from the Campaign for Liberty, Steve Bierfeldt, got pulled aside and harassed by the Transportation Security Agency. I must ask what he did to get pulled aside in the first place. Was it a random check? If so, Bierfeldt was well within his rights to act as he did. If it wasn't a random check, on what basis was he pulled aside? "You are suspicious to me" one officer says. Was he avoiding eye contact? Acting suspiciously, trying to conceal something while going through the security checkpoint? Did he get hostile with the TSA agents? Those are some of the giveaways. Mind you, I don't like meekly submitting to arbitrary commands either, but if I don't feel like spending an hour in the TSA office, I'll shut up and behave within the limits of courtesy.

Doc, who provided some great answers to my query on liberal political solutions from yesterday, also referred me to a new comic/graphic novel series coming out called Ignition City. It looks very cool!

Leonard Nimoy surprised a SF con audience by premiering the new Star Trek movie. The buzz on Twitter from people in the audience was good.

The National Space Society has posted a link listing all of the social networking sites where NSS or its chapters have a presence.

This, from my morning AIAA news feed:

The AP (4/7) reports, "The suspected pilot of a plane stolen from Canada and flown into the US trailed by fighter jets was captured Monday night near the rural stretch of road in Missouri where he landed." The stolen "single-engine, four-seat Cessna was intercepted by US fighter jets over Wisconsin, where it prompted the evacuation of the state capitol, but kept flying south after the pilot failed to respond to radio calls and other signals." The plane was stolen from the Confederation College Flight School at Thunder Bay International Airport in Ontario.

Fedora tip to Jo for pointing this out to me: Sales of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged have picked up. Not everyone thinks this is a good thing. IMDB.com is listing Atlas as being a movie in production, possibly coming to the theaters in 2011. It's a difficult book to make into a movie, but Randall Wallace, writer of Braveheart and The Patriot, is listed as the screenwriter, which gives me hope. But others have tried, too. We'll see. There appears to be a demand for pro-capitalist movies.

*

And finally, as a follow-up to my defense discussion yesterday, here's a copy of SecDef Robert Gates' statement on the DoD budget. It deserves to be quoted in full. I've added hyperlinks to various programs for reference. I will read it this evening and provide some additional commentary tomorrow, given my previous thoughts on military strategy and assumptions about the future.

Today, I am announcing the key decisions I will recommend to the president with respect to the fiscal year 2010 defense budget. The president agreed to this unorthodox approach – announcing the department's request before the White House submits a budget to the Congress – because of the scope and significance of the changes. In addition, the president and I believe that the American people deserve to learn of these recommendations fully and in context, as the proposed changes are interconnected and cannot be properly communicated or understood in isolation from one another. Collectively, they represent a budget crafted to reshape the priorities of America's defense establishment. If approved, these recommendations will profoundly reform how this department does business.

In many ways, my recommendations represent the cumulative outcome of a lifetime spent in the national security arena and, above all, questions asked, experience gained, and lessons learned from over two years of leading this department – and, in particular, from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. I reached the final decisions after many hours of consultations with the military and civilian leadership of the department. I have also consulted closely with the president. But, I received no direction or guidance from outside this department on individual program decisions. The chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in complete accord with these recommendations. The chairman is traveling abroad but he has provided a statement that we will distribute at the end of the briefing.

My decisions have been almost exclusively influenced by factors other than simply finding a way to balance the books or fit under the "top line" – as is normally the case with most budget exercises. Instead, these recommendations are the product of a holistic assessment of capabilities, requirements, risks and needs for the purpose of shifting this department in a different strategic direction. Let me be clear: I would have made virtually all of the decisions and recommendations announced today regardless of the department's top line budget number.

The decisions have three principal objectives:

• First, to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all-volunteer force, which, in my view represents America's greatest strategic asset;
• Second, we must rebalance this department's programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies.
• Third, in order to do this, we must reform how and what we buy, meaning a fundamental overhaul of our approach to procurement, acquisition, and contracting.

People

With regard to the troops and their families, I will recommend that we:

1. Fully protect and properly fund the growth in military end strength in the base budget. This means completing the growth in the Army and Marines while halting reductions in the Air Force and the Navy. Accomplishing this will require a nearly $11 billion increase above the FY09 budget level.
2. Continue the steady growth in medical research and development by requesting $400 million more than last year.
3. Recognize the critical and permanent nature of wounded, ill and injured, traumatic brain injury, and psychological health programs. This means institutionalizing and properly funding these efforts in the base budget and increasing overall spending by $300 million. The department will spend over $47 billion on healthcare in FY10.
4. Increase funding by $200 million for improvements in child care, spousal support, lodging, and education.

Many of these programs have been funded in the past by supplementals. We must move away from ad hoc funding of long-term commitments. Thus, we have added money to each of these areas and all will be permanently and properly carried in the base defense budget. Together they represent an increase in base budget funding of $13 billion from last year.

A Home for the Warfighter
As I told the Congress in January, our struggles to put the defense bureaucracies on a war footing these past few years have revealed underlying flaws in the priorities, cultural preferences, and reward structures of America's defense establishment – a set of institutions largely arranged to prepare for conflicts against other modern armies, navies, and air forces. Programs to directly support, protect, and care for the man or woman at the front have been developed ad hoc and funded outside the base budget. Put simply, until recently there has not been an institutional home in the Defense Department for today's warfighter. Our contemporary wartime needs must receive steady long-term funding and a bureaucratic constituency similar to conventional modernization programs. I intend to use the FY10 budget to begin this process.

First, we will increase intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for the warfighter in the base budget by some $2 billion. This will include:

• Fielding and sustaining 50 Predator-class unmanned aerial vehicle orbits by FY11 and maximizing their production. This capability, which has been in such high demand in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will now be permanently funded in the base budget. It will represent a 62 percent increase in capability over the current level and 127 percent from over a year ago.
• Increasing manned ISR capabilities such as the turbo-prop aircraft deployed so successfully as part of "Task Force Odin" in Iraq.
• Initiating research and development on a number of ISR enhancements and experimental platforms optimized for today's battlefield.
• We will also spend $500 million more in the base budget than last year to increase our capacity to field and sustain more helicopters – a capability that is in urgent demand in Afghanistan. Today, the primary limitation on helicopter capacity is not airframes but shortages of maintenance crews and pilots. So our focus will be on recruiting and training more Army helicopter crews.
• To boost global partnership capacity efforts, we will increase funding by $500 million. These initiatives include training and equipping foreign militaries to undertake counter terrorism and stability operations.
• To grow our special operations capabilities, we will increase personnel by more than 2,800 or five percent and will buy more special forces-optimized lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft.
• We will increase the buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions – from two to three ships in FY 2010. Our goal is to eventually acquire 55 of these ships.
• To improve our inter-theater lift capacity, we will increase the charter of Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) ships from two to four until our own production program begins deliveries in 2011.
• We will stop the growth of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) at 45 versus 48 while maintaining the planned increase in end strength of 547,000. This will ensure that we have better-manned units ready to deploy, and help put an end to the routine use of stop loss. This step will also lower the risk of hollowing the force.

Conventional and Strategic Modernization
Even as we begin to shift resources and institutional weight towards supporting the current wars and other potential irregular campaigns, the United States must still contend with the security challenges posed by the military forces of other countries – from those actively hostile to those at strategic crossroads. Last year's National Defense Strategy concluded that although U.S. predominance in conventional warfare is not unchallenged, it is sustainable for the medium term given current trends. This year's budget deliberations focused on what programs are necessary to deter aggression, project power when necessary, and protect our interests and allies around the globe. To this end, I will recommend new or additional investments and shifts in several key areas:

1. To sustain U.S. air superiority, I am committed to building a fifth generation tactical fighter capability that can be produced in quantity at sustainable cost. Therefore, I will recommend increasing the buy of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from the 14 aircraft bought in FY09 to 30 in FY10, with corresponding funding increases from $6.8 billion to $11.2 billion. We would plan to buy 513 F-35s over the five-year defense plan, and, ultimately, plan to buy 2,443. For naval aviation, we will buy 31 FA-18s in FY10.
2. We will retire 250 of the oldest Air Force tactical fighter aircraft in FY10.
3. We will end production of the F-22 fighter at 187 – representing 183 planes plus four recommended for inclusion in the FY 2009 supplemental.
4. To better protect our forces and those of our allies in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, specifically the terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) programs.
5. We will also add $200 million to fund conversion of six additional Aegis ships to provide ballistic missile defense capabilities.
6. To improve cyberspace capabilities, we will increase the number of cyber experts this department can train from 80 students per year to 250 per year by FY11.
7. To replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet, we will maintain the KC-X aerial re-fueling tanker schedule and funding, with the intent to solicit bids this summer.
8. With regard to our nuclear and strategic forces:
   --In FY10, we will begin the replacement program for the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine program.
   --We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.
   --We will examine all of our strategic requirements during the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and in light of Post-START arms control negotiations.
9. The healthy margin of dominance at sea provided by America's existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow production of several major surface combatants and other maritime programs.
   --We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.
   --We will delay the Navy CG-X next generation cruiser program to revisit both the requirements and acquisition strategy.
   --We will delay amphibious ship and sea-basing programs such as the 11th Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ship and the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) SHIP to FY11 in order to assess costs and analyze the amount of these capabilities the nation needs.
10. With regard to air lift, we will complete production of the C-17 airlifter program this fiscal year. Our analysis concludes that we have enough C-17s with the 205 already in the force and currently in production.

Acquisition and Contracting Reform
In today's environment, maintaining our technological and conventional edge requires a dramatic change in the way we acquire military equipment. I believe this needed reform requires three fundamental steps.

First, this department must consistently demonstrate the commitment and leadership to stop programs that significantly exceed their budget or which spend limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. Our conventional modernization goals should be tied to the actual and prospective capabilities of known future adversaries – not by what might be technologically feasible for a potential adversary given unlimited time and resources. I believe the decisions I am proposing accomplish this step.

Second, we must ensure that requirements are reasonable and technology is adequately mature to allow the department to successfully execute the programs. Again, my decisions act on this principle by terminating a number of programs where the requirements were truly in the "exquisite" category and the technologies required were not reasonably available to affordably meet the programs' cost or schedule goals.

Third, realistically estimate program costs, provide budget stability for the programs we initiate, adequately staff the government acquisition team, and provide disciplined and constant oversight.

We must constantly guard against so-called "requirements creep," validate the maturity of technology at milestones, fund programs to independent cost estimates, and demand stricter contract terms and conditions. I am confident that if we stick to these steps, we will significantly improve the performance of our defense acquisition programs. But it takes more than mere pronouncements or fancy studies or reports. It takes acting on these principles by making tough decisions and sticking to them going forward.

I welcome the legislative initiative of Senators Levin and McCain to help address some of these issues and look forward to working with the Congress in this regard.

This budget will support these goals by increasing the size of defense acquisition workforce, converting 11,000 contractors and hiring an additional 9,000 government acquisition professionals by 2015 – beginning with 4,100 in FY10.

Fully reforming defense acquisition also requires recognizing the challenges of today's battlefield and constantly changing adversary. This requires an acquisition system that can perform with greater urgency and agility. We need greater funding flexibility and the ability to streamline our requirements and acquisition execution procedures.

The perennial procurement and contracting cycle – going back many decades – of adding layer upon layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build must come to an end. There is broad agreement on the need for acquisition and contracting reform in the Department of Defense. There have been enough studies. Enough hand-wringing. Enough rhetoric. Now is the time for action.

First, I recommend that we terminate the VH-71 presidential helicopter:

• This program was originally designed to provide 23 helicopters to support the president at a cost of $6.5 billion. Today, the program is estimated to cost over $13 billion, has fallen six years behind schedule, and runs the risk of not delivering the requested capability.
  Some have suggested that we should adjust the program by buying only the lower capability "increment one" option. I believe this is neither advisable nor affordable. Increment One helicopters do not meet requirements and are estimated to have only a five- to 10-year useful life. This compares to the current VH-3 presidential helicopters that are 30 to 40 years old.
  We will promptly develop options for an FY11 follow-on program.
• Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach.
• Third, we will terminate the $26 billion Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program, and instead will purchase two more Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites as alternatives.
• Fourth, in the area of missile defense:
  --We will restructure the program to focus on the rogue state and theater missile threat.
  --We will not increase the number of current ground-based interceptors in Alaska as had been planned. But we will continue to robustly fund continued research and development to improve the capability we already have to defend against long-range rogue missile threats – a threat North Korea's missile launch this past weekend reminds us is real.
  --We will cancel the second airborne laser (ABL) prototype aircraft. We will keep the existing aircraft and shift the program to an R&D effort. The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems and the program's proposed operational role is highly questionable.
  --We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement.
  --Overall, the Missile Defense Agency program will be reduced by $1.4 billion.
• Fifth, in this request, we will include funds to complete the buy of two navy destroyers in FY10. These plans depend on being able to work out contracts to allow the Navy to efficiently build all three DDG-1000 class ships at Bath Iron Works in Maine and to smoothly restart the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer program at Northrop Grumman's Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Even if these arrangements work out, the DDG-1000 program would end with the third ship and the DDG-51 would continue to be built in both yards.
  If our efforts with industry are unsuccessful, the department will likely build only a single prototype DDG-1000 at Bath and then review our options for restarting production of the DDG-51. If the department is left to pursue this alternative, it would unfortunately reduce our overall procurement of ships and cut workload in both shipyards.
• Sixth, and finally, we will significantly restructure the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. We will retain and accelerate the initial increment of the program to spin out technology enhancements to all combat brigades. However, I have concluded that there are significant unanswered questions concerning the FCS vehicle design strategy. I am also concerned that, despite some adjustments, the FCS vehicles – where lower weight, higher fuel efficiency, and greater informational awareness are expected to compensate for less armor – do not adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency and close quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current vehicle program, developed nine years ago, does not include a role for our recent $25 billion investment in the MRAP vehicles being used to good effect in today's conflicts.

Further, I am troubled by the terms of the current contract, particularly its very unattractive fee structure that gives the government little leverage to promote cost efficiency. Because the vehicle part of the FCS program is currently estimated to cost over $87 billion, I believe we must have more confidence in the program strategy, requirements, and maturity of the technologies before proceeding further.

Accordingly, I will recommend that we cancel the vehicle component of the current FCS program, re-evaluate the requirements, technology, and approach – and then re-launch the Army's vehicle modernization program, including a competitive bidding process. An Army vehicle modernization program designed to meet the needs of the full spectrum of conflict is essential. But because of its size and importance, we must get the acquisition right, even at the cost of delay.

A final recommendation that will have a significant impact on how defense organizations are staffed and operated. Under this budget request, we will reduce the number of support service contractors from our current 39 percent of the workforce to the pre-2001 level of 26 percent and replace them with full-time government employees. Our goal is to hire as many as 13,000 new civil servants in FY10 to replace contractors and up to 30,000 new civil servants in place of contractors over the next five years.

So these are the principal recommendations I will make to the president. There are a number of others that I have not mentioned, including classified programs. This is a reform budget, reflecting lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan yet also addressing the range of other potential threats around the world, now and in the future. I know that in the coming weeks we will hear a great deal about threats, and risk and danger – to our country and to our men and women in uniform – associated with different budget choices. Some will say I am too focused on the wars we are in and not enough on future threats. The allocation of dollars in this budget definitely belies that claim. But, it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk – or, in effect, to "run up the score" in a capability where the United States is already dominant – is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable.

That is a risk I will not take.

As I told the Congress in January, this budget presents an opportunity – one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity; to critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements – those things that are desirable in a perfect world from those things that are truly needed in light of the threats America faces and the missions we are likely to undertake in the years ahead. An opportunity to truly reform the way we do business.

I will close by noting that it is one thing to speak generally about the need for budget discipline and acquisition and contract reform. It is quite another to make tough choices about specific systems and defense priorities based solely on the national interest and then stick to those decisions over time. To do this, the president and I look forward to working with the Congress, industry, and many others to accomplish what is in the best interest of our nation as a whole.

Thank you.