♪ land of the pilgrims' pride ♪ from every mountainside ♪ let freedom ring ♪

next on this week in defense news. is boeing going to pull out of the tanker competition. improving intelligence in afghanistan and why foreign aid

is important. now this week in defense news with vago muradian. >> good morning, welcome to this week in defense news. i'm vago muradian. a new wide area surveillance sensor will help troops to see more of the battlefield in afghanistan. will this technology create a data overload? two retired military leaders argue by u.s. foreign aid spending needs to be increased, not cut. boeing is considering not bidding for the air force's $35 billion aerial tanker contractor. northrup grumman decided against bidding butding. we have john reed, defense air

and space reporter. it looked like boeing was going to win this in a wake walk. what are boeing's concerns and is it serious not bidding for this contract? >> i think boeing is serious about weighing all of its options and doing a cost benefit analysis. they're considering what it would cost to bid and lose and then be undercut by eads. >> and that's happened on commercial markets where eads competed the a-330 which is larger on the 767 and won on price. are they concerned about the fixed price long term nature of the contract? >> both parties are concerned about that but i think they can move beyond that. at this point it is boeing really concerned about are they going to be able to compete on price? >> and to be able to win it. what is the pentagon been saying? the last time around the

pentagon's attitude said, hey, northrup grumman, eads, if you don't want to bid, that's okay, we're okay with boeing. what is the pentagon saying now. >> so far the pentagon is quiet about this issue. i talked to a few people on the hill and inside of boeing who both said they're assuring lawmakers they are going to bid. i think the top executive at boeing is saying that it is irresponsible not to weigh all the options. i think they will bid. they assured the lawmakers they will bid especially considering it was boeing's protest that got us here the last time. >> obviously northrup grumman and eads won it the last time around. congress is looking at the subsidies issue as well and proposed legislation. where do we stand on this? >> the house armed services committee inserted into their market the authorization bill, defense authorization bill yesterday. it has to move to the senate right now. that bill essentially says that the department of defense must

take these subsidies into account for the competition. they must weigh how ever many dollars eads receives per airplane in the competition. >> effort to increase the eads airplane depending upon how you look at it, fairly or unfairly for the subsidies. john, thanks very much. we'll have you back to talk about this issue. this will not end soon. the u.s. air force is collecting more intelligence over afghanistan everyday. how sit getting the right information to the right folks? that is coming up.

a [ laughs ]

[ male announcer ] achievement has its own patch of grass. ♪ achievement unleashes hidden potential. ♪ all right! achievement looks forward to dinner at home. achievement enjoys newfound freedom. i love you. [ male announcer ] mortgages, home equity loans, and lines of credit from pnc. helping achievers borrow with an eye towards the future. pnc. for the achiever in us all.

unmanned spy planes helped combat froops fight insurgents, catch terrorists and dodge ieds. the airports operate 41 orbits over iraq, each orbit has as many as three area craft and the data collected can take thousands of hours. all data has to be analyzed. how will the air force analyzes the correct date and get it to

the correct areas. general, welcome back to the show. >> great to be here. >> lets talk about gorgan stare, when you get more data but all of this has to be analyzed, how does the air force end up not turning into the united states an lit tal corps as opposed to the united states air force. >> there are a couple of ways to do it. first thing to remember is that the greatest analytical computer that we have is right up here, that sits on the bodies of those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, who need and will receive the information coming off of gorgan stare. so there are, as you mentioned, 10 individual video feeds will go directly to users who have a remote video terminal in front of them. >> getting the information real-time. >> getting the information real-time to increase their situation awareness often times we have this notion that we have to analyze everything we collect.

when in fact the value of the system is increasing the user's situation awareness. now, that is one way that we get data that improves the ability of our soldiers, airmen and marines to operate. yes, there will be other ways in addition to beaming the data directly to users with a remote terminal, we've got a ground data processing station that a high-capacity data link will pass all of the information down to from gorgan stare which will be processed in a small mobile van and sent back out now to individual areas of interest, it can be sent out to 50 different users out there. >> using automation as a tool to start to narrow down what you're looking for. >> that is correct. and then the third piece is all of this information can be recorded for later analysis by traditional analysts which are getting -- which you're the

getting at. you want to know where are we getting all these people from? people are not only going to solve this tsunami of data by throwing more people at it. we have have to look at greater animation. i have an example of tools if you have time. >> give us an example. that would be great. >> you have analysts who look at a video screen, for example, watching a particular structure building, waiting for somebody to come out. they're doing that, looking alt it all the time, and we have software under development that you can designate on a screen, a computer screen, what it is that you're interested in looking at and then it will automatically track who ever comes out of the building and turn on a notification alarm, if you will, to bring a human into the process. >> a motion sensor that says, hey, there is something going on now as opposed to staring at it for hours. >> it is more accurate than a

motion sensor. the software tracks where that human being of interest is going. >> everybody, when ever they're talking about isr needs is talking about increasing the supply but not regulating the demand. how do you strike the right balance to make sure you're not buying more isr capability than you really need and not going shorter than you would like to be on? >> that is an excellent question and it's one that the commanders in the field need to meter in the context of validating demand. and ask the questions, you know, how much of this isr do we absolutely have to have, versus what we would like to have. there is a big difference between need and want and validation process is put in place by the commanders out in the field. >> the goal is 65 by 2013 and you guys are tracking nicely to be able to do that. the question is, does it go higher? is there another magic number out there, that is 75 or 100 or 200? >> that is a great question, because what we need to start

doing is moving away from numbers of caps as a measure of isr-sufficiency. this whole knowing of gorgan brings us -- this whole notion of gorgan brings us to a forefront. >> effectively -- >> we need to start thinking about output or capability coming off of these caps, not counting the number of caps themselves. >> let us go to the security of the network. there has been criticism that some of the unmanned feeds were available and folks were hacking and tapping into them. what are we doing to harden those networks and make sure they cannot be denied by future enemies that look at this as a single point vulnerability. >> encryption is the first thing to comes to mind. but the other piece of this, too, a lot of folks have made a

lot of this. remember, if you don't have the context of what the information is that you're actually looking for, it's very difficult to ascertain staring at a video screen, what the user ultimately wants. so encryption is one way of doing it. and in terms of -- there is a lots of different techniques that, you know, i'd rather not get into, that other than encryption, that allow us to secure the information feed that gets to the people who need it. >> do -- two questions: first, how many people are tied to these unmanned systems? we call them unmanned system but there are vast armies of folks supporting them, whether they are remote operators or analyzers. >> in the air force we #345i a conscientious effort to stop referring to these systems as

unmanned aircraft systems because there's absolutely nothing unmanned about the system except the vehicle itself. so we are starting to use the terminology remotely piloted aircraft. nominally it takes about 170 people to support one combat air patrol. >> that is looking pretty manned. two quick questions: first, what happens to these systems when they go away, when the wars go away? because you have a lot of aircraft and capability lying around. secondly, what is the capabilities you want in the reaper replacement? >> first question, other than sentcom there are many commands around the world who will fulfill the -- provide the appetite for the use of these systems. >> so they won't mold anywhere. >> they will not be idle on the

shelf. remotely piloted aircraft have magnificent virtues and values that are desired by combatant commanders. >> in the 15 seconds, the mqx? >> that will focus on modularity. we'll focus more on ought ton moups operations to -- autonomous operations. and we're focussing highly on survive ability. we have plenty of systems that can operate in permissive airspace but we have to be able to deal with challenged air space in the future. >> sir, thanks very much. you're welcome back any time to talk to us about this stuff. why the state department's budget should be bigger, when we come back. you're watching this week in defense news.

despite calls from eight former secretaries of state and 60 top retired leaders, the budget committee last month slashed the international affairs budget by $4 billion for

7%. that budget funds civilian projects in iraq and afghanistan and aid to close allies. here to argue why foreign aid spending is general mike hagge and admiral jim loy. and a former deputy homeland security secretary. they are co-chairs of the national security advisory council at the global leadership coalition. welcome to the show. so the budget committee wants to cut this $4 billion out of the roughly $60 billion that is in that budget. why is that a bad idea, admiral loy? >> first offer all it is not a done deal. a better letd was sent to put the 4 billion back into the budget. in the post-9/11 security world that we're still trying to understand let alone actually live in, the collaborative efforts of all of the elements of influence that the united states has to muster has to be put in a package deal around the

world to allow us to do what we need to do. and the push into that, that is other than military, must go towards the diplomatic and economic development pieces so there is strength and imagined strength there and real strength there to do the things that they do that are better than the military. >> as opposed to a investment, is that a right way to look at foreign aid? >> i don't think so. it really is an investment and it is an investment in our security. the united states security. what the diplomats are doing and what the developers are doing and what the armed forces are doing throughout the world making us more secure, allowing those countries to better themselves so that they can participate in the economics of the world. so it is truly an investment and really a long-term investment. >> why is it that idea, something that the united states

government understood very, very well, usaid you can see it peaked during the cold air as well as isa service which was popular. why is it after the cold wear they atrophied. but now they are up against tight fiscal orientation. >> the first is what you just said. we're all up against a tight fiscal orientation but we are also living in a global marketplace that suggests not just after a tragedy occurs or an event occurs or a campaign waged like iraq or afghanistan has been waged occurs, we need to be about the business of making friends around the world in dramatic ways, economic development ways, diplomatic ways, as well as mill to mill engagement with our counterparts around the world, such as that fewer nightmares occur and when they do owe kushgs you have relationships forged to find a way towards solution.

>> we actually got it wrong after 1979 when the wall came down. we thought peace was going to break out all over. one historian said history is dead and in fact current events proved that is not true. >> exactly. how do you get the balance point between what is the state department mission and what is a pentagon mission, whether it is for humanitarian aid or some other operations we have been conducting. the pentagon has been taking the lead in nation building. what is the right balance, who should be in charge? and if it is the state department, what resources does it need? >> actually someone has to be in charge. of course, this comes from military man. >> you're a marine. >> but having said that, it is a joint effort and i would argue from the start somalia as an example, i was involved in somalia. and ambassador oakley was in california when we were doing the planning to go in. he went in with us.

general bob johnston was in fact the joint force commander but he and ambassador oakley worked very closely together on every issue, and that in my opinion is the way it has to be. you cannot -- especially today -- you cannot put a dividing line and say this is yours and this is yours, it is ours. >> in this post-9/11 security environment requires a dramatically different approach than was the ease of the cold war days. who would have thought we were pining for the good old days of the cold war, but the reality is the clab brat tiff nature of the natures, it is about disease, it is about lots of different things beyond just a simple military operation. each of them has a multi-facetted challenge to it and the multi-facets in this post-9/11 world call for contributions from experts that are other than military. >> does it mean that as we draft

our operational plans, and obviously the military -- coast guard did a vast array of plans that are on the shelf, do we much earlier on need to figure out the diplomatic and the other elements and decide in the next humanitarian crisis my front line is a bunch of ngos? >> i would say yes. not only when the crisis occurs, but you need to plan for that. when we do operational planning, all those individuals who have stakes in that -- and that's the diplomatic arm, the development arm, and the national security arm -- need to be involved in these exercises before we actually enter the crisis. >> is this going to be -- how do where he make sure this kind of funding takes priority over other sorts of funding as we get into a fiscally constrained future. >> the spokes persons for this reality is coming out of the woodwork, if you will.

recognizing for example in this particular instance it was easy for mike and i to find 60 of our colleagues and it could have been 100, or it could have been 300, of 4-star, three-star and general officers who were in the midst of these crises before and realizes they need a military bridge, military harsh realities of whatever that end of it is, usually the front end and then the nation-building challenges that follow. >> gentlemen, i appreciate it. coming up, why the administration needs to consider all of the implications.

the pentagon's drive to by aerial tankers took a surprising term when boeing hinted it might not bid for the contract. boeing says airbus benefits from billions of dollars in subsidies that would allow it to cut boeing on price. airbus dismisses the charge saying subsidies are not a consideration for the pentagon. the pentagon can't ignore subsidy questions if what it is seeking is a truly fair competition. airbus was borne of an industrial strategy that put gaining market share ahead of gaining profit. government support made that possible. airbus is eager to win the

tanker contract to better compete against boeing on commercial markets. that aim is inconsistent with the obama administration's focus on boosting u.s. industrial competitiveness. boeing is, after all, america's leading exporter. the root problem is this, america lacks a national industrial strategy that reconciles policy goals with military acquisition plans and making a weapons purchase, washington needs to consider all the strategic implications. thanks for joining us in this week in defense news. i'm vago muradian. you can watch this program on-line at defensenewstv.com. i'll be back next sunday morning at 11:00. have a great week.