2011-11-29 xinhua

Le Commandement central (Centcom) américain ouvrira une enquête sur les frappes aériennes transfrontalière de l'OTAN ayant tué 24 soldats pakistanais, le 26 novembre dernier, a annoncé lundi le secrétaire chargé de l'information au Département de la Défense, George Little.

Selon le porte-parole du Pentagone, le commandant de la Force internationale d'assistance à la sécurité de l'OTAN (ISAF) et des forces américaines en Afghanistan, John Allen, a demandé au Centcom de mener cette enquête.

"L'ISAF a fait ce que vous avez espéré: former une équipe chargée d'évaluer cet incident à l'étape initiale", a rappelé M. Little, ajoutant que l'enquête visait à trouver tous les facteurs ayant conduit à cette tragédie.

Au total 24 soldats pakistanais ont été tués et 13 autres blessés par les frappes menées samedi matin par des avions de combat et des hélicoptères de l'OTAN sur deux postes de contrôle pakistanais, situés près de la frontière avec l'Afghanistan, dans la région tribale de Mohmand.

Cet incident a jeté un tollé à Islamabad. La secrétaire d'Etat américaine Hillary Clinton et le secrétaire à la Défense Leon Panetta ont publié un communiqué conjoint en fin de semaine pour exprimer leurs condoléances pour ces pertes en vies humaines, affirmant qu'ils suivaient de près les informations relatives à ce drame.

De son côté, le porte-parole de la Maison Blanche Jay Carney a déclaré lundi que l'administration avait pris cette affaire "très au sérieux", promettant que Washington menerait une enquête sur ce cas et qu'il avait hâte de connaître ce qui s'est réellement passé.

M. Little a également assuré que Leon Panetta "avait suivi de très près cet événement" et qu'il n'avait pas encore contacté les responsables pakistanais. Mme Clinton, M. Allen et Martin Dempsey, président des chefs de l'état-major général des armées, ont respectivement téléphoné à leurs homologues pakistanais, a-t-il ajouté, notant que MM. Dempsey et Allen s'étaient entretenus l'un et l'autre avec le chef de l'armée pakistanaise, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

"Pour l'instant, l'important est de continuer à nous engager avec nos partenaires pakistanais en tout temps, même dans les périodes difficiles", a indiqué M. Little.

November 29, 2011. David Pugliese - Defence Watch

Michael Tutton of Canadian Press has followed the Cyclone program quite closely. He is now reporting that the Canadian military has not received its first fully operational Cyclone maritime helicopter for training purposes, months after Defence Minister Peter MacKay said it would get it in the summer.

More from his report:

In May, MacKay announced that Canadian Forces aircrew could expect to have their first interim CH-148 Cyclone for training purposes by the end of the summer.

He made the announcement inside a hangar intended specifically for the Cyclones at the 12 Wing Shearwater airbase in Eastern Passage.

A spokesman said MacKay was unavailable for comment Monday. In response to a request for comment, a spokeswoman for the Defence Department said in an email the military hasn’t yet accepted delivery of the helicopter from manufacturer Sikorksy because work on the chopper isn’t complete.

“Critical work remains outstanding before the Defence Department can take official delivery and assume ownership of the interim helicopter in accordance with the contract,” Tracy Poirier said.

Poirier did not elaborate on what work still needs to be done but said the federal government will only accept the helicopter when it receives a Canadian military airworthiness certificate.

Nov 29, 2011 AviationWeek.com Reuters

LONDON - The top U.S. military officer said Nov. 28 the U.S. was vulnerable to cyberattacks, and called for more aggressive action to bolster America’s online defenses.

The comments by Army gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were the latest by U.S. military officials flagging cybersecurity as an area of growing focus and investment even as the Pentagon braces for declining budgets.

“We lose enormous intellectual property rights. We’re under constant attack every day. And it’s going to take a whole government approach,” Dempsey told a forum in London, in what was billed as his first full-scale address since taking over the Pentagon’s top uniformed job in September.

Recent attacks on U.S. corporations such as Google, the Nasdaq stock exchange, Lockheed Martin and RSA, the security division of EMC, have given U.S. government and military officials a renewed sense of urgency about addressing threats to U.S. computer networks.

An arm of the U.S. intelligence community released a report earlier in November identifying China and Russia as the most active and persistent nations that are using cyberespionage to steal U.S. trade and technology secrets.

But data theft is only one area of concern. U.S. officials stepped up warnings about possible destructive cyberattacks after the computer virus Stuxnet emerged in 2010.

Stuxnet is believed to have crippled centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium for what the U.S. and some European nations have charged is a covert nuclear weapons program.

“We are not immune to coercion in cyber. And we have to get after it,” Dempsey said. “We’re working on it … but in my judgment we need to work harder.”

29 November 2011 by the Shephard News Team

Rockwell Collins has announced that it has been selected to provide additional Transportable Black Hawk Operations Simulators (T-BOS) to the US Army. According to a company statement issued 28 November 2011, the contract is valued at $35 million, and calls for deliveries to be complete by September 2015.

According to Rockwell Collins, the T-BOS capabilities have made it the US Army’s standard deployable training device for the Black Hawk helicopter. It is the only US Army accredited flight training device for the UH-60M aircraft.

T-BOS is a high-fidelity flight simulator capable of being deployed to forward operating bases. Rockwell Collins said the system is air, land and sea transportable and can be ready for training within eight hours of arrival due to its own integral power and environmental control unit. The T-BOS is equipped with UH-60M avionics including Rockwell Collins' cockpit displays.

Photo Northrop Grumman

November 29, 2011 By Zach Rosenberg – Flight Global

The US Navy has confirmed that its first operational vertical take-off unmanned air vehicle (VTUAV) unit will be formed in 2013. Equipped with the Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout, HSM-35 will also operate manned Sikorsky MH-60Rs from NAS North Island in San Diego, California.

The formal activation of VTUAVs marks a first for the navy, which has previously operated the RQ-2 Pioneer and other small fixed-wing UAVs. The service has taken a more cautious approach on UAVs than other US military services, but is increasingly incorporating them into its force structure.

The navy is in the midst of major UAV competitions and purchases, including the Northrop MQ-4C broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) system that will partially replace the Lockheed Martin P-3, and the Boeing/Insitu RQ-21 Integrator for tactical reconnaissance around ships. By the end of the decade, the navy also plans to deploy the unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) fleet, with the Northrop X-47B and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Avenger as likely frontrunners.

Details of the new squadron's formation have not yet been firmed, including the number of Fire Scouts and personnel. Squadron formation is scheduled to begin in mid-2012, according to the navy, with a declaration of operational readiness scheduled for mid-2013. Personnel will be cross-trained on both manned and unmanned platforms, and the navy says that NAS North Island is not yet equipped for VTUAV operations.

HSM-35 will be an expeditionary squadron, to be detached in small numbers on individual ships and small formations, in contrast to those attached to carrier air wings that travel with an aircraft carrier battle group.

The MQ-8B has previously been deployed for evaluations and testing, including two shipborne deployments on the USS McInerney and USS Halyburton. Three Fire Scouts are currently deployed in northern Afghanistan.

photo US Navy

Nov. 29, 2011 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: US Navy; issued Nov. 28, 2011)

LAKEHURST, N.J. --- The Navy demonstrated early integration of the future of naval aviation Nov. 18 when it launched F-35C test aircraft CF-3 with its new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS).

Testing the F-35C on EMALS provided an early opportunity to evaluate technical risks and began the process to integrate the carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter with the future carrier fleet aircraft launching system.

"The test flight went well," said Navy test pilot Lt. Christopher Tabert. "It felt very similar to the steam test launches we did this summer [in the F-35C]. It was quite an honor for me to play a small part in our launch today."

This summer, the F-35C test team completed more than 50 steam catapult launches to perform an initial structural survey and collected steam ingestion data. The steam ingestion data produced robust results, allowing a reduction in the number of test launches by four.

Along with the steam launch data, the EMALS launch testing also provided information for the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence as the UK proceeds with including EMALS in the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier.

In the past 12 months, the EMALS team launched a T-45 Goshawk, an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, a C-2A Greyhound and several F/A-18 aircraft with and without stores.

Both EMALS and the F-35C are currently in test and evaluation, and represent technological leaps from the Navy's current fleet. EMALS is set to install on the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78).

"What a great way to punctuate this year's Centennial of Naval Aviation events," said Kathy Donnelly, senior executive for aircraft launch, recovery and support equipment engineering at Lakehurst. "Our team is paving the way for the next hundred years today."

The closing ceremony of the Navy's Centennial of Naval Aviation events is scheduled for Dec. 1 in Washington, D.C.

The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment. Initial carrier trials for the F-35C are scheduled for 2013. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst before delivery to the fleet.

EMALS is a complete carrier-based launch system designed for the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and all future CVN 78-class aircraft carriers. EMALS has six subsystems and will expand the operational capability of the Navy's future carriers by permitting higher sortie rates and reduced costs compared to legacy systems. CVN 78 is more than 30 percent complete, with some production EMALS components already delivered to the shipyard to maintain a 2015 delivery schedule.

video of the launch,

source aero-news.net

ORLANDO, Fla., Nov. 29 (UPI)

An aerial refueling simulator for boom operators has received certification from the U.S. Air Force and is ready for use.

The simulator -- the Boom Operator Weapons System Trainer -- is made by Quantum3D Inc. and CymSTAR LLC and is the first KC-135R boom operator trainer to receive simulator certification.

"There is an enormous responsibility that comes with managing the safety and effectiveness of refueling aircrafts while in flight," said Quantum3D President Arthur Yan.

"We have been working diligently with the prime contractor, CymSTAR, to create an effective BOWST simulator that will provide all the necessary elements boom operators need to ensure the most advanced simulator training available."

The BOWST uses the Quantum3D Independence IDX 6000 image generator with five channels, GeoScapeSE Worldwide Database and advanced weather and ocean plug-ins.

The system leverages advanced shadows, spotlights, aircraft lighting and refueling receptacles to provide realistic cues and support the high demands for depth perception required by boom operators, Quantum3D said.

Quantum said nine systems are being built by CymSTAR for the Air Force. The first is already in use at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kan.

photo Office of Naval Research

November 29, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

While most American UAVs are the under 5 kg (11 pound) micro-UAV models like Raven and Desert Hawk, there has been increasing appreciation for heavier mini-UAVs. These have greater endurance, better sensors and are more resistant to high winds.

One of the more popular mini-UAVs is the U.S. Navy Silver Fox. This aircraft weighs 11.4 kg (25 pounds with a 2.2 kg/five pound payload) and can fly as 3,650 meters (12,000 feet). Its 2.4 meter (eight foot) wingspan has wings that are easily removed from the fuselage and the UAV can then be carried around in a 1.52 meterx35cmx40cm (60"x14"x15") container. If the wind is strong enough, the Silver Fox can be launched by hand, but normally it is propelled into flight via compressed air from a portable launcher. The UAV lands by just stopping the engine when it's low to the ground. The UAV is light enough to just bounce when it hits the ground.

A very quiet model aircraft engine keeps it in the air up to eight hours per sortie. The aircraft is maneuvered via radio commands via a laptop computer. It can either be controlled by the operator, or simply instructed to go from one way point to another (using an onboard GPS and flight control software.) It can fly at speeds of up to a hundred kilometers an hour (about 27 meters a second), up to 37 kilometers from the controller. It's small enough to provide a hard to hit target for enemy troops firing at it. In any event, its engine is hard to hear when the UAV is higher than 161 meters (500 feet). At night, it's pretty much impossible to detect from the ground. Each Silver Fox costs about $10,000.

The navy used Silver Fox in Iraq to support its Riverine units. But most of the Riverine missions involved some truck convoy action, and that's where the Silver Fox is used to provide extra eyes for the sailors in the trucks.

Other users like the long duration of sorties, giving the UAV the ability to stake out an area all night, using its night vision camera. Silver Fox is also popular with scientists, as its payload is large enough to allow a wide variety of sensors to be carried, and it’s a lot cheaper than buying or renting manned aircraft.

November 29, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

Only two years after introducing DVE (Driver's Vision Enhancers) a camera based night driving aid for combat vehicles, the U.S. Army is upgrading the popular device with an enhanced version of DVE that widens the view from 40 degrees to 107 degrees, provides a better image and is easier to use.

Two years ago, after a decade of development and wide scale testing, the U.S. Army and Marines decided to buy nearly two billion dollars-worth of DVE. This is an infrared (heat sensing) system that consists of a 2.5 kg (5.5 pound) sensor, and a flat panel display that shows what is in front of the vehicle, despite night, fog, smoke or dust. The army has already bought over 80,000 DVEs in the last seven years, so that the equipment could be used on a wide variety of vehicle and in all possible conditions. The new purchases will equip just about every truck and combat vehicles with DVE. The most common users are combat vehicles (M-1 tanks, M-2s, STRYKER, MRAP, and HMMWVs).

There are actually four different versions. DVE Lite is for trucks the cart troops and supplies around. DVE CV is used by combat vehicles. DVE TWV allows the sensor to be moved around, to search a wider area, and is used by wheeled combat vehicles (Stryker and MRAP). There is also a variation of the DVE TWV, used specifically to detect enemy activity, like someone placing roadside bombs or mines.

The driver uses a flat screen display that is moved down in front of the windshield, like a sun visor, so that he can see through night, fog or even a sand storm. The new enhanced DVE allows the driver to quickly expand the view to include the sides of the road or even to glance at the rear pointing IR camera many vehicles have. The enhanced version puts the viewing controls on the steering wheel, thus eliminating the need to fiddle with camera controls. The main camera is mounted at eye level in front of the windshield, between the two front seats of the vehicle.

DVE enables the army to move more quickly, and safely, in all kinds of atmospheric conditions. This not only speeds up supply and movement (of units) operations, but makes combat units more effective. The enemy can no longer rely on bad visibility to slow down U.S. troops. DVE, and especially the enhanced version, has been enthusiastically received by drivers. Previously, they had to use their night vision goggles, where provide a narrow field of view, and are uncomfortable after being worn for hours.

USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) - photo US Navy

November 29, 2011 by Galrahn - informationdissemination.net

Military Times has a six-part series of articles up on what they call The Secret War in Africa. It is a provocatively named series, and technically accurate as what the series has done to date is reveal the unknown details of previously reported but never detailed military activities in Africa - mostly Somalia. The 6th article is expected next week.

This is the 5th article in the series, and it involves a topic worth discussing here.

The U.S. operators were in trouble. Deep trouble. Along with some Ethiopian troops, a “really small” number of U.S. personnel were hunting a high-value target near the town of Bargal in Somalia’s autonomous Puntland region when they came under heavy fire that not only prevented them from killing or capturing the target but also pinned them down, according to several sources.

Running out of options on June 1, 2007, the operators called the destroyer Chafee sailing off the coast. In response, Chafee fired more than a dozen rounds from its 5-inch gun, a senior Pentagon official told Stars and Stripes (without mentioning that the mission was a desperate bid to rescue U.S. troops in Somalia). That naval gunfire — a rarity in the modern age — enabled the United States and Ethiopian troops “to break contact” and get away, a senior intelligence official said.

When I read this, I remembered this incident was reported and that I had discussed back in June of 2007; in fact I distinctly remember Jeff Schogol describing the Navy using gunfire support as "Old School."

I remember that incident because I recall thinking about how the US Navy had the USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) somewhere near that region and yet was using a destroyer to support forces ashore. Now maybe in that case it was smart to use a destroyer for a little naval fire support, because as the article notes - it solved the problem.

But hindsight being what it is, I do have serious questions if the US Navy leverages the flexibility of the amphibious ships well in modern irregular warfare situations like offshore of Somalia. Does anyone honestly think it is a good idea to put a $2 billion ship like USS Chafee (DDG 90) in green water for fire support? Our destroyer force is being primarily resourced to fight sophisticated air targets, not shoot guns to shore in littorals which are always the most risky.

What a false choice current US force structure forces on warfighters for gunfire support - either send in $3 billion DDG-1000s with advanced gun systems or send in the less expensive, terribly armed 57mm hauling LCS. Honestly, where are Reapers on LHDs, because right now the only other option is to task the RW community for their capabilities.

I encourage folks to read the whole Military Times article and give it some serious thought. When I read that article, I ask myself why the US Navy and US Marine Corps spends so much money building and maintaining amphibious ships to deploy structured air-sea-land battalions if the MEUs are unable to accomplish the sustained irregular warfare missions by sea as described in that article. That situation in 2007-2009 off Somalia appears to have been crying for a Sea Base, and yet none existed. Why?

It seems to me that scenario is both the past and the future of irregular warfare in any ungoverned or weakly governed littoral nation, and if expeditionary forces (amphibious readiness groups) aren't properly configured to be relevant for the missions found in that situation - maybe Marines are no longer relevant because Marines are not organized towards the most probable mission sets.

Then again, perhaps they are organized but are poorly utilized, because using Marines for the work as described in that article would appear to require as many changes to policy as much as it does changes to doctrine.

Lots of angles for conversation here I think.

Photo Northrop Grumman

November 28, 2011 By Zach Rosenberg– Flight Global

The second and final Northrop Grumman X-47B has successfully taken flight at Edwards AFB in California. The next-generation unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) will be the first autonomous, fixed-wing aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier.

The flight, which lasted roughly half an hour, occurred on 22 November. The aircraft climbed to 5,000ft (1,524m) and flew several racetrack patterns before landing. Northrop declined to elaborate on the flight. One aircraft will move to the navy's testing grounds at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, while the other will continue envelope expansion tests at Edwards. Eventually, both aircraft will make autonomous landings on an aircraft carrier.

"With two aircraft now available, we can increase the amount of aircraft performance data we gather, which will allow us to meet our required aircraft capability demonstration goals in a timely manner," said Carl Johnson, Northrop vice president and UCAV programme manager.

The first X-47B flew from Edwards on 4 February. The first aircraft carrier landing is planned for 2013, with autonomous aerial refuelling tests to follow. The X-47B is one potential contender for the larger unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) programme, in which it will likely compete against the General Atomics (GA-ASI) Avenger and an offshoot of the Boeing Phantom Ray.

photo USAF

28 November 2011 By KATE BRANNEN Defensenews

Pentagon Enters 'Year of Living Dangerously'

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has issued several grave warnings about what would happen to the Pentagon and the military services if the congressional supercommittee failed in its task to identify $1.2 trillion to reduce the deficit.

Now that failure is here, what happens next? Does the sword of Damocles fall, chopping $600 billion more out of the next decade of defense spending?

President Barack Obama has made it clear that while he does not support the sequestration process, he will veto any legislation that tries to roll it back and is pushing Congress to continue working toward a reduction package. But with no end in sight to the political gridlock on Capitol Hill, it is extremely unlikely such a compromise will be made before the 2012 election.

So where does this leave the Pentagon and the other federal agencies, which have to deliver their 2013 budget requests to Congress in February? Is DoD incorporating the larger, across-the-board spending cuts into its budget? Should it be?

With so many questions unresolved, Pentagon planners are headed into what one defense analyst described as "a year of living dangerously."

"You may want to assume there won't be a full-blown sequester, but there's a possibility there will be," Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said. "Either way, we won't know the outcome until after the 2012 election."

For now, it appears the Obama administration has no intention of building sequestration cuts into its February budget submission.

"The president's budget is a reflection of his policies," Office of Management and Budget (OMB) spokeswoman Meg Reilly said. "We have been clear about the fact that we do not think the sequester is ideal policy, and it is not our desire to see it implemented. Thus, it will not drive the budget process currently underway."

Some think this approach makes absolute sense.

"I don't think the Pentagon should adjust one nickel or cut one nickel, because the sequester is so irresponsible and so detrimental to national security that it would be, I think, irresponsible for the Pentagon to basically provide a road map for those kind of mindless cuts," Arnold Punaro, a retired Marine Corps general and former senior SAIC executive, said.

The Defense Department should proceed with the budget it has been working on for months, said Punaro, who worked for 24 years on Capitol Hill, including a stint as staff director for the Senate Armed Services Committee.

After the Budget Control Act was signed into law in August, the Pentagon revised its budget plans to meet the new spending caps. It is now working on a budget request that is $489 billion below what the president submitted in February for the next decade's defense base budget. Of these cuts, $261 billion is expected to come over the next five years.

It is that five-year spending plan that DoD will submit to Congress in February.

"People don't understand - this is really a long process and there's a lot of work and review that goes into it," said Emerson Gardner, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general who served as the principal deputy director of the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office until last year. "You can't just snap, and turn something in and make great changes."

Of the $261 billion, $60 billion is expected to come from making the Pentagon more efficient. This is on top of the $178 billion in efficiencies that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates already mandated.

According to Gardner, to meet the remaining $200 billion in savings, the Pentagon will cut $130 billion from modernization accounts and $70 billion in manpower costs. To reach the Budget Control Act's spending targets even before sequestration takes place requires real changes to the Pentagon's plans, Gardner said.

"I believe the FY13 budget that will go to the Congress in February will be very controversial," he said.

To meet its five-year goals, Gardner said, he expects the Pentagon to request $529 billion for its base budget in 2013.

Based on the defense spending and authorization bills working their way through the Senate now, the top line for the 2012 budget is expected to be $526 billion. Gardner compared this to where the Defense Department was just a couple of years ago. When it submitted its 2011 budget in February 2010, the Pentagon projected it would receive $582 billion in base budget funding for 2013.

"I think [the president] puts in the budget what he thinks will execute the strategy, and I think that's $529 billion," Gardner said. "Then he tells Congress, you still need to meet your deficit targets, you just need to do it in a different way."

According to analysis by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), the combination of this first round of cuts and sequestration would reduce the base budget to $472 billion in 2013.

Punaro agreed the president should first show Congress how the Pentagon is implementing the first round of cuts without providing plans for sequestration.

"We're going to be cutting fighting muscle, increasing risk, changing strategy before we start talking about the totally irresponsible sequester-type cuts," he said. "I think we need to let the body politic absorb what the Pentagon is already doing."

CSBA's Todd Harrison agreed that the Pentagon will not include the sequestration cuts in its 2013 budget request, but thinks this is a mistake.

"If you want to do this strategically, if you want to target your cuts, you need to work it into your budget."

He said the Pentagon would likely submit a budget in February that exceeds sequestration caps by more than $50 billion, making it "dead on arrival."

"My understanding is, they've not been developing a contingency plan or a set of options in the event that sequestration is triggered," Harrison said.

Without a plan in hand, the Defense Department is once again turning its fate over to Congress, he said.

"For all of the contingencies which DoD prepares for all around the world, it seems like this is one contingency that they should be planning for and they're not," Harrison said.

He said the Pentagon should start working up budget options if needed.

"You don't have to present it publicly, but it seems like it would be prudent to have those options in your hip pocket," he said. "Sequestration enforcement doesn't start until Jan. 2, 2013, so they've got a little over 13 months."

Cato Institute foreign policy director Christopher Preble agrees, saying the Pentagon should have begun this kind of planning a long time ago.

"Some aspects of the current fiscal crisis have been building for years," he said. "We should have revisited our strategy before the fiscal crisis, but the fiscal crisis might finally force us to have that strategy discussion."

If sequestration remains a threat, the White House has some flexibility with when and how it implements the first tranche of cuts - the $489 billion over 10 years, said Larry Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

The Pentagon would not be able to implement a $100 billion cut in 2013, he said.

"I think what they probably will do is say, 'OK, we're going to take the $55 billion cut and postpone the other."'

But at the same time, the Pentagon should begin work on a long-term plan that combines both sets of cuts, he said.

Like Gardner, Korb expects a 2013 base budget that will come in around $525 billion.

Whatever the number, the 2013 budget request faces an uphill battle.

OMB has two choices: It can send over a budget in February that assumes the trigger is pulled or it can ignore the trigger and send over a budget that doesn't reflect sequestration and therefore can't be taken entirely seriously, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Either way, "You don't really move the defense bills and you continue the wild ride of the last two years of halting stops and starts of continuing resolutions," she said. "This is not good for business. It's really, really messy."