Two challenges that defense contractors face, in developing and providing innovative new technologies to the military, are long term sustainability in the face of rapid technological development and the U.S. military’s material acquisition process. A defense contractor’s inability to reconcile these two challenges could put the U.S. military at risk of being constantly behind the technological curve, thus weakening its ability to compete with other technologically advanced countries. Long term sustainment of new technology, especially in the face of rapid technological development, is a question defense contractors must answer prior to fielding. The Defense Acquisition Systems final phase, operation and support, “is considered to
be the longest and it may be the most expensive, since a piece of equipment may remain in use for 50 years or longer” (US Army Command and General Staff College, 2014, p. 4). Indeed, the B-52 Stratofortress and the TA-312 field phone are both examples of extremely old technology still in use by the military today. So, exactly how does a defense contractor justify continued support of a technology that could be outdated within a decade of its fielding? This is a difficult question to answer because we simply don’t know what the future holds and therein lies the problem. Contractors must take steps to design new technologies with future expansion and/or upgrades in mind. This could be as simple as using a microprocessor that is larger than initially needed to accommodate future capabilities to more complex solutions such as the Army’s UH-60 recapitalization (recap) program. In the case of the recap program, older aircraft are stripped down to the airframe and then built back up into a newer model aircraft. As the aircraft is rebuilt new technologies are integrated with older components in accordance with preplanned upgrades. In either case, failing to plan for long term, viable sustainability in the face of rapid technology development could leave the end user at a technological disadvantage. The U.S. military’s materials acquisition process is a long, arduous process consisting of “five phases broken into three acquisition activities: pre-systems acquisition, systems acquisition and sustainment” (US Army Command and General Staff College, 2014, p. 3). This process not only applies to new technology, but also applies to commercial off the shelf (COTS) and government off the shelf (GOTS) material solutions as well. The amount of time it takes to pass through each phase varies with each new technology and can takes years. This may sound insignificant, but when the rapid pace of technology development is taken into account a “new” technology could be outdated by the time, if not before, it’s fielded. Although this process is driven by the Defense Acquisition System, defense contractors still need to navigate the process and meet the key performance parameters necessary for a program to be continued. To help remedy this, defense contractors should leverage already proven technology (i.e. COTS) when developing new material solutions for the military. Mature technologies can reach the production and deployment phase “directly from the pre-systems acquisition” (US Army Command and General Staff College, 2014, p. 11) phase provided certain criteria are met. Leveraging proven technology could reduce the amount of time a material solution spends in development thus reaching the field faster. The challenges faced by defense contractors are numerous and vary from one technology to the next. Speaking from experience, there is nothing more frustrating than procuring the “latest” technology only to find out a year later that, over the course of the next two years, it is being moved to life cycle replacement in favor of something newer. While technological developments cannot always be planned for, defense contractors can design new technologies with expansion in mind as well as leverage already proven technology with the goal of quickly fielding new equipment to the end user.
...ifies that it is a long and drawn- out process that by the time an acquisition is produced and fielded the technology has been surpassed. The Objectives Memo also identifies the need to reform this process not only for the reason stated in the QDR but also as part of good stewardship to the America public. The difference occurs how this change should happen. The QDR identifies that we must avoid sacrificing cost and scheduling for promises of improved performance. Sometimes off the shelf, technology now and cheap is better than waiting for the next war ender that may never come. By contrast, the Objectives Memo believes that both good stewardship and improvement of the acquisition process are achievable by implementing a management system. This system would provide information architecture to decision makers with timely, accurate, and efficient information.
Abrashoff begins the book by informing the reader of how his story begins; when he is given command of the USS Benfold. The Benfold was the Navy’s most advanced guided missile destroyer the Navy had in 1997 and its command was to be one of the Navy’s top innovators. Unfortunately, Abrashoff points out some flaws with the Navy’s personnel management that I found to be shocking. First, was that “nearly 35 percent of the people who joined the military annually, wouldn’t complete their enlistment contracts.” (p.2) Such turnover can be understood by many business managers in the service industry, but unlike the quick and cheap training process for them, the cost for the military (taxpayers) is astounding. Abrashoff estimates that it cost roughly “$35,000 to recruit a trainee and tens of thousands more in additional training costs to get new personnel to the basic level of proficiency.” (p.2) Curbing this trend on his own ship and eventually helping to achieve a decrease overall in the mil...
With the Army gearing its forces towards an expeditionary force, it is important to remember what Technical Escort Units bring to the fight. They can operate in a small group with such expertise that they truly are a force multiplier. These units will continue to evolve and provide this nations Army with unmatched CBRN capabilities. They will continue to be the longest active surviving CBRN unit in the nation.
The United States Army, in its current state, is a profession of arms. In order to be considered a profession, the organization must have an ethical code rooted in values, strong trust with its clients, and be comprised of experts within the trade. These experts are constantly developing the trade for the present and the future and hold the same shared view of their trade culture.
Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (U.S.) United States. Department of the Air Force, (2012a) Change management (LM06), Maxwell-Gunter Annex, AL: Department of the Air Force
Lockheed Martin is an organization that heavily relies on its defense contracts in order to generate revenue. In 2005, 95% of Lockheed Martin’s revenue came from the US Department of Defense, other US Federal government agencies and foreign military customers (Defense News, 2007). Lockheed Martin earns this revenue by winning government contracts. As previously noted, Lockheed Martin has a large customer base with the US Department of Defense. The company is the largest provider of IT services, systems integration, and training to the government (Lockheed Martin, 2008). Other customers that provide revenue for Lockheed Martin are international governments and some commercial sales of products and services (Lockheed Martin, 2008).
The United States of America has been involved in many different conflicts, foreign and domestic, popular and unpopular, spanning across four centuries and all corners of the globe. From the warm coastal waters of the American homeland to the atolls of the Pacific, from the winding inland rivers of Vietnam to the chokepoint at the Strait of Hormuz, American sailors have valiantly stood up to defend America’s interests at home and abroad. The Navy has had to continuously update its vessels and technologies in order to keep up with the rapidly changing times, and ensure we not only stay competitive with but surpass the foreign competition. No other period in history has undergone the swift technological evolution that our troops experience today, and outfitting our soldiers with the best equipment money can buy and the most up-to-date training must remain a top priority. As sequestration and budget cuts slash $487 billion from the Department of the Navy’s budget over the next 10 years, it is more evident than ever how detrimental these budget cuts can be on the sailors of today and tomorrow alike. Significant cuts to the Naval budget will jeopardize the readiness of our ships and sailors, impair our ability to maintain strategic assets ready for forward deployment in critical areas, and constrict our ability to acquire new and improved technology.
As America heads into a new year, we find our government tightening its purse strings and cracking down on excessive spending, with an emphasis on the US military. According to author Brad Plumer, a reporter at the Washington Post, “U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.” Pared with a more drastic 350 billion dollar cute going into effect over the next ten years, the military finds itself cutting what cost the most to maintain and support troops (Fact Sheet par. 2). In recent years the military has bolstered an overwhelming 1,468,364 troops (Active Duty). These numbers are to be cut substantially; the biggest cut is to be seen in the Army. The Army must deal with a reduction of 80,000 troops, cutting its force of 570,000 troops to nearly 140,000.Subsequently, the budget cuts, which have led to a reduction of troops in the military, has driven the military to turn to advanced weapons technology that requires less people to m...
The Army has transformed several times during its history. Adapting to the operational environment is a necessity for the force called upon to prosecute its adversaries. The Army must do what is necessary to protect the U.S. against all enemies, and advance the national interests of the American people. To accomplish this, anticipation of threats is crucial and victory against its adversaries is an imperative. The nation relies on the military for strategic level deterrence and expects that it will be decisive in combat operations. For the military to be successful, it is important that transformation adapt to meet these expectations by conforming to the requirements of a successful force of the future in order meet any new threats in any environment around the world.
In his analysis, Charles Fine goes on to note that as the speed of an industry accelerates, the advantage one company may gain shortens – advantages are temporary. This conclusion is somewhat intuitive since the research and development to production cycle gets s...
It seems since that dawn of the era of man we have always been in competition with one another. We have fought countless wars over every issue imaginable, with many great civilizations being founded and destroyed by war. Though with each new conflict comes newer and better technology. Technology is what drives civilizations forward, but it can also lead to its downfall. It is fascinating see how much technology has evolved over history, and how we have incorporated these innovations into newer technology. In past century technology has seen its greatest leap forward. This is in large part due to the two major World Wars that plagued the early part of the 20th century. (Koch p.122)
Armed with numerous studies, and intensive public hearings, Congress mandated far-reaching changes in DOD organization and responsibilities in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This landmark legislation significantly expanded the authority and responsibility of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Included in this expanded authority and responsibility was the requirement for the chairman to develop a doctrine for the joint employment of armed forces. As operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm have vividly demonstrated, the realities of armed conflict in today's world make the integration of individual service capabilities a matter of success or failure, life or death. Furthermore, the operation Desert One demonstrated the need for a strengthened Joint Warfare Doctrine and the consequent change in Joint Warfare Employment. It is plain to see the benefits of having the greatest navy integrated with the world's greatest army and air force. However, even in the wake of a relatively successful joint operation in the Middle East (Desert Storm), certain weaknesses are evident in the current joint employment tactics and/or capabilities. By analyzing past operations such as Urgent Fury and Desert Storm, we are able to see sufficient evidence that the Joint Warfare Concept can be disastrous in one instance and virtually flawless in another.
The US military can be successful in future wars if it focuses on, trains to, and adapts its force structure to prepare for full spectrum operations. The most likely challenges to US national security interests include international terrorist organizations, transnational criminal organizations, insurgent rebellions and small wars. The most dangerous challenges to US national security interests come from major conventional threats like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. To overcome these most likely and most dangerous challenges, the US needs to focus its strategic guidance on full spectrum operations, increase training in conventional operations while maintaining current training in irregular operations, and improve the force structure with irregular operation enablers while maintaining its conventional power capabilities.
In recent years critics have condemned the military’s research into new weapon technology, saying it only leads to death and war. However, the benefits and security from the research far out weigh the drawbacks.
Roth, A.V., C. Gaimon, and L. Krazewski. " Optimal Acquisition of FMS Technology Subject to Technological Process. " Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 2, Spring 1991, pp. 308-334. 15.