the news - dau · 2019-08-13 · in deep competition, you actually have to clearly signal your ....

In the News

DEFENSEACQUISITION | September-October 2019 | 1

U.S. to Remain Partner of Choice for Military Hardware, General Says DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS (JUNE 5, 2019)C. Todd Lopez

Why do nations looking for reliable international partners choose the United States? One reason is that U.S. military hardware is simply better than that of any other nation, the director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said.

“Our stuff is better—it’s just better,” Army Lt. Gen. Charles Hooper said during a discussion of issues surrounding U.S. se-curity cooperation at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

“As we know, we are in the information-based age of war-fare,” Hooper said. “Our equipment, our articles and services offer countries not only the best kinetics and mechanics in the world, but potential access to the information that will make them much more efficient and effective in support of our mu-tual interests, and also reduce the probability and possibility of civilian casualties and collateral damage.”

The DSCA is responsible for executing all U.S. military security cooperation. Some of that—foreign military sales in particu-lar—is on behalf of the State Department. The agency also is responsible for helping partner nations build institutional capacity, something Hooper described as a “complement to [foreign military sales] that ensures that our partners have the human resources and the defense institutional development to properly utilize the equipment we [provide] for them in the interest of national security.”

Hooper, who is director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said he’s aware of about 14,000 open cases of poten-tial sales to partners across 185 countries. About half of those cases, he said, are likely to be completed in as few as 52 days.

Why would nations continue to choose the U.S., rather than other nations that might offer similar gear? One reason, Hooper said, is the U.S. commitment to its partner nations. The United States doesn’t just sell gear, he said. It builds re-

Albanian military personnel train on helicopter operations with U.S. soldiers in Romania, June 10, 2017. Photo by Netherlands Armed Forces Cpl. Jasper Verolme

In the News

2 | September-October 2019 | DEFENSEACQUISITION

lationships with those nations when it provides them with hardware.

“Our great-power competitors have perfected the art of trans-actional diplomacy,” the general said. “We have four values at DSCA—the last one is commitment. The U.S. remains committed to long-term relationships. For us, the point of sale—to paraphrase [former British Prime Minister Winston] Churchill—is not the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. It’s merely the end of the beginning.”

When the U.S. sells hardware or services to partners, it is typi-cally accompanied by long-term agreements regarding training and maintenance—cementing a relationship, not just a sale—Hooper said. The U.S. also maintains remarkable transparency and integrity in dealings with foreign military sales, something other potential sellers might not do, he added.

“We talk about the integrity of the U.S. process—many stake-holders, many legal reviews—to ensure that the process re-mains corruption-free,” Hooper said. “I tell partners and allies around the world, ‘When you do business with the U.S., the books are always open.’”

Despite the aggressive nature of strategic competitors, includ-ing those looking to encroach on markets that were formerly

dominated by the United States, Hooper said he believes the U.S. will prevail.

“I am absolutely confident that we can succeed in this compe-tition, and that we will remain the partner of choice,” he said.

Naval Engineers Must ‘Lean In’ to Advance Technological Agility DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS (JUNE 20, 2019)C. Todd Lopez

Rebuilding “strategic momentum” and growing advantages in the maritime domain are challenges Chief of Naval Opera-tions Adm. John M. Richardson addressed in “A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, Version 2.0,” which updated a 2016 document.

At an annual meeting of the American Society of Naval En-gineers in Washington, Richardson said meeting those chal-lenges is a “human problem” that must be met, in part by naval engineers.

His plan for how the Navy will maintain maritime superior-ity relies in part on three aspects of agility. “With the joint force, we will restore agility—conceptual, geographic, and technological—to impose cost[s] on our adversaries across the competition-conflict spectrum,” the report reads.

Aircraft fly in formation over the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis in the Atlantic Ocean, May 14, 2019. Photo by Navy Seaman Jarrod A. Schad

In the News


For engineers, Richardson focused on their contribution to technological agility.

“The technological landscape is changing so fast across all of technology,” Richardson said. “It’s really fueled by this infor-mation revolution that we are in the middle of right now. And so as we think about the Navy as a learning engine in and of itself, restoring these technical agilities is really important. We do need to move at pace.”

For comparison, the admiral referred back to Dec. 8, 1941—a day after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. It was then, Richardson said, that the Navy began a quick transition from battleship-based tactics to aircraft carriers and aerial battles. He said the switch in strategy wasn’t a surprise for the Navy, because it had been researching and engineering for that possibility for years.

“We had been 20 years into naval aviation,” he said. “This was not just something that we did as a pickup team on Dec. 8. We had been putting investments in with folks like [Joseph] Reeves and [William] Moffett and all those pioneers of naval aviation. We had evidence. A lot of experimentation, a lot of engineering that had gone into that.”

Now, Richardson said, the Navy must again have that kind of experimentation, engineering, and prototyping to ready it for the next conflict—and it must get on that mission quickly to stay ahead of adversaries.

“We do not want to be the second navy on the water with these decisive technologies: the directed energy, unmanned, machine learning, artificial intelligence, etc., you name it,” he said. “That’s the great challenge now: to get out, start pro-totyping, get at this pace, plus evidence ... to yield a relevant Navy that is ready to defend America from attack and protect our interests around the world.”

The admiral said that a knee-jerk reaction might be to cite Defense Department acquisition regulations, like DoD 5000, for inhibiting the type of rapid development, engineering, and research he thinks will be needed to maintain maritime domi-nance. But he said that’s not entirely correct.

“I think a new set of rules would help,” he said. “But this is, I think, a human problem at the end of the day. If we are all biased for action, if we all lean into this, we will get it done. There is nothing that will prohibit us or inhibit us from getting that done if we are all leaning in.”

Need for Speed in Capabilities, Selva Says DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS (JUNE 28, 2019)Jim Garamone

Though the Defense Department is making progress in making meaningful change in how it develops and acquires new capabilities, that progress simply isn’t happening fast enough, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said at a Brookings Institution discussion in Washington.

“This is not a judgment on the allocation of the budget or the effort,” Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva told Brookings Insti-tution moderator Michael E. O’Hanlon. “It’s a judgment on the cultural changes required to take advantage of the speed of change that is happening in the tech-nology sector.”

DoD must take advantage of the private sector and its speed, the general said. He noted that 20 years ago, the Depart-ment was about on par with the private

Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, participates in a moderated discussion with Michael O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institution in Washington, June 28, 2019. Photo by Army Sgt. James K. McCann

In the News


sector in developing and acquiring capabilities—in fact, DoD was the source of much of the money spent on research and engineering.

Today, the private sector has that advantage by around a 10:1 ratio, Selva said, and private firms can move quickly to develop and then market capabilities. “We have to learn to take advan-tage of these cycles of innovation and change in the private sector,” he added.

Chinese and Russian military developments will continue, he said, and to remain ahead of those adversaries, the United States military must learn to work with and build on private company breakthroughs.

O’Hanlon quizzed Selva on a series of “dyads” and asked for his opinion. O’Hanlon premised the first—satellites and space launch—noting that satellites seem to be making a lot of prog-ress, but space launch hasn’t changed all that much.

“Satellites are becoming smaller, so miniaturization is key to them,” the general said. “But it is not just miniaturization; it is integration and the capacity to make a small satellite that can do multiple things.”

He disagreed to an extent that rockets have not changed much, saying the industry is turning a corner. He noted one company developed a 3D printed disposable rocket that has no moving parts. At the other end of the spectrum are companies such as SpaceX reusing rockets. Both innovations will cut the cost of launches, Selva said.

A second dyad is missiles and missile defense. The world is seeing hypersonic missile research, and it is a very promising technology. Missile defense progress, O’Hanlon said, seems not to measure up to the strides in missiles.

“The missile defense game is about responding to changes in your adversaries’ behavior,” Selva said. Right now, the hit-to-kill technology of missile defense is the most mature, but this still favors the attacker, he said. Planners need to think of new missile defense capabilities.

“I liken this to ‘What’s more fruitful? Killing the arrow or killing the archer?’” the general said. “I view missile defense as an end-to-end solution. It’s our obligation to think about ‘What are the things that empower your opponents’ offensive ca-pacity?’”

Another dyad is artificial intelligence and robotics. “The cur-rent state of AI is not adaptable … to a condition where all the variables are changing at the same time,” Selva said. “But there

are some places where we are seeing developments that are quite hopeful.”

O’Hanlon asked what changes have happened in military strat-egy given the changes in conditions. Selva said there are a great many changes in the way the United States would apply military force. “In most of our past war plans, logistics were an assumption,” he said. “That is no longer true. In most of our past war plans, there was an assumption that we would have significant indications and warning of a potential or competi-tor’s behavior. We have shortened those timelines.”

This takes away from adversaries their assumptions about U.S. intent, he said. “In deterrence, your adversary not only has to believe you have the capacity, but you have the will to resist whatever they want you to do, and that they can’t win,” he explained. “In lining up all of the things that are necessary to deter an adversary or prevent miscalculation when you are in deep competition, you actually have to clearly signal your intentions. And the extent that we obscure those intentions by burying them in assumptions and war plans, we don’t ac-tually prepare ourselves for the right outcome: If all else fails, we will go to war.

“In the end,” he said, “that is what deters your adversary from taking the last step.”

AFRL Puts New Technologies Into Space Aboard World’s Most Powerful Launch Vehicle88TH AIR BASE WING PUBLIC AFFAIRS (JULY 1, 2019) Bryan Ripple

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS)—The Air Force Research Laboratory successfully put new technolo-gies into space, June 25, as part of the Department of De-fense Space Test Program (STP-2) mission, managed by the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California.

A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket, the most powerful launch vehicle in the world, blasted off from Launch Pad 39A at Ken-nedy Space Center, Florida, at 2:30 a.m. EDT. It was the Falcon Heavy’s first night flight and just its third launch overall. It was also the first Falcon Heavy to fly using reused boosters.

The rocket carried 24 experimental satellites into space, in-cluding the Green Propellant Infusion Mission spacecraft, which enables the first ever on-orbit demonstration of the AFRL-developed Advanced Spacecraft Energetic Non-toxic Propellant.

Space demonstration of this new propellant, ASCENT, formerly known as AF-M315E, marks a major milestone in a national

In the News


effort to develop new energetic propellants to re-place hydrazine, the current established chemical propellant of choice for nearly all current satel-lite propulsion. Not only is ASCENT 50% higher performing than hydrazine, it is also a vastly safer alternative, allowing for streamlined ground opera-tions relative to legacy propellants. While hydra-zine is flammable, toxic, and requires the use of Self Contained Atmospheric Protective Ensemble suits for handling operations, ASCENT propellant requires minimal Personal Protective Equipment such as a lab coat and a splash guard for the face.

“The demonstration of a revolutionary green propellant for spacecraft propulsion is critical as we move toward space operations being the new normal,” said Dr. Shawn Phillips, chief of AFRL’s Rocket Propulsion Division at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

Also part of the STP-2 mission was AFRL’s Dem-onstration and Science Experiments (DSX) space-craft. The first of its kind globally, the DSX flight experiment will conduct new research to advance DoD’s understanding of the processes governing the Van Allen radiation belts and the effect they have on spacecraft components. DSX’s elliptical path in medium Earth orbit will increase under-standing of this orbital regime, and advance un-derstanding of the interplay between waves and particles that underlie radiation belt dynamics, enabling better specification, forecasting and miti-gation. This will ultimately enhance the nation’s capability to field resilient space systems, AFRL officials say.

DSX’s mission is different from most other Air Force flight experiments as it is a purely scientific mission. The spacecraft is equipped with a unique suite of technologies such as space weather sensors and graphite antenna booms used to con-duct experiments with very-low frequency radio waves. DSX has two sets of immense deployable booms due to the large antenna requirements of these experiments. One set extends 80 meters tip-to-tip and the other extends 16 meters tip-to-tip, making the DSX spacecraft one of the largest deployable structures in orbit.

“The space domain has never been more important to our nation than it is today,” said Maj. Gen. William Cooley, AFRL commander. “The DSX satellite experiment will greatly in-crease our understanding of the environment spacecraft oper-ate in and will give us the knowledge to build even better satel-

lites to protect and defend our space assets. I am immensely proud of the AFRL scientists, engineers, and technicians that conceived and built the DSX satellite.”

The DSX program is led by the AFRL Space Vehicles Direc-torate at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, with key team members from the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. DSX will conduct on-orbit experiments for at least a year.

U.S. Security Requires Multiple Elements of DeterrenceDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS (JULY 3, 2019)C. Todd Lopez

In the context of U.S. defense policy, “deterrence” is typically understood to mean “nuclear.” And America’s nuclear triad—ground-based missiles, air-delivered bombs, and submarine-launched missiles—serves as America’s biggest form of de-

A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket carrying 24 satellites as part of the Department of Defense’s Space Test Program-2 (STP-2) mission launches from Launch Complex 39A, June 25, 2019, at NASA’s Ken-nedy Space Center in Florida. NASA photo

In the News


terrence, which underwrites everything its men and women in uniform do.

But according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John M. Richardson, nu-clear weapons are just one of multiple elements of de-terrence the U.S. must con-sider either for itself, or for being aware that other na-tions might be using them. During a July 2 breakfast presentation hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aero-space Studies in Washing-ton, Richardson laid out five such elements of deterrence already in use or that must be considered more deeply.

Nuclear“It’s an incredibly powerful military capability where potentially everybody gets destroyed,” Richardson said. “We must maintain our ability to be competi-tive and relevant in this domain ... [and] strike back at anybody who can pose an existential nuclear threat to the homeland.”

The triad itself includes ground-based missiles—commonly referred to as intercontinental ballistic missiles; submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and air-launched cruise missiles dropped from bomber aircraft. In all three areas, the U.S. is underway with modernization efforts.

But the nuclear environment globally is changing, Richardson said. “More nations are seeking to join the club,” he said. Some of those nations can bring high-tech weapons, while some are using low-tech, including dirty bombs and systems that can be manufactured with 3-D printers. Additionally, not all nuclear weapons are “strategic” in nature. Some are smaller “tactical” weapons.

“The nuclear element of this mix remains very relevant, very active, and deserves a lot more attention in my mind,” Rich-ardson said.

An unarmed Trident II D5 missile launches from the ballistic missile submarine USS Nebraska off the coast of California, March 26, 2018. The test launch was part of the U.S. Navy Strategic Systems Program’s demonstration and shakedown operation certification process. Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Ronald Gutridg

CyberRichardson said when it comes to cyber as a deterrent, the U.S. can’t maintain only defensive capabilities. “We have to have an ability for offensive cyber to truly achieve a sense of deterrence there,” he said.

Recent cyber provocations, he said, are “multidimensional in ways that may or may not have been expected.” Included there, he said, are theft of intellectual property, invasion of privacy, invasion of identity, distortion of identity, “and most recently, perception management. This perception manage-ment idea ... might be kind of our new Sputnik moment.”

Space“The competition is absolutely heating up in space,” Richard-son said. “Of these elements that are going to constitute a tailored strategic deterrent approach, space has got to be one of those.”

Richard posited that in space, it might become apparent that, using directed energy weapons, it proves far easier to destroy

In the News


something in space than it is to put something back up into space.

“These things operate really fast ... and space goes away as an asset,” he said. “You can see kind of a mutually assured destruction scenario in space pretty easily. Have we thought about that going forward?”

Chemical, Biological CapabilitiesIncreasingly, Richardson said, chemical and biological deter-rence will come into the mix, especially as technologies such as CRISPR—a genome editing tool—allow for more tailored capabilities.

“One of the self-deterrent aspects of chemical/biological is that it’s very hard to control. It goes viral, if you will,” he said. “But with these tailoring things, you can get a lot more specific. It becomes a lot more targetable. And so, it’s something we have to mind.”

Conventional WeaponsU.S. deterrence advantages in conventional weapons have re-lied, so far, on superior targeting ability, Richardson said. But that may become less important.

“We have better sensors, better satellites, better ways to con-nect that data with our command and control systems, our targeting systems,” he said. “We had an advantage in terms of precision.”

Now, he said, such sensors are ubiquitous, and commercial and military sensors are going up into space. There are cam-eras everywhere.

“This idea of being able to locate things with precision is be-coming more ubiquitous,” he said. “It’s less of an advantage. It’s really the team that can manage that information better that’s going to achieve the advantage.”

Focus: Sustaining the Future FightU.S. ARMY FEATURE ARTICLE (JULY 18, 2019)Maj. Gen. Rodney D. Fogg, Brig. Gen. Douglas M. McBride Jr., and Maj. Graham Davidson

The Distribution ChallengeSustaining the battlefield during Large Scale Combat Opera-tions (LSCO) will be an extraordinary challenge, especially given the complexity of Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) against a peer competitor. A depot-based supply system with “iron mountains” of supplies will not work in the next fight. We must focus instead on improving our ability to accurately forecast and precisely deliver what the warfighter needs dur-ing high-volume, high-intensity operations.

The increased demands of simultaneous, geographically dis-persed operations require more sophisticated planning and coordination to account for rapidly advancing units within a highly contested environment. In order to achieve precision and responsiveness, all sustainment elements must be in-extricably integrated and synchronized early in the planning process and throughout operations.

The sustainment plan cannot merely be consulted by maneu-ver units just before execution. The plan must be synchronized in time and space to achieve the effects required by the war-fighter at echelon.

The distribution challenge during LSCO is less about supply availability and more about the availability of transportation assets to deliver a high volume of supplies with precision to the right unit at the right time and at the right location.

Following the invasion of Normandy in 1944, the Third Army advanced eastward across France in pursuit of German forces while facing intense force-on-force combat operations. To maintain the pursuit, the Third Army’s fuel demand was an average of more than 350,000 gallons a day.

To sustain the Allied advance, the Army consolidated trucks from various units, including infantry battalions, to form a 6,000-vehicle fleet famously known as the Red Ball Express. Despite the Red Ball Express efforts, Patton’s Army was immo-bilized for nearly two months, unable to extend its operational reach during a time of relative advantage. This immobilization was due to inefficiencies and deficiencies in the supply chain, which created a cascading effect within the Third Army, caus-ing shortages of ammunition, clothing, rations, and other key commodities as winter was approaching.

To put the Third Army’s fuel consumption in perspective, 350,000 gallons of fuel a day will support three modern armored brigade combat teams—the maneuver arm of one heavy division—during high-intensity LSCO. This does not include enough fuel for aviation or other units in the division support area and the division consolidation area, let alone an entire field army with multiple corps.

This example highlights that today’s Army requires a robust distribution network with distribution assets that support pre-cision delivery of a vast amount of materiel and equipment on the battlefield. Simply put, we cannot win with inaccurate forecasting, inefficient distribution, or simple plans.

The scale and scope of LSCO present significant challenges to our distribution networks, particularly when establishing continuous, rapid resupply to the forward line of troops and be-

In the News


yond. Many variables affect our ability to achieve precision and speed in sustaining the warfighter. Some of these challenges include reduced operational readiness of sustainment plat-forms, unpredictable turnaround times at points of delivery, stressed and targeted communications networks, combat at-trition, combat loss, sabotage to key transportation infrastruc-ture, congestion within our lines of communication, dispersion of units causing longer lines of communication, and increased security requirements to defend dispersed base clusters. None of these are simple problems for sustainers to solve.

Is Simplicity Still a Principle of Sustainment?The difference between victory and defeat on the battlefield largely depends on the Army’s ability to marshal, transport, and distribute large quantities of supplies while maintaining the forward momentum of personnel and equipment. This is achieved through continuous integration and synchronization of sustainment activities in support of the unit commander at echelon.

Our sustainers must operate as a unified team, from the stra-tegic support area in the continental United States through the joint security area to the foxhole. This involves meticulous coordination to ensure resources are delivered to the point of need. Operating within functional stovepipes will render for-mations vulnerable to enemy interdiction while suboptimizing the ability to deliver critical supplies to the warfighter on time and on target.

Orchestrating all the diverse sustainment activities is complex in nature. The sustainment infrastructure on the battlefield during LSCO will be multifaceted, consisting of multiple nodes, modes, and routes as well as redundant communications that provide our adversaries with multiple dilemmas to solve across the sustainment warfighting function.

Leveraging all aspects of sustainment to ensure that there is no single point of failure that prevents the delivery of critical supplies and services to the warfighter is critical to this ef-fort. These aspects include the effective use of air, land, sea, inland waterways, and autonomous air and ground platforms where feasible.

In the air, sustainment operations will include fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft providing air evacuation and air-land, airdrop, sling-load, and precision-guided deliveries of supplies and equipment. Delivery using air assets will be the norm rather than the exception. On land, we will use multiple roads, rail networks, and pipelines to deliver goods and services to the point of need. We will also use watercraft to deliver supplies and equipment by way of seaports, rivers, canals, and off-the-shore opportunities. Included in our sustainment planning will

be deception plans that are integrated at the operational and tactical levels.

The LSCO operating environment is highly dynamic and con-sists of multiple formations with unforeseeable interdepen-dencies that emerge simultaneously across multiple domains. Inherently, this type of sustainment problem set will be com-plex; however, complexity within the sustainment warfighting function should not have a negative connotation.

Simplicity as a principle of the sustainment warfighting func-tion may be difficult to achieve on the modern battlefield—es-pecially if sustainment is not fully integrated in the appropriate mission command systems. It is important that we integrate our sustainment operations with other warfighting functions and ensure our staff design and staff processes are fully im-mersed with the warfighter.

We must exploit technologies such as artificial intelligence, enterprise resource planning systems, and available prognostic analytical tools to enable accurate demand forecasting and achieve better responsiveness. While we will strive to build simplicity into our processes and procedures where it can be achieved, we cannot underestimate the complexity of the

Maj. Gen. Rodney D. Fogg is the commander of the Combined Arms Support Command and the Sustainment Center of Excel-lence at Fort Lee, Va.U.S. Army photo

In the News


modern battlefield and the corresponding sustainment system that it will demand.

Security During LSCODuring counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, coalition forces have enjoyed dominance across all domains with minimal threat of enemy activity overrunning critical logistics nodes. The joint operations area had a green zone with fixed and fortified forward operating bases and combat outposts where security was often outsourced or enhanced by contracted personnel or host-nation support.

In LSCO, security will not be outsourced and sustainment units will require security plans that account for operations that Field Manual 3-0, Operations, describes as “more cha-otic, intense, and highly destructive than those the Army has experienced in several decades.”

Our units must be trained and proficient at defending their assigned areas. First and foremost, sustainment units will be responsible for their security. There will be no green zones; all domains will be contested. Both supporting and supported leaders must fully appreciate and understand the security measures required to secure logistics nodes and various lines of communications during LSCO.

The support area command post at echelon will play a cen-tral role in coordinating and synchronizing security assets to clear and secure key logistics nodes. These operations include prioritizing fires, route clearance, close-air support, and intel-ligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. We must deliber-ately coordinate and communicate those sustainment security requirements on the battlefield.

We Must Educate and Train to Win Though technology will help us deal with complexity, we can-not ignore the human dimension of MDO. The sustainment community’s education and training approach must evolve to account for the scale, tempo, and rigor required to prevail in LSCO. Leaders in both the operational and institutional realms cannot allow units to run back to garrison dining facilities, supply support activities, or fuel and water points during field training exercises. The environment in which we train must be realistic and present the challenges that units and leaders will face during LSCO. This realism is critical to having trained and proficient, combat-ready units.

Leveraging live and virtual training tools, individually and col-lectively through the institutional, operational, and self-devel-opment domains, is key to enabling leaders and units to gain proficiencies in sustaining the complex battlefield. Leaders in the operational force and faculties in the institutions must stay

relevant by understanding how sustainment will be conducted in MDO, and what training tools and techniques are available to prepare Soldiers for these operations.

We need to create conditions to force both sustainment and maneuver leaders to think through the scale and scope of the distribution challenge. Whether at a combat training center, during a warfighter exercise, or at home station using the Syn-thetic Training Environment, we must replicate the full com-plexity of the operational environment with practical problem sets that allow our units and leaders the necessary repetitions to achieve proficiency. This includes fully integrating with the warfighter’s tactical networks, mission command information systems (fully functioning and degraded), and staff processes at echelon during training exercises.

Self-development is a critical component of effecting this change. Every lower enlisted Soldier, noncommissioned of-ficer, and officer should find ways to enhance their professional competence. They need to track lessons learned from combat training centers, maintain relationships with their peers in the operational and institutional force, and read and reflect on modern warfare and sustainment. Sustainment leaders must understand and discuss maneuver warfare and ensure ma-neuver leaders understand how best to leverage sustainment capabilities across the battlefield. They cannot simply expect their leadership to hand them opportunities. All Army profes-sionals are responsible for their own development.

War today and in the future is a complex business. The opera-tional environment that we are planning to fight in is vastly dif-ferent than what we have experienced over the past 18 years, but our principal responsibility to the warfighter remains the same. The sustainment warfighting function will provide sup-port and services to ensure freedom of action, extend opera-tional reach, and prolong endurance so that our Army can prevail during LSCO. This requires detailed planning across the sustainment warfighting function and complete integration and synchronization with the warfighter at echelon.

Our sustainment system must be comprehensive with no sin-gular points of failure to ensure we achieve the required effects at the speed, volume, and lethality required for LSCO. Securing our sustainment infrastructure is critical to that end. While we should always simplify our processes and procedures, we cannot win against a peer competitor with simple plans. The operational environment requires complex solutions that pro-vide the enemy with multiple dilemmas to solve.

The principle of simplicity must not lead us to believe sustain-ment operations are simple; they are not. Achieving effective sustainment support, where all sustainment requirements (lo-

In the News


gistics, medical, personnel, and financial) are met, requires inherently complex operations.

Maj. Gen. Rodney D. Fogg is the commander of the Combined Arms Support Command and the Sustainment Center of Excellence at Fort Lee, Va. Brig. Gen. Douglas M. McBride Jr. is the 55th Quar-termaster General and commandant of the Quartermaster School at Fort Lee. Maj. Graham Davidson is the executive officer for the Quartermaster General at the Quartermaster School.

AFRL Looks To Fine Tune Process of 3D Printing Composite InksAIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY NEWS (JULY 23, 2019)Alexa Low

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio—In Janu-ary 2016, researchers from Air Force Research Laboratory started focusing on the ability to 3D-print parts for the Air Force, specifically polymer architectures to replace heavier

and complex metal parts currently used in low-cost aircraft or on jet engines.

The standard, conventional parts for Air Force applications used today are mostly made by hand layup using a mold and continuous carbon fiber fabrics. This process is very labor-intensive, time-consuming, and expensive. Since molds are prepared and assembled by hand, there is a chance of defects in the structures produced.

AFRL’s Polymer Matrix Composite Materials and Processing (PMC M&P) research team has been working toward 3D-printing complex parts that will be lighter and less expensive for the Air Force. The team has added 100- to 300-microns-long chopped fibers into the polymer. The chopped fibers are a steppingstone to producing a structure with continuous fibers that will have high and equal distribution and reduce cracks in the structure, one of the team’s main objectives.

The Polymer Matrix Composites Materials and Processing research team used beamline instrumentation at Brookhaven National Laboratory to capture real-time imaging data of 3D-printed composite inks that could be used to produce aircraft structures in the future. U.S. Air Force photo by Hilmar Koerner

In the News


“If we could print something and then add some type of sur-face finish, in theory it would take less time and be less expen-sive,” said Andrew Abbott, PMC M&P team member.

Pushing the thermal properties of the composite to withstand higher operating temperatures is another main objective.

In the beginning stages of research, the team found that epoxy softens when exposed to extreme heat. Since epoxy is the main component of the 3D-printing ink, they ran into an issue where the epoxy would liquefy during the printing process, resulting in the object not able to hold its shape.

To address this problem, several substances were added to the epoxy such as clay, fumed silica, and cellulose. Each of the substances, when mixed with the epoxy, make the polymer more gel-like and allow the printed epoxy to hold its shape.

When the polymer is agitated or shaken up, the substance in the epoxy breaks down, and it becomes more of a liquid. When 3D-printed to make an object, it sets or gels, much like tooth-paste. The beads that exit the printer nozzle are laid down so that they fuse together. Once a layer of the beads is laid down, another layer is printed on top of these and the layers fuse together, eventually creating a part with the desired shape.

The way the beads are laid down explains why the materials currently used in the 3D-printing process cannot be used for Air Force needs. During typical 3D-printing, thermoplastics are used, which lead to poor bonding between printed layers and cracks in the structure due to a weak cross link of par-ticles. Instead, the team uses thermosets with better fatigue behavior and mechanical robustness of the resulting printed composite parts.

The next stage is to create continuous fiber composite parts so that the beads are made stronger with equal distribution.

“One of the research team’s visions is to explore and see what’s possible in 3D-printing of composites. Complexity is something that you can do with 3D-printing that you will have a hard time doing conventionally. But to make this happen, we need to understand the detailed physics and chemistry that is happening during the process,” Dr. Hilmar Koerner, PMC M&P research lead, explained.

To better understand why composites fail between beads and layers, the team has partnered with National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National Laboratory to further exam-ine the parts they produce.

An X-ray beam is produced using Brookhaven’s 11-ID beamline instrumentation to collect data at up to 9,000 images per sec-ond. The X-ray beam hits the 3D-printer nozzle, which allows them to see real-time internal structure of the polymer as it’s printed with millisecond time resolution and micron spatial resolution. They look at how fast nano-sized particles flow to see how they align and assemble. It allows the researchers to simultaneously look at the structure and the dynamics of the 3D-printing ink during processing. This way of analyzing composite inks is the first of its kind.

Lutz Wiegart is the beamline scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory who built the instrumentation that is being used for the 3D-printing experiments. He participated in the experi-ments while guiding most of the data analysis and interpreta-tion.

“This study in particular highlighted the use of this technique for real-time ‘visualization’ of nanoscale ordering and mobility inside materials during 3D-printing, which is an exciting capa-bility that will likely be applied more routinely in the future,” Wiegart said.

AMC, Congressional Leaders Discuss Organic Industrial Base Readiness, Modernization at CaucusU.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND (JULY 24, 2019)William B King

WASHINGTON—”Industrial Base: A Critical Component of the Strategic Support Area in Multi-Domain Operations” was the theme of this year’s House Military Depot and Industrial Facilities Caucus on July 18.

The annual meeting encourages candid dialogue between Army Materiel Command leaders and Congress about the Army’s priorities in sustaining readiness for the total force through a national-level maintenance process.

Army Materiel Command Commander Gen. Gus Perna dis-cussed the importance of AMC being nested with Army Fu-tures Command (AFC) so the depots can prepare to adapt, modernize, and train for new equipment in support of AFC.

“If we do not do this, we will not be able to surge to meet the next war, as industry does not have the capability to surge to meet new requirements,” Perna told Congressional repre-sentatives.

Perna emphasized the importance of the Organic Industrial Base to the warfighter and the nation. He provided an overview of recent upgrades to some of the 23 manufacturing arsenals, maintenance depots, and ammunition plants overseen by the command.

In the News


Perna also discussed the Repair Cycle Float and how it will bring stability to the depots and increase readiness in the field. Repair Cycle Float assets are issued to units to replace systems and equipment turned in for a depot repair program, ensuring units remain fully equipped and ready.

AFRL Launched Largest Unmanned Space Structure on SpaceX Falcon HeavyAIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY (JULY 25, 2019) Jeanne Dailey

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M.—A satellite spanning nearly the length of a football field was launched on board a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla., June 25.

Described by Elon Musk as the “toughest rocket launch ever,” SpaceX delivered 24 experimental satellites into four different orbits, of which the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Demon-stration and Science Experiments, or DSX, spacecraft was the largest. The first of its kind, DSX was designed and built at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland AFB.

“The satellite is conducting new research to advance under-standing of the Van Allen radiation belts and their effect on spacecraft components, and valuable information is already being received,” said Col. Eric Felt, AFRL Space Vehicles Direc-torate director. “We expect DSX to conduct on-orbit experi-ments for at least a year.”

“The Air Force is interested in operating satellites in the region where DSX is collecting data. This will allow us to better under-stand the environment through its various experiments,” said Dr. James McCollough, DSX principal investigator. “This is a region where Very Low Frequency (VLF) radio waves strongly interact with electrons that are hazardous to spacecraft. A particularly exciting aspect of DSX is the ability to actively transmit VLF signals to study their influence on the electron population in a completely new way. This will allow a more thorough understanding of a key process governing the radia-tion environment.”

The satellite is currently in “Launch and Early Operations” where the operations team works with DSX scientists and engineers to perform checkouts on various satellite compo-nents, deploy the antenna booms, and prepare for data col-lection within the Van Allen radiation belts, said Lt. Col. James Caldwell, DSX mission director.

On July 12, the longer pair of the antenna booms (80 or 262 feet meters tip-to-tip) was successfully deployed as the largest unmanned structure ever in space. Jeffrey Christmas, DSX pro-gram manager, explained that the exceptionally long length of

this antenna allows DSX to transmit the VLF radio waves used for planned experiments based on the longer wavelengths of these frequencies.

Throughout the coming months, researchers at AFRL will be sharing their findings with the public, through its website and social media platforms. “We know there are many out there who will be interested to see the data as it comes in,” said Felt.

The DSX program is led by the AFRL Space Vehicles Director-ate at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, with key team members from the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, also located at Kirtland Air Force Base.

Air Force Brings Defense Planning into 21st Century Through Modern SoftwareAIR FORCE NEWS SERVICE (JULY 30, 2019)Corrie Poland

ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS)—You wake up and check your smart phone for the latest weather and news of the day. As you roll out of bed, your phone tells you the best route to work based on up-to-date traffic patterns and congestion. Pulling out of your driveway, the gas light blinks on and you ask your phone to reroute you to the closest gas station on your way to work. Your estimated time to work adjusts accordingly. Along the road, your side mirror lights up as passing cars speed by, letting you know there’s someone in your blind spot. The GPS directs you to take the next exit in 1,000 feet and you begin turning off the highway. As you pull into the parking lot, your car app reads a coworker’s text to you over the stereo and advises you to park in the rear due to construction. Once you’ve parked, you seamlessly switch to your smartwatch to respond and head into the office.

For many Americans, this scenario is a familiar part of our routines. Yet, for much of the defense community, the ease and functionality of modern technology is not translated to military planning systems. While cumbersome acquisition processes, funding issues, and security concerns are often valid causes, many Department of Defense processes (and any software associated with them) cannot compete with the technology many Americans use regularly. In one corner, the U.S. Air Force flies the most advanced aircraft in the world, yet in the other corner, Airmen use clunky spreadsheets and paper documents to analyze operations and mission plans.

As technology evolves exponentially for our day-to-day lives, the Department of Defense has historically struggled to keep up with the latest software and innovation. In a 2018 address to Airmen, former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson stated, “In a world where far more innovation is happening

In the News


outside the government than inside of it, connecting to that broader scientific enterprise is absolutely vital to our future.

“Sharpening our competitive edge in this new age will require creative approaches, innovation, resources, and execution at the speed of relevance,” Wilson continued. “The advantage will go to those who create the best technologies and who integrate and field them in creative operational ways that pro-vide military advantages.”

A little over a year later in April 2019, the Air Force published a new Science and Technology Strategy, encouraging Airmen to once again push beyond the status quo and build an “Air Force that dominates time, space, and complexity in future conflict across all operating domains to project power and defend the homeland.” The strategy lays out three main objectives: (1) develop and deliver transformational strategic capabilities, (2) reform the way science and technology is led and man-aged, and (3) deepen and expand the scientific and technical enterprise.

While organizations and initiatives such as AFWERX, Spark Tank, and Defense Innovation Unit, among others, provide a solid base for relaunching this effort, a culture of innovation is brewing below the surface among smaller offices and units.

For example, as part of its vision to increase combat capabil-ity through optimized aviation fuel use, Air Force Operational Energy discovered mission planners were using spreadsheets and email chains to design critical fuel logistics operational plans.

“Our current primary means of planning is by Excel modeling to answer a specific question. These models require constant cleansing of data, manual input into the model, and manage-

ment of the model as data changes,” said operational energy planner Derek Reid, based out of Pacific Air Force Headquar-ters at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. Further com-plicating matters is the burden of distributing updates to the spreadsheet model, which often requires planners to email the spreadsheet back and forth, and then look for updates.

This realization prompted the office to lead and fund the de-velopment of a fuel logistics software that enables mission planners to automatically calculate (and securely share) the demand of petroleum, oil, and lubricants at operating loca-tions, while determining optimal routing (and replenishment) of POL to defense fuel storage terminals. Using the Joint Op-erational Energy Modeling System capability, this innovative visual tool—scheduled to launch in 2019—will be critical to detecting possible gaps in fuel availability, and therefore ca-pability, more quickly and accurately.

Tools like Jigsaw, a tanker planning software for aerial refueling (and its forthcoming update, Pythagoras, which will enable autonomous planning) and Magellan, a tanker allocation and planning software, are other examples of how the Air Force is streamlining mission planning using modern software. Future Air Force Operational Energy initiatives include incorporating these planning tools into wargaming to help Airmen ‘practice the way they play.’

“We’re excited to be a part of how the Air Force is becoming more innovative and modern,” said Mike Penland, Air Force Operational Energy principal director. “Our Airmen deserve tools and resources that will make their lives easier so they can focus on the mission at hand.”

The call for smarter, faster, and more innovative technology is ringing throughout the Pentagon hallways and, one by one, DoD offices are picking up.

the news - dau · 2019-08-13 · in deep competition, you actually have to clearly signal your ....

Documents