US DoD Feeds

Contracts For May 23, 2016

DoD Contract Announcements - Mon, 05/23/2016 - 16:00
AIR FORCE S&K Aerospace LLC, Warner Robins, Georgia, has been awarded a $269,000,000 modification (P00011) to previously awarded contract FA8630-12-D-5018 for Parts and Repair Ordering System (PROS) IV.  This modification increase is required to prevent a break in service until a follow-on source selection is awarded. Work will be performed at
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Statement by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on U.S. Airstrike Against Taliban Leader Mullah Mansur

DoD News Releases - Mon, 05/23/2016 - 07:00
Protecting American forces wherever they are in the world will always be one of my top priorities as Secretary of Defense. The confirmation that our precision airstrike Saturday killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansur makes clear my commitment to address threats to our troops, NATO forces, Afghan military personnel and the innocent Afghan civilians who
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on U.S. Airstrike Against Taliban leader Mullah Mansur

DoD News Releases - Sat, 05/21/2016 - 15:59
Today, the Department of Defense conducted an airstrike that targeted Taliban leader Mullah Mansur in a remote area of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. Mansur has been the leader of the Taliban and actively involved with planning attacks against facilities in Kabul and across Afghanistan, presenting a threat to Afghan civilians and security
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Readout of Secretary Carter's call with Japanese Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani

DoD News Releases - Sat, 05/21/2016 - 12:21
Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook provided the following readout:This morning, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter spoke by phone with his Japanese counterpart Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani. Secretary Carter conveyed his sadness and his regret over the murder of a young woman in Okinawa and extended his sincere apologies to the victim’s family and
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Armed Forces Day Message

DoD Speeches - Fri, 05/20/2016 - 16:25
Armed Forces Day Message As written by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Washington, D.C., May. 20, 2016  SATURDAY, MAY 21, 2015

Today is Armed Forces Day, an opportunity for all of us to express our gratitude, our admiration, and our support to the men and women who have answered the noble call of service. Right now there are over two million men and women in uniform, serving and defending our country in every time zone, in the air, ashore, and afloat. They defend American security, American prosperity, and American values, but they're just as important to the security, prosperity, and values of so many around the world. They and the remarkable military families that serve alongside them provide the security allows people around the world to raise their children, to dream their dreams, and live lives that are full.


So today, and every day, let's take the time to show our support for our service members, military families, and veterans who keep this nation strong and safe. To every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman who proudly serves in the armed forces of the United States of America, thank you for your service and your sacrifices. We are so proud of you.
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Contracts For May 20, 2016

DoD Contract Announcements - Fri, 05/20/2016 - 16:00
CONTRACTS ARMY Distinctive Spectrum Healthcare JV LLC, Largo, Maryland (W81K04-16-D-0016); Matrix Providers Inc.,* Denver, Colorado (W81K04-16-D-0017); Caduceus Healthcare Inc.,* Atlanta, Georgia (W81K04-16)-D-0018); Defense Civilian Medical Associates LLC,* Pikesville Maryland (W81K04-16-D-0019); and Jefferson Government Services LLC,* Austin,
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Navy to Christen Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Portland

DoD News Releases - Fri, 05/20/2016 - 08:12
The Navy will christen the newest amphibious transport dock ship, USS Portland (LPD 27), Saturday, May 21 during a 10 a.m. CST ceremony at the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi.  The future USS Portland is named in honor of Portland, Oregon with Bonnie Amos, wife of the 35th Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen.
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Flag Officer Announcements

DoD News Releases - Thu, 05/19/2016 - 16:40
 Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced today that the president has made the following nominations:Navy Adm. Michelle J. Howard for reappointment to the rank of admiral and assignment as commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe; commander, U.S. Naval Forces Africa; and commander, Allied Joint Forces Command, Naples, Italy.  Howard is currently
Categories: US DoD Feeds

General Officer Assignment

DoD News Releases - Thu, 05/19/2016 - 16:38
 The chief of staff, Air Force announced the following assignment: Maj. Gen. Christopher J. Bence, vice commander, 3d Air Force and 17th Expeditionary Air Force, Ramstein Air Base, Germany, to commander, U.S. Air Force Expeditionary Center, Air Mobility Command, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey.
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Contracts For May 19, 2016

DoD Contract Announcements - Thu, 05/19/2016 - 16:00
CONTRACTS ARMY Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $331,760,390 foreign military sales, undefinitized contract (Israel, Finland, Jordan, Singapore) for Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) alternative warhead rocket pods (quantity: 290); unitary rocket pods (quantity: 34); and reduced range
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Remarks at the Norwegian-American Defense Conference

DoD Speeches - Wed, 05/18/2016 - 23:00
Remarks at the Norwegian-American Defense Conference As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, National Press Club, Washington, DC, May. 19, 2016

It’s a pleasure to be here with all of you today. I want to thank David for the invitation to speak. Actually, the reason I'm here is because Øystein (Bø) asked me to be here, and when Oystein calls, I answer.

 

I want to express my appreciation for Deputy Minister [of Defense Øystein] Bø for hosting me and my wife in the beautiful country of Norway last fall, and the strong friendship that we have developed. Yet, we think a lot alike and therefore a lot of the themes that you're gonna hear me talk about are going to reflect the very same things Øystein talked to you about today. I also note Secretary [of Defense Ash] Carter's extreme appreciation of the strong working relationship with Defense Minister Søreide and he's also very much appreciative of her leadership in encouraging Europe to step forward in the way of security burden sharing.

 

Now from the United States perspective and as Secretary Carter says at every opportunity that he has, we feel that we are at a strategic inflection point in the strategic landscape. But the next 25 years in the national and international security environment are going to be much, much different than the last 25. And it is going to be incumbent upon all of us to really think hard about how to respond to the changes.

 

From our perspective, and from the U.S. perspective, we face five specific challenges. The first is a revisionist and resurgent Russia that is pursuing a path of confrontation, of aggression and coercion. It was just a little while ago in 2012 the United States believed that it was on the path to have a partnership with the Russian Federation, and as a result reduced the last two heavy brigades in Europe. But we felt that we have to talk about this a little bit more. We have to be able to respond to its activities since March 2014, when it illegally annexed Crimea and started to destabilize Eastern Ukraine with nuclear saber-rattling and essential threats against all of its neighbors, most recently against Romania and Poland, for hosting ballistic missile defense sites.

 

Second, we're managing a historic change in the Asia Pacific region. China’s development, which we welcome, some of its activities, especially in the South China Sea  and elsewhere, which we do not. There are serious concerns throughout the region and we're working with our partners there to help manage the rise, because it is, we believe, and it is important for all of the nations to benefit from globalization and to raise all of their citizens in an era of prosperity and sharing and trying to approach global defense challenges together.

 

We're certainly need a deterrent against North Korea and especially its pursuit against nuclear weapons – intercontinental ballistic missiles particularly. We're worried about Iranian malign influence around the gulf and threats that they pose to our partners and allies in the region, especially Israel.  And finally we're countering terrorism and violent extremism especially trying to accelerate the defeat of Daesh and its parent tumor in Iraq and Syria, and everywhere it's metastasizing around the world such as Libya.  All while we worry about protecting our homeland against threats emanating from all five of these challenges.

 

Now just as we are facing a change in strategic landscape, we think that Europe and by extension NATO, is also.  It now faces challenges from 360 degrees. To the east, west, and to the north, NATO faces the challenge of a resurgent and apparently antagonistic Russia. From the south and from within, it has problems with terrorism and violent extremism. And third, it faces a daunting challenge of migration that emanates from those same threats.

 

So the future, the next 25 years is going to be different for NATO, and Europe and the United States. The first 50 years of existence, of course NATO was really focused on the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and deterring them from an invasion of Western Europe, but the end of the Cold War NATO shifted its focus on collective self-defense to out of area operations. But after the attacks of September 11th, when the United States began operations in Afghanistan, we did so hand in hand with Norway and of all of NATO.

 

Norway was a very steadfast partner upon which we could depend then, and we know we can depend on now. They've repeatedly demonstrated the need to confront the enemies of freedom wherever they might be. So the United States places enormous importance on Norway's perspective and its ability to serve not only understanding the 360 degree threats which Øystein had talked about this morning, but also its also a 360 degree contributor to the defense of NATO not only in its immediate neighborhood but for expeditionary use as well.

 

Now in Afghanistan Norwegian soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with our own and performed some of the toughest missions there. The warrior spirit of Norwegian troops especially its Special Operations forces is well known and has been demonstrated time and time again throughout the conflict.

 

It's also been an extremely reliable partner in our fight against ISIL – Daesh  and thanks to the effort of the broad coalition of which both United States and Norway belong, the relentless nature of our campaign, we argued, very strongly, is starting to bear results and the military momentum on the ground is gaining strength. We still have challenges in the political realm but from a military perspective, make no mistake ISIL is under extraordinary pressure from all directions.

 

We applaud Norway’s recent decision to augment its 120 personnel that are already in the fight, with 60 more predominantly Special Operations Forces (SOF) forces that are going to help train Syrian Arab Sunni partners in fighting in Syria doing that in Jordan as Minister Bø said. They're also sending a medical team to northern Iraq. This is going to be especially important as we push towards Mosul and we want to be prepared for unfortunately higher casualties as we do so.

 

Now even as we pursue the defeat of ISIL and other violent extremist groups we must also vigorously respond to the challenge on the east – Russia. As Mr. Bø said, they’re modernizing their military capabilities, most problematically for us they're rattling their nuclear saber in ways which we hadn't heard since the Cold War, and it's quite unsettling to hear it. They’re seeking of illegally annex Crimea, destabilize of Ukraine, undermine NATO’s solidarity at every step and we're starting to see confrontation in different ways, such as unsafe and unprofessional maneuvers by Russian aircraft and surface naval vessels. I recently visited Stockholm, Sweden and met with all my Nordic Baltic counterparts and they are as concerned about this reckless behavior as we are.

 

Because we know that all it will take is one minor accident that both sides will immediately say was the cause of the other side, which might lead to a confrontation by accident that neither side wants.

 

Now, last week, President Obama, as you all know here, hosted all the Nordic leaders, including Prime Minister Solberg at the U.S.-Nordic Leaders Summit.  And if you haven't read the joint statement, I commend it to you.  I thought it was quite strong.  And it demonstrates the critical solidarity that is required of U.S. allies and partners.

           

Now, if we do this, as the United States says, one of the things I don't get out of the Pentagon very often.  Generally, I'm in the Pentagon focused on the internal operations because I'm the chief operating officer of the department.

 

            But whenever I do, I very much value the personal relationships because it turns out that most of my counterparts, we all kind of think the same.  We see what is happening.  We might have different tactical responses to specific things, but it's quite extraordinary to me the talent in our allies and to develop relationships with them.

           

            And so that's why I so much appreciate our personal relationship, because we continue to -- just through ourselves that the leadership and commitment to the alliance and to ourselves.

 

            Norway has demonstrated leadership in strengthening conventional deterrence on NATO's eastern and northern flanks.  While the United States and other NATO nations have focused on out of area operations, Norway really never took its eye off of the ball in the High North when it comes to Russian military activities.

           

            They were constantly watching.  They were constantly providing the United States with great insight on what was happening.  And it was extremely important to us and remains so. 

 

            Norway plays an important regional security role, as evidenced by President Obama's hosting Norway and the Nordic countries last week.  And the joint statement which I just referred to highlights Norway's contributions, along with the other countries in the area, especially through NORDEFCO, and Norway's support for NATO's enhanced opportunity framework has been very strong.

 

            Norway has also repeatedly emphasized the need to increase NATO's maritime domain awareness in the region, something which we also agree with.  And the information Norway provides to us and to NATO on Russian capabilities is second to none.

           

            I was able to fly on a Norwegian P-3 on a short mission up in the north.  And I was enormously impressed with the professionalism of the crew, the way they approached the problem.  They told me quite proudly of their capabilities and what they were able to do.  And it was a pleasure being on the plane with them.

 

            I also had an opportunity to visit the United States Marine Corps pre-positioning program, which Øystein talked about.  It is an unbelievable facility.  When you walk through it, you're just astounded at the care and attention that Norway places on maintaining that equipment.  It's really quite stunning.  And I want to thank Norway for sustaining this key pillar of our bilateral defense relationship.

 

            On behalf of the entire department, I'd also like to commend NATO for its willingness to increase its defense budget and especially in investing in critical capabilities, which is so important to both the alliance and to NATO's security.  Norway is one of the few NATO allies that has met the Wales target of spending at least 20 percent of their budget on equipment.  And this is a significant achievement. 

           

            We’d like Norway to continue its positive trend and reached the two percent goal of GDP, gross domestic product, as soon as it can, but we are especially impressed by its emphasis on high technology capabilities.

 

            Now by doing all of these things -- supporting the counter-ISIL coalition, operations in Afghanistan, investing in defense -- defense capabilities, speaking out and being a leader in the Baltic area of the High North, the Norwegian government demonstrates in important fiscal ways that it understands the importance of maintaining a strong defense and investing in new capabilities to allow NATO to stay ahead of any threat, wherever it may come from and however it might arise.

 

            And Norway's recent decision to buy 52 F-35s, which I'll talk about in just a second here, the country's largest ever military procurement, is again a sign of leadership in this area.

 

            Norway also recently hosted a multilateral Cold Response Exercise last March -- 16,000 soldiers, including 4,000 U.S. troops, and Norway plans to host NATO's Threat Juncture in 2018.  And I think you all know that the visuals of U.S. Marine tanks sliding on ice in Norway is one of the most viral -- among the most-watched YouTube clips in the history of the Department of Defense.    

 

            So I have to say, I just finished watching the Norwegian series  “Occupied”  on Netflix.  The only real problem with that whole series is they didn't ask Øystein to be a star.  And I want to say, contrary to that fictional future, which is portrayed in that story, the United States commitment to Norway will always last.  It is steadfast and that will never change.  The bonds between our two countries are unbreakable.  And that is not something we just say, but we try to demonstrate through our actions.  And we will continue to do so.

           

            As part of the F.Y. '17 budget submission Øystein talk about the European Reassurance Initiative.  Again, up until 2012, we were reducing force structure in Europe because we will need and want to have a productive partnership with Russia into the future. 

 

            But because of their activities, we felt it very important that we reassure our allies in the north, in the east, in central and in the south, that we would be there in case Russia does other confrontational activities.  And we will now have a heel-to-toe rotational presence of an armored brigade in Europe, which means that by the end of 2017, there will be a full U.S. division, a multi-component division with an airborne brigade, a Stryker brigade, an armored  brigade, and an additional armored brigade set of equipment, in addition to the Marine Corps set in Norway.

 

            So we're taking these steps just to strengthen deterrence.  We're not trying to be provocative.  We are doing it in response to Russian activities which we can all see.  Now this concept of deterrence that we have -- not really thought about is the NATO alliance for quite some time.  And we need to think about it anew as we deal with the way Russian activities are occurring.

           

            We have to start to exercise our strategic muscles as we haven't done.  And I’d like to just point out one of the reasons why we chose to put a rotational armored brigade is because every time that brigade deploys, they will come from their home port.

 

            They will put all of their equipment on trains.  They will ship the trains to a seaport.  We will load them on ships.  We will take them across the Atlantic.  We will unload them at a seaport.  And put them together, where they will operate with our European allies.

 

            We are exercising muscles that we haven't done since the Cold War, being able to send U.S. forces across the Atlantic in case they are needed to support our NATO allies. 

           

            And Russia is not just getting good at air, land and sea, but they're especially getting good at cyber, electronic warfare, and space, where the United States's reliance on technology, and I would argue NATO's, has been a great strength of ours.  But that strength is being undermined by Russian and other competitors.

 

            So all I'll say is there might be some time for questions.  You know, as far as the Third Offset Strategy.  We have long counted -- the United States and NATO have long counted on a technological overmatch against our enemies -- excuse me -- our adversaries, our competitors.  And to overcome the twin tyrannies of initiative on forces that are already close to Europe, and the distance that we would have to travel to help our allies. 

           

            So this has been a key factor of ours, and that's why we call it the Third Offset Strategy.  It is just we're trying to offset these problems that we face in military planning, to assure our allies that we will be there if and when we are needed.

 

            Now, a number of factors have contributed to this erosion of military capabilities over the last 10 or 15 years.  Budget pressures in all of our countries have led to declining investments, and R&D investments, and force structure. 

 

            Second, the locus of innovation has shifted right to the commercial industry.  And that is where most of the things that are really militarily relevant in the future are being driven.  And so that means our competitors, whoever they might be, will have access to the same technologies that we have; will be able to use them in ways that we might not anticipate; and it is going to be important that we position ourselves for this competition over time.

 

            So I want to echo what Øystein said.  This is something where governments and our defense industrial bases and our commercial sectors are going to have to be partners in being able to handle this very dynamic competitive environment.

 

            In essence, we have to try to become faster and try to be as fast as the commercial industry.  But I want to tell everyone here, when people say the Department of Defense has to be as fast as commercial industry, they have no conception -- no conception of the size and scale of the Department of Defense, its broad expanse of activities.  But more importantly, what we look for is not necessarily the technology per se.  It is the operational and organizational constructs that use technology to achieve a military advantage.

 

            And those are not something that the commercial industry has to deal with.  And they take time.  It takes exercises.  It takes training.  It takes changes in doctrine.  It takes exercises with your allies.  All of this is at a pace that is much slower than is mere technology development.

 

            So our technological offset strategy focuses on these operational and organizational constructs.  We know that artificial intelligence and autonomy is going to be central to the way we operate.  But it's not just saying, "Well, let's get autonomy in artificial intelligence as fast as we can."  It has to be in some type of an organization.  It has to be in some type of operational construct that we work together.

 

            So that's the premise of the Third Offset strategy.  Right now, we see artificial intelligence autonomy affecting all of our lives, and the lives of all of our citizens.  That change is happening in our society.  And just like the rifle, telegraph and railroad revolution in war, which was driven primarily by the technological commercial push of railroads and telegraphs that had an impact on the way wars were fought.  It didn't change the character of war, but it certainly had an impact on the way it was fought.  And that's what we're seeing now.  A.I. and autonomy are changing all of our lives, and it will inevitably change the way we fight. 

           

            So what we're looking to do is have what we call joint collaborative human machine battle networks that synchronize operations.  Now, battle networks sounds all science fiction maybe, but it's not.  There's a central grid.  There's command, control, communications, computers and intelligence grid.  And there's an effects grid. 

 

            Think about the British integrated air defense system in World War II.  The – sensor grid were spotters and radar, electronic warfare operatives.  They would say the German bomber streams were coming.  Then there was an underground command and control network with fighter sectors that would say here is where the attack is coming from, and with its marshal our forces, put our forces in front of that attack and try to blunt it.  And then the final effects grid were barrage balloons, radar-controlled antiaircraft guns, stick fires, hurricanes.  

 

            Those three grids operated together as a battle network, and that battle network operates to allow you to achieve a decisive advantage over your adversaries.  And all you're saying is when we inject artificial intelligence autonomy into these battle networks, you are going to have a step function -- step function in performance.

           

            And that's what we seek.  And Øystein talked about how important it is for us to -- not only our allies, but our defense industrial base and our commercial.  The F-35, that is not an “F” -- the fighter in 35 is absolutely wrong.  It is a battle network 35, a “BN” in 35. 

 

            And it is built around the idea of human-machine collaboration, where the airplane is a learning machine that learns about its environment and it displays it to the pilot so that the pilot can then make decisions faster and more effectively than the enemies, their adversaries. 

           

            One of the reasons why the F-35 took so long is it was so far ahead of its time.  It was a battle network -- a battle network platform that we simply did not have the technology to do.  And it has taken us time to work it out.  But wow, when we have it worked out, and we think we are very close to having the next software drop done, all different things, that airplane is going to be astoundingly capable, astoundingly capable. 

           

            Øystein talked about the naval strike missiles.  One of the things we need are network to naval cyber-hardened EW hardened autonomous weapons.  The naval strike missile is unbelievably capable.  The A.I., the artificial intelligence that is in that missile, allowing it to fight through very dense electronic warfare attacks, identify its target reliably, and take the attack home -- it's one of the best missiles, in my view, in the world.

 

            And the ideas in that missile are the ideas we need for our future missiles.  I'm proud to say that the Navy is going to have a total of four naval strike missiles on LCS-1 in its next deployment.  And we're testing it.  So all I can say is the ideas that are in that missile are exactly what the third offset is all about. 

 

            And Norway, we have another thing which we call the human machine combat team.  It's the teaming of men and women and machines to accomplish missions that in the past men and women would have to do.  And all of the research and operational thought into unmanned mind warfare systems that work with human operators is another leading edge of the third offset.

 

            So make no mistake about it, we're moving in this direction.  The world's going and we're going to go with it.  We need to be faster.  I know that we're not as fast as we need to be.  We'll never be as fast as people think we should be.  But we are going to work as closely with the defense industrial base and our commercial sectors as we possibly can.

 

            Now, I would say that we as an alliance have four key advantages as we start on the road of this third offset.  The first is our people.  We have a premise that young men and women who grow up in an i-world democracy will have an inherent advantage over young men and women who grow up in an i-world authoritarian regime.  We welcome the creative spirit.  We welcome initiative.  We welcome our people doing things when they lose communications.

 

            Not so much in an authoritarian regime.  Every single individual is sand in the -- ground in sand in the gears.  That could possibly screw up what the senior leader said that we would be doing.  So we think we have an advantage and we never want to lose that. 

           

            Second, our advantages of jointness is unbelievably advanced.  We've been working at this since 1986, when every battle networks -- all of the services have to talk together or the battle network is not as good as it needs to be.  We have an inherent advantage here, and I believe Norway has the same advantage in the same that it approaches its joint operations.

 

            The third thing is combined operations.  Our potential competitors don't really have a lot of allies.  The United States is blessed with a lot of allies.  Each of the allies bring different things to the table.  All of them have different ways that they're going to help the third offset.

 

            And we believe that this is an enormous advantage for us, and one that if we do not exploit, we'd in a big problem. 

 

            And finally, we believe that NATO and the United States have demonstrated time and time again to develop campaign-level system-of-system battle networks.  We do it in our man-hunting.  We do it while we search for missiles.  We do it in our air-to-air.  We do it in our surface warfare.

 

            We put these together.  And we think these four advantages -- our people, our jointness, our combined operations, and our ability to do system on systems -- will help us in this competition as we pursue the third offset.

 

            I want to again thank you for inviting me here today.  And I want to thank Øystein for asking me to come.  As I said, I probably would have said no and -- (inaudible) -- said that.  I'm very busy.  I'm not going to be able to come to every single thing.  But as I said, when Øystein calls, I listen.  And it's great to be here and I'm glad I was able to come.

           

            I look forward to your questions. 

Categories: US DoD Feeds

Readout of Secretary Carter's meeting with Qatari Minister of State for Defense Affairs Khalid al-Attiyah

DoD News Releases - Wed, 05/18/2016 - 16:04
 Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook provided the following readout: Secretary of Defense Ash Carter met today with Qatari Minister of State for Defense Affairs Khalid al-Attiyah. The secretary and the minister of state for defense affirmed the longtime security partnership between the U.S. and Qatar. They discussed a range of issues related to
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Contracts For May 18, 2016

DoD Contract Announcements - Wed, 05/18/2016 - 16:00
CONTRACTS ARMY Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Connecticut, was awarded an $88,117,272 modification (P00350) to contract W58RGZ-12-C-0008 to exercise an option for eight UH-60M aircraft.  Work will be performed in Stratford, Connecticut, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2017.  Fiscal 2016 other procurement funds in the amount of
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Statement by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on Eric Fanning's Confirmation as Secretary of the Army

DoD News Releases - Tue, 05/17/2016 - 19:20
"I want to congratulate Eric Fanning on his confirmation as Secretary of the Army by the U.S. Senate.  Eric is one of our country's most knowledgeable, dedicated, and experienced defense officials and I am confident he will make an exceptional Secretary. Eric's experienced leadership will be an invaluable asset to the Army at this important moment.
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Statement by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work on Eric Fanning's Confirmation as Secretary of the Army

DoD News Releases - Tue, 05/17/2016 - 19:08
"I welcome the U.S. Senate's vote to confirm Eric Fanning as Army Secretary, following Senator Pat Robert's decision to lift his hold on the nomination. As I told Senator Roberts, his hold was depriving the Army of leadership at a time of war and was the wrong way to express his opposition to the administration's plan for responsibly closing the
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Contracts For May 17, 2016

DoD Contract Announcements - Tue, 05/17/2016 - 16:00
CONTRACTS ARMY SRA International Inc., Chantilly, Virginia, was awarded a $34,590,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with options for biomedical research, with an estimated completion date of May 16, 2021.  Bids were solicited via the Internet with two received. Funding and work location will be determined with each order.  Army Medical Research
Categories: US DoD Feeds

Remarks at Navy League Sea-Air-Space-Convention

DoD Speeches - Tue, 05/17/2016 - 15:25
Remarks at Navy League Sea-Air-Space-Convention Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, National Harbor, MD, May. 17, 2016

Good afternoon, everyone. And thanks, John. I appreciate that. And thanks for all you do.


You know, I said when John was nominated to be Chief of Naval Operations that I had to wrestle him away from the Secretary of Energy, which I did every day since you've been sworn in. I'm glad I won that fight. Ernie Moniz and I said if we could clone John Richardson, that's what we'd do. But we wouldn't, so I got him.

He's doing an excellent job to steer the Navy, a terrific job. And it’s wonderful to join all of you, distinguished guests, leaders of the nation’s Sea Services, members of the Defense Department, past and present, on this, the 51st, as I understand, anniversary of this important exposition.

And I also want to recognize Skip -- Where did Skip go to? There you are, Skip -- and the entire Navy League.  For over a century, the Navy League has been a powerful voice for stronger sea service. And thanks in part to the advocacy of the Navy League and its members, the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine have helped defend our country, served as a linchpin of global security and supported prosperity by ensuring the free flow of commerce that has enabled many nations, including our own, to rise and to prosper. And with help from the Navy League and all of you, it always will.

Today's security environment is dramatically different from the one we've had in the last 25 years, but our sea services are as important as ever. We face no fewer than five major, immediate, evolving challenges. We are, first of all, countering the prospect of Russian aggression and coercion, especially in Europe. Two, we're managing historic change in the vital Asia-Pacific region, the single region of the world of most consequence for America's future. Balancing China's rise, which by itself is OK, with some of its actions such as those in the South China Sea, which aren't and with which we share the serious concerns of other countries in the region. And three, along with our allies, we're strengthening their deterrent and defense forces in the face of North Korea's continued nuclear pursuits and provocations. And four, we're checking Iranian aggression and malign influence in the Gulf and protecting our friends and allies there, especially Israel. And five, we're countering terrorism, especially by accelerating the certain defeat of ISIL, in its parent tumor first in Iraq and Syria, and everywhere else it is metastasizing around the world, as well as protecting our people here in the homeland.

We're meeting these challenges thanks in part to today's sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and merchant marines. I've seen them taking on these challenges around the world, in the South China Sea not too long ago aboard the USS JOHN C. STENNIS and earlier than that, the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT; in port, in Tallinn, Estonia with sailors of the USS SAN ANTONIO, fresh off a multilateral NATO exercise; and in the Persian Gulf aboard the USS KEARSARGE as part of a large American regional commitment to both countering ISIL and confronting Iranian malign influence there.

On shore and afloat, in the air and under the sea, in every time zone around the world, our men and women in uniform are confronting these challenges in order to protect the American people and our interests worldwide.

And in order to ensure that they have the capabilities that they need, we're making decisions based on the challenges we face and the right strategies that will help us to meet them. And we're pursuing new technology development, along with new operational concepts and new organizational constructs, all of which are reflected in or supported by our 2017 budget submission to maintain our military's technological superiority and assure we always have an operational advantage over any potential adversary.

Our budget refocuses the Navy on building lethality for high-end conflicts. We're looking at our overall warfighting posture, which is signified by presence, because it's overall posture that determines whether our maritime forces can deter and if necessary win a full- spectrum conflict. Our budget this year increases the number of ships to meet the department's 308-ship posture requirement by 2021. And even more importantly, it will make our naval forces more capable, more survivable, and more lethal, too.

Lethality is the key word here, as Admiral Richardson has stressed. We're investing in ways to make our weapons more lethal, as well as making our ships harder to find and harder to attack.

That's why our investments reflect an emphasis on payloads over platforms alone, on the ability to strike from sanctuary quickly so that no target is out of reach, and on closing capability shortfalls that have developed over the last several years.

First, the budget maximizes our undersea advantage – an area where we should be and will be doing more, not less, going forward. It provides funding for important payloads and munitions, included in improved heavy weight torpedo, as well as research and development for an advanced lightweight torpedo.  It includes $29.4 billion to buy nine Virginia-class attack submarines over the next five years – four of those submarines, up from three in last year's budget, will be equipped with a versatile Virginia Payload Module, which can more than triple each submarine's strike capacity.

Next week, I'll see a Virginia-class-ship building up close in Groton. The budget also includes new funding for unmanned, undersea systems in multiple sizes and diverse payloads that can, importantly, operate in shallow waters where manned submarines cannot.

Second, the budget makes significant investments to bolster the lethality of our surface fleet forces, so they can deter and if necessary, prevail in a full spectrum conflict, even against most advanced adversaries. It maximizes production of the SM-6, one of our most modern and capable missiles, an investment doubly important, given the SM-6's new anti-ship capability. And it invests in developing and acquiring several other key munitions and payloads, including the SM-3 high altitude ballistic missile interceptor, the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, and the most advanced Tactical Tomahawk land-attack missile, which is being upgraded for maritime strike.

The budget also invests a total of $18.3 billion to buy two Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers each year over the next five years – a total of 10 – as well as nearly $3 billion for modernizing our destroyers, 12 of which will also receive upgrades to their combat systems.  It continues to support 11 carrier strike groups, investing a total of more than $13 billion for new construction of Ford-class carriers, and it supports modernizing our guided missile cruisers.

And third, to ensure the U.S. military's and our sea services' continued air superiority and global reach, the budget makes important investments in aviation platforms and payloads. We're investing a total of $8 billion in a wide range of versatile munitions, including buying more of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, as I said, the extended range of Anti-Radiation Guided Missile too, and the AIM-120D air-to-air missiles.

In particular, our Naval Aviation component is focused on the concept of integrated warfare to project power over and from the sea, and at the heart of this concept with the F-35, the P-8, and other air assets that are critical nodes which capture and disseminate information in an unprecedented manner, ultimately improving lethality across the battle space. That's one reason why we're maturing our investments in the stealthy five generation F-35 JSF, and to make sure our fleet has a sufficient quantity of advanced tactical aircraft long into the future, our budget also increases the Navy and the Marine Corps F-35 procurements. We're completing procurement in the advanced P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft as well.

We're also buying an additional 16 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter jets between now and F.Y. 2018, providing a significant boost to the health of the Navy and Marine Corps fourth generation fighter aircraft fleet so it's ready and capable for today's missions. And lastly, to address the Navy and Marine Corps maintenance backlog in tactical aviation, the budget funds a 15 percent increase in F/A-18 depot maintenance capacity for the Navy and the Marine Corps.

With this budget, our fleet will be larger and our sea services will be much more effective, potent and lethal than they are today because they'll be equipped with the weapons and the advanced capabilities that they will need to deter any aggressor, and make any aggressor, who isn't deterred, very much regret their decision to take on the United States.

Now, in order to maintain that lethality and capability ahead of all others in what is, after all, a competitive world, we need to continue to invest in innovation, to think outside of our five-sided box. That's why one of my top priorities as Secretary of Defense is to build, and in some cases to rebuild, the bridges between the Pentagon and the innovative business community that for decades has buttressed one of America's greatest strengths, namely superior technology. And as I'm building bridges from the DOD side, I know there are those in the private sector, including members of the Navy League represented here today, who are building from the other, and we appreciate that.

Our men and women in uniform operate in an increasingly competitive and changing world – particularly when it comes to technology. And when I began my career, most technology of consequence originated in America, and much of that was sponsored by the government, particularly by the Department of Defense.

Now, today, we're still major sponsors, but much more technology is commercial and the technology base is global.

Indeed, technologies once possessed by only the most formidable militaries have now come into the hands of previously less-capable militaries and even non-state actors. Meanwhile, nations like Russia and China are modernizing their militaries to try to close the technology gap.

So to stay ahead of those challenges, to stay the best, and to keep our edge, we're investing aggressively in high-end innovation and to enhance our own asymmetric and hybrid capabilities.

For example, we're investing a combined total of $34 billion across the cyber, electronic warfare and space domains in F.Y. '17 alone. We're building fast, resilient microdrones that can be kicked out the back of a fighter jet moving at Mach .9 and fly through heavy winds.

We're developing an arsenal plane, which will function as a very large airborne magazine with different conventional payloads, networked to fifth-generation aircraft that act as forward sensors and targeting nodes. And for the Navy, we're working on autonomous, self-driving boats, which can network together to do all sorts of missions, from fleet defense to close-in  surveillance – including around an island, real or artificial – without putting our sailors at risk. These are just a few of many examples.

Overall, our budget invests nearly $72 billion in R&D. To give you a little context, that's more than double what Apple, Intel and Google spent on R&D last year combined. That includes $12.5 billion specifically invested in science and technology to support groundbreaking work happening in the military services in our dozens of DOD labs and engineering centers across the country, and at DARPA to develop and advance disruptive technologies and capabilities in areas like undersea systems, hypersonics, electronic warfare, big data analytics, advanced materials, energy and propulsion, robotics, autonomy, and advanced sensing in computing.

And at the same time, we're also investing in further partnerships with our nation's innovative private-sector in technology communities – in places like Boston, Silicon Valley, Austin, Seattle, Northern Virginia and America's many, many other hubs of globally unrivaled innovation.

Last week, I visited and announced enhancements to a path-breaking innovation hub that we launched in Silicon Valley. I call it the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, or DIUx – which is essentially an outpost of us, of the Pentagon on the West Coast – to help broaden the range of great companies that we work with. We've launched and funded Manufacturing Innovation Institutes across the country to advance emerging technologies like flexible hybrid electronics, which will make it possible to seamlessly print lightweight, flexible, structural integrity sensors right onto the surface of ships and aircraft; revolutionary textiles which combine fibers and yarns with things like circuits and LEDs, solar cells, electronic sensors and other capabilities to create fabrics that can see and hear and sense and communicate, store energy, regulate temperature, monitor health, change color and much more.

But as good as America's technology is, it's nothing compared to our people – they're the reason why our military is the finest fighting force the world has ever known. It's them. And in the future, our mission requires that we continue to recruit and retain the very best talent. That's why we opened up all combat positions to women who qualify, in order to expand our access to 100 percent of Americans for our all-volunteer force.

It's also why we're building what I call the Force of the Future, to ensure that amid changes in generations, technologies and labor markets, we're always postured to bring in, develop and retain young men and women as fine as the ones it's our privilege to have in our military today.

Last November, I announced the first link to the Force of the Future, with over a dozen new initiatives, including programs such as the Defense Digital Service, which brings in talent from America's vibrant, innovative business community for a time—a few months, a year, a project—to help solve some of our most complex problems, and also expanding opportunities for those currently in DOD both military and civilian to gain new skills, experiences and perspectives by working outside of DOD. And reforms to improve and modernize our talent management systems, to make sure that we recruit, train and retain the best people for our best -- for our force in the best possible way.

In January, I announced the second link, a set of several initiatives with a singular focus: strengthening the support we provide our military families because this is, after all, a married force in the Navy. To improve their quality of life and for our purposes, get them to stay, stick with us, including expanded maternity and paternity leave, as well as extended childcare on our bases and giving families the possibility of some geographic flexibility in return for additional commitments.

Competing for good people for an all-volunteer force is a critical part of our military edge, and everyone should understand this need any my commitment to it. And our work on this front continues full steam ahead – and while these first two links are important – we'll have more to announce on the Force of the Future in coming weeks.

In order to meet the challenges of the future, we're also innovating operationally, making sure that our contingency plans and operations are more flexible and dynamic in every region. Because our military has to have the agility and ability to win, both the fights we're in and the wars that could happen tomorrow—the ones we're in, the ones that could happen today and the ones that could happen tomorrow, I should say all three—we're always updating our plans and developing new operational approaches to account for any changes in potential adversary threats and capabilities, always innovating to stay ahead of that—including ways to overcome emerging threats, such as cyberattacks, anti-satellite weapons, hybrid threats and anti-access area denial systems. And because we owe it to America's taxpayers to spend our defense dollars as wisely and responsibly as possible, we're also pushing for needed reforms across the Defense enterprise.

As a learning organization, DOD has a long history of striving to reform our command structures and improve how our strategies and policies are formulated, integrated and implemented. That's why last month I proposed several reforms to the Goldwater-Nichols Act – for example, to improve the Chairman of Joint Chief's ability to integrate, on my and the President's behalf, our military capabilities across domains and across cross-regional and cross-functional challenges, to simplify command and control and address where headquarters have become less efficient than they should be and to streamline our acquisition system. And I appreciate that the House and the Senate have advanced several of our recommendations in the annual National Defense Authorization Act.

In other areas, though, I have concerns about some of the reform proposals being put forward. One area I must comment on is the proposal—the Senate version of the NDAA—to extensively reorganize the functions of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

I believe strongly in acquisition reform. It's a competitive world and we need to make the best use of taxpayer dollars. I appreciate the serious attention that both SASC and HASC have given this imperative in their bills. I share the views of the SASC that over time, the acquisition executive’s position has become so preoccupied with program management, including a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy associated with it, that perhaps takes some management attention away from the research and engineering function.

In fact, I know this myself because I once served as the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and I know the research and engineering function, both as an engineer and scientist and also because my first job was for then-Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, who had been a Director of Defense, Research and Engineering. And his Under Secretary, who was called the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, not AT&L, in those days, was Bill Perry, who also became Secretary of Defense.

And I worked for and with every other incumbent of that job as it was renamed over time, including on the Defense Science Board for Robert McNamara’s Director of Defense, Research and Engineering, who was the Chairman of the DSB, Johnny Foster.

So, I do, however, have a serious caution: separating research and engineering from manufacturing, which is implied in this proposal, could introduce problems in the transition from the research and engineering phase to the production phase and then to the sustainment phase, and that is in fact, a frequent stumbling block for programs.

One need only remember the Joint Strike Fighter's growing pains, which I remember quite well, in moving from Engineering and Manufacturing Design, to Low-Rate Initial Reduction.

Procurement and sustainment are tightly coupled with technology and engineering and development, and those two together represent about 90 percent of program cost. So, separating these functions makes no sense, as procurement and sustainment costs are controlled by decisions made during development. This proposal could also derail the success we've had lowering our contract cost grow in the most high-risk contracts to what is now a 35-year low. Finally, an overly prescriptive approach risks unhelpful micro-management with a high potential for negative second and third order effects. So, I would like to work with the committees on this and other provisions of their bill.

I'm also compelled to address the budget gimmickry included in the proposed NDAA in the House.

Most disturbingly, it raids war funds in a time of war, when we have men and women deployed in operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It also threatens the budget stability that undergirds all of the reforms, investments and initiatives I've detailed here today. And it threatens the readiness of the force – an actual contrast to the narrative its proponents propound. Now, I was an early advocate for Washington to escape gridlock, and to come together behind an agreement along the lines of last fall's Bipartisan Budget Act, for we in the Department are very grateful. The passage of this act gave us some much needed stability to plan and build for the future, after years of gridlock and turbulence.

That budget deal set the size of our budget, and with this degree of certainty, we focused on its shape and building the FY 2017 budget we've submitted and I've described—changing that shape in fundamental but carefully considered ways to adjust to a new strategic year end to seize opportunities for the future.

But the budget stability that was supposed to last for two years is already under threat after only six months with a proposal to underfund DOD's overseas warfighting accounts by $18 billion and spend that money on programmatic items we didn't request. This approach is deeply troubling. It's flawed for several reasons.

First and foremost for me, it's gambling with warfighting money at a time of war, proposing to cut off funding for ongoing operations in the middle of the fiscal year. Moreover, it would spend money taken from the war account on things, as I said, that are not DOD's highest priorities across the joint force.

It's a step in the direction of unraveling the Bipartisan Budget Act, which provided critical stability the DOD needs and leaves us facing now the Department's greatest strategic threat, which is a return to sequestration, a $100 billion in looming, automatic cuts beginning next year if this isn't fixed.

And it's another road to nowhere with uncertain chances of ever becoming a law, and a high probability of leading to more gridlock and another continuing resolution -- exactly the kind of terrible distraction we've had for years. It undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars, dispirits troops and their families, baffles friends, and emboldens foes.

Particularly concerning is the potential impact of this proposal on the readiness of our force. Whether taken from overseas contingency operations or added on top of existing resources, buying force structure in this fiscal year without the resources to sustain it in future years is not the path to increased readiness. It's a path to a hollow force. It exacerbates the readiness challenges we currently have. Our readiness recovery plans are centered on synchronized and sustainable manning, training and equipping pipelines that are rigorously shaped based on the size of the force.

For that reason, increasing the size of the force without sustaining our ranges and schoolhouses over time doesn't produce readiness. Buying additional force structure without expanding depots and shipyards in the years to come doesn't produce readiness.

Simply put, readiness is the most critical priority right now for each one of our services. And that's why our budget aggressively funded the readiness plans of each of the services, based on the most that is actually executable such as, for example, take an Army example, the maximum number of rotations through the National Training Centers. Readiness is the core of our mission, from the forces on the Korean Peninsula standing ready to “fight tonight,” to the ships patrolling the Persian Gulf, to the pilots flying over the Baltics. And the readiness of our men and women in uniform to carry out their missions and return home safely will always be my highest priority. Looking ahead, that's why I ordered a strategic portfolio review to determine if we are doing everything possible to help the services continue to recover their high-end combat readiness next year. We'll make adjustments to our plans in funding in FY 2018 based on the outcome of that review.

The raids on wartime funding in the House authorization bill and the concerning approach to reforming our research, engineering and acquisition enterprise in the Senate bill represent two specific concerns. The fact is, these bills have become lengthy and extraordinarily prescriptive. And the pages and provisions continue to accumulate from year to year. It's cumulative. They've been used repeatedly to block necessary reform in the Department, such as BRAC, and a wide range of force management approaches which are needed to sustain our enterprise and operate effectively.

I would respectfully suggest that the informed expert judgment of the civilian and military leadership at the Department of Defense, which is embodied in our budget proposal, should receive greater support and be subject to less micromanagement.

If a final version of the NDAA reaches the President this year and includes a raid on war funding that risks stability and gambles with war funding, jeopardizes readiness and rejects key judgments in the department, I'll be compelled to recommend that he veto the bill. I'm hopeful, however, that we can work with Congress to achieve a better solution. Our warfighters deserve nothing less because our mission is a deadly serious one.

It's been said that security is like oxygen; when you have enough of it, you tend to pay no attention to it, but when you don't have enough, you can think of nothing else. The men and women of our military are not only defending the United States and its people, they're providing the oxygen that provides better lives and a better world.

It's in the new commitment. I saw the same dedication to these principles last month when I was at the American Cemetery in Manila, where 17,000 Americans, many sailors and Marines, are buried after making the ultimate sacrifice in the Pacific. And I see it in our newest personnel and I'm sure I'll see the same commitment in the eyes of our Navy and Marine officers next week at the Naval Academy commencement in Annapolis.

Because in a new strategic era and a time of great change, we must and will continue to ensure the security, stability and prosperity that has meant so much to so many here at home and around the world. To do so, we'll invest and innovate, we'll change how we plan, how we operate and how we fight.

But we'll never change what we're willing to fight for: for our safety and freedoms, for those of our friends and allies and for the values and principles that have produced security, stability and prosperity for all for so long.

With the help of the Navy League and many others in this room, we'll continue to do that for years to come.

Thank you so much for being here.

Categories: US DoD Feeds
Syndicate content